Manitoba Hansard — 2 June 1986 (Sitting 17A, 33rd Legislature, 1st Session)

33-1-17a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 2 June, 1986. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: . . . Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIA L COMMITTEES MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Burrows. MR. C. SANTOS: Madam Speak er, I beg to present the First Report of the Committee of Public Utilities and Natural Resources. MR. CLERK, W.

Remnant: Your Committee met on Tuesday, May 20; Thursd ay, May 22; Tuesday, May 27; Thursday, May 29, 19 86, in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the Annual Reports of Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board and Manitoba Energy Authorit y. At the meeting on Tuesd ay, May 20, 1986, your Committee appointed Conrad Santos as Chairman and agreed that a quorum at all future meetings of the Committee would consist of six (6) memb ers. Your Committee received all information desired from Messrs. Marc Eliesen, Chairperson of the Board of Dir ectors, John J.

Arnason, President and Ch ief Executive Officer, and other memb ers of the staff with respect to all matters per taining to the Annual Report and the business of the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board. Your Committee received all information desired from Mr. Marc Eliesen, Chairperson and Chief Executive Director and other mem bers of the staff with respect to all matters pertai ning to the Annual Report and the busi ness of the Manitoba Energy Author ity. The fulle st opportunity was accorded to all Members of the Committee to seek any information desired.

Your Committee examined the Annual Report of the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board tor the fiscal year ended March 31, 19 85, and the Annual Report of the Manitoba Energy Authority for the fiscal year ended March 31, 19 85, and adopted the same as presented. MADAM SPEAKER: Is it the will of the House to adopt the Committee Report? Agreed and so ordered. MR. C. SANTOS: Order please. MADAM SPEAKER: As received, the Com mittee Report. MR. C. SANTOS: I haven't moved it yet. MADAM SPEAKER: Right. The Honourable Member for Burrows. MR. C.

SANTOS: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Memb er tor lnks ter, that the Report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. 459 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of the Environment. HON. G. LEC UYER: Madam Speaker , I have a statement for the House. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of the Environment. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to remind mem bers of the House that this is Environ ment Week in Canada and a host of activities are planned across Manitoba.

Environment week is a combined effort of various government and private organizations. The principal aim of the week is to heighten public awareness about the importance of our environment. The theme of Environment Week '86 is "Y our action toda y - our environ ment tomor row" - quite appropriate right now in view of some of the mosquitoes we have around, wouldn't you say, Madam Speaker? - and is a reminder to all of us that environmental protection is ever yone's responsibil ity. Environment Week '86 officially started yesterday with a special opening ceremony at the Museum of Man and Nature.

The opening event featured the presentation of three environ mental plays written and performed by Manitoba students. Another major event planned for Thursday, Friday, and Saturday is "Winnipeg Household Hazardous Waste Days." A depot will be set up at the Fort Os borne Complex at 139 Tuxedo Avenue to collect old and unwanted hous ehold hazardous wastes. This include s materials such as old paint, solvent, motor oil, and pesticides which usually end up in the landfills or the sewer system. All of the collected products will be properly treated and disposed of.

This worthwhile project is a joint endeavour by our government, Environment Canada, and the City of Winnipeg. Mem bers will find on their desks a copy of the brochure on "Household Hazardous Waste Days" and an invitation to the official opening at 2:00 p.m. on Thursda y, June 5. This is the first event of its kind to be held in Winnipeg and it is our intention to make Household Hazardous Waste Days an annual environmental week event. Another important event for Environment Week is the Ve hicle Emissions Te sting Clinic.

Manitoba motorists will have the opportunity to see whether their cars are properly tuned and making the most efficient use of fuel. A variety of environ mental exhibits will also be on display at St. Vital Centre on June 5 and 6. You will note that I have provided members of the House with an Environment Week poster detailing the activities I have just mentioned. Just before closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to add. my thanks and the thanks of all the mem bers of •

Monday, 2 June, 1986 this House to the Federal Min ister who used his opportunity and comment on the Nation's Busi ness Program last night to launch Environment Week on behalf of Canada and for all Canadians. In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to encourage all mem bers to assist me in bringing recog nition for this important week. Thank you. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MA. G. FILMON: Thank you very much, Madam Speak er. I would like to, on behalf of members on our side of the House, thank the Minister for bringing to our attention the activities surrounding Environment Wee k.

We, on this side, join with the government in the promotion and encouragement of all of those activities, and indeed in the awareness of all of the concerns surrounding the need to improve our environment and the need to maintain it in as a pure a form possible tor the enjoyment of all. As a former Environment Minister , I'm delighted to see the carrying on of the various activities, and ind eed the expa nding of Environment Week to include so many aspects of public awareness that are important to promote.

Madam Speak er, I would like to at this point indicate to the Minis ter that, of course, environment also means and involves the quality of life. The opportunity tor all of us to go out and enjoy the outdoors and enjoy the opportunities that are all too rare in Manitoba when we have good weather and the opportunity to go out and enjoy it.

I would ho pe that the Min ister , in considering that, would take into account that many people are prevented from going out and enjoying the outdoors these days with the infestation of mosquitoes that we have, so that we can't enjoy the quality of life in so many of our public areas, our parks, even in our backyards.

I know that many of my colleagues and probably mem bers opposite, this weekend, may have wanted to be out in the yard cutting the grass, enjoying just the outdoors and the opportunity there; and we would appreciate it much more, Madam Speaker , if the Minis ter would take account of that and know that so many people, in their desire to util ize and enjoy the outdoors, are being prev ented today because of a hard headed, unbending decision he's making with respect to mosquito fogging.

We believe, Madam Speaker , that the Minister for the Environment would do a great deal more for the enjoyment of the quality of life and the outdoors in Manitoba if he would either put forward evidence of the proof that the mosquito fogging is harmful to individuals, is harmful to people, and indeed does pose a serious health threat to them, rather than taking the unbending position that he has against mosquito fogging and preventing so many people from enjoying the quality of life in the environment that we have for all too short a time here in Manitoba during the summer months.

Madam Speak er, I would say as well that in noting his comments and concerns about household hazardous wastes that we on this side have been waiting now for a considerable length of time for this Minister to do something about a hazardous waste disposal facility in Manitoba. 460 There have been ongoing studies, reports that date back at least six years in this province with respect to bringing us to a decision on a long- term solution to hazardous waste di sposal and management in Manitoba.

His department has been sitting on report after report, has been holding public hearings without any desire or intent it appears, to come forward with ultimately a plan to deal with the management and disposal of hazardous wastes in Manitoba. I would hope that in addition to simply crea ting awareness and promoting hous ehold hazardous waste control in this province that he would come up with a long-term solution so that we know what we're working toward, in terms of hazardous waste disposal and control in Manitoba for the future. Thank you very much. MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minis ter of Natural Resources.

HON. L. HAAAPIAK: Madam Speaker, I have a statement for distribution to the House. Madam Speak er, in the absence of the Premier, I would like to table for the information of members, the four communiques issued by the We stern Premiers during the very successful conference held in Swan River last week. I would also like to take this op portunity to acknowledge publicly the hard work of so many of the residents of the Swan River area in preparing for the conference and making it the success that it was.

I know, from the generous comments which Premier Bennett, Premier Getty and Premier Devine made to me, as the host MLA, that Swan River's hospitality made a very favourable impression on our guests from the other western provinces. Thank you. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MA. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker . On behalf of my colleagues, I thank the Minis ter for giving us the communique with respect to the various positions that were taken by the western First Ministers.

We echo the congratulations to the people of Swan River for the hospitality which they demo nstrated to our visitors. MADAM SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills .. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before we move to Oral Questions, I would like to direct the attention of honourable mem bers to the gallery where there are 60 students in Gr ade 3 from the Sacre-Coeur Scho ol. These students are under the direction of Mrs. Miller and Miss Martel. The school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Tourism.

We have 23 students from Grade 11 in Sisler High School, and these students are under the direction of

Monday, 2 June, 1986 Mr s. Thompson. The school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for ln kster . We have 28 students from Grade 7 in the Glenboro School and these students are under the direction of Mrs. Green lay. The school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Gladstone. On behalf of all the mem bers, I would like to welcome you all to the Legislature this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS Bail order of $1.00. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My question is for the Attorney-General.

I wonder if the Attorney-General can indicate whether or not he or his department will be instructing Crown Attorne ys to appeal the $1 bail order which was ordered in the case of a woman charged with second-degree murder. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorne y General. HON. R. PENNER: First of all, I think that mem bers should know more of the facts before they raise questions of that kind and should perhaps take the opportunity to ask me before raising very sensitive issues in the House.

That was an order, of course, made by a judge and it was an order not of simply a dollar bail but there were many conditions. The criteria for the bail release , in this case, was that the person was released on condition that she be admitted to a residential alcohol treatment program, so she is in residence in an alcohol treatment program. Following the program, she has to continue alcohol counselli ng. She has to observe strict curfew, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. She has to report every Friday to the Winn ipeg Police Department. She has to abstain from the use of alcohol.

There are a whole number of conditions that are attached and these are conditions generally which are not appealable. MR. G. FILMON: Is the Attorney-General saying then, that under the circumstances, he believes that the $1 bail order was justified? HON. R. PENNER: lt would be improper for me to comment on whether or not the order of a judge was justif ied or not, No. 1; No. 2, it was not an order for $1 bail. I have just read out all of the other conditions. Thirdly, it is not appealable. Bail - conditions of MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Attorney-Gener al can inform the House what he or his department intend to do to prevent police officers from having to spend an inordinate amount of time repeatedly arres ting people who don't show up in court or commit crimes when out on bail. HON. R. PENNER: Madam Speaker , when those who are out on bail commit crimes, they are genera lly, in 461 fact almost always not admitted to bail again. But what we must remember is that the conditions of bail are set by the ju dges, not by members of my department and not by Crown Attorneys.

What the Leader of the Opposition seems to be suggesting is that a department of goverment, in this case, the Department of the Attorney-General, should in some way be interfering with the judicial sys tem. He apparently does not recognize a fundamental concept in the rule of law, name ly, the independence of the judiciary. lt is not open to us, and I'm glad that it is not open to us, to tell the judges of the realm what they must or must not do. They do according to law.

In some cases, there is room for an appeaL Where there is room for an appeal, and we believe that the conditions for an appeal are justified, we appealed. We appealed with respect to inappropriate sentences. We appealed with respect to findings of not guil ty where we believe an error in law has been made. Those things we do. Those things we can do within the framework of the law. We cannot and will not attempt to instruct the judges of the realm what they are to do. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G.

FILM ON: Madam Speaker , Chief Herb Stephen is qu oted as saying that his department is having to rearrest certain people three and four times as a result of the fact that they don't show up for court or that they are being let out on baiL Does the Attorney-General not believe that this is a matter that should be reviewed, and if conditions of bail are the problem, that perhaps these should be reviewed by his department in a way so as to try and overcome this problem? MADAM SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Leader of the Opposition rephrase his question and put it in such a way as to not seek an opinion? MR. G.

FILMON: Would the Attorney-General review this matter because of concerns that have been express ed? HON. R. PENNER: Ye s, Madam Speaker, I will be happy to. In fact, when I last met with Chief Stephen, which is within the last week, I sugge sted to him that rather than the occasional mee tings, which we have held on specific issues, that we should meet regularly as I do with the RC MP, and there, of course, because it's within the terms of the contract with the RCMP.

