Manitoba Hansard — 11 June 1987 (Sitting 67, 33rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

33-2-67

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 11 June, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Repor ts by Standing and Sp ecial Committees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Mi nister of Government Services. HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, I would like to � table the Review Committee Report of the Workers , Compensation Board, and I would like to tell the Legislature that the printed copy should be available by the 20th of June, at which time everyone will have a copy of it. MADAM SPEAKER: No ti ces of Mo tion . . . Introduction of Bills . . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have 41 students from Grades 4 and 5 from the Norquay School, under the direction of Mr. Sookarm.

The school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation. On behalf of all the members, we welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon. Also may I dir ect the attention of ho nourable members to the Speaker's gallery, where we have with � us this afternoon, His Excellency, Israel Gur-Ariah, , Ambassador of Israel. On behalf of all the members, we welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon, Sir. ORAL QUESTIONS King Commission Report - cost of implementing recommendation MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G.

FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Min ister responsible for the Workers Compensation Board has just tabled the Report of the King Commission. Madam Speaker, that Commission has made 178 recomme ndatio ns. I wonder if the Minister has an estimate of the cost of im plementing those 17 8 recommendations. MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mi n ister responsible for Workers Compensation. HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition will recall that question was asked in the House the other day, and I told the Opposition members at that time that, no, we do not have an estimate of the cost of the implementation of the 178 recommendations. I said at that time there was a report that needed to be looked at in total; you couldn't take one recommendation out in isolation and act on it.

I think it's a report that requires further analysis, and once we have had an opportunity to analyze the entire report, then we will be coming forward with what the costs are in connection, but we should make it quite clear that our only concern is for the injured workers, the system that is being delivered to them. That is a principle we are concerned about, that injured workers and their families and their children get the benefits that are required to them under The Workers Compensation Act. Workers Compensation Board - reason for deficit increase MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, astonishingly the King Commission Report indicates that the unfunded liability, as the Minister likes to refer to it, or the deficit of the board may be understated by as much as $10 0 million. Does the Minister have any explanation as to why that unfunded liability is so much higher than what the board's annual report indicated? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, it is quite clear that if the Leader of the Opposition had taken a little mor e initia tive when he was a memb er of the government in 19 81, and in creased rates in the late Seventies when every other Workers Compensation system across the cou ntry was in creasing their assessment, we would not be in the position we are right now, and it should make it quite clear that we are not in a present operation . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I presume the Honourable Leader of the Opposition wants to hear the answer. HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Ob viously the Member for Pembina feels terrible of what his role was in the operations of the government at that time. But under the operations of the Workers Compensation that is operating it right now, our unfunded liability, supported by actuarial reports, supported by auditors, is $84 million. We can lead to a lot of speculations and can say, if this was implemented, or if the pensions were indexed automatically, it would lead to $90 million; we had that information.

If the pensions were indexed, then it would lead to additional dollars but, at this time, the operation of the board, as it is going right now, our unfunded liability is $84 million. 2976

Thursday, 11 June, 1987 Workers Compensation Board - what other initiatives MR. G. FILMON: Well, Madam Speaker, further to the Min ister. Given that under the previous operation of the Workers Compensation Board under a Conservative administration, following similar principles to those that were followed under the Schreyer administration, the board had achieved a surplus position of $36 million, yet, after the initiatives of this administration, they are now between . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G.

FllMON: ... $15 0 million and $200 million in de ficit or un fund ed liabil ity position, what other initiatives is this administration and this Minister going to bring in to make it even worse? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, there is a government currently operating that follows the principle that the Leader of the Opposition is speaking of, and that is bottom line dollars. The Workers Compensation in British Columbia is operating under similar guidelines that the Leader of the Opposition's goverment followed, and they right now have a surplus.

We could have a surplus, as well, if we cut out the services to injured workers, to the widows and the children of the injured workers. If we cut out the services to them, we cut out rehabilitation, we could have a surplus very shortly. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, it's interesting that this Minister disagrees with former Premier Schreyer's policies in Workers Compensation. King Commission recommendations - new pool of workers MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, my further question to this Minister.

The King Commission Report has recommended the inclusion of independent contractors, self-insurers, and a whole host of new employees in the white collar area, and many other areas, under the Workers Compensation system in Manitoba, will this Minister be carrying through that recommendation to include this new pool of workers for greater revenues for this failing board? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition would care to check, he would find that many other jurisdictions in Canada of Workers Com pensation, those people are prese ntly in the system.

But we are not going to be taking one recommendation and separate it from the total. As I said before, it's a total package. We will be having an opportunity to analyze all of the recommendations put forward by the review committee and, once we have had an opportunity to analyze it, then we will be acting on the entire package. We will not be taking one recommendation out of isolation and dealing with it separately. King Commission recommendations - what additional revenues if all groups included MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, what additional revenues would it produce for the board to include all these additional classes and groups of workers under the Workers Compensation system? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, the review committee had 20 months to come up with a report, I have had the report for approximately three weeks.

I have not had an opportunity to analyze it, as the Leader of the Opposition has raised the question previously; there's no financial implication attached to the report, so once we have had an opportunity to analyze it and cost it, then we will tell you what revenue will be coming in by putting these people as part of the Workers Compensation Board. MTS - tabling of business plan re cellular telephones MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker . Madam Speaker my question is for the Minister of Crown Investments.

Given that approximately a year ago the Manitoba Telephone System, un der his predecessor , spent approximately $1. 5 millio n to purchase equipment necessary for the delivery of cellular telephone service in the Province of Manitoba; and given that since this Minister has taken over he has not allowed that system to be implemented, even though we have spent the $1. 5 million, pending the development by the Telephone System of a business plan to justify their entry into cellu lar teleph ones, can the Mini ster of Crown Investments indicate when the business plan for cellular telephones will be available and tabled to the House?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister responsible for MTS. HON. G. DOER: Madam Speaker, as I indicated at the committee hearing, we are proceeding with a cellular telephone in com petition with Cante!. We have proceeded on a policy way with the various authorities that are necessary, such as, Order-in-Council. We are meeting presently with Cante!, and we hope to have an agreement in place where the tariff consideration is filed before the Public Utilities Board shortly for both the telephone system and Cante!, and have it starting at the same time as we've indicated previously in this House.

We do not believe, Madam Speaker, that the rules that existed in Ontario, established by the Ministries of Communi cations, under Francis Fox, and carried on by Marcel Masse, were fair for a situation to have Cante! have a six-months headstart; I've said that before in this House. But we believe we can reach an agreement with Cante! and proceed with cellular telephones and we have a business plan in place, in fact, the board 2977

Thursday, 11 June, 1987 of directors of the Telephone System is meeting again Tu esday afternoon, and we are proceed ing, as I indicated, not only in this House, in that committee, but also at a meeting with the Electronics Association of Manitoba last week. And further , Madam Spea ker, not only are we proceeding with the cellular telephone, in terms of interconnect onto the Telephone System with the private and the public system, but also, Madam Speaker, the situation where private radios have not been allowed to connect onto the Te lephone System, we are proceeding with that as well.

