Manitoba Hansard — 23 March 1987 (Sitting 17A, 33rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

33-2-17a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 23 March, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m . OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: Under sub-rule 81(9), it is my duty to report to the House that the petition presented by the Honourable Member for Charleswood on Friday , March 20, does not comply with the practices and pr ivileges of the House or with the Rules of the House, in that the petition: (

a) was not filed with the Clerk at least 24 hours before presenting to the House , as required by sub-rule 81( 1 ); (

b) was not endorsed by the MLA presenting it, as required by sub-rule 81(6); (

c) was not prepared in the same form as the model petition set out in Appendix "A" to the Rules, as referenced in sub-rule 81(6); and (

d) was not addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, as indicated in the model petition and as required by rulings of Speakers Hespeler in 1901, and Bilton in 1968. The honourable member 's petition, therefore, is not in order and may not be proceeded with . May I suggest that members wishing to present general petitions, which are historically uncommon in this House, may wish to consult with the Clerk before presenting them, to ensure that they are in order. Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . . .

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ANO TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation . HON. J. PLOHMAN: Thank you , Madam Speaker. I have a statement . I would like to report to this House on my presentation to the Railway Transport Committee this morning to appeal CN 's proposal to adjust the grain rate structure . The Manitoba Government believes this variable rate structure is unfair and further complicates the already prec arious circumstances faced by many of Canada's grain producers . We support lower grain freight rates, but they must be applied fairly throughout the system.

The discriminatory system being proposed by CN would only apply to producers delivering to 4 7 preselected centres on the prairies. In addition, the $1.50 a tonne discount being proposed would be applicable only to grain shipments of 18 hopper cars or more . 462 It would not include shipment s origi nating on lines with light rail and would not include shipments in boxcars. It therefore would not include the Port of Churchill, thereby seriously undermining the viability of Canada 's northern port. But, the Port of Churchill would only be one casualty of the CN rate structure proposal.

The Manitoba Government believe s that volume-based incentive rates from select points will lead very qu ickly to the accelerated closure of elevators and abandonment of branch line s. A number of Manitoba 's rural communities , particularly the smalle r ones, would suffer economically . Many producers shipping from communities excluded from the reduced rates would ship their purchases to dealers and stores at delivery points with the lower rates. The shift in grain deliveries would represent an increase in heavy truck traffic and would create a heavier cost burden on municipal and provincial roads.

Approval of the CN proposal would set a most dangerous precedent. Such a precedent would create a ripple effect, transferring physical and financial burdens from the railways and the Federal Government to the Provincial Government, municipalities, communities and producers . In order that Manitoba 's goal of regional economic development be supported we must strongly oppose the CN proposal. The Manitoba Government strongly urges that any necessary modifications to the grain rate structure and delivery system involve all those affected by its implications.

This includes railways, the Federal Government, producers, communities, grain companies and the Provincial Government. It is only through this kind of representation and mechanism that we will be able to ensure that all factors are considered in the development of a system which is not only responsive, but responsible as well. It is my privilege to table a copy of our submission for the information of members of this House, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the Minister for a copy of his comments .

It seems to me that in the area of freight rates and the future of grain transportation in Western Canada that we should not close the door on any options that may be available to the producers of rural Manitoba and rural Western Canada. Certainly, we don 't want to see the dec imation and the destruction of small communities through wholesale abandonment of rail lines, but certainly, Madam Speaker , all possibilities for economical transportation of grain out of this country must be explored and I look forward to continuing thi s debate . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs .

Mond ay, 23 March , 1987 HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. Last Thursday, I undert ook to provide a full statement responding to a number of allegations with respe ct to the operations of MPIC. I just made a statemen t to the press and copie s of that statement are being provided to the House very shortly. At the same time, Madam Speake r, I would like to transmit to the Leader of the Opposition minutes of the Board of Directors meetings of MPIC as requested. A copy will be provided for the Clerk of the House in a minute or two . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition . MR. G.

FILMON: I just wonder for the record, Madam Speaker , if I can confirm, as I understand these are the minutes that have had any commercial confidentiality items removed from them; and in discussion with the Premier this morning I was given the assurance that a representative of our caucus would be able to compare these to the original minutes so that we would be able to confirm the areas that have been removed from the minutes . I wonder if the Premier could indicate where our representative would have to attend in order to be able to make the comparison, and at what poin t in time. Can it be done immediately?

MADAM SPEAKER: We're not in Oral Questions yet. This is highly irregular in terms of ministerial statements . I wasn 't sure whether it was tabling of reports that we're under. The Honourable First Minister has leave to respond to the question asked? (Agreed) The Honourable First Minister . HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, the understanding is that the minutes could be examined at the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation offices , and that could be done immediately.

Secondly, it's understood that those areas that have been removed because of commercial interest had been deleted, but that the confidentiality will be respected . And also it's understood it will not be a precedent for future such situations pertaining to minutes . MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. M. SMITH introduced, by leave, Bill No. 11, The Change of Name Act;

Loi sur le changement de nom . HON. J. PLOHMAN introduced, by leave, Bill No. 12,

An Act to Amend The Highways and Transportation Department Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le ministere de la Voirie et du Transport. SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Ora l Questions, I have a ruling to present to the House that I took under advisement. On Thursday, March 19, 1987, the Leader of the Opposition rose on a Matter of Privilege , alleging that the Minister responsible for MPIC had misled the House. When a matt er of privilege is raised , before allowing it to be proceeded with , the Speaker must be satisfied that: (

a) the matter is being raised at the ear liest opportunity; (

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

c) sufficient evidence must be presented to suggest that a breach of privilege has occurred to warrant setting aside the regularly scheduled business of the House . The Honourable Leader of the Opposition did conclude his remarks with a motion, thereby satisfying condition (b). On the matter of timeliness, I believe that as the extent of the corporation's losses were known on March 17 (the day on which the MPIC Annual Report was tabled) the matter of privilege could have been raised that day.

In relation to the establishment of a prima facie case, the following extracts from the authorities apply : Maingot's " Parliamentary Privilege in Canada" states 463 on page 205 that : " A second procedure, akin to privilege because it would entail the disciplinary power of the House and would gain the same precedence in debate, relates to the conduct of a member.

A member of the House of Commons who, for example, has admitted to have deliberately misled the House would probably forthwith be the subject of a motion for contempt." On Page 205 Maingot also makes the following observations respecting the distinction between "misleading" and "deliberately misleading" : "To allege that a member has misled the House is a matter of order rather than privilege and is not unparliamentary whether or not it is qualified by the adjective "unintentionally" or "inadvertently.

" To allege that a member has deliberately misled the House is also a matter of "order, " and is indeed unparliamentary. However, deliberately misleading statements may be treated as a contempt." From the foregoing, it is clear that a member has breached the privileges of the House or committed a contempt against the House by misleading the House only if the member has clearly done so deliberately . The motion offer ed by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition refers to the Minister having "misled " the House rather than having "deliberately misled " i t.

A member raising a matter of privilege which charges that another member has " deliberately misled " the House must support his or her charge with proof of intent. No such proof was presented by the Honourable Opposition Leader. I, therefore , rule that the honourable member 's matter of privilege is out of order because he failed to establish a prima facie case as required by Beauchesn e, Citation 84 .

Monday, 23 March, 1987 ORAL QUESTIONS MPIC - reinsurance losses MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Premier. On Friday, I asked, as a result of the statement that was made by the Minister on Thursday , who is conducting the internal review into MPIC's reinsurance losses , to whom is that person reporting, and what are the terms of reference of th at interna l review? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourabl e First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , as the Minister has indicated already this morning , a request was made to the Minister of Finance to have the Provincial Auditor do an audit of the corporation's reinsurance practices. The terms of reference for that inquiry , I gather , have been made available, or are being made available to honourable members, and will be tabled . MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , it's interesting that no statement has been made to the House and that the Premier was unaware of that on Friday.

Friday, as well, Madam Speaker , the Minister responsible for MPIC stated that in 1984 , he and the board were made aware that the potential losses on reinsurance were $12 million or $14 million . My question to the Premier is: Did the Minister report this to the Premier at that time or at any time since? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I'm checking my records to ascertain any date of any reporting of any particular information.

Certainly, insofar as the serious unreporting of the losses , that information was conveyed, as the Minister has indicated, approximately the same time that the information was received by him from Mr. Silver . MR. G. FILMON: Is the Premier saying that he was not made aware of a $12 million or $14 million potential loss in rein surance at MPIC in 1984 when the Minister became aware of it? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , what I indicated is that I was checking the records to ascertain the date of any advice as to a $12 million to $14 million loss in regard to the reinsurance.

Once those records are properly checked and I can ensure that accurate and full information is provided, then that will be so conveyed to the House. MR. G. FILMON: My question further to the Premier is: Is it the normal practice of the government under his leadership to not have major items of loss that would affect a Crown corporation or a department to the extent of more than $10 million not be reported to the Premie r or to Cabinet? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I didn 't believe I had said it had not been reported. I indicated I was checking my records in respect to same . MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, so is the Premier just ind icating then that he can 't recall it having been repo rted? 464 HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I've already indicated that I am checking so to ensure that I can provide the honourable member with full and acc urate information. MR. G. FILMON: Does the Premier recall the reinsurance losses having been discussed with him back in 1984? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I've acce pted that question as not ice . MPIC - reinsurance losses - awareness of by former Minister MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker , just to be absolutely clear, I was not asking whether he has a record of it; I was asking whether he recalls it. He can say that without looking up the record ; but , Madam Speaker, I accept the fact that he can't recall.

So, Madam Speaker, I'll ask the Premier whether or not he has spoken to the Minister of Natural Resources, who was the chairm an of the board of Autopac in 1985, as to when he, as chairman of the board, was made aware of these massive reinsurance loss es, whether they be the 12 million or 14 million that the Min ister responsible now acknowledges he was aware of in'84, or whether they be the 36 million. Has he checked with that Minister, who was then chairman of the board , to find out whether he had been made aware in 1984 or 1985 of the losses of 12 million or 14 million? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I thought we were having a Public Utilities Committee meeting tomorrow morning in which all the questions , all the information could be provided . That was indeed my understanding, and I think that it would be well worthwhile on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to pose such questions tomorrow morning. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , is the Premier indicating that it doesn't matter to him whether or not the Minister of Natural Resources, in his role as chairman of MPIC , it doesn't matter to him whether or not he was made aware of the situation? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please .

That question seeks a personal opinion . MR. D. ORCHARD: It also seeks knowledge . MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I wonder then if the Premier can indicate whether or not the Minister of Natural Resources will be at the committee meetings to enter into the discussion on the topic? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, let me assure the Leader of the Opposition , because there appears to be some misapprehension , honourable members on this side of the Chamber, including the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation , and the Minister responsible for Natural Resources , are most anxious to be at the committee

Monday, 23 March, 1987 tomorrow, most anxious to provide full and com plete informatio n. The L eader of the Opposition need not worry abou t members on this side not being anxious to give full and clear informatio n and the Leader of the Opposi tion , I believe , ought to rest assured that his conce rns and the concerns of some others are totally unnecessary . MR. G. FILMON: Then, sinc e the Premier is unable to answer questions about his knowledge and his responsibility or lack of same on the matter , I wonder if he would indicate whether or not he plans to be at the committee meetings tomorrow morning . HON.