But I asked Chief Stephen that in my view, even though we did not have a contract police relat ionship with the Winnipeg Police Department, the Winn ipeg Police Department is independent, that it would be advisable if we met on a regular basis to review any concerns that either one of us might have because of the close symbiotic we have. He thought that was a very good suggestion. We will be having those meetings on a regular basis. I'm sure that we will be having one in this month and that will be one of the questions on the agenda. I have no doubt. Plea bargaining MR. G.

FILMON: A further question to the Attorney Gen!3ral. Is he re-ex amining department policy on plea

Monday, 2 June, 1986 bargaining as a result of the Correia murder case in which a plea bargaining act supp ressed the evidence against the accused from becoming public, either to the public or to the family who are expressing great concerns about this? HON. R. PENNER: The Correia case, of course, is one in which there still might be an appeal, so I have to be very limited in my comment. I wish the Leader of the Opposition would take the time to do a little more research in this as he should in other areas before jumping to conclusions.

The fact of the matter is that the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, who has the power to do so, decided in the particular circumstances of the case not to receive a statement from a brother of the victim, knowing that the proposed statement was one that didn't deal with the impact on the family but attempted to blame other members of the family for the tragedy, the Chief Ju stice, in my view, was right in the decision that he made, but he had the power to make the decision. I did not, nor did the Crown Attor ney, have the right to make the decision in those circumstances.

The decision as to whether or not a victim impact statement is to be received is a decision of the trial judge alone. There may be amendments to the Criminal Code within the next year that will put that on a somewhat different basis and establish the criteria, but at the moment it is for the judge alone and not for Crown Couns el to tell the court when a victim impact statement may or may not be receiv ed. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Spea ker, my question was with respect to plea bargaining.

In an ins tance in which plea bargaining before the preli minary hearing effectively prevents the evidence from coming out on these cases, does he not believe that the plea bargaining should be review ed, his policy on it? HON. R. PENNER: The Leader of the Opposition is drawing from the same source as reported in the Free Press today. That source was absolutely wrong with respect to the statement that there is more plea bargaining in Manitoba than anywhere else. There is simply no statistical basis for that at all.

Indeed, to the best of my information, plea bargaining here is no different than anywhere else. lt's very restricted. Indeed, any pro posal to accept a plea to a lesser charge is not left in the hands of the line Crown Attorney alone, although the Crown Attorney in this particular case is one of our most experienced Crown Attorneys, but is reviewed all the way up through the Director of Prosecutions to the Assistant Attorney-General in charge of the Criminal Prosecu tions. So we have very, very clear criteria.

Where there are facts on the record which should be left to a jury to determine whether it's the more serious offence or the less, then almost invariably it's the most serious charge which will be prosecut ed. There are circumstances in which the Crown has to determine that, in fact, the facts, as we know them from the police report, do not justify the more but justify the less serious charge. lt is in those circumstances in which what is commonly referred to as a plea bargain is struck and certainly not, as the person quo ted in the paper suggested, somehow over a quick friendly lunch.

That does not take place at all. 462 Manitoba Energy Au thority - Tabling of cons ultant's report MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy and Mines. lt has to do with a consulting contr act that was awarded to WMC Associates by the Manitoba Energy Authority. The head of the Manitoba Energy Authority has sugge sted that the consulting contract resulted in a very valuable report that was done for the Manitoba Energy Autho rity. I wonder if the Minister of Energy and Mines would agree to table that report. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. V.

SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can't see any reason why not to table it, but I will take the question as notice and get back to the member within the next several days. Home Economics Directorate - Status of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I read with some dismay the answers from the Minister of Health to my colleague on Friday regarding the June 3 Home Economis ts Conference in Brandon.

In view of his answer on Friday that the agenda was changed and money managing, housing and other subjects are no longer part of the agenda on June 3 in Brandon, which is tomorrow, could the Minister inform the House that the reason those items were dropped from the June 3 agenda was because his department and he, as Minister , announced the cancellation of the Home Economics Directorate and those staff positions and their roles would be abolished? That led to the cancella tion of the agenda items, not vice versa as he tried to make out Friday. MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister of Health. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker , I answered on Friday that, yes, it had been announced that there would be a transfer to other departments, that the Department of Health would no longer be responsible for this service. Therefore, there was a change in the agenda and as there were no longer any discussions of money matters or housing, there was no point in having these people attend and that there would be others atte nding there. I did say that the first time - but there might have been a misunderst anding - but at the time these people would be reas signed.

There have been some ongoing di scussions between the Minis ter of Agriculture, the Minis ter in charge of the Rights of Women, and a determination will be arrived at and an announcement will be made in the House. There is nothing devious in that at all. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker , giv en the sideways maneuvering of the Minis ter of Health and given the fact, Madam Speaker . . .

Monday, 2 June, 1986 MADAM SPEAKER: Is the honourable member cast ing aspersions? This a supplementary with no

preamble? MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker , a new question to the Minister of Health .

Given that in previous answers, the Minister of Health has assured this House that those home economists who provide money management counselling, housing counselling, and other areas of responsibility that he originally was going to cancel and eliminate from the Department of Health and from government - given that that decision was made and is now in the process of being reversed by this in-house committee study - would it not prove beneficial to allow those staff , those home economist staff people dealing with money management, housing matters, to go to that conference tomorrow in Brandon which provides the planning for the next year for 28 home economists in both the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health, and quit playing silly games with the Home Economists Directorates in his department?

HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, at no time did I say we were cancelling this service from government. At no time was that ever said in this House or outside . I said that the Department of Health would deal with this and the Department of Health is temporary until a solution, and that is what you call it , a misunderstanding . It might have been wrong to cancel at this time, which was not done. This was not discussed with me at all. I learn ed about that after the fact.

The point is that they no longer, because it is a department conference, financed by the departmen t, sponsored by the departmen t, employees of the department. It was felt that could be done by the departmen t that will take over this responsibility, and that was the director, who meant well when there was a change in the agenda - no longer will that be discussed . You're not going to send people out there to discuss something that they have no interest in. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Will the Minister inform the House that the reason it was removed from the agenda is because his department cancelled those positions and their responsibilities some month ago? HON. L. DESJARDINS: There is no doubt that the responsibility, that advice , would be taken over by another department. At what level ? That was neve r announced . That is what is being looked at. In the meantime, yes, it might be that they were a little too fast in cancelling that and I adm itt ed that from Day One, but that is the only reason because it will very shortly be tra nsferred to another department .

It will not be the responsibi lity of the Department of Health . That could be done in another department but it will not be the responsibility of the Department of Health to provide the services re money management and I don't think it should be - nor housing . I don 't think that that is the Department of Health . MR. D.

ORCHARD: Given the Minister 's admission that there was some confusion which led to the cancellation of this program in Brandon tomorrow , will he now simply 463 adm it his department erred and allow those home economists to attend the confer ence to provide the planning for the next year for 28 home economists serving Manitobans throughout this province? HON. L. DESJARDINS: That would mean more confusion, Madam Speaker; that would mean changing the agenda again to place something on the agenda that is not the re. I certainly would not add to the confusion, if there is any.

Northern Flood Agreement - Settlement of outstanding liabilities MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside . MR. H. ENNS: Thank you , Madam Speaker. I direct a question to the Minister of Natural Resources. Under

Article 3 of the Northern Flood Agreement , it specifically sets out the criteria for land transfers for land that was damaged or flooded on a four to one ratio. My understanding is that some 47,000 acres have been identified, various groups, Bands , through the consulting processes, yet only 147 acres has actually been transferred. My understanding is that this has been agreed to , the lands identified in 1983. Will this new Ministe r of Natura l Resources move on effecting these land transfers? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Minister of Northern Affairs . HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker , that part of the Northern Flood Agreement comes under the Department of Northern Affairs . The Member for Lake sid e asked that question last week and we told him at that time that the process has been working . There are four parties involved in negotiations for these parcels of land and we are coming very close to settling several pieces of land. Hopefully the Bands will accept those transfers and we can get on with the transferring. They are very close to settling several parcels at this time. MR. H.

ENNS: Madam Speaker , I appreciate the Minister of Northern Affairs ' intervention and I acknow ledge that he did supply us with a list of information, which included the fact that only one parcel of land has been transferred under his jurisdiction. Mada m S peaker, I also am aware of how this government works and it is the Department of Natural Resources .. . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. H. ENNS : It is the Minister of Natural Reources that is responsible for transfer of land s. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order plea se. Does the honourable member have a question? MR. H.

ENNS: Will the Minister of Natural Resources carry out the mandate for which he is responsible for,

Monday, 2 June, 1986 transferring lands that have been identified, some 47,000 acres to make up for the flooded acres some years ago as a result of the Churchill River Diversion and other hydro flooding projects? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, the program falls under th4:l Northern Flood Agreement and the Department of Natural Resources is responsible for the negotiations under the Northern Flood Agreement. Once the negotiations are completed , then the Department of Natural Resources is responsible for the transferring of the land . MR. H.

ENNS: Madam Speaker , a question to a different Minister, the Minister responsible for Native Affairs . Madam Speaker, does the Minister responsible for Native Affairs of this governmen t regard progress at the rate of 147 acres in a three-year period as suitable progress for the concerns of his people? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Could the honourable member please rephrase his question so it does not seek an opinion - whether he regards something or not is irrelevant . The Honourable Member for Lakeside . MR. H. ENNS: A question to the Minister without Portfolio.

Would the Minister without Portfolio consider asking the Minister of Natural Resources to take over the responsibility of these land transfers, inasmuch that the Department of Northern Affairs is obviously not accomplishing a great deal? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for Native Affairs. HON. E. HARPER: Thank you , Madam Speaker. Yes, I will work closely with the Minister of Northern Affairs and the Minister of Natural Resources and work cooperatively to settle these issues . Potash mine, Manitoba - Status of MR. H.

ENNS: Another question on a different subject , to the Minister of Energy and Mines. Several days ago, the Minister of Energy and Mines took a question as notice that I had asked . That is, namely, what is this government's fiscal commitment to the development of potash in Western Manitoba in the current budge t year? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you , Madam Speake r. I will have an answer to the member shortly. Child abuse MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. J.

McCRAE: Madam Speaker , my question is directed to the Minister of Community Services. 464 Last week the Minister announced an independent review of Child and Family Services in relation to child abuse. On Thursday , the executive director of the Children's Aid Society of Western Manitoba said that his society faces an 18 percent increase in sexual assaults this year.

He said that Brando n doesn't have enough trained professionals to cope with the increased workload and that the workload , if stretched any further , would stretch them to the breaking point; also , that the increase in child abuse in the Brandon area is higher than in other societies in the province. Will the Minister's review include the Children 's Aid Society of Western Manitoba and other agencies in the province, including Native agencies? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable M inister of Community Services . HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker , the review that is looking at the system aspects of child abuse will be a province-wide review . Child Abuse Registry MR. J. McCRAE: I rise on a new question for the Minister of Community Services. The executive director of the Children 's Aid Society of Western Manitoba also made the point that children shouldn 't have to die before the government recognizes their needs; and he said that he's looking forward to seeing the release of guidelines for the Child Abuse Registry, a proposed provincial listing of known child abusers.