What we ask from the Public Utilities Board is a fair tariff for connecting onto the public electronic highway. Inter-City Gas - tabling of business plan MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Sp eaker, I belie ve detected in the Minister's answer that he now has the business plan, and I presume that he will be tabling that.

Given that the business plan is now in place and was • a prerequisite of this Minister of Crown Investments • for the introduction of cellular telephones in the Province of Manitoba, will this Minister of Crown Investments now table for this House the business plan by which this government, not investing $1. 5 million, but maybe investing $15 0 million into the nationalization of Inter City Gas, that obviously must exist? HON. G. DOER: I didn't state that I would be tabling a business plan.

It would obviously not make any sense at all, Madam Speaker, to table a business plan dealing with the operation of the Telephone System in a competitive environment so the competitor, Cantel, could xerox it and pass it on in terms of their considerations. You were implying that I was going to table the business plan in this House. I did state that we had a couple of principles involved in the development of cellular telephone.

One was that the public system and the private system, if they were going to compete, they would compete at the same time; and the second consideration is that the Public Utilities Board establish • a fair tariff so that the investment of the public in the • public Telephone System is paid back, in terms of the con nection from the private com pany; the third consideration obviously is that we don't have a situation where the private company is able to bypass the public telephone system, erode long distance revenues, long distance revenues that are necessary to keep the quality of our service and the lowest prices in the country that we now enjoy.

MR. D. ORCHARD: Given that the takeover of ICG will establish a monopoly service, will the Minister table the business plan that obviously he, as Minister of Crown Investments responsible for the direction of Crown corporations in this province, must have for this government to enter into $15 0 million business in the Province of Manitoba, when this Minister refused cellular telephone on a $1. 5 million investment. Where is the business plan; when will he table it? HON. G.

DOER: Madam Speaker, as my colleague indicated yesterd ay, Crown Investments have been involved with the lead department, Department of Energy and Mines, the Minister of Energy and Mines have been involved in the evaluation of the issues before us, Madam Speaker. Crown Investments is aware that the Province of Manitoba, through the Public Insurance Corporation, the Manitoba Telephone System, Manitoba Hydro, have the lowest rates in Canada; and Crown Investments is aware that the action taken by the Minister of Energy and Mines is the first step to have lower gas prices in this province. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Is the Premier telling the people of Manitoba that he is proposing, in this headlong rush to take over ICG, that he's doing it without a business plan that he can table in this House to demonstrate the alleged figures that he has put on the market? Is there no business plan for this $15 0 million takeover with taxpayers' money? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: In order to be as generous as I can be to the Member for Pembina, I believe he wasn't here yest erday whe n this matter was dealt with, otherwise, he would not be asking this question again. MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind the Honourable First Minister that he's not to refer to the absence or presence of any member. HON. H. PAWLEY: Well, I was trying to be generous to the member. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: I was trying to allow, in a generous way, for the honourable member obviously missing the answer that the Minister of Energy provided yesterday, and I apologize for referring to his absence, but I was trying to find reasons for the honourable member's obvious lack of knowledge as to what took place yesterday. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, I was here yesterday through the entire rage and ranting of the Minister of Energy and Mines, and I detected nowhere in his answer that there was a business plan. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. D.

ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, my question to the Premier is: Since he has made the announcement of this venture into nationalizing the gas distribution system, is this First Minister saying that he's proceeding with $1 50 million investment of taxpayer money without a business plan being available to hi mself? Is that what the Minister is saying? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Energy and Min es. 2978

Thursday, 11 June, 1987 HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, yesterday I pointed out that this government brought in an overall policy that has within it a very well-planned approach. A MEMBER: It's also a business plan. HON. W. PARASIUK: That's right, and we have done the homework with respect to the contracts; we have done the homework with respect to the long-term nature of the contracts, the prices; we've done homework with respect to pu rchase of reserves; we have done homework with respect to what's a fair price for the Inter-City Gas natural gas distribution system, Madam Speaker.

We've put the entire package together and this package, Madam Speaker, will save residential families $15 0 per year, small busine sses $1 ,600 per year. That is a plan that the NOP Government has. Madam Speaker, in this situation where Manitobans are being overcharged for natural gas, what's the plan of the Conservatives? Long-term contracts for gas - with suppliers or brokers MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Memb er for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Speaker, on the same issue, and I direct my question to the Premier.

The Minister of Energy and Mines says that this has all been planned out and it's all been analyzed and organized. Madam Speaker, the Premier has also been on record as saying that the government has entered into long-term agreements for the purchase of gas over a number of years, locked in by long-term contracts at a some dollar per thousand cubic feet lower than exists in today's market price. My question to the First Min ister, can he indicate whether these long-term contracts have been entered into with suppliers or brokers? HON. W.

PARASIUK: The Member for Morris may not realize it, but the contracts that have been entered into in the past are with a broker. Western Gas Marketing Board acts as a broker for a number of producers in Alberta and elsewhere. We have, in fact, entered into contracts with brokers, and these contracts are verified by the producers. Ther e are a great numb er of producers backing these contracts, Madam Speaker.

They are long term; they are for a very, very good price, Madam Speaker; they are secured; they are indemnified and we have put those contracts before the National Energy Board to ask for transmission approval before. We're following all the procedures and those contracts are following the normal course before the National Energy Board and we are following every thing appropri ately, ju st as other people who dir ectly purchased gas are doing. Madam Speaker, when that is included all that will be made public. Let me tell the members opposite that we are undertaking this, putting the consumer of Manitoba No. 1.

Inter-City Gas - tabling of signed contracts MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Speaker, given the fact that there is nothing out of the normal with respect the assigning the long-term contracts for the supply of natural gas to the Province of Manitoba; and given, secondly, that they have been filed, the contracts have been filed with the National Energy Board; and thirdly , given I take it that they have no effect, no impact, on negotiations with Inter-City Gas, can the Minister stand in his place and tell us why we should not be also public to those signed contracts? Why can he not lay them before the House today? HON. W.

PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, I'm not the one who set the rules nationally as to what is done with gas price contracts. There are a number of gas price contracts signed between Canadians and Americans that are not made public, unlike electricity where, under the electricity regime for exports , those contracts are made public and the prices are made public. The whole system with respect to natural gas is one where it is all kept confidential, for reasons of commercial confidentiality , not by our desire. That's the entire system that operates, Madam Speaker, and that is what exists.