H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , the Leader of the Opposition wishes to continue to pre tend that I can 't recall . My advice to the Leader of the Opposition is that when I provide information to this Chamber it be thoroughly checked out so there's no question as to the accuracy of that information . That is being checked out . As to the committee meetings tomorrow, the committee hearing will be in good hands tomorrow .

The Minister responsible for the Manitob a Public Insurance Corporation, the Minister responsible for that insurance corporation, is anxious , as are all members on this side of the Chamber, to provide full and complete information tom orrow. MPIC - signature on Annual Report MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , I regret that the Premier is not going to make himself available then to respond to his recollections at the comm ittee .

My further question to the Minister responsibl e for MPIC is: last Friday the Minister acknowled ged that both he and the board, in fact I'll quote from Hansard to ensure that I have it right , his statement in response to the question: "Was he given a report on the $12 million of reinsurance loss in 1984?" His response was , " In 1984, the potential loss that we were shown was $12 million or $14 million." My question to the Minister responsible is: Why did he sign an annual report, as Minister respons ible, that showed only a $ 4.8 million loss in reinsurance?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourab le Ministe r responsible for MPIC . HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker, we'll be able to deal with that question specifically tomorrow in the committee meeting. However -(Interjection)- yes, I'm prepared to answer today . The $4.8 million figure in the 1984 report is a consolidation of a number of branches within the general insurance division in which was incorporated a $12 million loss on the reinsuranc e section. MPIC - reinsurance losses MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, on whos e advice was that figure of $12 million or $14 million not shown directly, but rathe r buried in a consolidation of other items? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: If the member would check all annual reports from 1975 on , from the time that MPIC has been in the general insurance business, one will find that the reinsu rance losses or profits have never been separat ed out, they've been consolid ated into one block .. . MR. G. FILM ON: Madam Sp eaker , t he M inist er indicates that they had not been sepa rated out until this year.

This year, ther e is a spec ific referen ce to the reinsurance loss es. So on w hose advic e was th at item separa ted out this year ? HON. J. BUCKLASC HUK: I will have to take that question as not ice, but I think the fact that we have shown the $36 million potential claims is an indication of the openness of th is g overnment . MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , that' s precisely the case , and it shows an indication to cover up for five year s preceding this annual report . . . MADAM SPEAKER : Does the honourable member have a question? 465 MR. G. FILMON : Absolutely .

MADAM SPEAKER: Question period is not a time for debate . Does the honourable member have a question ? MR. G. FILMON: Yes, Madam Speak er, I c ertainly do have a question . Madam Speaker, why was there no note in previous fin ancial statemen ts so th at, in fact, the reinsuran ce losses could never be known or understo od by reading the financial statem ent o r the annual report until thi s year? Why was there no statement identifying it? HON. J. BUCK LASCHUK: Madam Speake r, I suppose the member could well be asking why ther e were n't statements between 1977-81.

It is not the Minister or the board who direct s what sta tements are to be attached to the financial statements. That is a responsibility of the external aud itors. MR. G. FILMON: Mad am Speaker , the simple answer is that, in previous years , there weren 't those massive losses and they didn't need to have . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . MR. G. FILMON : . a specific statement. MPIC - reinsurance losses MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition with a question . MR . G.

FILMON : Madam Speak er, on Fr id ay, in response to questions by the Member for Pem bina, the Minister made a coupl e of stateme nts . Firstly, he said, and I quote: " In 1984, the poten tial loss that we were shown was $12 million or $14 million. Six or seven months ago , we have been advised that the real situation was around $36 .7 mill ion ." My question to the Mini ster responsible is: W hy did he not pur sue the matter of reinsu rance losses that he

Monday, 23 March, 1987 knew to be in the magnitude of $12 million or $14 million in 1984? Why did it come as a surprise to him by 1987 that it had grown to 36 million? Did he never along the way ask any questions about whether or not the reinsurance losses were continuing , were increasing, were decreasing? Why did he not further question it in that three- year period? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker , I think that we could best respond to that in committee tomorrow. It is rather complicated. But I also want to assure the member that each month the board of directors are provided with an ongoing status report on both the Autopac

section and the General Division

section . The board was aware of what the potential losses wer e based on information derived from 1984, but they were not aware of the $36.7 million figure unt il it was provided to it in the fall of '87, after some very thorough review and examination had been made of some problem treaties or agreements. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , did he not ask questions in 1985 or in 1986? Why were the questions only brought to light in 1987 when there was known to be a potentia l loss in 1984 of $12 million to $14 million?

Was he not asking his senior officials or, in fact, the audit firm to keep him aware of the reinsurance losses in that th ree-year period of time? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker , that question is almost repetitious but , when we get into comm ittee tomorrow, the member will learn that in fact a study was undertaken in 1984 as to the exposure risk in the Reinsurance Branch. A final report portraying the best guess , because potential claims are nothing more than informed guesses, showed that the corporation was at risk for $36 .7 million. MR. G.

FILMON: I wonder if the Minister responsible will table that report. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker, I'm quite prepared to have that report available to members at the committee tomorrow. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , I wonder , given the desire for openness that the Premier referred to about those committee meetings, if he would table it now so that we would have an opportunity to review it so that we would know the content and be on somewhat of an equal footing with the Minister going into the committee meetings tomorrow. Would he table that report today? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker , I don 't have the document with me right at the present time , but I will have it for all members of the committee tomorrow morning . We have already provided some five years of minutes which, I think , will give a pretty good indication of how the board was dealing with reinsurance. The member has been authorized by the Premier to go to the original minutes to review whatever aspects of the minutes he or his designate may wish to do so. MR. G.

FILMON: My question is for the Premier. 466 He has indicated publicly that he wants to have a full and complete airing of the matter at committee tomorrow. We've had indicated that the report will be tabled tomorrow . It's obviously available, has been available for some time . Would the Premier not implore his Minister responsible to ensure that we get a copy th is afternoon? We'll run off our own copies for other members so that our side will be able to review it prior to the committee meetings. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker, indeed I think we have been quite cooperative .

We gave a commitm ent on Friday to provide access to the minutes. The minutes have now been provided wide-open . That is, any aspect of the minutes may be reviewed - in confidence, the commercial parts. Certainly , that particular report or document and any other report s relevant to the reinsurance issue will be provided at committee tomorrow morning. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Premier .

We are preparing for a committee meeting tomorrow morning which presumably is to be a meaningful committee meeting at which we get to investigate and ask questions about a very complicated matter on reinsurance.

My question to the Premier is: Will he not instruct his Minister responsible to make the report availab le on reinsurance losses - a very long and complex case study , as I understand it - to us this afternoon by, say, four o'clock so that we can review it prior to committee meeting tomorrow and have a thorough and complete opportunity to review it, and so both sides of the House can do a proper job at committee ... MADAM SPEAKER: Order please , order please .

May I remind the honourable member that questions should not multiply with slight variation a similar question on the same point or repeat in substance a question already answered or to which an answer has been refused . The Honourable Leader of the Opposition . MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, is the Premier going to be a part of this cover-up , or is he going to let us have the report so that we can know it? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable First Minister . HON. H. PAWLEY: I just heard the allegation by the Leader of the Opposition .

It's a kind of allegation that we on this side of the House have become accustomed to hearing from the Leader of the Opposition . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. HON. H. PAWLEY: He asked me a question , Madam Speaker; I'm answering that question. This government has bent over backwards to provide full and complete information to honourable members across the way. We will continue to do so. Tomorrow,

Monday, 23 March, 1987 Madam Speaker , the Minister has indicated that full and complete information will be provided; questions will be answered . Madam Speaker, what we have across the way is honourable members trying to create a fictional situation, because they don't want to deal with the real issues of this province : jobs , agriculture, health and the vital services of this province. That's what we are faced with from the Opposition . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . MR. G. FILMON: The Premier 's actions speak louder than his words . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please , order please .

MR. G. FILMON: That is the cover-up we are talking about. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please . May I remind all honourable members that this is Oral Question period . MPIC - internal audits MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition with a question . MR. G. FILMON: A further question to the Minister responsible for MPIC . Madam Speaker , he has acknowledged publicly that he was made aware of $12 million to $14 million worth of losses in the reinsurance division in 1984 .

Last year, he called in the Auditor on the case of a $3,000 bone china purchase and the relationship between the president and his secretary . Why would he not have called in the Auditor to do an investigation of a risk of $12 million to $14 million, and potentially much higher according to the report he is not referring to? Why would he not call the Auditor in to do a complete examination of that and instead call him in to look at $3,000 worth of bone china? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for MPIC . HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you , Madam Speaker .

I am indeed very pleased that with those comments the Leader of the Opposition has told Manitobans how he felt about the allegations against Mr. Laufer . I did consider them to be serious. Our government considers them to be serious ... - (lnterjection)- MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: That is why Mr. Laufer 's employment was terminated . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . 467 HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: With respect to the $12 million, when we get into committee tomorrow, I am quite prepared to go back through the records of '77 , '78,'79 ,'80 and show to all Manitobans the fact that there were losses of $9 million and $10 million during those years . The fact that you have a $12-million loss, well, granted it is a serious concern; the member should be aware , as was stated in the committee meetings in'85-86. In 1984, the Manitoba Public Insur ance Corporation hired a reinsurance manager to review , to provide further review, because I say Mr.

Laufer, in fact , had started the review on his own in 1983. With the hiring of Mr. Amadou Dabo , in 1984, a much more thorough review was carried out by a reinsurance expert and emanating from Mr. Dabo 's review, was the report provided to us in October of '86 which showed potential claims of $36. 7 million which has been openly displayed in the 1986 annual report . Budget - burden on individuals MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Madam Speaker , my question is to the Minister of Finance .

In yesterday 's Winnipeg Free Press, the study of the Budget prepared by an accounting firm confirmed a sad fact which Manitobans are coming to recognize . It demonstrated that the newest Budget will hit lower income earners the hardest and that it showed those at $27 ,600 incomes will suffer a 21-percent increase and those at $225 ,000, a 10-percent increase. My question is, in light of this : Does the Minister of Finance stand by his statement in the Budget that Manitoba charges reduced taxes for lower - and middle income families whose incomes are from employment?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minist er of Finance . HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I indicated , in terms of what the Provincial Government has done , in terms of trying to get the necessary revenue to mainta in the service s that Manitobans want , is to provide the revenue s in the fairest and balanced way possi ble. The Budget provides measures to get additional income from large corporations in our province, and through the income tax system, provides for needed revenu e for the province in the fairest way possible .

I would point out to the member opposite that this system we put in place in Manitoba is not the ideal system. We have constantly said that the federal income tax system has to be changed . The errors that have taken place , with respect to that system over a long period of time , errors that were put in place mainly by the Liberal Governments previously of which she is a member of that party and have continued under the Conservative Government are the reason that we have limited choices in terms of how we brought in additional measures to get revenue for needed services in the Province of Manitoba .