He said that such a list would assist in screening applicants for employment. My question to the Minister is when will there be the implementation of this child abuse registry? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, it still surprises me that I am getting questions from the other side about movement on child abuse because it has only been in the last few years that we have had programs developing in addition to the guidelines which are out there for all of the professionals in education, justice, health and community services as to the ethics of reporting and the procedures they 're to follow.

We have had multi-disciplinary teams working in the field and they will soon have sharper guidelines for how they are to make their decisions or resolve disputes. The question of training people, we have in addition to the provincial coordinator and the Winnipe g coordinator, two trainers comi ng on who will be providing training , there 's also been a child abuse specialist with the Native cultural aspects particul arly under their jur isdiction, and a great deal of buildup throughout these four systems.

The problem has been , Madam Speaker, not only the dearth of people trained in the field, but the lack of awareness of most professionals of what the problem was and what to do about it . So, as we are buil ding the system, we are researching the best methods of both preventing and dealing with the long-t er m effects of child abuse. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Minister , when will there be implementation of the proposed Child Abuse Registry?

Monday, 2 June, 1986 HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker , there is a Child Abuse Registry in operation now. There has been a committee reviewing that registry that should have its report on my desk very shor tly in terms of how to. We are also cross-referencing both the abusers and the child ren who have been victims of abuse. But there are civil rights issues, Madam Speaker. As I said in this House last week, in fact, the Child Abuse Registry in Ontario has been thrown out because of conflict with a civil rights principle.

Our review will be to fine tune and strengthen the registry which we already have, and I should have the recommendations for improvement from that group this week. MR. J. McRAE: Has the Minister of Community Services availed herself of legal advice respect ing the constitutionality of such a Child Abuse Registry? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speak er, I think my previous answer indicated that we are aware of that element and part of the review has been to look at those principles.

Because the constitutional principles are relatively new on the law books, exactly how they are going to be interpr eted in the courts is not crystal clear to anyone. But we have availed ourselves of the best advice we can get so that we can come out with the appropr iate balance between the need to protect the childr en and the need to protect the civil rights of adults. Tax discounters - students MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My question is to the Minister of Education.

Would the Minister assure this House that the Student Aid Branch has been informed that it is not to recommend that young people go to tax discounters? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hon ourab le Minis ter of Education. HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for River Heights for that ques tion. The practice of counsellors referring individuals in dire straits, with no other option, to the community income tax service, which is a non-profit group, was raised with me a day or two ago, or perhaps Thursday or Friday of last week. I indicated that I didn't feel that was an appropriate avenue.

I have asked the department to review options, either independently or perhaps with such services, so that students in difficult financial circumstances won't be left with that as their only alternative. I think the member will appreciate that because of some of the actions of this government and the Federal Government, those services are not the disreputable and usurious kinds of places they were.

The referrals occurred onl y to the non- profit organizations which provide not only the rebate service for imme di ate funds for stude nts but also the counselling function which is extremely important in most of these instances because we're talking about 465 students with limit ed financial resources and obvious needs beyond simply the money at this point. MRS. S.

CAR STAIRS: Would the Minister tell me if in fact the students are being recommended to fill out TO 1 forms which in fact make them totally exempt from paying taxes on the basis of the fact that they are students which cost them nothing and not 15 percent on the first $300.00? HON. J. STORIE: I' ll take that question as notice. I can assure the honourable mem ber, however, that the individuals who are providing the service to students, and the information, I think are aptly qualified and aware of all available sources of funding for student assistance and student advice.

The question the that member raises I am sure has been raised previou sly, but I will certainly ascertain as to whether or not the department is providing that type of advice as well. Public Utilities and Natural Resources Committee MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Vital. MR. J. WALDING: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines.

Given that the House this afternoon has passed the first report of the Public Utilities Committee, can the Minister give the House an assurance that the answers to any questions asked and all information desir ed will in fact be made available to the House? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hon ourabl e Min ister of Energy and Mines. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I had indicated at the time of the last meeting of the committee that the questions taken as notice would be answered as soon as available to me from Manitoba Hydro and the Manitoba Energy Authority, and they will be passed on to the members of the committee and other mem bers of the Legislature who asked the various questions. Crop Insurance adjustments MADAM SPEAK ER: The Honourable Mem ber for Ste. Rose. MR. G. CUMM INGS: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture.

Presently , many farmers in the provinc e are experie ncing difficulty of a combination of circumstances with the weat her and the Manitoba Crop Insurance, the difficulty being that the 19 85 crop is still in the field. Fields will not dry while the crop residue is there. The farmers are unable to write off that crop because they are waiting for approval from Crop Insurance. My question to the Minis ter is, will he take action to see that the Manitoba Crop Insurance can immedia tely come to an agreement with these farmers before they lose two crops?

Monday, 2 June, 1986 MADAM SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Min ister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker , this situation is a difficult one for the corporation in adjusting claims and this year - (Interjection) - Madam Speaker, it appears that members opposite, especially the Member for Pembina, doesn't want to hear the answer. He has his mind already made up. If he'd only keep quiet, I will attempt to answer the question which was put by the Member for Ste. Rose. Madam Speaker , there is no difficulty for any farmer who wishes to have the crop written off and adjusted.

However, if in fact there is an amount of crop left on the field equal to or even less than what he's insured for, that will be deduc ted from this claim and that's the difficult situation many people find thems elves in because the crop can be adjusted. However, if in fact that crop can be harvested in the next number of days, then in fact the farmer has the crop and has - as the member is sugges ting - a zero adjustment which makes a 100 percent claim. The corporation is endeavouring to settle and is prepared to settle every claim.

There are at the present time, I'm advised, approximately 100 claims yet to be adjusted and some of those that were raised last week - in fact one of the farmers did have a proof of loss and hadn't signed it to be paid. The other gentleman that raised this matter, one other claim was adjusted last week and it's in the process of being paid. But, quite frankl y, the reason that farmers wish to get on their field and would like to get on their field is of course if the field could dry off, and if the field was dry, then they could be harvested as well and the claim could be settled.

If they are too wet to harvest, then of course they would be too wet to seed as well, Madam Speak er. MR. G. CUMMI NGS: Madam Speaker , I appreciate the Minister's problem and his concern. I also appreciate the problems of the farmers because the crop has to be removed from the field in order for it to dry up. The crop adjusters are presently concerned that the farmers will be beating the Crop Insurance out of some funds if they are allowed to write off the crop that is there and then use it for livestock residue.

My question is, is there a manner in which crop insurance can come to an agreement with these people so they will be able to burn the crop or get rid of the res idu e? lt would actually be a sa vings to crop insurance. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speak er, that type of a situation is in fact what is occurring by adjusters going out and adjusting, and in fact if an adjustment is made on the crop and there is less than what the coverage is for, there are some negotiations going on and that's how this matter is being settled.

But, quite frankl y, Madam Speaker , there are cases where in fact the crop on the field far exceed s what the insur ed coverage is for and that makes it difficult in terms of settling the claim. The farmer would like to be paid 100 percent, and if in fact he can remove more crop than what he is insur ed for, that makes the situation even more 466 difficult from an equity point of view between othe1 farmers and the corporation. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose with a suppl ementary with no

preamble. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Madam Speaker, my question is, will the Minis ter tell us what is a rea sonable length of time for farmers to have to wait for settl ement for the 1985 crop, given that the adjustment changes daily? HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, if an individual farmer wishes to either go on his field to plough it and wishes to write off his claim and have it adjusted immed iately, all he has to do - as is normally the practice - is call the agent's office, an adjuster will be there to adjust the crop and settle it right there.

The problem remains, Madam Speaker, is that there is more crop on the field than the coverage there and that's what makes the situation difficult, Madam Speaker . Day care MADAM SPEAKER: The Member for Burrows. MR. C. SANTOS: I have a couple of questions, Madam Speaker , about day care, directed to the Minister of Community Services. Ther e is currently a federal committee of seven members studying again the subject matter of day care. Does the Minister consider making representation to this committee again? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mini ster of Community Services. HON. M.

SMITH: Ye s, Madam Speaker , I have indicated my willing ness to meet before the committee. it's certainly an issue where, if we're ever going to achie ve economic equality among men and women, that there must be adequate support services such as day care. In our submission, we have asked for a new funding mechanism for a National Day Care Act, adequate standards preference for non-profit community-based boards, and also similar to what was developed under Med icare in its early stages, a capital fund and a small research fund. MR. C.

SANTOS: Would the Minister inform this House and the people of Manitoba about the present adequacy of day care facilities to meet the mounting needs of childr en in this province? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker , the quality of the existing day care is good, but the supply of day care is not adequate to meet the needs. We 've been building the system gradually and will continue to do so, but if there were a federal funding plan, we would be able to close the gap much more rapidl y. Expenditure and revenue forecasts MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. r

Monday, 2 June, 1986 MR. C. MANNESS: I direct my question to the Acting Minister of Finance. The report of the Provincial Aud itor, Page 4, under "Sum mary of Matters of Concern and Reco mmenda tions,'' the Auditor has rec ommended that a multi- year financ ial plan be made available to legislators. Is the Government of Manitoba intending to implement a forecast of expenditures and revenues beyond the one year, as presently is done within the Budget? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minis ter of Indust ry, Trade and Te chnology. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I'll take that question as notice for the Minister of Finance, or possi bly, if the member wants to wait for a little while, he'll be able to hear from the Minister who is back. MR. C.

MANNE SS: Wha tever you rule, Madam Speaker, I would ask the Minis ter then, who has just arrived, whether or not it's the government's intention to provide a forecast of expendit ures and revenues beyond the present one year, as is done within the Budget; whether it's the government's intention to do so in concert with the recommendation provided by the Provincial Auditor, in his last report, March 31, 19 85, where he calls for a mult i-year financial plan? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minis ter of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

That area is under active consideration at the present time, and once we're at a position to make a decision as to whether or not it can and will be done I'll make a report to the House on that. MR. C. MANNESS: A supplementa ry, Madam Speaker. Has the government asked the Auditor for his reasons for making that reco mmendation? HON. E. KOSTYRA: I presume there have been discussions between staff of the Department of Finance and the Auditor with respect to that. I have not the opportunity to meet with the Auditor to review his last report, but I intend to do that over the next period of time. MR. C.

MANNESS: Could the Minister tell us the time frame in which he will be making a determination or the government will be making a determination as to whether or not they will provide for a forecast beyond one year of expenditures and revenues? HON. E. KOSTYRA: I would expect to have a report on that matter some time later this year so that it can be reviewed prior to determinations that take place with respect to next year's Budget and tabling of Estima tes. Quarterly reports MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. 467 MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, thank you. A question to the Minister of Finance.

Could he inform the House whether it's the intention of the government to continue to produce and publish quarterly financial reports for the balance of its term in office? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Ye s. Pre-judgment Interest Act MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norb ert. MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, a question to the Attorney-General. Last year, the government had promised to introduce a pre- judgment interest act during the last Session. lt was introduced and then subsequently withd rawn for re-exam ination.

Could the Attorney-General indicate whether a pre-judgement inter est act will be introduced at this Session of the Legislature? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Madam Speaker, yes, it will. lmax Theatre Complex MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Stur geon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Industr y.