We are playing by the rules that have been established by Ottawa and by the producing provinces, Madam Speaker, and we want to make sure that we do play within those rules so that people don't come back to us saying, well, you did go outside the rules and, therefore, your applications may be put in some doubt. I would hope that members on the other side would be working with us in a cooperative manner to ensure that those transmission rights are provided so that Manitobans can know that they can get lower priced gas, fairer priced gas.

That should be the objective of everyone in this Legislature, Madam Speaker, not having the Conservatives try and pick holes and be oppo sed to it. Rule changes re allowing tabling of contracts MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Speaker, this government has shown its desire at other times to break rules; we've seen it on many occasions. Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Energy tell us, � specifically, what the rules are? More importantly, can he tell us, because this government, on many other occasi ons, has shown a great desire to share information with the public, at least pretend to.

Madam Speaker, would the Minister of Energy stand in his place and tell us what rules have to change to allow the government to lay before us the signed contracts; and, furthermore, can he tell us whether they are now making repres entation to the Federal Government and the National Energy Board to change those rules so we can be party to the contracts? HON. W. PARASIUK: I have made representation in the past saying that we should have a system whereby we know exactly who is paying what for what contracts right across this country, and especially for Canadian natural gas flowing into the United States.

I'm surprised that the Member for Morris would be raising questions like this which would, in fact, possibly put our commercial confidentiality at risk. Madam Speaker, it's common knowledge that TransCanada Pipelines, which 2979

Thursday, 11 June, 1987 does not file their contracts on a public basis, met with the Conservative Caucus yesterday to lobb y that, Madam Speaker, and I would hope that the Member for Lakeside is not acting on behalf of TransCanada Pipelines, but rather is standing up for Manitobans. Inter-City Gas - length of contract MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Sp eak er, a final supplementary. The Conservative Party of Manitoba is not standing here making unsubs tantiated claims. The consumers are going to save $15 0 a year in heating costs.

A final question to the Minister of Energy and Mines: Can he tell us the length of the term of the contract that we have entered into for the supply of natural gas? HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, when I asked TransCanada Pipeli nes for contra ct offers, they indicated that they weren't prepared to lower prices at all for Manitobans, and we could expect no decrease in prices, and those are the people that they have been dealing with. They should have met with the consumers, Madam Speaker.

The package of contracts we have, and they are packaged, go up to 15 years and there is a package of contracts within them that allows Manitoba, if it purchases gas reserves, to phase in those reserves to guarantee that we have low priced gas possibly beyond 15 years, and that's been part of an overall plan, part of a planned approach, part of an approach that we have spent a lot of time and a lot of work on. Madam Speaker, we find that basically the points that we have made with respect to excessive and discriminatory pricing have been proven to be correct.

The analysis we did in finding out that Canadian gas is being shipped into the United States at $1. 80 has, indeed, been correct, even though we were told that wasn't the case. Madam Speaker, our package of contracts, which raises up to 15 years, is up before the National Energy Board and they will deal with it. Burns Meats expansion - guarantee of employment MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Min ister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Yesterday there was an announcement of a $25 million expansion of Burns Meats in Winnipeg and Brandon, of which $3 million is going to be a conditional loan by the Province of Manitoba. I'd like the Minister to respond on whether or not some of those conditions include the guarantees of increased employment by Burns. MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mini ster of Industry, Trade and Technology. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Yes, I'm very pleased to advise the member and the Ho use th at, in deed, the agreement between the 2980 Province of Manitoba and Burns provides for 200 new jobs between now and the termination, in the early 1990's, of the agreement. Notwiths tanding th e nons ense spoute d by the Mem ber for Sturgeon Creek, the agreement with respect to the hiring of laid-off Canada Packers workers, is contained in the Manitoba agreement with Burns, not in the federal agreement with Burns. There are, of course, separate agreements.

The Manitoba agreement requires that anytime there is an opening at Burns, over the next number of years, during the term of this agreement, there will be at least 72 hours notice to the agency dealing now with laid-off Canada Packers workers, after which there will be another several days of notice and time given to any worker who's been notified during that time, to get in contact with Burns in order to be interviewed for the new job. We're very pleased with that end of the package. Canada Packers laid-off workers - length of agreement re openings at Burns MR. M. DOLIN: A supplementary, Madam Speaker.

The laid-off Canada Packers workers - how long will this arrangement for them to get openings, as Burns continues this development, stay in place? HON. V. SCHROEDER: That condition will apply until June 1, 1993. As well, under the terms of the agreement, there will be a minimum of 850 jobs from the date of acceptance of the agreement. Madam Speaker, this is the Manitoba agreement. The Member for Sturgeon Creek can find the federal agreement, and I would challenge him page-for-page, clause-for-clause, to show that the Manitoba agreement is not as good an agreement as the federal agreement.

In fact, ours is the one that guarantees the minimum jobs; ours is the one that guarantees the 200 new jobs; ours is the one that guarantees that Canada Packers workers are going to have an opportunity to be working at Burns, not the federal agreement. We're proud of that. Burns Meats - division of employment between Brandon and Winnipeg MR. M. DOLIN: A final supplementary, Madam Speaker. I'm wondering if the Minister can advise the House what the division of emplo yment will be between Brandon and Winnipeg. HON. V. SCHROEDER: I will have to take that part of the question as notice.

I don't have the exact amount, in terms of employment. There's approximately $2. 7 million in upgrading in Brandon, including coolers, freezers, block-ready operations in rendering facilities, which will be overall completed by 19 91. I'm sorry, I do have the information here, yes. There's about 140 full-time new jobs, that's in addition to the 850 jobs currently existing at Burns, that's at Winnipeg; in addition to that, there will be 60 new full-time jobs created in Brandon, which also, of course, will allow for the laid-off Canada Packers workers to have first opportunit y.

Thursday, 11 June, 1987 So, overall, Madam Speaker, it really does strengthen the packing and meat processing industry in Manitoba. We're very delighted to see this expansion by Burns. We're pleased that we've finally been able to make the announcement public, after some very interesting false starts over the weekend. The Workers Compensation Act - rewriting of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for the Workers Compensation Board.

I can understand the Minister's earlier statement that he wants to deal with this very hefty document as a package, but there are three obvious and distinct areas that need immediate promises for reform. Will the Minis ter assure both empl oyers and employees that The Workers' Compensation Act will be rewritten as soon as possible, in order that it is understandable to both of those parties? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mi nister responsible for Workers Compensation. HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, as a layperson, and as a person who was at one time an injured worker, and now is the Minister responsible, that's one area I can tell you that we will be rewriting the act so that it is unde rstood by the average injured worker. Workers Compensation Board - initiate training program in human relations MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: A supplementary question to the same Minister. The second glaring difficulty in the report was that there seems to be a total inadequacy of human relations training of the staff at the Workers Compensation Board.