The mechanism we used was the fairest possible given the constraints that were placed on us by the Federa,I Government in terms of the income tax system . l

Monday, 23 March, 1987 MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights with a supple mentary. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Given the fact that the Budget will increase taxes for single taxpayers of $13,000 of income, and the fact that Stats Canada reports that the average family income in Manitoba last year was $34,851, does the Minister therefore agree to the plain and simple truth that this Budget indeed adversely affects individuals in the lower- and middle-income groups? MADAM SPEAKER: That question seeks an opinion. The Honourable Member for River Heights MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: Thank you , Madam Speaker. Does the Minister believe, agree, does he in fact state, in his Budget that it does not deal fairly with those in the middle income of this province? HON. E. KOSTYRA: I believe I agree that this Budget does treat Manitobans fairly in terms of how we've taken steps to maintain vital services, at the same time raise the revenue in as fair a way as possible. As I indicated , it's not the perfect system because of the inadequacies of the federal system, but it's a lot fairer than the kind of changes that have been taking place in other provinces.

Would the member suggest that it is fair to increase med ical premiums for Manitobans, that that would be fair to moderate- and low-income Manitobans? Would it be fair at the same time , as the province does something like that, that they increase income taxes and reduce expenditures on hospitals and education? Would she agree that is fair, Madam Speaker?

We have taken our responsibilities seriously in ensuring that we have the necessary revenue and we have done it in the fairest way possible, the fairest way possible for moderate- and low-income Manitobans and to gettin g additional revenues from those at higher ' income levels. Administrative costs - limited to inflation rate MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights with a final supplementary . MRS . S. CARSTAIRS: To the same Minister, Madam , Spea ker.

Give n the fac t that this government also has an obligation to the people of the province to control administrative costs , why has the Minister of Finance not required that administrative costs of departments, inc luding his own , be limited to the inflation rate or lower? HON. E. KOSTYRA: The answer is that we have done that . In fact , overall administration costs in this Budget for all departments are at levels that are just slightly higher than the previous year and are rates lower than the cost of inflation . Farmers - relief from education tax MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. G.

FINDLAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Last Tuesday, I asked him for some clarification on the education tax assistance policy that was announced in the Budget. I asked him specifically about the father son family farm procreation situations, where the land was owned under one name , whether the two $500 units would qualify . 468 Madam Speaker, at that time, the Member for Lac du Bonnet said, yes, from his seat, the Minister of Agriculture said the details would come and farmers have phoned the Department of Agriculture officials and had been told the answer is no.

Would the Minister inform the House and the farmers of Manitoba what is the correct government policy on this situation? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, there are discussions still under way between our staff, Municipal Affairs staff, Department of Finance and municipal officials in the field. There are a number of issues that are yet at the finalization stage in terms of how the program can in fact best be delivered.

Those kinds of questions and answers will in fact be tabled in this House and for all Manitobans to be made aware of when the announcement will be made , Madam Speaker . MACC - interest forgiveness on loans MR. G. FINDLAY: Farmers are making their budgets now and they need answers to those questions immediately, if not last week. There was also $29 million in MACC for interest rate write-down . Madam Speaker, would he tell the House whether farmers with MACC mortgages will receive interest forgiveness because of this policy? HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, the announcement that we made was to provide options for MACC clients in the nature of a buy-down and not a write-down. The honourable member should be aware that while we ' ve made provisions and will be making our announcements in terms of the budgetary announcement, the honourable member accused us just several weeks ago of wanting to provide millions of dollars of financial support that the province could not undertake, and he compared us to Saskatchewan , Madam Speaker , in terms of the loan funds and operating capital.

I want to remind my honourable friend that the benefits that are provided in the budgetary announcements made here are equal to and greater, on an average per-farm basis, than those in Saskatchewan, Madam Speaker, just for my honourable friend's information. MR. G. FINDLAY: Madam Speaker , I challenge the Minister to table that information to see if it's factual.

Monday, 23 March, 1987 Budget - increased costs to farmers MR. G. FINDLAY : Madam Speaker , my supplemen tary question to the Minister is: Because of the Budget and tax increases in the Budget to farmers, such as retail sales tax, 2 per cen t net income tax , and fee increases to hydro , telephone, and there are increased living costs to all farmers because of this Budget, because of the 20 percent increase in fees . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable have a question? MR. G.

FINDLAY: . . . under agricu lture , Madam Speaker, will the Minister tell this House and the farmers of Manitoba what is the total increased cost to the farmers of this province because of the Budget and the fee increases on utilities this year ? What total dollars of taxation will be collected from the farm community? MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind the honourable member, Beauch esne's Citation 357(t) , which says it is not ·in order to " . . . impugn the accuracy of information conveyed to the House by a Minister ." The Honourable Minister of Agriculture . HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I am surprised at my honourable friend. On the one hand , he is indicating that farmers are facing desperate times , and we, in this government, have acknowledged that ; on the other hand , he is saying that a 2 percent income tax on higher income people will hurt farmers of Manitoba. Madam Speaker , who is he speaking for in this House? Is it the banks or the farmers? Because only the banks shoul d be paying that kind of tax . Madam Speaker , this Budget does not tax any of the major inputs that farmers have in terms of their farming operations.

We collect no revenues on gasoline ; we collect no revenues on fertilizers; we collect no revenues on farm fuels. Madam Speaker , this Budge t provides increased benefits for farmers who transfe r their land . There's no land transfer tax on farmers , including the education tax .

The move that we will be making on interest rates and lease-back arrangements for farmers, rather than an option to leave farmers on the land , will be a significant benefit to the farmers of Manitoba and should send a clear message to all public and private lenders , the FCC and the banks , that we want people on the land, not to kick them out , Madam Speaker . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden with a fin al supplementary. MR. G. FINDLAY: A final supplementary, Madam Speaker.

Because of the taxation on small business, Simplot particularly is one example, there's going to be an increased cost passed to the farmer, Madam Speaker . The credit crunch comes in April. Does this Minister know how many acres of Manitob a farm land will not be seeded this spring because of this Budget? HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, members on this side and the Premier of this province have already 469 advise d the Federal Government that they have to make a clear indication of what is happening in the grain industry and what will happen in the gra in indu stry.

Madam Speaker, I've said this before, and I'll repeat it for my honourable friend. When grain prices were dropped by 20 percen t, that one move alone, Madam Speaker, wiped out all the hundreds of millions of dollars of support that this government provided over the last five yea rs to the farm sector. That's what really happened, Madam Speaker . Let the honourable member get up and not defend his colleagues in Ottawa, but tell them that farmers need an indication of what kind of support the grain industry in this country will have in the next few months, Madam Speaker .

MPIC - reinsurance losses MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My question is for the Minister responsible for MPIC . In 1984, was the Minister informed that the potent ial loss in the reinsurance division would approach $24 million? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urab le Mini ster responsible for MPIC . HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker , rather than getting into an arg ument as to whether it was 23 or 24 or 12.1 or whatever, I would prefer that specif ic questions of that nature be dealt with at committee tomorrow when we will have the information at hand. MR.

D. ORCHARD: Well, Madam Speaker , is the Minister saying that he can say 24 million at a press conference at one o'clock and not confirm that figure in the House today? Is he saying he doesn't know what he said one hour ago at a press conference where he indicated it was $24 million? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker, the Member for Pembina is clearly grandstanding again. The information provided at the news conference about one hour ago is accurate. The substantiation of that information will be provided at the committee tomorrow, and we will wait until that time.

Budget - increased taxation MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, I have a quest ion to the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement coming from Brandon 's large st private sector business , the Simplot Chemical Company , Madam Speaker, indicating that it will cost them $1 million because of his Budget in increas ed taxes on hydro and employment taxes, and that they are unable to pass it onto the farm community because of the depressed times in the farm community in

Monday, 23 March, 1987 competition, I ask the Minister of Finance if he will reconsider his ill-conceived Budget and taxation on employment and hydro use in this province? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Minister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. No, I will not reconsider this Budget, Madam Speaker . I believe th at this Budge t does address the needs of Manitoba and it tends to raise revenue in the fairest way possible.

Is the member suggesting that we ought not to look at increased revenues from corporations at the same time we're asking other Manitobans to share fairly in terms of the need for revenues to maintain the services? Or would the member suggest that we ought to reduce the aid that is provided in this Budget to agriculture or to health or to education? Those are the choices we're facing, Madam Speaker, and we think that we faced up to those difficult choi ces in a fair and balanced manner. MR. J.

DOWNEY: Madam Speaker , will the Minister then come clean with the people of Manitoba and will he tell his First Minister that jobs are not a priority to the government, that agriculture is not a priority to the government; that it's his own tax grab for his own political purposes . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Order, order please! MR. J. DOWNEY: . .. is the most important thing that the New Democrats . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . Order , order please! I rule the question out of order. The Honourable Member for Arthur will rephrase his question . MR. J.

DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, will the Minister meet with the people not only in Simplot, but will he go back thr oughout the province as he did prior to his Budget and justify why he didn't listen to them in the prep aration of the Budget? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Madam Speaker, we did listen to the needs of Manitoba in terms of what was contained in the Budget, and for the member to suggest, as he has, that the economy in this provinc e isn't performing well is doing damage to the truth.

If you look at any of the economic indicators that exist today from any of the agencies, it indicates the Man itoba econom y is doing better than the average across Canada, that we presently have the lowest unemployment rates in all of the country, and I think that bears testimony to the activities of this government in terms of creating jobs for Manitobans. Manitoba Universities Development Fund - function of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. 470 MR. M. DOLIN: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education .

In the Budget, there was a reference to the Manitoba Universities Development Fund. I'm wo ndering if the Minister could advise the House as to what specific function that this fund will provid e. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Educat ion. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you , Madam Speaker. I certain ly appreciate that question. I think it's a great improvement over the kinds of questio ns that were asked the other day which took cheap shots at people involved in the system.

Madam Speaker , the University Development Fund is designed really to accomplish thre e things that the universities, the government, the students and faculty have been asking for, for a number of years, and that is provide capital dollars to (

a) contribute to major capital facilities development. It's also inten ded to provide provincial support to the ongoing fundraising activities which all of the universities have begun; and, finally, it's intended to provide capital for the equipment upgrade and the facility upgrade that's needed at our universities. Madam Speaker , it's a major program ; it follows along with our commitment to improve the post-secondary education system in the province and work with the universities , the faculties, and the stude nts at the same time in doing that . It's an important initiative, Madam Speaker .

Manitoba Universities Development Fund - upgrading Science lab U of M MR. M. DOLIN: A supplementary to the same Minister . The concerns expressed by the Science Department at the University of Manitoba, in particular, will this fund be able to assist them to upgrade the lab equipment to bring those programs into the latter part of the 20th Century? HON. J. STORIE: Yes, Madam Speaker, it will allow the university some freedom as they determine the minor capital versus major capital acquisitions for our scientific equipment and the facilities in which that equipment is housed.