IMAX System Corporation have been awarded a contract to build and design a theatre and produce a film for the Provi nce of Mani toba with the Nor th Portage Corporation. lmax has said in a press release, the com pany has always encouraged supp ort of independent film makers, to use IMAX medium. Mr. Kroitor said, "I'm excited by having found such a pool of creative people in Manitoba and will . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

Beauchesne's Citation Rule 362 Hhich I've quoted several times suggests reading telegrams, letters, or extracts from papers as an opening to an oral question is abuse of the rules of the House. MR. F. JOHNSTON: That's fine, Madam Speaker. IMAX Corporation has been given the contract to build a theatre, and design the theatre, and to produce a film. They have also said that they use Manitoba or local people wherever they can. He has also said that they have criteria for using the good people in the Province of Manitoba. They said they will be using independent people.

My question, Madam Spea ker , has the IM AX Corporation forwarded to the Minister, criteria and plans for using Manitoba people in the production of this film? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Small Busi ness Development. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Monday, 2 June, 1986 The film production is under my department, under Travel Manitoba. We 're also very pleased that we have such creative and such tremendous film talent in Manitoba. I think that's recogn ized not only here but throughout the country. We've taken steps to make sure that we are using Manitoba people. I think ther e's only going to be two people, the executive director and one other who afe from IMA X and the rest of them we expect them to use Manitoba artists and film people.

To make sure that happens, Madam Speaker, my department, under Travel Manitoba, will be working with them and we are also calling on the National Film Board to work with us and together we're all going to make sure that we use our people in Manitoba. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance, and the amendment thereto by the Honou rable Leader of the Opposition, the Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I want to participate in this Budget Debate this afternoon and lest the Minister of Finance and his colleagues oppo site have any reservat ions after I've finished, I will not be supporting the Budget document. I will be supporting the amendment propo sed by my leader because the amendment as propo sed by my leader and is written by my leader contains an awful lot more direction and an awful lot more fact than the entire Budget document.

Madam Speaker , I have to first off say to the Minister of Finance that he did produce a rather skil lful Budget Spee ch. lt allowed him and his government to pay some IOU's that were rung up during the election campaign to certain special inter est groups and others. lt's a Budget document skillful in the fact that it blames everyone else for all of the woes in Manitoba and refuses to have the government shoulder even one iota of re sponsibi lity for the current financial crisis in Manitoba. lt skillfully paints a rosy picture, Madam Speaker .

I suppose this painting of a rosy picture begs the obvious question that if things are so good in Manitoba under the stewa rdship of this terribly competent group of people, then why is it that our deficit is still skyrocke ting, and why is it that we find ourselves faced with a government that has to blame the Federal Government for every woe and ill in the Province of Manitoba if, in fact, as the NDP attempt to tell us, Manitoba is in good shape? The Member for St. Charles (sic) had indicated that the Budget Speech this time was quite rhetorical.

I have to tell him that had he listened to four others from this Minister of Finance's immediate predecessor , he would find that not to be the case. There was some illeg itimate rhetoric in there, some untruthful rhetoric in there, but not nearly the amount that was in previous documents by his predecessor. lt skillfully blended in a little bit of humour, Madam Speaker , although it was 468 black humour, because how could anyone in their right mind congratulate the efforts of the former Minis ter of Finance with a straight face.

Su rely, they jested with the people of Manitoba when they congratulated the Member for Rossmere and his tutorship of the financial affairs of this province over four years, because how else could you but with black humour congratulate a man who raised the deficits of this province through the roof; who raised every levy and tax in this province like they have never been raised before; who chose as Minis ter of Finance over four successive Budgets to chop and hack and slash away at the capital spending of the Department of Highways and Natural Resources.

Su rely, that humour was nothing but black humour in the opening remarks of the Throne Speech. (Mr. Assistant Deputy Sp eaker, M. Dolin, in the Chair.) I want to offer my honourable friend, the Minis ter of Finance something of a caution, and that is a caution of not to follow the precedent set by his former Finance Minister , the Member for Rossmere. After all, the actions of the former Minister of Finance led to the reason why we've got a new Finance Minis ter in this province. That former Finance Minister had lost his personal cred ibil ity in the financial community and in the Province of Manitoba.

He never answered que stions. He demons trated a clear lack of understanding of the portfolio of Finance. He was clearly over his head in his ability to handle the situation. As a former member of this House, Russ Doern, said that after the 19 86 elec tion, if he should be defea ted, he could always get a job as a clerk in the Land Titles Office at Beausejour. That demons trated the kind of ability that the former Minis ter of Finance brought to the portfolio. He simply wasn't hone st and open with the people of Manitoba and wasn't truthful in the presentation of a number of facts.

If you want examples, I give you but three. First of all, was the tabling of the second quarterly report on December 31, 19 85, on New Ye ar's Eve. lt was tabled then to avoid any media discussion of the second quarterly report. lt had no project ion of the deficit which is the first time a quarterly report has ever been tabled without a projection of the deficit, the first time in some eight years. Certainly , the former Minis ter of Finance wasn't honest about his treatment of his constant and his party's constant haranguing and criticizing of the Federal Government for bank bailouts.

Because that Minister of Finance and this government and this current Minister of Finance are rely ing on the bank bailout by the Federal Government to cover over $8 million of term deposits in the Nor thlands Bank. On the one hand, they cry and whine about bank bailouts and, on the other hand, they've got their hands out to the Federal Government demanding their payment of over $8 million on shor t-term deposit in the Northlands Bank. Some people, Mr.

Deputy Speake r, would call that hypocritical, and I think that in the context of the use of the words, both parliamentary and unparliamenta ry, that would truly be a parliamentary use of the term "hypocrisy," to complain on one hand and have your hand out on the other. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the third area in which this former Minis ter of Finance lost his credibility was in the delay of the Third Quarterly Report until after the elec tion, in which the bad news of the increased deficit was then made public to the people of Manitoba - after the elect ion.

- Monday, 2 June, 1986 So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I offer my caution to the Minister of Finance to follow what his Premier has said, that he won't shy away from the questions that will come to him on the Budget. By the Premier saying that this new Minister of Finance won't duck the questions, automatically confirms what I have said time and time again that his former Minister of Finance ducked them all the time, refused to be honest and open with the people of Manitoba, and was not an honest Minis ter of Finance. Now, Mr.

Deputy Speak er, the major message in this Budget was really a hidden message and was not told by the Minister of Finance. lt was a skillful document, as I' ve already given the Minister credit for, but it wasn 't an honest document. Certain ly, the Budget document was not consistent. I want to point out a number of incons istencies in this Minister's first Budget. Inconsistency No. 1: taxes were not raised, according to the Minister of Finance, for fear they would stifle the economy of the Province of Manitoba.

I quote from the Minister's Budget, Page 10: "Ordinary Canadians are reducing their spending due to higher federal taxes ." But what is the reality of this Budget, Mr. Deputy Speaker? The reality of this Budget is that this Minister of Finance is receiving a 10.3 percent greater increase in corporate income tax and individual income tax as a result of those higher federal taxes, which this Minister of Finance piggybacks on to the tune of 54 percent. Now if that isn't an incredible incons istency in his approach, I don't know what is, Mr. Deputy Speaker .

But what is the reality of this Budget? lt is the 10.6 percent increase in individual income tax piggy backed on the Federal Government whil e this Minister stands up and says, we shouldn't raise taxes because it will stifle the econo my. Very incons istent. Mr. Deputy Speaker , further in the Budget document - I want to refer honourable members to

Section E- 7.

Section E-7 of the Budget gives the estimate on tax reform which is the latest cottage indus try in the New Democratic Party - tax ref orm. I quote from Page E-7. "The Auditor General has estima ted that tax expendit ures made by the Federal Government is delivering between $35 billion and $50 billion in preferences, exemptions and incentives annually. These sums are large in relation to the federal deficit ." Now this is part of the Budget document, leavi ng the clear impr ession that the Federal Go vernment should rem ove those kinds of inconsistencies, inequities and incent ives.

If it did, how consistent are the Minister's words then on fear of raising taxes? If he wants the Federal Government to glean another 35 billion to 50 billion out of the tax syste m, what impact would that have on consumer spending of the ordinary Manitobans he wanted to protect so much in his Budget by not raising taxes? How much would it impact on them? Very very inconsistent, Mr. Deputy Speaker . They have ind icated, in terms of another inconsistenc y, that tax avoidance is a growth industr y. Well, Mr. Deputy Speak er, the NDP cannot have it both ways.

First of all, they can't criticize tax avoidance as a growth industry and attempt to be the champions of this ref orm of the tax system, while they have prom inent mem bers in their Treasury Bench participating in those tax avoidance schemes. More importantl y, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, because that matter has been subject to a lot of discussion in this 469 House, this Minister of Finance cannot be consistent when he goes to the Federal Government complaining about the need for tax reform when his former Minis ter of Finance - and he is continuing with it - has unde rtaken one of the largest legalized tax seams in the Province of Manitoba through the vehicle of Manitoba Properties Incorporated, which I shall deal with later on.

That Manitoba Properties Incorp orated took advantage, Sir, of one large tax loophole in the federal taxation syste m. it's hardly consistent for them to say, on one hand, we need tax reform, and then take advantage of every loophole as government, let alone as indi vidual members as the Memb er for Transcona and the Memb er for Radisson had done.

In another major incons istency, we have the Minister of Agriculture in his discussion of tax reform saying that we need tax refo rm; that people of wealth and of su bstance aren't paying their fair share of taxes, but he criticizes the Federal Government for the removal of the capital investment tax credit as it has applied to new farm machinery pur chases in the farm community. When is the Minister of Agricultur e going to be consistent, and when is the Minis ter of Finance going to be consistent? In consis tency No. 2, Mr.

Deputy Speaker: that Budget document criticized our government from 1977- 81 as being a cruel and heartless government, one that stifled growth in the economy. We heard the Mickey Mouse statistics from the Member for Brandon East on Thursday, I believe it was. Now, I have to remind the Minister of Finance that the major initiatives to help people, ordinary people - and I don't like that term, because if you read "ordi nary" in Webste r's, you'll find it describes people as vulgar and common, etc., and I don't particularly like calling people ordinary and calling them vulgar. But, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the major impact in this Budget to the real Manitobans out there stems from programs put in pl ace in 19 77-81 by the Lyon Progressive Conservative Government. First, MACC rebate to young farmers on the interest rate that they pay on long- term mortgages to buy land. I want to remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you weren 't here in 1977-8 1, that in 19 77 when we assumed govern ment, there was no such thing as a long-term loan for the purchase of land through MACC.

The NDP, in their drive to socialize agriculture and make the system akin to the Soviet system, as the Minis ter of Agricultur e would want to do in Estima tes about four years ago, elimina ted long-term lending in land purchases. We reinstated it with the write-down in inter est rate and that is what this government in this Minister 's first Budget is a major initiative. Second ly, the CRISP program initiated by the Lyon administration, they have said they are going to be the salvation of some 1, 500 farm families by putting them into the CRISP program.