Will the Minister require that the Workers Compensation Board immediately begin a program of training in human relations, so the workers working for the WCB can, in fact, deal with inj ured workers and empl oyers in appropriate fashion? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, we have had discussions with the Workers Compensation Board and the importance of proper human relations practices, and that area of the Workers Compensation Board we will be addressing very shortly. Workers Compensation Board - new rehabilitation philosophy MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Madam Sp eake r, a final supplementary to the Min ister.

The thir d area of glaring inadequa cy was in rehabilitation. Will the Mini ster ind icate toda y a commitment to a new rehabilitation philosophy based on assessment and skills training and not merely on job search? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, very clearly the area of rehabilitation is the key to the whole Workers Compensation, that there's a commitment to the area of vocational rehabilitation by industry, by government, by the injured workers, and there's a will to make it work, then that is the one area that is going to be very key in making this whole Workers Compensation one of the best in the country.

So there's got to be a commitment on all persons inv olved in Workers Compensation. But, as to the cost of it and all that, we will be working in the area of rehabilitation and studying it, we'll see what the recommendation are going to be meaning to the present system. We're proud of the gains we have made. I think, in 19 81, when we formed government, there was no rehabilitation being delivered to the workers.

There's been a lot of impr ove ment made in the area of rehabilitation, but there's very clearly a need for more rehabilitation and we will be moving in that direction and we will make a report of analyses very shortly. Special Farm School Tax Assistance Program - length of program MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Minister of Agriculture had a news conference this morning to announce some details on the School Tax Assistance Program, Madam Speaker.

We're glad the Mini ster has finally made this announ cement, although very little de tail was contained in his announcement. The program relief, Madam Speaker, is long overdue. It's a program that we've been after as a party and as an Opposition for some time. I'd like to ask the Minister: Is this program a one-year program, or is it permanently in place to recognize this inequity over a long period of time? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minis ter of Agriculture. HON. B.

UR USKI: Madam Sp eaker, I thank the honourable member for the question, and I wish to advise that I will be asking the Clerk to distribute copies of the details of the program. There are a number of questions and answers, an application form and, as well, a guideline booklet for municipal administrators who will be handling the owner/operator portion of the Special Farm School Tax Assistance Program.

Madam Speaker, it's very clear that Manitobans and Manitoba farmers will be the beneficiaries of this program, and the cumulative effect of the assistance provided by the Minister of Finance in the Budget exceed the amount of money provided for assistance through the regular Property Tax Credit Program; and this special program exceeds the provincial portion of the school tax payable by Manitoba farmers on farmland. The assistance cumulatively provided to Manitoba farmers will be in the neighbourhood of $27 million, Madam Speaker. MR. G.

FINDLAY: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister, over what period of time is he giving us this figure? 2981

Thursday, 11 June, 1987 HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Sp eaker , Mani tobans certainly will, as they have shown confidence in this government, and will continue to show confidence in this gover nment, the kind of assistance that, in consultation with farmers and farm groups, will continue to be provided as our budget in agriculture has risen from $35 million when we came into office to over $85 million this year. Madam Speaker, the honourable member seems to want to put things in his context and he wants to answer the question that he poses.

Madam Speaker, the program that has been announced in the Budget is for this year, it is a one-year program.-(Interjection)- Well, of course, it is, Madam Speaker. My colleagues are reviewing the entire assessment structure, funding to education and, if those changes bring about changes, then there will be changes in this program, Madam Sp eaker, but clearly the confidence shown by Manitobans to this government will continue the kind of assistance that we provided this year. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Special Farm School Tax Assistance Program - do hobby farmers qualify MR. G.

FINDLAY: Given that we believe that part-time farmers should receive benefit because they try to start their farm or maintain their farm during these tough economic times, Madam Speaker, but I would like to ask the Minister, of hobby farmers - people who earn their major income as doctors, lawyers, government workers - do these hobby farmers qualify for the program also? HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, one has to determine what the honourable member's definition of a hobby farmer is.

Madam Speaker, I would venture to say that people who are "hobby farmers" in his statement would be farming small acreages of either a quarter

section or less, would in fact not qualify for assistance because, generally, the property tax credit, the $325 that all property owners receive, will eat up the education tax on their property and they. won't qualify. If, in fact, they have holdings larger than the quarter section, generally speaking those would be part time farmers, and if their school taxes exceed the $325 annual, they would qualify for some assistance. It depends on the honourable member's definition of who he calls hobby farmers. Swan River housing project - was contract tendered MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Min ister of Housing. HON. M.

HEMPHILL: I took as notice a question from the Member for Gladstone about concrete steps and whether or not there was a tender. The contract in Swan River was for 14 units of family housing. The contract was publ icly tendered, Madam Speaker, as appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press, Winnipeg Sun, Brandon Sun, Dauphin Herald, Swan River Report, Swan River Star and Time. During November general contractors from across the province were allowed to bid on the job and the contract was awarded to Minish Constructionok, a local contractor from Swan River, Madam Speaker.

However, government cont racts are stipu lated fixed-price contracts, Madam Speaker. The general contractor acquires materials, such as, concrete steps from wherever he decides to subcont ract them from. Why they chose to buy from Winnipeg, I don't know. I understand that he also has a concrete industry himself and could have probably provided them himself. So the contract is awarded to a general contractor, who then has the authority to decide to whom to subcontract. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Member for Virden have another ques tion?

I was under the impression he had asked three, but if I was mistaken I'll recognize him once more. Special Farm School Tax Assistance Program - amount to be paid out MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My final supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture is that he has a $500 ceiling on what farmers can qualify in this program, plus other restrictions. Madam Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister if he has determined if the entire $12 million will be paid out with these restrictions. If it won't, will he raise that ceiling so that the entire $12 million is actually paid out as a benefit to Manitoba farmers?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourabl e Mi nister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, we expect that the entire amount, in fact, will be paid out. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. COMMITTEE CHANGES MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Madam Speaker, I have committee changes. On the Committee of Municipal Affairs: Brown for Kovnats, and Pankratz for Down ey. TABLING OF DOCUMENT MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi nis ter of Agriculture. HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I would like to provide for all honourable members and table the information that I indicated that I was going to ask the Clerk to distribute. I'd like to table a copy of the information for all honourable members on the special farm school taxes. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Minister have leave to table his documents? (Agreed) 2982

Thursday, 11 June, 1987 COMMITTEE CHANGE MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, I move, seconded by the Member for Elmwood, that composition of the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs be amended as follows: Hon. J. Storie for H. Smith. ORDERS OF THE DAY MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, I believe there is an inclination on the part of members to forego Private Members' Hour, by leave. MADAM SPEAKER: Is leave granted? (Agreed) HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, there have been some discussions with members opposite.