Madam Speaker, the $20 million will go a long way to addressing the immediate concerns. It will certainly work in conjunction with the fundraising efforts, and I should say that the university faculty and the students have been extremely cooperative in lending their support to this, I think , cooperative venture. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAV COMMITTEE CHANGE MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Monday, 23 March, 1987 I move, seconded by the Member for Ellice , that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follow s: the Hon. R. Penner replacing the Hon. M. Smith. BUDGET DEBATE MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance and the proposed amendment of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, standing in the name of the Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines, who has 25 minutes. HON. W. PARASIUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker , when I spoke on this on Friday, I was trying to establish the context within wh ich governments today that have to govern, and that the situation is I think somewhat different than the 1970's; and that this government has in fact, over the last five years, governed in a way that has both provided for the protection of vital services for the people of Manitoba. It has governed in a way that it has added to job creation in this province , so that we have the best record of unemployment in this entire country .

We also have the fairest system of taxation in this country, having brought in a Budget that I think - in the last Budget especially - crystalizes everything, a long-term commitment to services. It's a commitment that is better than the commitment of any government, federal or provincial in this country, and we on this side are very proud to support a budgetary effort that does that.

I want to set the context because if one didn't get newspapers , other than the Winnipeg Free Press and the Winnipeg Sun, and you didn't have an idea of what was happening around the world and other provinces, you'd think that this Budget, in isolation, raises taxes and that we're the only government that wants to raise taxes. We believe on this side that you have to provide social services like health, education and community services and we, as the government , are prepared to tax fairly to do that . What's been happening in other provincial jurisdictions?

The Free Press would never print this - either would the Winnipeg Sun - but the headline in the Globe and Mail says that Albertans are hit with a $1 billion tax increase , twice per capita Manitoba . This is the richest province in the entire country that is doing that, and what are they doing with respect to the social services? -(lnterjection)- 1 hear comments on the other side about how much sales tax.

Let me ask the Member for Virden, how much do we pay in Manitoba as Medicare premiums as opposed to the people in Alberta who are paying Medicare premiums which, by the way, his kissing cousins, the Conservatives in Alberta, have increased by something in the order of 33 percent to 40 percent a year this year? Let him defend that type of social irresponsibility. That recognizes the difference in approach. The Conservatives on the other side would back billions of dollars in tax increases.

They would back a situation where Saskatchewan sets a record for fiscal irresponsibility, and that's a headline in a paper that didn't appear in the Winnipeg Sun or the Winnipeg Free Press. It did appear in a paper that is closer to home , 471 for the Member for Morris ; it's called the Scratching River Post. It's the headline of a column written by Warner Jorgenson who used to be a member of this Legislature . It indicat es the approach that they have taken, a $1.2 billion deficit.

We have a situatio n where this province had the highest deficit when it took office, succeeding the Conservatives across the way, because that was the situation regarding the economic context in which we took our turn to govern. We now find ourselves, five years later , with the lowest provincial deficit in Western Canada, and the Conservative provinces to the west of us have increased their deficits in the $1 billion , $2 billion and $3 billion range, and that is the approach that the Conservatives have taken. (Mr. Deputy Speaker , C.

Santos, in the Chair. ) You also have another approach, another headline, again in the Globe and Mail - certainly not in the Winnipeg Free Press, certainly not in the Winnipeg Sun. That would require those papers to go beyond the borders of Manitoba to try and establish a context and have some intellectual honesty, and we know how dishonest , intellectually, the Winnipeg Free Press is and the Winnipeg Sun. The

article says that the economists fail the British Columbia Socreds, in terms of economics. They point out that the cutback policy of the Social Credit Party and the Conservative Party in British Columbia, because they 're one and the same, led to a situation where they ended up with 13 percent unempl oyment and deficits in the $2 billion and $3 billion range, that that approach didn 't work at all. It didn 't revive the economy ; the economy 's plummeted ; it's gone from bad to wors e; it hasn 't helped the unem ployment.

The unemployment's gone to a tragic level in such a rich province, and you have situations there where they've had 25 percent cutbacks in the level of social services provided by that province. And we have members on the other side saying that's the approach we should be following; we should indeed be cutting the deficit like Bill Bennett or cutting the deficit like Getty, who has imposed a 3 percent cut on hospitals. We have a 9 percent increase in hospitals and we're quite prepared, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , to debate that approach to government , because what's happening is that the people are getting a good chance to see how Conservatives govern provincially. They certainly have a good chance to see how the federal Conservatives have governed not only with respect to the way in which they operate which relates not at all to any vision of the country, which has no idea of how these regions operate, which does not have, as a basis, honest government .

They 've had a chance to comme nt negatively on that type of approach by federal Conse rvati ves, but they've also had a chance to see how their budgets have worked . The headline, again in another pap er other than the Winnipeg Free Press, states that only the rich have escaped the Tory tax bite nationally . All other groups of Canadians have in fact been tax ed, but it's the super rich and the rich in this country that have been the major beneficiaries of Conservative fiscal policy and taxation policy . So we know tha t there is a difference in this country.

We have a New Democratic approach, which says we provide services. We make sure that we provide

Monday, 23 March, 1987 jobs , and we try and deal with the deficit over a long period of time without sacrificing services and without sacrificing jobs . That's the New Democratic Party approach . We in Manitoba symbolize that approach in concrete tangible terms because we are a government. We're the only New Democratic Government, apart from the Yukon, and the Yukon has done wonders as well. So they've had a chance to judge us and judge the Tories, in hard, concrete experience .

That is indeed why, in terms of the polls, we are finding ourselves in a situat ion where people are recognizing that the New Democrat ic Party approach, which makes such eminent sense at the provincial level , also mak es sense nationally . That's one reason why we've gone up to 34 percent in the latest polls, while the Conservatives , as I said before quoting a Montreal Gazette article: "The Conservative Government, an anvil in free flight . . "have dropped down to 22 percent or 24 percent. That indeed is a reflection of people's ideas on how government should operate.

Now what we have as well is we have Conse rvatives on the other side saying that New Democratic Party Governments spend a lot of money on assistants. They call them hacks and flacks. I disagree with that vehemently. I have attended federal - provincial conferences where the Manitoba delegation is the smallest delegat ion. We have technical people attending with the Ministers ; we might have a delegation of four or five. We do not bring a set of political assistants, especially at the ministerial level.

But I've been at federal-provincial conferences where Conservative government s have had two and three political assistants, who were classified to do nothing else but that, and that's a reflec tion of the approach that they have taken. I indeed would like to draw the members' attention on the other side to the Conservative approach to assistants . They might recall that , when I was a member of the back bench last year, I asked the Premier ques tions about Dalton Camp.

I asked them questions abou t whethe r, in fact , the appointment of Dalton Camp to not the Prime Minister's Office, which is a recognized political job, but rather putting him into the Privy Council Office, which is a Civil Service job , which is a complete underm ining and prostitution of that particular function - appoin ting Dalton Camp to a Deputy Minister's position would indeed mean that the West would be shafted further.

Whether in fact this man , that John Diefenbaker's ghost, which is being undermined by Brian Mulroney, would it not indeed be buried by Dalton Camp, who wants to finish off the job that he carried out so effectively in the Sixties?

It's interesting to note in published reports that it was Dalton Camp arguing within the Privy Council, suppos edly as a civil servant when he was indeed a Tory hatchet man, that the CF-18 should not go to Winnipeg but that rather the CF-18 should go to Montreal , and the press reports from Eastern Canada, based on interviews with people from the Mulroney Cabinet, indicated that it was Dalton Camp 's arguments that finally swung the decision of the Conservative Government to make sure that contract which should have gone to Western Canada, which should have gone to Manitoba, which should have gone to Winnipeg, indeed was shifted over to Montreal. 472 This is not just the loss of those jobs .

It's the tremendous undermining of the aerospace industry, just like the transfer of Air Canada from Manitoba was a loss in jobs at that time, but it was also an undermining of future development. So that now in Montreal, we have 10,000 jobs associated with Air Canada in and around Air Canada , suppliers, as workers in Air Canada , and we don 't have those jobs in Winnipeg . Just think how different Winnipeg would be today if we had those 10,000 jobs here in Winnipeg. But the Liberals hurt us in that respect.

Now we find that that the Conservatives have added injury to insult in a massive form, because what they are doing is that they dead-ending Winnipeg as an aerospace centre , and they are using all of their lobbying to ensure that Montreal benefits at the expense of Winnipeg - Winnipeg, which has historically been an aerospace centre of this country . Mr. Camp , by the way, is this Conservative appointment who isn't being paid $50 ,000 , isn 't being paid $100 ,000.00. Mr. Camp gets a salary of over $100,000; it's in the order of about $122,000.00. He gets a chauffeur; he gets a secretary.

They're saying the costs associated with Dalton Camp's appointment are .25 million. Who pays for that? Manitoba taxpayers pay for that. Do you hear one whimper from Conservatives on the other side? Indeed they will go to fund-raising dinners which , no doubt, will be organized by Dalton Camp , because that's how strong their principles are. We were being criticized that very few, if any, Manitoba New Democrats attended the press conference whereby the consolation prize , the CF-5 , was given to Bristol Aerospace .

It was, in fact , the Conservatives who lined up like little puppy dogs there, being tossed a littl e bone , smiling, whimpering, wagging their tails , and thanking the Honourable Jake Epp for giving us this bone which , in effect, puts the nail in the coffin of future aerospace development because that is a dead-end contract. It expires in 10 years. It deals with a phase-out plane. It deals with a plane that won't exist for 10 years. We, in fact, debated that issue when we were at the National Convention. We were proud to debate that issue.

It's sad again that the Winnipeg Free Press misreported that issue as well. That issue was dealt with. We talked about the CF-18 . We talked about it in the context of what a fair and equitable national policy is. We are prepared to debate that here . We are prepared to debate that in Montreal. We are prepared to debate that in Ottawa , because we do not want a crooked Conservative system operating, whereby they give economic development assistance on the basis of straight political opportunism. We want a national program that is based on the notion of fairness, equity and comparative advantage.

So we're prepared to debate that here ; we're prepared to debate that in Montreal; we're prepared to debate that in Ottawa in the larger context because we believe that , by debating it that way, we make the point far more effectively. Now the other thing that I've heard in this debate by the Conservatives on the other side is that they keep talking about Crown corporation losses . We've heard them. They act as if Crown corporation losses only occur in Conservative administrations. Now we have had a loss with Manitoba Telephone System . We have

Monday, 23 March, 1987 a contingency in place for the Public Insurance Corporation . I don't find thos e particularly unusual, because private corporations in the insurance field have had losses that are far greater than $36 million. Canadian Indemnity , a Winnipeg firm, has had very major losses in the reinsurance and general insurance field . Does that mean that is not part of the business trend? There's a business trend. Some years, you 're going to make gains and some years you will make losses, especially if these things come together in a negative way, and we've had that with MPIC.

But we've certainly had a far better record with MPIC than has been the record of private insurance corporations. They, I think, are trying to undermine the whole concept of MPIC . They tried it between 1977 and 1981. They said that they, for ideological reasons , wanted to get rid of it. But no one's coming along and measuring the difference in premiums between MPIC today and the private auto insurers in Ontario or Alberta because , if one took that difference into account , we would make up any losses we have incurred fivefold . But we don 't operate that way.