We ll, I want to remind you once again because you wer en't here last term, but this is the same government that cut 1, 000 to 1, 200 farm families off the CRISP program in 19 83. Now they're reinstating them, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thirdl y, the SAFER Program which provides rental assistance to elderl y, another program brought in by the Lyon Progressive Conservative Government - it's hardly consistent to criticize our government as being the worst government in terms of social spending and

Monday, 2 June, 1986 social innovation in the province, and then to build the major planks of his first Budget on programs that we established and we brought in. Hardly consistent. Incons istency No. 3, Mr. Deputy Speaker: constant criticism of the Federal Government. The Federal Government is the whipping boy of this provincial administration because they cannot come to grips with the problems. But yet, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , where is the major job creation in this city coming from? lt's coming through Boeing, and why is it coming through Boe ing? lt's coming through Boeing because they have bought De Havilland in Eastern Canada, which was a Crown corporation sold by the Federal Progressive Conservative Government, and now the operations are expanding into Winnip eg and creating jobs. That is hardly consistent to criticize the Federal Government, but yet take jobs created by their initiatives.

Sec ondly , housing starts are up, which is a constant reminder that our New Democratic friends say is a sign of strength in the province. But housing starts are not a result of any initiative of this NDP Government either now or in the past four years. They are simply a reflection of: No. 1, pent-up demand; and No.2, and most importantly , a reduction in the inter est rates on mortgages that those new homeowners can avail thems elves of.

That lowered interest rate is a direct result of federal fiscal policy and it has created more jobs in the Province of Manitoba than any other effort this gang of incompetent New Democrats have done in the last four years or will do in the next several years that they should bless this Chamber as govern ment. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in terms of helping the farm community, what has this government done? My colleague, the former Min ister of Agricul ture, the Member for Arthur, pointed out exactly what this government has done in this Budget.

They talk about a 21 percent increase in funding, but they didn't tell the farm community that it's all borrowed money, that if you'r e going to get assistance from this Minister of Agriculture and this govern ment, you are going to take out a loan, you are going to sign on the dotted line. That is in sharp contr ast to what has been done federal ly and what has been done by the sister provinces of Saskatchewan and Alb erta where they have actually put their money where their mouth is. They have stopped whining and crying. They have rolled up their sleeves and they have done something for the farm community.

This Minister of Agriculture, this Minister of Finance and his Cabinet are still whining and crying and doing nothing for agriculture in a meaning ful way. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, again I refer my honourable friend, the Minister of Finance, to the federal record over the past two years in terms of the interest rates in the province and in this nation. Mr. Deputy Spea ker, I think it is very very demons trative that we now take a look at what has happened to inter est rates since election day September 4, 1984. They are now down a full 2. 75 percent - the bank prime rate.

If you believe that isn't beneficial to the housing industr y, to the agricultural community - every 1 percent drop in the interest rate represents a $600 annua l saving on average to each and every farmer in Manitoba. That means that farmers in Manitoba this year will benefit to the tune of over $1 ,500 from interest-rate reduction alone which was the objective of two past federal budgets. 470 Is there such leadership and direction in this Minister's Budget? I submit, no, Sir.

He has hidden from the reality of what his respo nsibiliti es are, and they insist on whining and crying and blaming the Federal Government for everyt hing. The reality is - $1 ,500 for every Manitoba farmer. If you want to go further, Mr. Deputy Speaker - well, I won't go further because it would just confuse the Minister of Agriculture and he wouldn't know what I was talking about. Debt in 19 84, which is the latest statistic I have, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was $1 ,822,600,000.00. We ll, the 2. 75 percent drop in prime rate has already injected over $91 million annually to the provincial farm economy .

This Minis ter of Agriculture gives us 50 million in loans and says he has done a good job? He has shirked his responsibil ity, he has failed in his duties and he is the laughing stock of rural Mani toba and the farm community. But let me talk now, Mr. Deputy Sp eak er, about the real thrust and the real threat of this Budget and that, lad ies and gentlemen, is the size of the deficit.

Now many have addressed the deficit, and even in faint hearted terms, honourable members opposite have even mentioned that the deficit can't continue in the levels of $500 million annually that they have foisted on the people of Manitoba. But they haven't done anything about it. They haven't shown the leadersh ip that is required in reducing the deficit. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg honourable members over there - (Interject ion) - the Minister of Agriculture has just brought together an interesting little comment.

He says, "We sure did a lot about the deficit." I want him to take a look at any chart he wants to look at that starts in the mid-60's and take it through to the mid-80's where we are toda y and find out who institutionalized deficits in the Province of Manitoba. He will find it's a New Democratic administration under one Ed Sch reyer. That's who institutionalized deficits in the Province of Manitoba, and the last deficit that we left was budgeted.

My honourable friend, the Minis ter of Agricultur e, calls from his seat: "I diot, it was Roblin." I want to tell him that when Roblin was government in 19 67 and '68, there was a $2 1. 8 million surplus. There was a $21 million surplus the next year, a $25.5 million surplus the next year. I ask you, Sir , who is the idiot? and it is the Minister of Agriculture because he hasn't looked at the charts. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker , the Minister of Finance has not dealt with the deficit problem. The Federal Government have a deficit problem and they are trying to contain it.

But the Federal Government, unfortunately , was not the creator of their own problem. They inherited their deficit from some 15 years of Trudeau largesse and misspe nding, and they are trying to clean up a mess by that socialist government under the Li berals, under Prime Minister Trudeau. But these people, Mr. Deputy Speaker , have inherited their own fouled nest, because they are the ones who created the deficit from 19 69 on, institutionaliz ed it and made it larger and larger and larger. They have inherited and created their own problem and they are powerless and idealless to solve it. Now, Mr.

Deputy Speak er, no one can argue with that statement I just made because these people sitting

- Monday, 2 June, 1986 opposite have been government for four of the last seventeen years in the Province of Manitoba when we have rung up these massive deficits. Now, if you want, don't take my word for it, 1 just refer you to several charts. The first one I want to refer you to, because the Minister of Finance has talked about debt, and he says the net debt is something like $7.327 billion. I refer honourable members, in case you haven't read AS in the Minister's Budget document.

Under the date of issue, the deficit is $7.327 billion; but if you convert it to current values, if you retired the debt, it escalates to over $S.4 billion because of offshore borrowing by Sch reyer and by Schr oeder as Ministers of Finance and as governments over the last four years in this House. Those are the people who caused this, and if you think that this isn't an alarming sort of a problem to have, if you think this is not an alarming problem, then I simply refer you, ladies and gentlemen, to A7, the chart on the previous page. 1 beg all mem bers opposite to read it for your own edifica tion.

What you will find in there, and I will read to you from the notation on the bottom of the graph on Page A7: "The above tabl e ind icates the Pr ovince of Manitoba will have to borrow for the purpose of repaying direct and guaranteed debt after application of sinking funds based on the Canadian dollar equiv alent on the date of issue." We are borrowing to repay debt. We are not repaying the debt as self-sustai ning debt that the Minister of Finance says we are doing in this province. We are borrowing to repay debts from the Sch reyer Go ver nment and from the Pawley Govern ment's first four year terms.

If you want to take a look, take a look at the chart, and I want to show you, for instance, in 19 93, we have to borrow $5 11 million simply to repay debt acquired in previous years. My honourable friends say, "so what." Because that's what socialists say, "so what to debt." As a matter of fact, the Liberal Leader, in a debate, in Carman this spring, even had the audacity to say, that debt in Manitoba is not a problem because we owe it to ours elves. Therefore we don't worry about it, the old Liberal shibbol eth about debt, the Leader of the Liberal Party in Carman. A MEMBER: She didn't use that in the campaign.

MR. D. ORCHARD: She certainly didn't because 1 straightened her out at Carman before she made the mistake anyplace else. Ask the people in Zurich, ask the people in Tokyo, ask the people in London, ask the people in New York if they consider the money that we have borrowed from them to be owed to Manitobans, and ask them if they wish to have it repayed at some point in time and you'll get the answer that everyone of you know will be there. Ye s, they expected to be repaid and with interest. But, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I want to refer honourable mem bers to another Budget. lt's call the 19 S4 Budget Add ress and I want to refer you to Page AS - A9, I'm sorry. lt is a similar chart to what is reproduced on Page A7. And do you know what? If you compare these two charts you will find out that in two short years of socialist administration in this province, that we have gone, for instance in 199 1, to a refi nancing requirement in the 19 S4 Budget 471 of $252 million in that year, to now a refina ncing, two years later, of $443 mill ion.

That is escalating exponential growth in the debt that we have to pay, and that, Sir , is in two years. That is the difference between the identical chart in two years of NDP socialism in the Province of Manitoba. I want to take you to another year . If we talk about 19 92, the year of the alleged profits from our Hydro sales came into Manitoba, we are going to have to repay - not reborrow and refinance, not $353 million of debt, as it was in 19 S4 - but we now, with this year's Budget, have to refinance $420 million.

Now my honourable friends over ther e have this funny look on their face, about where's this guy getting these numbers from? I'm getting them from socialist Finance Minister's Budge ts. I want to point out just one more thing before I drop this issue.

Here is probably one of the more reputable Bu dgets, the 19S1 Bud get Ad dr ess, Pr ovince of Manitoba, and I want honourable friends to get a copy of the 19S1 Budge t Addr ess, go to the exact same chart which I have described in the last two Budgets, 19 S6 and 19 S4, and find out what has happened to the Province of Manitoba and its financial picture under five years of socialism under the Premier of Manitoba and his lack of leader ship. You will find, Sir, that it is truly shocking and I will give you some cumul ative figures, Mr. Deputy Speaker .

In the Budget tabled last week by the Minis ter of Finance the accumulated amount of mone y - and I once again want to read to my honourable friends - this is the amount of mone y that the Province of Manitoba will have to borrow for the purpose of repa ying direct and guaranteed debt. In 19 90 to 1994, in this Minister's Budget tabled last we ek, that five-year period says we are going to have to refinance $1 .992 billion of borrowi ng. What was that figure in 19 S1? - and I want honourable members to refer to the 19 S1 Budget - it was $59S million and that's all.

There is a 333 percent increase in the amount of re financing that has taken place in five short years of socialism in he Province of Manitoba, and I ask you gentlemen and lad ies in the government, is that not alarming to you, in five years to triple the amount of money that this province has to borrow to refinance past expenditures? If you want to take another statistic, the cumulative figure of 19 95 to 19 99 in this Minister of Finance's recent Budget , indicates we refinance $93S million over that five-year period.

In the 19S1 Budget, that figure required was only $310 million, a 302 percent increase in the amount of borrowing that we have to undertake in the Province of Manitoba for the five-year period, 19 95 to 1999. Now that, Sir , is a shocking state of affairs for the Province of Manitoba and the people of Manitoba to have to bear. lt is given to us, compliment soly and exclusiv ely by the NDP over the last five years, because the 19S1 Budget had $59S mil lio n of refi nancing for a five-year period, their's is almost $2 billion. Now what is the danger here?

I want to tell my honourable friends opposite what the danger is. The danger is your offshore currencies. You are borrowing in foreign markets and you are going to repay in foreign markets, and if you think that isn't dangerous, ask the citizens of Mexico what they think about forei gn borrowings.

Monday, 2 June, 1986 At this time 11 short years ago, in Mexico as a sovereign nation, the peso was convertible to the Canadian dollar at the rate of 11 pesos per Canadian dol lars, just 11 short years ago. Do you know what it was in January of this year? - 130 is the bid - shall we go higher, gentlemen and ladies? Do you know what it was in Me xico 11 years after it was 11 pesos to the dollar? lt was 330 pesos to the dollar . Now you ask yourself how you're going to have to print mone y by the wheelbarrow full to pay off New York and Zurich and Tokyo, then we've got a crisis.