Has it been agreed to call Bill No. 43, which stands in the name of the Member for lnkster, on page 3 of the Order Paper, as the order of business today? (Agreed) ADJOURNED DEBATE ON SECOND READING BILL NO. 43 - THE INTERIM APPROPRIATION ACT, 1987

(2) MADAM SPEAKER: Second Reading then, Bill No. 43. The Honourable Member tor lnkster, I believe, has 16 minutes remaining. MR. D. SCOTT: Is that all, Madam Speaker? Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, yesterday afternoon I had the opportunity to review some of the comments that were introduced into the Chamber by the Member for Morris, from his address to us yesterday afternoon.

It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise in my place, once again today, to speak in defence of this Interim Appropriation Bill, and in defence, in general, of the bud getary policy of the province in defending the various tax measures that were brought forward this year. I believe it is with a great deal of honesty that this province, and this government, this Minister of Finance, is presenting to the people of Manitoba a realistic, Madam Speaker, addressing of the financial situation of what the province is in, in relation to the other provinces across the country.

There's a great deal of consistency across the country. One good sign is that due to significant tax increases by the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia, and soon to be expected from Saskatchewan, the taxation rates by province across the country will become much more - or start at least to become more similar, rather than having the diversity and the essential unfairness of comparisons of taxation between Canadians residing in different provinces.

Madam Speaker, today one of the things I wanted to key in on is the points of taxation, in particular, that have been raised by the provinces to our immediate west, if I could start with the Province of Alberta. The Province of Alberta has this year increased their basic personal income tax.

On top of the basic increase that they brought in, they have further increased their level of taxation on personal income tax with an 8 percent surtax on any provincial income taxes in Alberta paid in excess of $3,500, as well as a whole new tax somewhat similar to what we brought in in Manitoba this year, although I don't believe quite as progressive, because it's not brought in, from what I understand, as early on the tax forms, but a new flat tax to be levied in that province as well. (Mr. Deputy Speaker, C.

Santos, in the Chair.) Beyond that, perhaps the biggest shock for most Albertans was that the province has finally come to its smarts again, and reintroduced fuel taxes tor vehicles. For many years, I guess it must be 12 or 13 years now, the Province of Alberta has been without any kind of fuel taxes and when one is making interprovincial comparisons, one saw no revenues at all coming from that component in the Province of Alberta. With the reintroduction of fuel taxes in Alberta, still perhaps at a somewhat lower level than the rest of the country, but at least they do not have that anomaly any further.

Certainly it was an unpopular measure within that province, but that government, in biting the bullet, has decided that it can no longer live in a world where all their revenues, or a major portion of their revenues, are going to flow in not from provincial taxes levied but through the Heritage Fund. This year with the Heritage Fund, not only have they increased taxes in the province to the tune of about $1 billion, something the Member for Morris yesterday erroneously charged as being ripping that money out of the economy.

The money won't be ripped out of the Alberta economy, rather it will be recycled within it. They also increased health care premiums, probably the most regressive element in taxation in Canada for those provinces that still have health care premiums. There's no progressivity in that whatsoever. The individual families or individuals who are single have to pay the full impact of those levies, and, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the levies that they charge are very, very substantial. For individuals in Alberta, I believe it's some $432 a year that a family has to pay out for health care premiums.

Here, in Manitoba, of course, those health care premiums are included in our general revenues that the province raises. We don't have a regressive form of taxation like that. So, in summing up in Alberta, not only did they increase personal income taxes, they also increased corporation income taxes of up to 4 percentage points; 5 percentage points for manufacturing and processing industries, something that the members opposite would absolutely go snakey over if any other government was to do that in this country. They would be referring to it constantly.

I think it's probably a responsible move by the Government of Alberta in raising those levies to become more competitive and more equal as they are across the rest of the country. In the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this year they also raised the personal income 2983

Thursday, 11 June, 1987 tax. They raised the small business tax by 3 percent, from 8 percent to 11 percent. Th .e also extended the corporation capital tax, as well as increasing health care premiums. And now in British Columbia health care premiums levied on a family are presently $504.00. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let us not, as the members opposite would like us to, believe that we live in some kind of an island, that the other sister provinces, both east and west of us, are not in similar situations and are not responsibly raising revenues in their jurisdictions as we are in our jurisdiction.

One of the things that is difficult for members opposite - and I guess being in opposition and being in for such a long time, you get used to the role of being a constant complainer, of being able to be on all sides of all issues. We're nearing a completion of our Estimates process here in this Chamber and in the committee room and how many times have we had request from members opposite to spend more money on the programs that we provide?

At the same time they decry any increases in taxation, they decry the level of the deficit - and yet when they get into election campaign, they forget about that all together and say it's not a problem; they say it's not a problem at all. Not a problem.

The Member for Sturgeon Creek, I'm sure he's most comfortable with their last election campaign when the Tories went about the province promising to spend hundr eds of millions of do llars of addit ional expenditures, massive tax reductions, even getting into promising reductions in such things as the rates charged by our Crown corporations providing public services, trying to buy the public's votes with their own money. It didn't happen then, and it won't happen in the future either. The Province of Saskatchewan, everybody here is fully conversant with the situation that province finds itself in tod ay.

After six years of Cons ervative administration, the Member for Sturgeon Creek says look what they've done to the farmers. What are they going to do to the farmers now when they have lost in their deficit this year, going from the previous years' total of half a billion dollars, rising this year over doubling to over $1. 2 billion. What are the farmers of the Province of Saskatchewan, when they're in dire straights now, because of a collapse of the international grain market, how are they going to benefit from the Province of Sask atchewan running that kind of a horrendous deficit?

Because they are now - before they even bring in the Legislature - they're already increasing taxes. They're doing it by press release. They're starting to cut programs, they're laying people off. They've publicly stated they have a goal of reducing the public service by some 25 percent in the next couple of years. If you want to talk to some scared public servants, I suggest you go across the boarder of Saskatchewan and ask them what they feel the government is both up to and what they feel about their prospects.

Or ask any person in Saskatchewan what the prospects of their province is right now when revenue growth potential is at its lowest ebb in years. And yet the obligations due to the debts that the Government of Saskatchewan has just squandered money in things like their jacuzzi program - well known - their housing improvement program, which didn't have income limits on it; which didn't have project limits on it; anybody could use the funds; it was just, again, buying people's votes with their own money.