We try and operate as close to cost of provision of services as possible. That's why we have the best record with MPIC and that's why, despite all the protestations by members on the other side , the public wants MPIC to be publically owned and operated. The public wants MTS to be publically owned and operated. They want Manitoba Hydro to be publically owned and operated. They see what the Social Credit Party is doing in B.C. The Social Credit Party is trying to sell off one of the dams in the Kootenays to an American company; they don't want that. So they 've got faith in Crown corporations.

And they know that the New Democrats in this country have operated Crown corporations in a far better way than have Conservatives, by and large . Again, I quote from the Globe and Mail. This is dated February 13. This would never appear in the Winnipeg Free Press or Winnipeg Sun because, again , that would require too much intellectual honesty on their part. But it talks about Crown firms taking a bath in Alberta.

It says that the Province in Alberta has kicked in more than $350 million in subsidies to various Crown corporations during the 1985-86 fiscal year; $350 million, that's Conservative managment; brilliant businessmen , businesspeople. They come along saying people on this side don't have the ability to run these things well. Well, let me assure you the people of Manitoba don't have the natural wealth that the Conservatives in Alberta have had and as a result we have to try harder; as a result we have to work harder; and as a result we do a better job. We have not had $350 million in Crown losses.

They've had the losses to their Mortgage and Housing Corporation, $287 million. They've lost $153 million in the Agricultural Development Corporation. They've lost $185 million in the Alberta hail and crop insurance. They 've lost $43 million in the Alberta Municipal Finance Corporation. That is Conservative management. So, when they come along and try and paint a picture that somehow ideologically the New Demcrats don 't run Crown corporations , let's put it in a proper context. Let's look at what'~ happening right across this country.

The reason why we have to raise these points in debate or on radio and television is that you have newspapers that don 't want to provide this information. You can see very clearly the line of misinform ation or selective information that they try and provide to the people of Manitoba. A MEMBER: What's that Willie? HON. W. PARASIUK: Well, they have this ideological bias against the New Democratic Party Government.

The reason why they have that bias is that desp ite all their protestations over the last 50 years saying the Government of Manitoba shouldn't do this, shouldn 't do that, and shouldn 't do whatever , we have never followed the advice of the Winnipeg Free Press. We brought in Medicare . We've abolished Medicare premiums. We brought in Autopac . We brought in Home Care . We brought in all of those things that have been so good for the people of Manitoba despite the bad wisdom and the bad advice offered by the Winnipeg Free Press.

They would be far too embarrassed to point out to the public how bad histo rically their advice has been. The t hing that I find quite intriguing is when Conservatives on the other side point to their benches as the great managers of this province, and when I was offering cong ratulations at the beginning , I did not offer congratulations to Sterling Lyon's appointment to a judgeship.

One of the reasons why I never is that I believe that what has never been fully explained has been the role of Sterling Lyon - the ex-Premier of this province, and the ex-leader of the Conservative party - what's never been explained has been the role of Sterling Lyon as a director of the Canadian Commercial Bank when it went bankrupt after receiving very great public assistance. It went bankrupt after having given major dividend increases to the narrow group of shareholders that held that company.

If that business practice had been followed by people here on this side, which we have not followed , everyone would be calling for the resignation of this government, but they quietly shovel that particular piece of very pertinent information about how Conservatives manage under the rug. He used to say that New Democrats couldn 't run a peanut stand. Well, his legacy is having turned a Canadian commercial bank into a peanut stand . That is the level of their vision, Mr. Deputy Speaker. 473 Now, I want to turn quickly to a couple of issues.

One of these is the issue of Hydro, because we've had Conservatives on the other side, again, providing a great deal of misinformation about Hydro development. They have indicated that we don't have sales to warrant Limestone developme nt. What nonsense. The Northern States Power sale was geared to the start-up date of Limestone. It is the one sale that is geared to Limestone . We announced other arrangements that we have pursued with other groups in the Unit ed States that would begin in 1996 and 1997 which would have implications possibly for the start-up date of the next Hydro dam , Conawapa.

We have a lot of time to consummate those particular arrangements. We have in fact consummated one of them . That is a formal agreement that has now been approved and it is before the National Energy Board , and the other two are being worked on. The other two have indeed run into som e

Monday, 23 March, 1987 delay problems because there are some concerns by the people on the other side of the border as to how they will apportio n transmission costs, not on the Manitoba side of the border, but rather on the American side of the border. So, we look forward to those sales being consummated . It may take another 6 months or 9 months. We have been pursuing sales with Ontario Hydro and we believe that those will fall into place over the course of the next year or two. So, I think we should rest assured, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that Hydro developm ent in this province is in very good hands because it's a New Democratic Party hand . It certainly isn 't in Conservative hands. It was the Conservatives that introduced a rate freeze that ran down the reserves, that politically interfered with the development of Hydro and put us completely and totally behind the eight ball. It was the Leader of the Opposition, the present Member for Tuxedo, who a year ago called for the removal of the exchange rate stabil ization assistance from the province .

This year when we removed it with respect to U.S. funds, he complains about it saying, I never asked for that last year. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, these questions and these concerns by the Member for Tuxedo are in Hansard, so he can 't run from this one just as he's run from other issues where he says one thing one year and turns tail and says something completely opposite the next year. My final point relates to natural gas . We in this province should get a far better deal on natural gas prices. It'll be the New Democratic Party Government that'll fight to ensure that takes place.

It won't be the Conservatives on the other side. They are too timid . They lack the vision, but it is the people on this side who will take the case forward for all consumers in this province. We will fight the issue in the Public Utilities Board.

We'll fight the issue with Alberta, with the suppliers of natural gas, and we will ensure that the people of Manitoba get a fair price , one that should be at least 25 to 30 percent lower than it is today, a price that ultimately will mean an extra $50 million to $60 million in spen ding power to Manitobans because they'll be spending $50 million to $60 million less on natural gas. That'll have tremendous implications on this economy. It'll have tremendous implications in terms of the multiplier effect . We are pursu ing tha t course of acti on .

It'll be inter esting to see ultimately where the Conservatives sit on this particular issue. I believe that despite the protestations of the Member for Lakeside, that Conservatives when it comes to the crunch of either defending the public interests and the consumer interests of Manitoba as opposed t o the private monopolistic-capital intere sts, will indeed defend the private capital interests, mon opoly interests as opposed to those of the people of Manitoba as a whole. So, this will be an inter esting issue , Mr. Deputy Speaker, to find out which side are the Tories on.

Are they for the people of Manitoba or are they against them, and time will tell on that and I certainly look forward to bringing that issue forward before them and before the people of Manitoba, because we know which side the New Democra tic Party Government stands on. They stand firmly on the side of the peopl e of Manitoba. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park . 474 MRS. G. HAMMOND : Thank you , Mr. Deputy Speaker . Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise to support the amendment put forward by our leader .

In fact , it's a motion that bears repe ating because as the days go on the motion becomes truer and truer. The motion regrets that in presenting its Bud get, the Government :

(1) Impos ed the largest tax inc rease on the people of Manitob a in our province's history; and

(2) Introduced new taxes and cost increases which will destroy our ability to attract investment and job creation ; and

(3) By refusing to introduce any efficiency or improved management has again increased expenditures at double the expected rate of inflation this year; and

(4) Committed Manitobans to ever-increasing tax burdens in future as a result of its incompetence and fiscal mismanagement. After the Budget on Monday night , Mr. Deputy Speaker , I went home angry, and I'm still angry at this insensitive Budget . Mr. Deputy Speaker , I wish to just state some of the issues that I am not going to talk about in this Budget but will talk at a later date, and that's women 's issues and the poor, the government spending in this Budget, and the taxes will still be taxing the poor.

I'm not going to refer to the fact that our health care is going to be dependent on whether people buy lottery tickets or lose their money gambling. I'm not going to speak about home care or the CF-18, how our Premier says one thing in Manitoba and nothing in Quebec; the Jobs Fund , where already we're seeing that we 're losing with the payroll tax, we're going to lose jobs, Simplot in Brandon - that's just the beginning - or Agriculture or Education or Child and Family Services. What I am going to speak on today, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, is I'm going to speak for the people whom I represent, the majority, middle-income earners, average Manitobans. I would like to dwell on some of the people in this province who have raised their families and are now close to the top of their salary range. These are the people who now can afford to take the odd trip, can spend some more money on entertainment, but mainly this age group , these people who have raised their families, have paid their taxes, this is the time that they are going to be saving for their retirement . Not everyone in this age group has big pensions .

They've worked hard all their lives and they've paid taxes, willing to pay their fair share. On the whole, they are one-income families. In the early years, most struggling as all young families do, paying off a mortgage, feeding and clothing and nurturing their children , still paying taxes, pushing and pulling their children through school and then , hopefully, helping these same children go to university, community colleges , trade schools, or let them live at home for next to nothing if they went to work straight from high school at low-paying jobs.

This is where these people spent their money , spent their time . These are the community that we live in. These people represent the middle-income earners . I'm not talking about the rich or the wealthy. I a m talking - and I must repeat - about the middle-income earners, who have paid their dues and are getting close to retirement . These are people who are used to taking

Monday, 23 March, 1987 care of themselve s and their families with no help from the government. These are the people who have been the volunteers in the community. These are the people who donate to every worthy cause and , when more is needed, dig a little deeper . These are the people who belong to the service clubs, who keep the community clubs going, the coaches, men and women both, the volunteers to run the children's programs, the seniors' programs , the block parents. These are the people who start and make sure that the Neighbourhood Watches are running correctly.

They are the Brownie and Guide leaders in our community, the Cubs and Scouts . They are Big Brothers and Big Sisters. These are the middle income earners, the givers. And how has this government treated the givers, the backbone of this province, the people who will be donating to the Variety Club to help this insensitive government build a new Intensive Care Unit for children at the Health Sciences Centre? They won't be able to deduct their charitable donations before the government grabs its share , nor their medical expenses, nor disability deductions.

This is a mean-spirited Budget by a mean-spirited government. Manitobans are a generous lot, and they wouldn't have minded paying more if they could see an end to the reckless spending by this NDP Government, if they could see the confiscation of their hard-earned money being spent wisely. But all they see is waste and a decline in services. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I had a number of constituents call me over the weekend, and people that I bumped into when I was out in the community . One called - she was furious that this Budget was no benefit to anyone. It was a tax grab to pay interest on the debt.

Another called, when is it going to stop? We're aver age Manitobans; we're not wealthy. Well unfortunately , it's not going to stop. This government got into this trouble by spending above the rate of inflation, and they are still spending at two times the rate of inflation. These people who I'm speaking for and about, the middle-income earners, and I state it again and again , have worked hard for their money. They have pulled back when the economy went sour. The majority work in the private sector, no such things as COLA (the cost of-living increase), no such thing as job security.

Most went without raises for a number of years and some took cuts in pay, but this government goes merrily along thinking it can spend its way out of trouble. No wonder the average Manitoban is furious about this Budget. Since 1981, they have seen their purchasing power decrease . Their wages today buy fewer groceries. Property taxes in Winnipeg, the highest in Canada, and people are dreading to see what reassessment is going to cost them; Autopac increased anywhere from 9 percent to 30 percent; Telephones, 11.5 percent; and Hydro, 5 percent and then a further 4. 7 percent one time -forever tax - one time.