And, in case my honourable friends don't understand the impli cation of that devaluation of the Mexican curren cy, do you know what the sh ort-term interest rate for a nine-month deposit in a Me xican bank was in January of this year? Do you know what the interest rate to the depositor was? lt was 74 percent. You put in 1, 000 pesos today, nine months from now you get $1 ,740 pesos. That's what you get as a lender , as a depositor .

Imagine what the interest rates of the business community, the farming community, the tourist communi ty is in Mexico. lt would be in the neighbourhood of 100 percent per year, and this is what these people are taking us to, and refer yourselves to the 19S1 Budget and you'll see it in black and white. Compare 19S1 to 19S6 and you're finding that we have to refinance multiples of three and four times, simply to repay our debt. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that is shocking. (Madam Speaker in the Chair.) I want to ask my honourable friends how they expect to maintain social benefits in the Province of Manitoba, given that kind of demand on the Provincial Treasu ry, simply to repay debt. Madam Speaker , I notice my light is on. Have I got several minutes left? MADAM SPEAKER: Ye s, the honourable mem ber has 10 minutes remaining and I don't know why your light is on. MR. D. ORCHARD: Oh, super, it's not flash ing, that's right, Madam Speaker , I'm sorry. This allows me to go into one other area that I wanted to deal with in the Budget.

Given that my honourable friends will go home and read these Budget documents from 19 S1 to 19S6 and get the comparison, so that you can see for yourself what your socialism is doing to the future of our childr en and our province. Read it and see and I know you will read it and weep like I have. But, Madam Speaker , the Minister of Finance, in his first Budget, did - and I know I'm going to tread on the verge of parliamentary indiscretion - but he did not tell the truth and nothing but the truth in his Budget, Madam Speaker .

In fact he under stated considerably the amount of this year's Budget that will be needed for debt ser vicing in the Province of Manitoba. He stated in his Budget that it would be S.3 percent of total expenditu res. That simply is not factual, Madam Speaker . That simply is not factual. I want to point my honourable friends in the House, once again, to Page AS.

In Page AS, if you go three lin es down from the "P urpose of Debt, General Government Programs, Other," you will find a line called "Ma nitoba Properties Incor porated ," in which this 472 government has borrowed $39 9,14 3,000 and they have borrowed it through the backdoor, taking advantage of the kind of tax seams that they criticize institutional investors and the wealthy of this province for doing. They took advantage of a tax seam. They borrowed through the backdoor, $399 million, and how did they do it, Madam Speaker? Well, you know how they did it because you were part of the government that did it.

They did exactly what the Minister of Finance, on Page 31 said, and I have to read this quote back to him because it is so inconsistent. lt is so bizarre. On Page 31, the Minis ter of Finance says, "As at March 31, 19S6, our total direct and guaranteed debt stood at $7.3 billion net of sinking fund." Now that's not exactly an hone st presentation because current eval uation has it at $S.4 billion, but we 'll let him get away with that little indiscre tion. We could reduce it su bsta ntially if we sold some of the assets, the investment financed by that debt helped secure.

Now who would you think is saying that? lt wouldn't be a socialist Minister of Finance; but it was this Minis ter of Finance. He said, "For example, more than half our direct and guaranteed debt is related to Manitoba Hydro and the Manitoba Te lephone System. These could be sold and the debt reduced, but would we be better off," says the Minister of Finance, pointing a poignant question at the people of Manitoba. "Would a family be better off by selling its home to pay its mortgage?" And this is a Minis ter of Finance that was part of a government that did exactly that.

They sold $400 million of government homes to institutional investors across this nation. They sold the house and they borrowed the money and now we'r e paying rental payments ins tead of interest. Madam Speak er, what is shocking, in terms of the Minister's understatement of the debt ser vicing charge, is his convenient exclusion of the rental payments to Manitoba Properties Incorporated, because you know you don't take out $400 million of preferred shares to institutional investors without paying them interest , and they skil lfully call it rental payments.

The rental payments on th ose $400 million of preferred share raisings that thi s Min ister of Finance and his predecessor attracted to the province are costing us $58,962,000 for rental payments. Now, Sir , first of all, the numbers are a little funny. If the Minister says that the $5S,962 ,000 is cheap interest, why does it figure out to over 12 percent on the $400 million they borrowed? That's a question he's going to have to answer when we get into Interim Supply. Secondly , why isn't it included in the calculation of the amount of monies that we expend for debt serv icing in the Province of Manitoba?

I sugge st the Minis ter of Finance does not want that to be part and parcel of those figures because it shows what a disastrous state of affairs the provincial financ es are indeed in, compli ments of the tutorship of five years of socialism under the weak-k need leader ship of this Premier that doesn't even have the ability to govern the Province of Manitoba. Madam Sp eak er, that $400 million of sold buildings didn't even pay off three-quarters of the debt of one year's proflig ate spending by the socialists. No. We sold $400 million worth of buildings and we didn't even pay off one year's deficit. No.

So the Min ister's

Monday, 2 June, 1986 statement rings hollow when he asked the rhetorical question, would we be better off if we sold the assets to pay the debt. Because they've done it, they've still got the debt, they haven't got the assets, they're paying exhorbitant rent, and it's costing the people of Manitoba and it's costing the disadvantaged, the needy , the health care system, the education system needed doll ars, because that's where $59 million could have went that went to pay preferred shareholde rs in Manitoba Prope rties Incorporated.

Now, Madam Speaker , if there is no more problem that we have to deal with in the Province of Manitoba than our deficit, I don't know what it is; and if there's no better time for a government to do it, it should be in their first term. After all, this Minister says that we are now approaching good times in Manitoba. Good times means that you can reduce the deficit, that the economy should be growing and pr oducing the rev enues to allow you to bring the deficit down, but that isn't the case with this group over here. We are gett ing deeper and deeper in debt.

Madam Speak er, this Budge t do cument is a document of extreme cowardice. lt is not a Budget document of a party newly elected , ready to make tough decisions as we've heard this First Minis ter say. This is a government of sheep, sheep who follow and bleat and bleat at the Federal Go ve rnment for all the problems that they have created for thems elves in the Province of Manitoba. This is a party without leader ship. lt has been for the first four-year mandate; it will continue to be a party without leadersh ip. This is a party that is hooked on credit. This is a party of credit junki es.

These are the credit junki es of Canada. Madam Speak er, instead of a government with leader ship, a govern ment with a command of the issues, a government with solutions for the future, we simply have a credit card Cabinet. Spend today and pay tomorrow. I submit to you that since we will spend the rest of our lives in the future, should it not be incumbent on us to spend some time today thinking and planning about that future for ourselves, for our children and for our grandchildren? Thank you, Madam Speak er. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Elmwood. MR. J. MA LOWAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker .

I wanted to congratula te the Finance Minister for a good Budget, skillful Budget and an hone st Budget. 1 want to express confidence in his abili ties and hope that he remains in that position for some time to come. I wanted to take the first few minutes of the address to talk about a subject that I dis cussed in the address to the Speech from the Throne, that of member services. As members of this Assembly , our primary obligation is to represent the interests of our constituents.

The present $2,500 that we're allowed is inadequate, and I think those of you who have sat in the Legislature in the past and have had to deal with this $2,500, most of you will agree with me that it doesn't take you too far. In order to serve our constituents in an adequa te way, we need an office, we need supplies, we need 473 secretarial assistance, as well as the existing mailing and telephone services. With an office we could do several things.

We could meet our constituents on an individual basis; we could meet with different groups in the constituencies; we could disseminate information about government programs and services - and that goes for the members opposite as well; we could increase direct contact with our constituents, which brings them closer to participating in decisions that have an impact on their lives. After all, we are a servant of them; they sent us here. All this would help us do our jobs better in a more profes sional way and reflect the need for full-time MLA's.

By way of a comparison, what I and others are calling for is by no means unique in Canada. Manitoba in fact is among the poorest in terms of constituency services now available. For example, in Saskatchewan, our neighbour next door, each MLA is allo wed $829 per month for a constituency office rent and $9 16 per month for a constituency secretary.

In Alberta, the MLA's are each allo wed $1 4,700 per year for rent and staff; in B.C., $25,000 per year for staff and an office, including office suppl ies; in Ontario, the MPP 's are given $1 2,230 for office rental and each mem ber has a global staff allo wance of $87,487 for Queen's Park and constituency office staff. The last province, in Quebec, $74,700 for each MNA, of which $25,000 must be used for the Legislative office, $1 3,500 for the office in the constituenc y. Therefore, it's fairly clear that there's ample precedence for members receiving al lowan ces desig ned to meet their constituency needs.

I would like to see all members of this House take action toward enhancing the services available to mem bers. There are several ways that we go about achieving this. One is that we can refer it to the Legislative Asse mbly Management Commission and let them deal with it, and ther e are representatives from each party on that commission; or, No. 2, we could have an all- party agreement to a reso lution outlining en hanced services. This is a non-partisan issue as it involves enhancing the services for all mem bers, this side and the other side.

I propose that members give serious consideration during this Session, not next Session, this Session, to a proposal that would include the following:

(1) Provision for a constituency office rent and supplies; (2) a full-time secretary per office - that includes one for the Memb er for Morris as well - inc reasing the present $500 per member caucus allocation to $1 ,000, reta inin g the present $2,500 constituency allo wance to pay for mailings, etc. Now I think that this proposal will go a long way to helping us be more effect ive.

For those, you know, who suggest that, if you get some of the se services, you get an office, you get a staff, that someho w that is going to help the incumbents and going to keep you in ther e forever, I would ask you to think of the 19 84 federal election and ask John Turner, whose members had services and it didn't stop the P.C.'s from picking up - what? - 208 seats. lt didn't stop the Ontario Government from changing hands, no r the Queb ec Government nor the Saskatchewan Government. So these services are not something that are going to be the be-all and the end-all, but they are going to

Monday, 2 June, 1986 help you in your role as an MLA. At least, more people will know who you are and they' ll know where to find you. I wanted to apolog ize to the Opposition for suggesting that there is division in their ranks, because you'll recall last speech I sug gested that the Leader of the Opposition had placed all the potential leadership contenders in the front row where he could keep an eye on them. I wanted to apologize now to anyone I may have left out in the second row and, in fact, in the back bench. This was an over sight, and I apologize for it.

I sat and lis tened with great interest to two, maybe more, of the speeches, in particular given by the ordinary members opposite, the Memb er for Tuxedo, the Mem ber for Morris, not to mention Jake's address the other day too from the galle ry. I'm glad that the Memb er for Morris is here. I want to ask the Member for Morris, would he and his party advocate toll roads in order to reduce the deficit? What about selling the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation or the . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Spea ker, I heard the mem ber ask me a question.

Would you gain consent for me to answer that? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Elmwood. MR. J. MA LOWAY: The mem bers oppo site would cut. You know, what would they cut? They talk about balancing the Budget. They talk about cutting the deficit. You've got to do something. You've got to cut some thing, or you have got to sell some thing. I am mindful around the world and across Canada of Conservatives, and they're all sort of similar across the world. In England, there is talk of privatizing the airports. Margaret Thatcher wants to sell the airports. You've got Hydro. We could sell the Hydro plants.