And unfortunately now the people of Saskatchewan are going to wake up to the idea as the people of Manitoba did in the last election when they had the Tories running around the province promising hundreds of millions of dollars of new programs and another hundred or so million worth of tax expenditures and telling them, don't worry about the deficit. The Tories can no longer have it out of both sides of their mouths, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the public will certainly keep them very, very much under the microscope. They have to be kept un der the microscope.

You almost need a microscope to count the people that come out to these public forums they're having around the province. It's interesting. I saw another advertisement today just like the one from Springfield the other day. Now the Member for Roblin Russell. It's interesting. They have a big picture of the local member and then dollar signs all around the advertisement. Now I don't know who their copy-set person was, but I'm not sure what they're trying to imply to the people of Manitoba - that the Tories are going to spend all the money? Come hear us and we'll tell you how we're going to spend more money.

I'm not sure what the message is they're trying to get out but they certainly aren't drawing people out to the meetings. They certainly aren't drawing anybody out to the meetings of any significance, and when you take out the MLA's who in some instances have made up half the delegations or half the numbers at the meetings, it's a pretty sparse representation. I don't even know if they're getting their executives at their local constituencies bothering to come out to these farcical meetings which the Brandon Sun called too little, too late.

But let us take another quick look at the Province of Alberta and some of the things they are doing in Alberta along with massive tax increases which, once again, I say were responsible tax increases that the Government of Alberta brought in, even though it did not do it in anywhere near as equitable fashion as we have here in Manitoba, but that itself is defined and one doesn't have to look very hard for the rationale behind that when you look at the Conservative ph ilosophy of taxation versus that of we socia l democrats.

Before they started their budget process - in fact, in January, the Government of Alberta started sending out messages. Not that funds were going to be frozen but that they were actually going to be reduced to the core prorams offered in that province. The Education Minister in Alberta on January 9, through a press release, indicated that Education would get a 3 percent decrease in the Province of Alberta. A 3 percent decrease in their per-pupil foundation grants for basic education. Basic education. And this is what Mrs.

Belkowski said in this press release - and I quote: "This government recognizes" - speaking of the Government of Alberta, of course - "the importance of education and the fact that Albe rtans place a high priority on education for young people. However, our financial situation is such that we simply cannot continue to live beyond our means. With a provincial deficit of approximately 3 billion dollars we have no choice but 2984

Thursday, 11 June, 1987 to look carefully at all our expenditures and to try and make reasonable reductions. This is a sharp contrast", she said, "to the planning scenarios of reductions of 5 to 10 percent." So she's telling people, we're cutting you by 3 percent in education as opposed to us here in Manitoba with increases in education, increases in health care. There, they're saying: You should be happy only being reduced by 3 percent, because we really wanted to cut you by 5 to 10 percent, at the same time, responsib ly, once again, raising taxes to try and put the provincial budget on better feet.

What I'm somewhat concerned about is what the Tories in their desperation both federally and provincially as well, with their falling fortunes, what they're turning to as one can see with a letter that's just been sent out to Canadians by the Hon. Bill Jarvis. He is a Tory member - I believe he's from Alberta, is he not? - sending out what could almost be hate propaganda, almost be considered that by some people, and sending it out trying to raise funds.

He says: "I want you to help me establish an early warning system to protect and defend Canada from NDP controls, to strengt hen the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada." That is a sort of hate mongering, of fear- mongering that the Conservative Party is going to stoop to, that not only are they going to be 20 percent in the polls nationally - they are going to be falling much below that level. Because the Canadian electorate know what the New Democrats and their predecessors, the CCF have done in this country. They know the responsible governments they have given Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

They know the responsible opposition they have provided in the Government of Canada, in the Province of British Columbia, in most other provinces - in Alberta in particular, with Grant Notley for years and years as the sole member for such a . . . trying to take on as a one-member opposition in that province how difficult it was. So, in closing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask the members in their debate today, to present us with reason, to present us with fair arguments. Give us criticism but MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired. The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr.

Deputy Speaker. I want to speak as we debate the Interim Supply Bill and I want to point out to my honourable friends in government who bel ieve th ey are doing such a wonderful job in government, I want to point out some of the realities of what is happening in Manitoba, particularly in rural Manitoba which I represent, and particularly in terms of some of the ind ustries in rural Manitoba - both the manufacturing industries and indeed the farm supply industries, and of course the farm industry itself. This government believes they are doing a wonderful job.

We pose questions on a consistent basis in this House to try to determine answers to policy, answers to various problems facing Manitobans. With the exception of one set of questions I posed yesterday to the Minister of Health about the takeover of the $250 million pension fund at MHO for hospital workers paid for by those workers in the member facilities, we have not gotten more than a handful of straightforward answers from any member of this government since this Session started.

Now my honourable friends opposite believe that that is a slick way to answer the questions and that they are getting away with murder but what they don't realize is that that television camera which is in this Chamber for question period, broadcasting question period live, is showing them in their true role to anyone who tunes in question period on the television station, either live or later on in the day when it is re-run.

Manitobans in growing numb ers are recognizing that these people never, never answer a question directly - and that they are more interested in providing slick and devious subterfuge rather than getting into dealing with the issues. Like just a simple question today, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the super Minister of Crown Investments. This is the Minister that took over the troubled Telephone System and he took it over from a very incompetent Minister, probably the most incompetent Minister in the Treasury Bench - that being the Min ister for St. James, now the Minister of Labour - and Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we've been asking ourselves on this side of the House, how many mistakes do you have to make as a Minister in this government before the Premier will show some leadership, some courage, and remove you from the Treasury Bench? We see the Minister of Labour, the man responsible for $27 million dollars of loss in the Telephone System in Saudi Arabia, now bringing forward a bill, a labour bill, on final offer selection which will be withd rawn by this government.

Now, ob viousl y, this Mi nister shou ldn't serve in Cabinet, but he will - because no one gets bumped, no matter how incompetent, how out of touch they are with the Manitoba people from the Pawley administration's Cabinet, no one gets dropped.

Now you kn ow th at troubl es Mani tobans, because Manitobans now recognize that this spending spree, this spending binge, that the Member for Rossmere was on as Finance Minister for over four years, the man who ran up the $2 billion deficit for the Province of Manitoba has now been retired appropriately from his responsibility as Minister of Finance and has become the $2 billion embarrassment to the people of Manitoba and to the Pawley administration. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, one would think that after driving the people of Manitoba $2 billi on into debt, the honourable thing for any Premier to do would be to give that individual no Cabinet responsibilities. But no, no, he's still in ther e attempting to prove some semblance of competence where none exists. Daily in question period, the people of Manitoba watch this group in government not answer questions important to the average Mani toban that this Pawley administration claims they so dearly represent. Can you imagine. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, today, the Minister of Crown Investments, the man in charge of all the Crown corporations, the man who took over the Telephone System from the discredited Member for St. James. this new Minister of Telephones did not allow the Te lephone System to go ahead with cellular 2985

Thursday, 11 June, 1987 telephone service in the Province of Manitoba? Why? Was it because they didn't have the equipment in place? No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that's not the answer because the Telephone System had invested somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1. 5 million without a busi ness plan under the guise and the direction and the business acumen of the Member for St. James when he was the Min ister responsible. Well, this new Minister came on - this new super Min ister of Crown Investments came on - and he said no way, nothing happens on cellular telephones until we have a business plan.