It' s wonderful what they can do with words. Manitoba's middle-income earners will have the dubious honour of paying the second -highest personal income taxes in the country. The middle-income earner has always paid more than their fair share to help the poor and the disadvantaged and, in most cases , happy to be able to do it. What they are unhappy about is a government which has squandered their money, and has no hope of getting out of the mess they're in. There 's no plan. 475 The Member for Morris, our Finance Critic, was asking the Minister of Finance, where is a plan? Give us a five-year projection.

Tell us how you 're going to get us out of this mess, and then the re won 't be the crying about the extra taxes. But of course they can't do that. I would be very surprised , after this Budget, if the NDP can hoodwink the people of Manitoba a third time. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we're going to defeat the government on this Budget. It won't be this year but certa inly, with the next election, th is Budget will be - because they've done something that, when people pay their income taxes, it's going to be laid out in front of them. They'll see it. They didn' t hide this one.

This is what they're going to see when they start paying their taxes, first in '87 - not so much - but in '88. So unless they're going to go to the province before 1988, they're due for a heck of a shock at the next election. Mr. Deputy Speaker , this Budget that is gouging the middle-income earners was done in the name of getting the wealthy. The wealthy are highly mobile and so is their money. Unlike the middle-income earner, the really wealthy have the luxury of saying goodbye to Manitoba . What of our young people, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

What about the people in the 25 to 30 age group, just getting established , don't have a family yet? What possible incentive does this give them? None. We'll lose the best of them; we'll lose the best of our young people , because they're at an age where they'll take a chance and they'll move out. A lot of people are talking and I heard it this weekend, where they're going to be encouraging their children to get out of Manitoba. I have never heard that before, never. It's disgraceful. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the middle-income earners come from all walks of life and are people in all occupations .

They're the plumbers, they're the accountants, the carpenters, the civil servants, the salespeople, the electricians, office workers, nurses, social workers and professionals, all middle-income earners . Not only will the net income tax and the surcharge hit these people, but the doubling of the payroll tax could cost them higher earnings and , in som e cases, a loss of jobs. It is unbelievable that this government could be so shortsighted.

How much of these same tax dollars on employment will this government have to use to sweeten the pot for companies who decid e to move here, or to try to lure companies to come to Manitoba? How much of that money will they have to spend? It's ludicrous, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that they would get themselves into a position of doubling the payroll tax , the tax on employment and then at the same time, when companies try to leave, offer them money, tax incentives , anything so that they will stay. It's a ludicrous situation . Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to say something about the people who donate to the service clubs.

If any of you watched or donated to the Variety Club Telethon yesterday, you 'll see that Manitobans donated, at the last count, $850,069.00. That's an enormous amount to come out of a province like this, and this comes mainly from middle-income earners and from people who have less than middle income, because the poo r donate to this type of thing too. Not this group, but watch the next time, in the next two years , and see what happens to this type of donation. It's not going to happen, not in the same amounts , because they are taking away their extra earnings, and this government is using it to squander it.

Monday, 23 March, 1987 Mr. Deputy Speaker , it is time for the grassroots of Manitoba to rise again and show this government they've given all they're going to give. This is not petty theft we're looking at, it's grand larceny , and the Minister of Finance and his Cabinet should be tried in a court of law for defrauding the people of Manitoba, not only of their money, but of their future. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Thank you, Mr. Depu ty Speaker. I'm pleased to rise and join in the debate on this Budget .

I'm pleased to speak in support of this Budget, as I did in support of the Throne Speech. This Budget, despite the comments made from some members opposite, will be regarded by most observers as being responsible and sensitive.

This Budget recognizes the concerns that people have expressed about the level of the deficit in the Province of Manitoba, but it also recognizes the comments that have been made by people that they want the programs that have been put in place in Man itoba to be continued . (Madam Speaker in the Chair .) This Budget, it should be noted, provides for a 15 perc ent reduction in the operating deficit of the province. This, Madam Speaker, had that happened at the federal level , would have been lauded as a treme ndous initiative.

A slight reduction in the federal budget of last year was applauded, as it well should be, but it was not nearly of the magnitude of the reduction th at has been proposed in this Budget. Yet there is some indication that members opposite are not satisfied with the efforts that we have made to deal with the Budget and the deficit. This Budget arises out of a process of consultation undertaken by the Minister of Finance and other Ministers wherein people conveyed to us their concern for agriculture and the rural community .

It conveyed to us , and we've tried to build into the Budget, our suppo rt for a solid health-care delivery system . It recognize s our support for education and our support for social services . True, there have been reductions in the budg ets of some departments , but the departments that I have outlined have been supported by very significant increases because those were the concerns that were viewed to be pre-eminent by this government and those were the concerns that were communicated to us by the people of Manitoba.

This Budget demonstrates a clear commitment to a set of values that are fundamental to this government, and there is, I hear from time to time , some discomfor t on the side opposite wh en there is reference to a set of values. I think, clearly , everything tha t we do should be guided by a set of values and I am comfortable that the values that we portray in this Budget are the values that the majority of Manitobans would subscribe to.

The values that I want to reference are a concern for the quality of life for all, a commi tment to progressive taxation and cooperation between the private and the public secto r. I do not want to suggest that the members on this side have exclus ive concern about the quality of life. Members opposite have spoken to that same issue , but it is clear that in terms of working from a 476 philosophical commitment to the quality of life , tha t is evident in this particular Budget. Madam Speaker, I'm proud to be assoc iated with this particular side of the Hous e and the politica l movement that it represents.

It is a polit ical movement with a clear sense of a mission and a set of values that have been exemp lified by the people who were pioneers in the political wilderness . I referenc e the efforts, Madam Speaker, of political pioneers and visionaries, such as J.S.

Woodsworth, Caldwell, Tommy Douglas, Stanley Knowles and , indeed, Ed Schreyer, with whom some members in this House would have sat, people who had a clear vision of what this province could be, indeed, others who worked at the federal level who had a clear vision of what we might experience at the federal level; that we did not have to subscribe to the status quo; that we could in fact demonstrate courag e and vision and be prepared to challenge the stat us quo .

Many would now recognize that the vision that was projected from time to time, and was seen to be reactionary, was not react ionary in a negative sense, but perhaps reactionary in the sense that it was prepared to challenge that status quo; and indeed, some of the programs that were in t roduced by those visionaries are now subscribed to by the members opposite. There is, I think, Madam Speaker, a clear distinction when we view the programs put forward by this particular government and other governments that have ruled in Canada provincially and when you look at the Federal Governments.

We view government as an instrument of change , Madam Speaker, that it can be a vehicle through which we will achieve the goal s to which I had referred . Government must be more than a regulatory body. It must be, as I said , an instrument of change. There are decisions that have to be made which cannot be left to the workings of the marketplace, though we recognize clearly that there is a role for the marketplace to play. There must be, as I said earlier, Madam Speaker, cooperation between the private and the public sector, and that goal is achievable, as has been demonstrated here in Man itoba.

There are those who would suggest that it is a dream , an elusive dream, but there is evidence by observers who claim to be more objective than I, in these particular circumstances , that indicates clearly that we have achieved that goal here in Manitoba, despite the commentary from members opposite, which would suggest that we in some way want to make it difficult for business, that we want to drive business away from Manitoba . All we need do is look at the record of this province with respect to levels of employment.

We have in Manitoba, Madam Speaker, the lowest level of unemployment in Canada; and when we look at the growth rates and the rates of investment , we have done extremely well. These are not internal party documents to which I refer. I refer to the editorial page of the Globe and Mail of Thursday, March 19, clearly indicating that people, observ ing us from another location , Madam Speaker, see Manitoba as a place where indeed the private sector and the public sector are working well, wor king cooperatively, recognizing that there is a role for each.

When I was refering to the matter of values, Madam Speaker, I wanted to refer briefly to comments that

Monday, 23 March, 1987 had been made by two members of this Legislature in their presentations. I was particularly impressed by the Member for Kildonan who, in speaking to this House , spoke of the mosaic of our society. He spoke, Madam Speaker, of an open society, one which provides for mobility, and one which seeks to eliminate discrimination regardless of the basis on which someone would choose to discriminate . That, Madam Speaker, is a position that we, from this side of the House, are very comfortable in supporting, that we are indeed a mosaic and that we are not cast from the same mould.

There is, Madam Speaker, in our belief, a richness in this diversity and we should not seek to discourage this diversity and we should not seek to close the doors. In fact, I want to say, Madam Speaker , for the record, I am pleased that there has been in Canada that kind of an openess because, indeed, were it not for the opportunity for people to emigrate from other countries , I would not be here. My grandparents emigrated from the Soviet Union at the turn of the century in pursu it of a better life and, indeed, in pursuit of freedom, as members opposite say.

And I want to point out to members opposite , including the Member for Lakeside, the Member for Sturgeon Creek and others, who would say from time to time that it is because the people left, perhaps, to escape a tyranny from the left. Those members should review what has happened in terms of history. My grandparents did indeed leave that particular country not to escape the tyranny of the left but the tyranny of the right, Madam Speaker. I want to point out, Madam Speaker , that - (Interjection)- that's correct. The Member for Roblin points out full well what happened.

He speaks to a free enterprise system that was in place in that country at the turn of the century which worked so well , Madam Speaker, that my grandfather could not see any future. There was no opportunity . The land was held by a very few and there was no opportunity for his family and he chose to come to this country . So I say to those members that it was an example of a free enterprise system that did not work well.

And when I say that, Madam Speaker, I want to indicate that by that, I am not being critical of free enterprise as we know it here in Canada; but when we look at why people leave other countries to come to Canada, there are tyrannies of the right and then those were replaced by tyrannies of the left, and I would not feel compelled in any way to support either. We have here in Canada a system of government which indicates that there is clearly an opportunity for the private sector to function effectively in cooperation with the public sector .

But I want to say, Madam Speaker, that I am particularly disappointed that the Member for Roblin, who should know full well , given the make-up of his constituency, that many people who did come to that part of Manitoba , which is not unlike the area that I represent, those people left at about the turn of the century from Soviet Russia, which was not at that time under the tyranny of the left but indeed under the tyranny of a free enterprise system which was destroying itself.

I want to reference as well, Madam Speaker, the comments that were made . . . 477 MADAM SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Member for La Verendrye have a point of order? MR. H. PANKRATZ: Yes, Madam Speaker, I'm sure it is a point of order, because the member that is just speak ing to us in the House right at the present does not have his facts clear at all in regard to the ownership of Russia. As a point of order, I would like to clarify that. In 1876

an act was passed whereby private enterprise could not own land in Russia and that was exactly what he is referring to . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. A dispute over the facts is not a point of order. The honourable member will have an opportunity to express his opinion . The Honourable Member for Swan River. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker , I wanted, as well, to refer to the comments made by the Member for Burrows in his presentat ion wherein he spoke of the desirability, the goal that we aspire to in terms of the achievement of social justic e, and I want to compliment that member because, indeed, there can be no higher goal than tha t of the achievement of social justice. I want to move on , Madam Speaker, to some more general comments with respect to government and indicate that governments are not static entities.