Sterling Lyon, when he was in govern ment, was prepared to give away a piece of a Hydro plant to get the Alcan aluminum smelter here. MR. H. ENNS: On a point of order, Madam Speak er. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Lakeside on a point of order. MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker , I believe it is a point of order when facts that are patently false are allowed to be put on the public record. lt is not accurate for any member of this Chamber to put on the record that the previous administration, headed by Sterling Lyon, was prepared to give away any or a part of Manitoba Hydro. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please.

The honourable member does not have a point of order. A dispute over the facts is not a point of order. The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. J. MALOWAY: At this point, the most that any of the mem bers oppo site have suggested that we cut have 474 been, well a simple feeble response to cuts, $50,000 here, $50,000 there, nothing substantial. I would like to know just where they'r e going to go. One of the members previously mentioned that the federal P.C.'s had sold de Havilland.

Okay, now that's an example of privatization; that's an example of a government divesting itself of certain things - (Interjection) - that's right. But I want to hear what they plan to do. What about the schools? What about the universities? Do they want to sell those? Ther e is a mem ber over there who owns a college right now. Maybe he'd be interested in buying one or two of the universities. A MEMBER: The Golden Boy. MR. J. MA LOWAY: Sure. That's right, the Golden Boy.

The Post Office, you know, ther e is talk of sel ling the Post Office, and I'm sure that there are peopl e, mem bers opposite who would like to do just that. You know, again the Legislative Building, this is a very prime piece of real estate. The real estate markets are asc ending right now. Why don't we sell it and become tenants here? The point is, I think that people have difficulty trusting the P.C.'s because, when they're running for election, they say one thing but, when they get in government, all of a sudden there is a move to privatize this and privatize that.

These things are done after they get in, and people have forgotten, I suppose, what they've talked about during an election campaign. When I try to get a handle on where they're coming from, I recall the statements of their leader, borrowing a page from Mulroney's campaign book when he was calling for jobs, jobs, jobs. The current leader here, he went through the province, saying spend, spend, spend - what was it? - 700 million, 800 million. Does anybody really know how much they were proposing to spend? Which is it?

Does the Memb er for Morris speak for the party or does the Mem ber for Tuxedo speak for the party or perhaps there are others? Now the Member for Niakwa, he makes a statement that you can have it both ways, I suppose because he's in Opposition. The fact of the matter is that you can't, and that is the ultimate in irresponsibility to sugge st that you can have it both ways. But you know, maybe he is their secret weapon, because he had a very concil iatory tone to him, gave me anyway a false sense of security, and I ended up cutting out most of my hard hitting stuff out of the speech as a result of it.

I liked what he had to say. He had a balanced and reasoned approach. Madam Speaker , clearly what we'r e witnessing is Round Two of the leadership race. it's the Member for Tuxed o's nee-conservatism or, I call it, born-again cons erva tism, because that's what he is, versus the Memb er for Tuxedo' s.(sic) I don't know what to call his. Perhaps he's a red Tory, I'm not certain. The traditional Tory post-election leadership battle is on, and we look forward to its results. But in the meantime, the people are denied a credible Opposition.

Now let's deal with the deficit, because this is all we've heard now for the last week. You know, members opposite would have people believe that the government is unconcerned about the deficit. I don't like the deficit

Monday, 2 June, 1986 any more than anybody else. lt is just not true that we are unc oncerned abou t it. Rather than mind less diatribes about the deficits, we've outlined through the Minis ter's first Budge t a reasoned approach to the social and economic realities of the day. Despite our deficit, we have one of the lowest debt charges on a per capita basis. Our public debt charges are $10 0 per capita lower than the national average. The Member for Morris referred to reserves. He said, you know, when you give a socialist a reserve, they want to go out and spend it.

Any time they get their hands on a reserve, it's just gone. Wel l, I remember him clearly pointing out that he had a big stake in the Cons ervative campaign strategies that were worked out in this past campaign, and I remember a reserve that was talked about in there, the MPIC's reserve, where they wanted to rebate $20 million of that $70 million reserve back to the motorists, and so much for the sanctity of reserves over there. They wanted to get rid of it, it's this side who held back on that.

Lest you think I'm picking overly on the Member for Morris - he's a nice guy, I looked at the leadership tapes, the tapes of the convention a few weeks ago, and had I been a delegate there, I would have voted for him myself, he's a likeable guy. - (Interject ion) - We recognize the need for a Jobs Fund. Apparently , the Cons ervatives do also because they voted for it and now they only quibble over the amount. One of the memb ers opposite last week is rec ommending a $40 million cut in the Jobs Fund; another one wants to eliminate it compl etely. A MEMBER: Where's the leader? MR. J.

MA LOWAY: The leader, oh yes, okay. When the mem bers opp osite replied to the Budget, rather than propo se alternatives, they launched into a litany of figures put forth, not by their research efforts, but from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Now, for the members' edification, we should remember that the Canadian Federation of In dependent Business spoke sperson for Manitoba stated in the 19 86 Federal Budget, just a few months ago, that it didn't go far enough in cutting programs.

We must remember the Federal Budget's most onerous consequence was that it shifted taxation from a balance between private and corpor ate taxation to an increase in private taxation and a reduction in corpor ate taxes. lt's the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that the P.C.'s are willing to quote in their speeches; it's the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that the P.C.'s represent, not the interest of most Manitobans. I wanted to ... MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speak er, on a point of order. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Brandon West on a point of order. MR. J.

McCRAE: Madam Sp eak er, I belie ve the honourable member has made ref erence, I'm sure it was unintentional, but to the way honourable members on this side of the House represent our constituents by making the statement that we represent the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and I 475 belie ve if Your Honour looks in Beauchesne, you'll find that it's unparliamentary to refer to the manner in which a member represents his constituents. MADAM SPEAKER: I'll take that under advisement. I can't finger the reference right off the top. MR. J. MA LOWAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

If the tr end toward re ducing corpor ate taxes continues at the federal level, then the federal P.C.'s will have by 19 90, they will increase taxes paid by individuals by $8.9 billion, and they will have reduced taxes paid by corporations by $4.1 billion. The federal P.C. tax pol icies favour those that are income from investments, as against those who earn wage income. In other words, the coupon cli ppers versus the people who work nine-to-five. A buck is a buck whether you get it from investment or whether you get it in a nine to-five job, it should be taxed in much the same way.

This is easy income that a lot of these people are getting when it comes to investment income. For example, a wage income of $30,000 pays $1 ,368 more taxes, over the last two Conservative Budge ts. An investment income of $50,000 pays $909 more in taxes. This is a reduction of 82.3 percent over the last two Conser vative Budgets. These coupon cli ppers, they're prima rily in Florida and points outside of Manitoba, particularly in the winter time.

I don't believe many people in the Opposition are rich enough to survive totally on clipping coupons; they'r e here and those guys are letting these guys speak for them. I don't see where they are that well off that they are going to really gain by something like this. We chose not to raise personal income taxes, sales taxes and small busine ss and farm taxes. Instead, we raised the corporation taxes because they can afford to pay them; the banks - and no one can tell me that the banks can't afford to pay a little more in taxes. This is a fairer tax polic y.

You look at the Conservative phil osophy on an international basis and you look at Reagan's approach and Thatcher's approach, and it's a game. lt's sort of trickle-down economics; it's make lif e easier for the people who have got lots of mone y, the big corporations, and put the tax burden on the people who are least able to pay. I wanted to deal for a moment with the confl ict-of interest issue which has been talked about quite a bit in the last couple of weeks and we'll be hearing a lot more about it. I wanted to be on record as supporting the disclosure of assets and liabili ties, a compl ete disclosure.

If you jus t disclose the assets and you don't disclose the liabilities, then you'r e certainly not providing anywhere near the whole story. I'm mindful of a cartoon the other day in the Sun which calls on members to assume the position. Get ready, it's not long in coming. The P.C.' s have historically been against disclosure and they've always been dragged along on issues like this. it's the nature of P.C.'s to resist change. Remember the dinosaur s? They didn't change, and look what happened to them. I'm not suggesting that the P.C.'s will disappear.

We 're not going to come in here to question period one day and find them not here. lt would be nice but it's unli kely. I wanted to deal with activism and financial services, the whole financial services sector. We must have an

Monday, 2 June, 1986 activist approach when it comes to issues such as financial services. There is a trend in Canada now, aided and abetted, of course, by the Federal Government to one-stop shopping centres for financial services. Under that type of system you're going to have a situation where the banks are going to own insurance companies; the insurance companies will own security firms; and security firms will own banks and you'll be able to walk into your Royal Bank and buy insurance and securities and real estate and travel, the whole works from one centre.

Lest you think that is something that is inevitable and it's going to build its way into the economy and won't be felt by small busine ss, I suggest you think again. Small insurance agents and other business people trying to make a go of it right now are going to have an awfully hard time - the Mem ber for Aiel knows what I'm talking about - competing against the Trilon Corp oration which is a big financ ial conglom erate which will sell you your insurance, will sell you your mortgage, will sell you everyt hing you want. People are going to be sucked into this whole one-stop shopping centre concept.

In the area of insurance, just about every day we read about another small busin ess, communi ty club, clinic or other organization that's paying very high liability insurance premiums, or some of them cannot get coverage at all. I give the members opp osite credit, there's been a couple of them over there who have shown some interest in this area, have gotten up and asked a couple of questions and they're substantially on the right track, except they don't go far enough. They want the government to provide help, but they don't want the government to be overly involved in the area itself.

Just a word about why this liability situation dev eloped the way it has. lt's developed because insurance companies have been underpricing their product for the last five, six, seven years, particularly to the big corporate clients. There was a point three or four years ago where big insurance companies were practically buying business, they were doing what was called cash flow underwriting. They were attempting to make money on the high interest rates that were prevalent at the time and not really looking ahead to the time when these claims would have to be paid.

Another part of the problem, of course, is that the big losses in liability are really outside of Manitoba. I can't think of any big losses in Manitoba. They have been things like the Bhopal Plant in India; the citrus fruit crops, Air India, the Space Shuttle, the Ariane Rocke t that jus t went down, and all these things are paid for out of the international reinsurance market. So, in fact, we in Manitoba are helping to pay for that. Now, what have some people done in response to that? What have the doctors done? They have set up their own plan and other profess ionals have done the same.

I have sug gested that there are several ways that we can deal with this but I think we have to take a leading role. If we wait for a year, the problem will solve itself. Sure, these companies will recoup their losses; they will have made a healthy profit and people will say, well, there's no more problem. But the people are suffering right now; the busi nesses are suffering and we should do something now. One of the proposals that has been discussed - and in the United States there are a few jurisdictions 476 that do this - and that is, put limits on liability claims.

I think California is one example and I belie ve there may be others. Insurance co-ops and pools. The Public Insurance Corporation should take the lead and try to get the other private companies on-board to provide some kind of a pool in the Manitoba market; and if they won't do it, if they can't effect any kind of action, then perhaps the MPIC should simply establish a liability insur ance monopoly, similar to Autopac 15 years ago, basically putting a wall around Manitoba and the liability would be available through the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.

Basically it's a form of self-insurance. it's similar to what the doctors are doing and again, the other professionals. Madam Speaker , what is my time? MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member has 14 minutes remai ning. MR. J. MA LOWAY: To the Mem ber for Springfield, 14 minutes, I've got lots of time. I wanted to deal for a few minutes about the whole area, again, of the li fe insur ance, the pension management, and the accident and sickness business. You know, the accident and sickne ss business has been around for a long, long time.