No service will be introduced. That capital equipment that's already spent will sit there until we have a business plan. The Telephone System came up with a business plan. For a $1.5 million investment, they came up with a business plan. Now he won't table that because it's a competitive enterprise he claims. Well, I want to tell you that is so much sounding the same as his predecessor, the Member for St. James, who would give us no information on the operation in Saudi Arabia because it would jeopard ize competitive business operations. While he was withholding that information - the Member for St.

James, as Minister responsible - from myself over a three-year period, because of the competitive nature of their busi ness in Saudi Arabia, the Telephone System squandered and lost $27 million. Now, this new Minister, the Member for Concordia, the new Minister of Crown Investments, the super Min ister, says, well, we can't give you a business plan because it'll jeopardize our competitive business sector. It's the same answer that we got for three years from an incompetent Minister who was forced to resign as Telephones Minister.

They say they're putting a brand new face and image on the control of Crown corporations. It's the same old gang with the same old answers, with the same old tricks. No answers and no responsibility for the Crown corporations. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I find it, and I think the people of Manitoba will find it extremely bizarre that this new super Minister of Crown corps, responsible for the Telephone System, will not allow a $1.5 million venture on cellular telephones to go ahead in the Telephone System because there is no business plan.

Yet the same Minister of Crown Investments, the Premier and the Min ister of Energy and Mines will not table a business plan by which this government is going to investment maybe $15 0 million, maybe more, maybe less, we don't kno w, but $15 0 million into the takeover of Inter-City Gas using taxpayer money. They don't have a business plan for that. I find that absolutely incredible to beli eve. The level of incompetence still exists and is growing over there.

I simply ask my honourable friends over there: What are you hiding from the people of Manitoba in that you will not table the business plan by which you are alleging these savings to the people of Manitoba by you as the NDP Government, the nationalizing government of the Province of Manitoba, taking over the gas company? What are you afraid of telling the people of Manitoba by tabling that business plan? Well, you know why it won't be tabled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because no business plan exists. They have not done even a rudimentary busi ness plan on this takeover.

They haven't so much as. written out a few figures on the back of a cigarette package. A MEMBER: Oh, they might have done that. MR. D. ORCHARD: No. My colleagues say they might have written out a little business plan and done some calculations on the back of a cigarette package. No, they haven't even done that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. And we are being asked to approve legislation and allow this government to go ahead with the takeover of Inter-City Gas when they won't have a business plan they can table to show the people of Manitoba that they're telling the truth about the benefit to Manitobans?

I mean, if this is such a great deal for the people of Manitoba, and I was sittin g in that incomp etent government, I would be pleased to table a business plan showing these great savings. But you know what they're afraid of? No. 1, the business plan doesn't exist, it's never been worked up; but, No. 2, if it ever was to be tabled, it would be shot so full of holes so quickly that their grandiose claims would be proven to be more falsehoods emanating from the mouths of incompetent NDP Cabinet Ministers. That's why they will not see a business plan tabled. You know, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we'll debate the bill on the ICG takeover and we'll debate it shortly. But you know what I suspect? I suspect th at the shareholders, the senior management in Inter-City Gas, are laughing up their sleeves right now. Here they are as a company in the Province of Manitoba with a monopoly - a profitable monopoly. They are facing a business climate in this province which is the worst in Canada; the tax regime is amongst the highest in Canada.

Those shareholders and senior executives in the In ter-City Gas Corporation probably were contemplating seriously getting out of the Province of Manitoba because this is an antagonistic government. Now this government comes along and nationalizes them, pays them whatever they de mand for the corporation, and they laugh all the way to the bank. They don't have to seek a buyer. They simply go to this group of incompetent NDP Cabinet Ministers and allow them to be expropriated.

I mean expropriated using the taxpayers' cheque book without a business plan to get out of a province with the worst business environment in Canada and take that money and invest it in the Albertas, the Saskatchewans, the Ontarios, where business is welcome. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I simply pose the question: How many other businesses are out there in the Province of Manitoba that are just waiting to be nationalized by this socialist government? They are lining up.

They would love to have this government nationalize them so they could take their money, turn the business over to the government, get out of here and go to some province where they are welcome, where their job creation is welcome, where their investment is welcome, because this government has demonstrated it's anti-business, it's anti-professional, it's anti-risk taker and it hates anybody who earns more than $20,000 a year. Those are the "evil rich people" who they have to take to the cleaners in this budget and that's exactly who's paying.

That's who's paying the 2 percent surtax; that's who's paying the 10 percent increase in Hydro; that's who's paying the extra sales tax; and if those 20,000 wage earner Manitobans want to save some money on their 2986

Thursday, 11 June, 1987 electric bill, which has gone up by 10 percent, by buying insulation or triple pane windows for their house, this group of caring, sharing and loving New Democratic Cabinet Ministers are taxing them 7 percent on those energy saving devices. I mean so much for the Mini ster of Community Services' version of sharing, caring and loving each other. We'll love them as long as we can pick their pockets and tax them to death - that's sharing and caring in the Minister of Commu nity Services' best, best way. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I didn't mean to get off on a description of the total ineptness of this government in handling Crown corporations. I want to talk about a very serious matter concerning rural Manitoba. Not that the squa ndering of tax do llars and Cr own corporations isn't a serious matter, and it isn't going to be fixed by the super Min ister of Crown Investments, because he doesn't even have a business plan for the gas company takeover. This Min ister does not even have a business plan for Inter-City Gas. No business plan for Inter-City Gas from the super Minister of Crown Investments. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in a momentary lapse of my normal parliamentary dignity, some two weeks ago, when we were questioning the super Min ister of Crown Investments, when he couldn't answer any questions, when he didn't know what he was doing, when he didn't know what his department was doing, I nicknamed him the "super dud" - not the super Min ister. I apologize to him for that slip of my normal parliamentary courtesy that I display to him. But, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in rural Manitoba right now, the farm community, the supply indus try th at is supplying fertilizer, chemical, machinery parts, new machinery, used machinery to the farm community is hurting. We have seen a record number of closures of farm machinery dealerships in this province and, as in the AIDS crisis, we are only seeing unfortunately the tip of the iceberg in these closings. Go to Swan River and you will see the largest equipment dealer in the valley has just closed its door. That, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, was before the Budget came down, before the implication of this Budget on those kinds of busi nesses. Mr. Deputy Sp eaker, that equipment firm was doing quite well, thank you very much, in 1981 when we were in government. But five years later, after a New Democratic Party Government in this province, un der the present Premier and leadership, that business is now defunct. It's gone. It has gone broke because this government has ruined the economy of Manitoba outside of the Ci ty of Winnipeg. Absolutely ruined it and devastated it. Mr.