As society changes, and indeed , our society is changing from that of a pioneering society that my grandparents would have known in Canada . It has made the transition to an industrial society and then again to a society driven by information and technology. As society changes and the institutions of society cha nge, so must government change and , indeed , government is one of the institutions of our society .

It is true as well, Madam Speaker , that most people are slightly uncomfortable with change, and all things being equal, they would tend to retain the status quo except if the price associated with that becomes somewhat disconcerting. I think we, as political leaders , have to reflect some of the changes of society, but, as well, we have to have a vision. Indeed, leadership implies that we would give some direction to society. We cannot ignore history but we can learn from the lessons of history, and I believe that we have done so very effecti vely.

We must not, Madam Speaker, govern for the past as some members opposite would appear to have us do, but we must govern for the present and for the future. A MEMBER: As former chairman of Autopac, I think you'd want to look into the future . A MEMBER: Tell us about that . MR. L. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, if members opposite would want to get into matters of that sort , let me say only that I look forward to the meeting of the committee tomorrow morning so that we can review those matters. Madam Speaker, when we talk about the effectivenes s of governments, I don't think that we can make those

Monday, 23 March, 1987 judgments in isolati on. We, in fact, have to make comparisons as I am sure ther e are comparisons made within this Chamber. Indeed, the people of Manitoba only slightly more than a year ago made a comparison. They compared the offerings of the Conservative Party to the offering of the New Democratic Party, and they made a choice . Clearly, the choice was to have the New Democrats carry on as the stewards of the resources and of the future of Manitoba, but we do not operate in isolation. Now, Madam Speaker, the Member for Emerson makes reference to the experience in Swan River.

I am delighted that he would do so, because I would want the record to show that, in 1977, the people made a comparison and I lost by 1,000 votes . In 1981 , Madam Speaker, the people again judged what was available, and I lost by 270 votes. In 1986, Madam Speaker, the people judged again . I won by a margin of 65, and I am delighted that trend is there . I hope that I can fulfill my role in that very effective manner demonstrated by the Member for Thompson wherein, after the 1981 election with a margin of some 100 votes - I believe 72 votes - he was referred to as landslide.

Indeed he did convert that , Madam Speaker, into a land slide of in excess of 1,000 votes . So, Madam Speaker, if the Member for Emerson is, by way of his comment in referencing me as landslide , wishing me the success enjoyed by the Member for Thompson, I thank him profusely . Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my comments, we have to not operate in isolation. In fact, we are quite comfortable providing to people the opportunity to make those comparisons .

The membe rs opposite would suggest, by way of the deficit incurred in previous years and the deficit projected for this year, that we are in some way being irresponsible. Well, let me reference the Scrat ching River Post of March 16 which headlines - and I think it was shared earlier - that Saskatchewan sets the record for fiscal irresponsibility, having projected a deficit of some $400 million, in fact , now coming through with a deficit of $1.2 billion . It is a comparison that we are quite prepared to make, Madam Speaker .

Let us move then to the Province of Alberta, wherein we have the model of Tory administration - crumbling slowly , we might add, by way of the election results of the past years - the Tory stronghold . They want to say that there are the people who we should follow by example. The Tory administration of Alberta, Madam Speaker, last year had the distinction of a $3 billion deficit, which was the highest of any province in Canada. So agai n, we are quite prepared to make that comparison. Madam Speaker , let me go forward to some of the specifics within th is Budget .

I, Madam Speaker, am very proud of my association with the industry of agriculture and my association with the rural community. I want to have it clearly understood that I was very disappointed to hear the Member for Pembina say in this Chamber that there are businessmen and then there are farmers. The Member for Pembina , who would propose to speak for the farm ers , somehow projects by way of that statement that the farmers do not have a sense for business.

Well, let me say through you, Madam Speaker, to all people in this House and to everyone in Manitoba that 478 I think the farmers of this province have demonstrated tremendous commitment and have , in fact, demonstrated efficiency that exceed s the efficiency demonstrated by any sector within the Province of Manitoba. So I think it is somewhat regrettable that there are members opposite who claim , on the one hand, to have a wide base of suppo rt in rural Manitoba , then pro ject the image that the farmers of this province would not have a sense for business. I say, that is clearly not the case.

I believe that the farmers of this province are amongst the most astute of businessmen . That indust ry, Madam Speaker, is a key to the future of Manitoba. It is key not only to the rural communities , but indeed is key to the future of the City of Winnipeg. The Budget that came down - I want to compl iment the Minister of Agriculture for his

part in this - demonstrates a clear commitment to agriculture with an expenditure of $85 million , which is a 20 percent increase, Madam Speaker , over the previous year and twice the Budget that was brought down in 1981 by the last Conservative administration . It should be noted for comparison purposes , Madam Speaker, that we have a statement of a new Budget introduced in Alberta only last Friday. Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, and all members of this House that, again from the Toronto paper if we quote, it says: "Agriculture financing falling by 40 percent in the Province of Alberta.

" I think, Madam Speaker, that is regrettable and shameful, given the criticism that has been levelled by members opposite that we have not done enough for agriculture . They would suggest that the people of Manitoba should subscribe to the Conservative philosophy . Those who did in Alberta , Madam Speaker , were rewarded with a 40 percent reduction in the Budget for the Department of Agriculture.

Now I say, Madam Speaker, again let the people of Manitoba judge this government against any other government in Canada as to whether there is a commitment to agriculture -(Interjection)- The Member for Roblin is obviously feeling somewhat reckless . Anybody who would suggest that we would go now when the polls indicate clearly that they are 13 percentage points beh ind can only be anticipating , Madam Speaker , that margin will deteriorate further for him , and he wants to go now while he at least has only a 13 percent margin.

Madam Speaker , I want to go further to indicate, in terms of the commitment to agriculture that we had by way of the Special Farm School Tax Assistance Program wherein $500 will be available to offset the education taxes on each family operation , is a move that has been lauded in many quarters . In fact, it is a move that I do not hear being criticized by the members opposite. This move, Madam Speaker, when it is combined with the measures which are already within the Budget, will exempt completely two-thirds of the farmers from their property taxes.

Madam Speaker, the Member for -(Interjection)- The members opposite indicate, how many farmers are there . I do not have the exact figure, but there are slightly in excess of 30,000 farmers in Manitoba , Madam Speaker, and two-thirds of those are exempted . If indeed the Member for Arthur is suggesting that number is inaccurate , I would invite him at another point to indicate that is not so or perhaps indicate that he is

Monday, 23 March, 1987 not in support of this particular measure . I, for one, Madam Speaker, and members on this side and I th ink indeed all members of this House, will support that particu lar measure . It should be noted as well, Madam Speaker , that there is provision within the 55-Plus Program that an additional 4,600 farmers will have an additional $175 available by the exemption. That, Madam Speak er, when you total the tax benefits, could be $1,000 per farm family unit. The Member for Roblin again indicates that is not sufficient .

I cannot suggest, and we never have, Madam Speaker, that what we can do by way of the provincial Budget will be sufficient to address the ills of agriculture. We must note, and I think it has been stated several times in this Chamber, Madam Speaker, that the ills of agriculture are brought by a reduction in the price of our commodities . Surely, the Member for Roblin and other members from that side are not suggesting that it is the responsibility of the Provincial Government to put in place measures that have not been brought into being by the Federal Government.

Indeed I would ask the Member for Roblin, what has he done to encourage the Federal Government to accelerate the payment of those funds which were promised, the $1 billion payment to Western Canadian farmers that was promised at a particular point, Madam Speaker, during the Saskatchewan election? I think many people will remember the timing of it, making the grand announcement at an opportune time in the Saskatchewan election that there will be $1 billion available to the farmers of Western Canada.

Well indeed, Madam Speaker, that changed , because that is no longer available to the farmers of Western Canada, but to the farmers of Canada as a whole , and what have we seen flow to the farmers at this stage? Approximately one-third of those funds have come to the farmers; the remaining two-thirds , we're saying , will be available at some point in the future. And clearly , what I would ask the members opposite to do is to exercise the influence that they have with their compatriots in Ottawa to accelerate that payment .

We want it; it should be here in the hands of the farmer to alleviate the pressure that they will feel during the spring planting season which is very nearly upon us. Again, Madam Speaker , it is not only the assistance that comes by way of the School Tax Assistance Program that I have referenced , but through the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation. The Minister has indicated that there will be a program available for farmers to buy -down the old mortgages which were at a higher rate .

We will be providing as well, Madam Speaker, the opportunity for farmers to lease back property , wherein farmers experience some difficulty , but by way of a lease-back arrangement, they can continue to operate . Those arrangements will be put in place . There is an expansion, Madam Speaker, of the Guaranteed Operating Loan Program, a program that was introduced in previous years , which indicated clearly that we wanted to work cooperatively with the private sector lenders.

There was a risk involved in the agricultural industry, which the private sector lenders said they should not be requ ired to shoulder on their own. This government, by way of the Guaranteed Operating Loan Program, sa id we will share that 479 responsibility with you; and by way of a sharing of that responsibility and a sharing of that risk, there were many who were able to acquire operating funds, who , in the absence of the guarantee program , would not have had those funds . To touch on other areas, Madam Speaker, I want to indicate my pleasure with what is happening in Manitoba in health care .

We have always prided ourselves in Manitoba with having a very good health care system . It was something that we had a lot of pride in; it was well received by people throughout the province , and indeed , through the process of consultation, people indicated that they wanted to have the support for that continue . Thirty -one percent of the increase in this Budget, Madam Speaker, goes toward health care. It is an increase of $118 million. I am particu larly pleased , Madam Speaker, that there is a $10 million increas e or an increase of some 40 percent in the Home Care Assistance Program .

I think it is an exceptional program in that, Madam Speaker, it does not require people to become institutionalized to any point beyond what is necessary . Knowing many people in the area that I come from , this program , along with others wherein we provide for care for the elderly , is extremely well received and I think that there will be tremendous support for the 40 percent increase in the Home Care Assistance Program .

When we speak of health care, Madam Speaker, we are speaking of all Manitobans, but it is of particular concern to our seniors, and I think we have to be sensitive to the needs of our seniors; our seniors who are proud people; people who have contributed to society ; indeed , people who have contributed in a way which allows us to enjoy much of what we do today. So I think, given that contribution, it is appropriate that we make a contribution to their health care system at this time .

As I said, we recognize that there are increasing cost s with institutional care and that is taxing the system , it is straining the system , care costs growing at a faster rate than inflation, but I think that it is very important that we recognize the role within that framework for non-institutional care . Again, I reference the home care program .

I can think of many people in the area that I represent, whether it is people from the Pine River area, or further to the West from the Benito area , who indicate that they wan t to stay in their homes as long as it is possible; and with a minimal amount of care , they can continue to enjoy their particular home setting. I want as well to reference the institutional care that has been providing alternatives , Madam Speaker , to the hospitals or to the home care program and we have the personal care home programs and the elderly persons' housing .

In my own constituency , Madam Speaker, in Pine River there was an elderly persons' hous ing unit unveiled, and in Birch River the tenders have been called , Madam Spea ker, for the establishment of 12 units of elderly perso ns' housing . We have, Madam Speaker, plans under way, in fact nearing the stage where construction will take plac e for units of personal care homes to be provided for Benito , along with five hospital care beds.