We did a study back around 1977, certainly compl ete before that, a very comprehensive study on the accident and sick ness situation in Australia or New Zeala nd. That program, or a comprehensive program, should be implemented on a competitive basis by the Manitoba Public Insur ance Corporation. The pension management field and the lif e insur ance field, both of these things should be entered into by the Manitoba Public Insur ance Corporation, again, on a competit ive basis.

I am not suggesting a monopoly here at all. lt will create jobs in Manitoba and it will lessen the possibility of people slipping through the cracks, because that's what you have right now in the whole area. You have a piecemeal system where, if a person doesn't buy a certain type of insurance, they are not covered. We have to have more comprehensive plans developed and the MPIC could certainly do this and sell it on the market. This whole plan would not only afford Manitobans an innovative and a good quality of insurance, but it would also provide a source of revenue to the government.

The government has to become more interventionist if it is to develop reve nue and that to pay for the social programs that we are involved in. I think that the go ve rnment has to become int erv entionis t. I think it has to be an activist government. lt has to be involved, again, in a whole range of financial services and that could include things such as treasury branches, which we passed the legislation for back in 19 77 and have yet to proclaim it, or a near-ba nk, or a banking-like structure. A structure like this would sell RASPs, would se ll investments, and sell a whole range of financial services.

The Bank of British Columbia has been operating for years and it has provided innovative financial services, jobs, and stabil ity, and we need more of these institutions in Western Canada. it's true that regional banks or a Manitoba type of banking institution would favour the small guys against

Monday, 2 June, 1986 the big guys but, you know, after all, that's what this economy is all about. This is an economy compos ed of small business people. It is not an economy of huge companies. Such activ ism makes social and eco nom ic sense becaus e it puts the needs of consumers first. As well, activism in the financial services' sector generates needed revenue. The longer we are non-active and non-interventionist , the worse it will be.

One of the members talked about the brick wall that we are heading towards; and he's talking about the deficit. - (Interjection) - That's right, social programs without financial programs are irresponsible . We need the financial programs to help fund the social programs . I wanted to wrap up and make a com ment on deregulation. This is supposed to be the great new wave, the great new world of con servativ e thought here, deregulate industries and you are going to have terrific competition. - (Interjection) - Yes, progressive , the Member for Morr is says.

But what happens when you deregu late , such as you have done in the United States with the airlines? - (Interjection) - Well, the Member for Sp ringfield talks about helping the consume r. Inevit ably, what happens is these private companies start cutting corne rs and you have planes falling out of the sky. The trucking industry , ther e is talk of deregulating the trucking industry.

What do you think is going to happen to Manitob a with eight of the largest trucking companies in Canada head quarte red here; what do you think is going to happen to them if you open up the Manitoba trucki ng business to foreign competit ion? You've got huge Amer ican carr iers who are going to come in here and wipe some of these companies right out. I mean you have to think about deregulation before you just accept it holus-bolus because of some philosophical argument and just because it fits in well with Conservative dogma, that it must be a good idea .

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the members opposite for being attentive once again . Thank you very much. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. L. DERKACH: Thank you, Madam Speaker . I am pleased to be able to rise today for the first time in addressing the Budget Debate. The Budget Address, Madam Speaker , sets the tone for the province for the coming year. Through it, the Governme nt of the Day displays how effectively it has done its job since the forme r Budget, and also spells out the economic approach which will be taken over the immediate future.

In his address, the Minister of Finance stated two major objectives of the Budget. First of all, to sustain econom ic development and provide jobs, economic security, and increased opportunities for women and men throughout the prov ince.

Secondly, to ensure access for all to improved vital services, health care, education, and training for young men and women, quality child care for working and especially single parents, and important income and program supports for seniors and others requiring these services . 477 In these two major objectives, Madam Speaker, the Minister also stated that the economic farm crisis was the mos t pressing concern to the government.

Upon hearing these main areas, Madam Speaker , to be addressed by the government, my first reaction was that yes, the stated objectives did, in fact, cover the broad economic needs and concerns of the province. However, in the two major objectives, there was no mention if the government was prepared to address the enormous deficit that Manitobans were facing. As the specifics of the Budget were unveiled by the Minister of Finance it became clear that, once again, Manitobans would be let down because there was no substance, only empty promises.

As I listened to the Minister present his Budget , I tried to find the positive elements that might be applicable to the residents of my constituency ; and just like the rest of Manitoba the people within the constituency of Roblin-Russell could not expect anything except perhaps some indirect taxes that would be levied upon them. (Mr. Deputy Speaker, C. Santos, in the Chair.) In his objectives, the Minister indicated that the agricultural crisis of farm families would be the most priority for the government.

A 21 perce nt increase in the Budget for the farm sector , that the Minister announced, was welcome indeed at first sight. However , the impact was quickly lost because there was again the lack of specifics and the immediate relief for farmers in Manitoba . The Farm Aid Program would no doubt assist those farmers who are in desperate circumstances. The Farm Start Program would help young Manitobans wishing to begin farming to borrow mone y and to get started in farming. But where would these farmers be in the next two or three years, because there are no programs to help them after they have acquired this money?

Then in a couple of years , they'll be back in the same pos ition that many of our farmers are in today. But then what about the vast number of farmers who are not in those two categories? How are they going to be looked after by this government? Mr. Deputy Speaker, they are not going to be looked after in any meaningful way through any meaningful programs. Surely , the vast number of bankruptcies by the many farmers in this province should have shocked the government into reality in realizing that some immediate attention is required for the farming community.

In my constituency, farmers know the positive effects of the programs that have been developed in Saskatchewan and Alberta, especially in Sask atchewa n because of the fact that we live so close to the border. Ask the mach inery dealers along the border towns of Manitoba where their business is? They will tell you that their business is in Saskatchewan; it is not in Manitoba, because Saskatchewan has a plan for their farmers and they have implemented their plan. Manitoba farmers don't have anything from their government right at the present time and not hing is to be expected according to the Budget.

Prior to the Budget, many of the farmers in my constituency eagerly asked the question whether or not this Minister of Agriculture was anticipating in implementing a program of low interest per acre loans for farm ers as was the case in Saskatchewan. However,

Monday, 2 June, 1986 as we saw from the Budget, that didn't happen. This isn't a handout, Mr. Deputy Speaker , that farmers in Manitoba are asking for. lt is simply a low inter est rate loan to help them out in times when the economy is bad, when the economy is agains t them, when commodity prices are low and especially in a time when they are planting their crops and operating funds are required.

Even if they are going to spend this money on buying machine ry that is worn out, that money is going to go back into the economy and it is not only going to help the farmers, it is going to help the people who are in business throughout the province. I can't understand why this Minister could not see that by implementing a program like this, he was not only helping out the farmers, but he was helping out all Manitobans. Instead of standing in the House, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, and pointing fingers at the Federal Government, I sugge st that the Minister of Agriculture look at the inadeq uacies of his own depa rtment, instead of attem pting and failing miserably at reinventing the wheel, let the Mini ster look at the pr ograms of neighbouring provinces. On many occasions, the Minister of Agriculture has made reference to the importance of a small family farm. Does he really know what a small family farm is? If he did, would he really be implementing some of the programs that he has implemented over the last few years? I only make refe rence to a couple of examples.

One of those examples is the reduction of the number of laying hens a small family farm can have on their premises. At first, any family farm could have up to 500 hens on their premises. Now, the Minister of Agricultur e said, "There is a great overproduction of eggs," and now we have to cut down the egg production. So what did he cut down? He cut down the small family farm to 99 hens. Now, that was going to have a big impact on the number of eggs that was going to be reduced to the province. He said, "But any farmer can apply for a permit." And they were anticipating some 2,000 or 3,000 applications.

But when the end result came, there were only something in excess of 300 applications, and this is where all the surplus was coming from. We ll, upon further invest igation I think the Minister did find out where that surplus was coming from, but he hasn't got the courage to address it. How is this going to help the survival of the family farm? He keeps talking about the family farm. Now how is this going to help them? The second issue and the second example, goes to the broiler hens that the small family farms could keep.

Now, when the marketing boards were established it was a known fact, or a statute, that farmers were not going to be affected, small farmers were not going to be affected by the marketing boards. Well, all of a sudden we had, farmers couldn't produce any more broiler hens. Oh, they could up to 1, 000, but they could only process 200 in a killing plant. But what are they going to do with the rest? So it's jus t in a roundabout way of again affe cting the family farm. Affect ing them positively? - absolutely not, Mr.

Deputy Speaker. lt's just another obvious way that indicates this Minister of Finance is not really interested in the small family farm, although he stands up and makes a lot of rhetoric about the importance of small family farms. He hasn't done anything to protect the small family farm. 478 What about the beef plan, Mr. Deputy Speaker? We have a beef plan that was introduced to the Province of Manitoba, and by and large, many of the farmers in Manitoba are quite satisfied with what has happened with the beef plan because it has injected some money into their pockets.

However, only a portion of the farmers were affected by it, positively, because then there were those farmers who had some beef cattle on their farms that bought them at the auction marts or whatever or from other farmers, they finished them through the winter and then they were able to sell them in the spring; but now these farmers were going to be excluded from the beef plan, and to date, this Minister of Agricul ture has not found a way to implement a program to help these farmers. They are excluded. What has happened to the feed lots in Manitoba? What has happened to th ose fam il y feed lots in Manitoba?

They are closed today. And where are the cattle going, Mr. Deputy Speaker? They are going out of the province. So what's happening to our slaug hter houses? They are laying off people, and that is how this Minister of Agricultur e is helping the farmers in Manitoba and helping the people of Manitoba. it's a funny way of helping them, Mr. Deputy Speaker . Then there was the mention of the CRISP Program and one that was going to have a major positive effect on farm families.

Now, again it was introduced by the Lyon Government, as had been stated before, and here we have an NDP Government coming by later, four years later, or eight years later, or whate ver, and saying, oh, we're going to take this plan now. But at that point in time, it was introduced at $200,000.00. Today, that $200, 000 should be increased to some thing like $600,000, because the gross values are a lot different; then you would help some famil ies and not by introducing a meaning less program like this. So, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the Budget does not provide meaningful assurance to Manitoba farmers in any way, shape or form. Manitoba farmers are in desperate shape and for some reason the government cannot see fit to help them out in a time of great need. Wha t about busine ss development, Mr. Deputy Speaker? The Minister announced $10 million available to small business. At that point in time, there was a cheering

section because the Minister re sponsible for Business Development jumped up and applauded this great in novative program. Well, small businesses in Manitoba are important in the fact that they do create jobs, and the Min ister of Finance realizes by his statement that private busine sses in Manitoba must receive incentives to provide jobs and to provide employment for people in Manitoba.

Now du ring the election campaign, my leader announced, that because the payroll tax was so negative and had such a terrible effect on busine sses and on the people who were hired by the busine sses, that we were going to eliminate that particular payroll tax when we formed government. Now this would have been a positive incentive because it would have provided emp loyers to hire potential people who were waiting for jobs. Now we have a Minis ter who comes in and says, "I 'll give them $10 million to start hiring people, but I'm also

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-1-17a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 1st hansardpdf 17a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b274bcdcaea0c522b17d7cfcbf8ccb68d8b7905a

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