I want to as well reference the area of education, Madam Speaker , in that I had indicated we have a concern for the care for the elderly and we want to show our appreciation for their contribution. By way

Monday, 23 March, 1987 of the education system, we are expressing our confidence in the youth of this province and indicating that we are, in fact, preparing them to carry on the work that many of us are involved in today . I am pleased, Madam Speaker , that there was in the Budget a 6 percent increas e in the funding for schools , colleges and universities, and this indicated specifically that 26.5 million of that increase will be for elementary and secondary education.

And earlier in this Chamber today, during question period, we heard reference to the fund which was set up for the capital programs for the universities, and in addition, we have $175 million in terms of grants to universities. So clearly a commitment on the part of this government to an education system which will see that young people in particular , but indeed people of all ages who want the oppo rtunity to expand their horizons in a particular way, prepare themselves for future responsibilities, have that opportunity, Madam Speaker.

It is important to note, Madam Speaker , when making those comparisons that in the Province of Alberta, wherein we have indi cated an increase of 6 percent for education and a significant increase for health care funding, in Alberta there will be in fact reduct ions for the grants to the health care system , to education and to the municipalities. Madam Speaker, I want to indicate briefly that the department budget for the Department of Natural Resources will be relatively unchanged . This Budget , I'm sure, will allow us to carry forward the mission that we have set for ourselves in terms of stewardship.

We want to see that the resources in our charge are cared for in a responsible manner and indeed will be available to future generations. We have a commitment in terms of stewardship, Madam Speaker, to those who have a subsistence interest in our resources . There is a commitment to those who have a recreational interest in our resourc es, as well, Madam Speaker, a commitment to those who would want to develop economic opportunities on the resource base that we have . Forestry is an important part of that future , Madam Speaker .

The markets are strong at this time, and our budgets will indicate a clear commitment to reforestation and provision for the future concerns of the resource. There is, Madam Speaker, one concern that we have, and that is the 15 percent export tax on softwood lumber levied by the Federal Government.

We are working, Madam Speaker , with the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers to implement some replacement measures wherein we have been given direction from the Federal Minister responsible for Trade that, by the middle of this year, she would expect that we would implement charges from the individual provinces which would see a replacement of the 15 percent tax. I look forward to working, Madam Speaker, in the areas of Fisheries and Wildlife, as well as Tourism and Parks .

With that, Madam Speaker , I would like to conclude and indicate that I have absolute confidence that, when we compare this Budget to the budgets of other provinces, the people of Manitoba will be served well . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Springfield. 480 MR. G. ROCH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't know if it's a pleasure or not to get up to speak on this disgraceful Budget; it's a chicken and pizza budget . But it's certainly a pleasure to get up and speak on the amendment by my leader, which is a more accurate reflection of what this Budget really is.

As the member prior to the previous speaker said - I'd like to quote it again, because it gives me a great deal of pleasure. It reads: THAT the motion be amended by deleting all words after "House " and substituting therefor the following : Regrets that in presenting its Budget , the Government has:

(1) Imposed the largest tax increase on the people of Manitoba in our province's history; - they can't deny that - and

(2) Introduced new taxes and cost increases which will destroy our ability to attract investment and job creation; - that's going to prove itself too - and

(3) By refusing to introduce any efficiency or improved management has again increased expenditures at double the expected rate of inflation this year; and

(4) Committed Manitobans to ever-increasing tax burdens in future as a result of its incompetence and fiscal mismanagement. These, Madam Speaker, fairly well sum up what is happening with this Manitoba Manifesto , the so-called Manitoba Budget Address of 1987. Madam Speaker , imposing these large tax increases does nothing to encourage young people to remain here, does nothing to encourage business to move here . By refusing to cut any spending in government on the government side , as recommended by their own consultant, but simply raising revenues, they are not showing an example.

They are not showing leadership. As I was saying earlier, Madam Speaker, this is a chicken and pizza budget. This NDP Government is once again taxing average Manitobans, asking them - no, I wou ld say, forcing them - to pay for their mismanagement and foolish spending . Why is it that they don't really ... MADAM SPEAKER: I would remind the Honourable Minister of Finance of our Rule 44(2) that says: "No member shall read any newspaper in the House ." The Honourable Member for Springfield. MR. G. ROCH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I don 't know if he was reading the Free Press or the Sun but, if he was reading either , I'm sure the Member for Transcona would not approve . (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair .) But in any case, as I was saying , why is it that they don 't really tax the rich , despite the rhetoric they use to pacify their left wing , both within and outside their caucus? The answer is simple, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The rich don 't pay; they just move. The NDP knows that and, therefore, taxes the poor and the middle class , average Manit obans, to pay for their follies, to pay for their failed socialist expe rim ents.

You know, every day that goes by, we get new revelations.

Monday, 23 March, 1987 In the newspaper that the Member for Transcona hates with such a passion, it said in that paper - it wasn't an editorial. It was a reporting from an independ ent ch artere d tax accountant. It says: "Fi nance Minister Eugene Kostyra's Budget will impose a 21 percent tax increase on a single mother earning $27,600 a year, but a childless couple with income of $225,000 a year will be hit with added provincial taxes of only 10 percent." The wealthy couple will pay added provincial taxes of only $1,690 in the 1988 tax year.

The single mother with one-eighth of their tota l incomes faces a $350 tax increase ." Is that fairne ss, I ask you? Is that the way they're going to hit the wealthy? I think not. The

article goes on to state further : "It really is the middle-income group that is going to get nailed . Average family income in Canada was about $38,075 in 1985, acco rding to Statis tics Canada . Because of the Budget , a Manitoba family earning $36 ,000 will be hit with a 24 percent increase in provincial income tax by 1988. The $72,000 family faces a tax increase of only 12 percent , and the two wealthiest couples face 10 percent increases ." Mr. Deputy Speaker , the calculations appear to contradict claims made in the Budget Speech and in documents tabled in the Legislature.

It states further in that same article: "The Budget will increase taxes for single taxpayers whose net income exceeds $13,000 and for families of four with net income over $27,000.00 . The general effect is that everyone earning less than $21,000 yearly will see reductions in their take-home pay." The

article concludes, and this is very significant: " The calculations do not show how individuals and families will be affected by higher sales taxes , cigare tte taxes , liquor taxes and a new tax on land sales, which were also announced in the Budget Speech . For most Manitobans, the Budge t means hefty tax increases ." This same accountant said that he was disappointed the government did not cut its spending, instead of using higher taxes to cut its deficit. Mr.

Deputy Speaker , we have heard time and time again how this Budget was supposed to bring fairness , how it was supposed to hit the wealthy , how the lower and middle classes were supposed to benefit. This hasn't been happening. In the last two days, we see all kinds of articles from different points on the political spectrum telling us how unfa ir this Bud get is. In today's Free Press, it says it will be at least a year before the full impact of its new Budget sinks in, and people start voting with their feet. That is what is happening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, people will be voting with their feet.

I referred a while ago to th is documen t as the Manitoba Manifesto. Well, the same columnist goes on to say: " The Budget was the best example of socialist thinking and policies since the Regina Manifesto was adopted by the old CCF in 1933. It also proved that while the Pawley Government has finally got its socia list rhetoric right, it cannot shoot straight. The Budget took aim at the wealthy and hit, according to the Vice Chairman of the Manitoba Ins tit ute of Chartered Accountants Taxation Committee , single peop le earning more than $12,000 a year and families earning more than $25 ,000.00.

"It is not surprising that the Minister of Finance often seems to be genuinely embarrassed whenever he 481 attempts to answer questions about his map of the road to the new Jerus alem. Even the Minister of Finance cannot possibly believe that the gross salary of $1,000 a month makes an individual a target for tax on wealth." It goes on at leng th but I'll just quote a couple of more parts here: "It is clear that the shot aimed at the wealthy in Manitoba hit the lower and middle-class pockets . It is not surprising that it did.

The faul t in the make-the rich-pay theory is that there are not enough rich to cover the rich taste of government spending . This taste has to be covered by hitting people who are not considered wealthy by anyone except Eugene Kostyra. That is where he will get most of the money he will spend next year. He will get some extra money from business but only through a tax, so retrogressive that it would have been rejec ted by Karl Marx. The Kostyra Budget increases tax on jobs by 50 percent. The imposition of this tax in the first place cost jobs in Manitoba.

The increase will cost more." There 's too much in here which is true, too much of it to read, but there are a coupl e of more parts which I want to get on the record. " This is bad enough for small business , for all businesses already located in Manitoba. It is not something likely to be advertised loudly in the Department of Economic Development, when asked about business opportunities in Manitoba. " Manitoba is a decidedly less attractive place to live because of the Kostyra Budget. There is no redeeming soci al value to be found despite the Minister's emphasis on social services .

The biggest long-term social value would have resulted from a serious attempt to cut the provincial deficit, an attempt that was not made." Some of the members may say, well , I don 't really agree with th is. But I would much rather believe impartial third parties than I would believe members of this government, who are trying to defe nd their Budget . One of them is a chartered accountant and one of them is a columnist , which some may say have a bias but the Budget's message, no reward for initiative in Manitoba, was a headline of a different article, one of their kissing cousins , a Liberal.

And he says the same, and we know they're kissing cousins, witness Onta rio, it's tweedledee and tweeledum, some would say tweedledum and tweedledummer. But anyhow this kissing cousin of theirs says: "Eugene Kostyra's jarring Budget represents a fundamental shift in tax burdens and political philosophy. The Finance Minister has told Manitobans , with money doing the talking, that initiative and reward are now subservient to the distribution of wealth . By imposing a 2 percent flat tax on net income beyond $30 ,000, Kostyra has blunted ambition and drive.

It is not as if $30,000 a year is a king's ramson in the real world of 1987. For a family of four, it provides barely enough to pay the mortgage, the utility bills and the groceries. "The New Democratic Governm ent has raided the ban k balances of the middle class . They should not fool themselves that $30,000 is not the upper class. It is not the upper middle class either; it is the ordina ry class." Ordinary, how they love to use that term; althoug h the organizers have t old them now use average. But it all means th:i same thing.

This same Liberal goes on to say: "This assault on ordinary paycheques would be more palatable if it were accompanied by at least a nod to in-House belt tightening . Are we to ass ume tha t the Finan ce

Monday, 23 March, 1987 Department has no comment to make on waste in government or the productivity of civil servants or the importance of streamlining the bureaucracy? " Even a symbolic gesture would have been gratefully noted by an electorate suspicious of efficiencies in the public sector - none was forthcoming . The business community, in general, small business in particular , have expressed annoyance with the payroll tax since its inception. They see it as a tax on employment, an obstacle to grow in expansion.

The private sector speaking with one voice, has seized this issue as a symbol of an attitude which expresses a bias against the role of entrepreneurship in a mixed economy. "Kostyra went out of his way to ignore them, increasing the payroll levy by 50 percent. It is not only business th

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-2-17a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 2nd hansardpdf 17a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	be10bc3357264fc79a62ac41da29dca7fe9b8aee

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