Deputy Speak er, my honour able frien d, the Member for Swan River, sits over there and laughs about those statements. I don't suspect he would be laughing in front of a meeting of those employees of that machinery dealership, laughing at them at their loss of jobs. I don't think he would be and I don't even think the Minister of Crown Investments, who doesn't get out of Winnipeg very often, would laugh at those same employees who have lost their job because of the economic climate created by an NDP Government for five years in rural Manitoba. Mr. Deputy Speaker, why are farmers in trouble?

Farmers are in trouble because this government has failed to support the public education system. And they have driven taxes, education taxes, up an inordinate amount that farmers are finding that education tax is the straw that breaks the camel's back. Do you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker -(Interjection)- oh, well - to the Minister of Crown Investments - I'll get to the prices in a few seconds if you would just close your mouth and be a little patient. I'll get to that. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have gone through my farm books at home because I still actively farm. And, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, do you know that the only area that has not decreased in terms of my expenses, my input costs, over the last four years is education taxes, which is provincial; hydro rates, which is provincial; telephone rates, which is provicial. Do you know what, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Those evil, multinational, money-grubbing, horrendous giant oil companies have lowered their prices so my fuel costs are cut by a full 35 percent. Do you know that those same horrendous multinational fertilizer companies have dropped the price of fertilizer so it's down by 25 percent over the last three years?

Do you know that those same horrible chem ical companies, multinational, have dropped their chemical prices? 4 Those oil giants, those chemical giants, those fertilizer giants that have been responsible for all of the evils in our capitalistic society - according to New Democrats - those evil multinationals have lowered the price of my inputs on my farm so I could afford to carry on. But who has raised the prices to me? It's these caring, sharing New Democrats that have been in government for five years.

I'll reiterate again: sales taxes is up; property taxes are up because of education and lack of support of not only the school system but the municipalities; the telephone costs are up because of the incompetence of a successive group of telephone Ministers; hydro rates are up because of the removal of the hydro-rate freeze; my cost of insuring my farm vehicles is up because of the incompetence of the Member for Gimli as Min ister responsible for MP IC - the man who gave us $58 million of loss in a publ icly-owned monopolistic Crown corporation.

Can you imagine the incompetence of that Minister to lose $58 million in a monopoly Crown corporation where there is no competition? Think of � what they'll do with the gas company, Mr. Deputy � Speaker. They had a monopoly in the Telephone System and they dropped $27 million with their incompetence. Think what they'll do with the gas company! Mr. Deputy Speaker, how many more examples do I need to go through before it becomes clear to these people who call themselves government that they are the reason farmers are going broke in rural Manitoba?

The Federal Government, through income support programs, has poured billions of doll ars into the Province of Manitoba, and I will be the first one to stand up and say that some of those programs are not sufficient, the billion dollar Special Grains Fund is not sufficient. I'll readily admit that and I will offer that as a criticism to the Federal Government. But my Lord! Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is gigantically forward compared to the steps backwards of the New Democratic Party and their Minister of Agriculture who have done nothing to support the farm community and the agricultural community of rural Manitoba.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I just want to go through before the Minister of Agriculture takes leave, because I know 2987

Thursday, 11 June, 1987 he's a busy man; but this Minister promised us in the Budget a tax relief to farmers in the form of a $500 education tax relief to farmers in rural Manitoba, and he made some pretty wild and exotic claims in that Budget, aided and abetted by the Finance Minister. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we finally have that program in front of us, and I'm pleased that he at least brought it out before the municipal meetings, because when this program hits the municipal meetings, I dare say all hell will break loose among the municipal councillors.

Now my honourable friend, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, sort of chortles from his seat. I expect that from him because he doesn't know what goes on in the municipal associations of Manitoba. This man doesn't know what goes on in a monopoly Crown corporation he runs. Why would we expect him to know what's going on in his department? Mr. Deputy Speaker, we've been posing the question to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Mun icipal Affairs: If you rent land in addition to what you own, will you receive $500 of education tax credit on that rented land? Well, we never got an answer.

We asked the question: If you are a landowner in the Province of Manitoba and you have that farm land rented out to your son, and you were relying on the land rental for your retirement income, will you receive the $500 tax credit? The Minister never gave us an answer. He was afraid to. But now he has, because, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this Minister nas mislf:ld the people, the farming community in Manitoba on this issue. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this Minister will now find that this is the last straw to destroy any semblance of credibility he had amongst the farm commun ity. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Agriculture on a point of order . HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask the Honourable Member for Pembina to withdraw that comment. When he raised that question with me, I told him that the principal objective of the program was to deal with owner- operators. To impute a motive that I misled someone, Mr. Deputy Speak er, I ask him to withdraw that remark. MR. D. ORCHARD: Was that a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a rule in this House that members cannot impute motives on other members. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I did not impute any motive. I simply stated the bare facts of which this Minister has done - the bare facts. Because, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the Budget was introduced by the Mini ster of Finance, and in subseque nt questioning, there were a numb er of grandiose claims made by this Minister and the Finance Minister. First of all, the $12 million would be expended. Second ly, that farmers . . . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the same point of order. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been accused of misleading this House and the farmers of Manitoba. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I have not misled anyone, and I ask the honourable member to withdraw those comments. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Deputy Speaker, when this government made the claims in the Budget and this Minister tried to answer questions, he was attempting to tell the people of Manitoba, the farm community, that there were these benefits for them. Those benefits don't exist, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They simply don't exist because this Minister did not deal in a truthful fashion with this program. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I ask the member to withdraw the comments of "misleading." He may wish to debate a difference of facts, but when he accuses someone of deli berately misleading this House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he knows that those comments are unparliamentary. I ask him, as a member of this House, to withdraw those comments. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Deputy Speaker, with all due respect to the Minister of Agriculture, maybe he did deliberately mislead the people of Manitoba, but I didn't accuse him of that. I said he was "misleading" them, not deliberately, because maybe he didn't know he was doing it.

But now he, himself, says he was "deliberately misleading" them. I'm not withdrawing something I did not say. SOME HONOUR ABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. According to the Rules of the House, there is a distinction between "mis lead" and "deli berately mislead." If it is "deliberately misleading," that will be unparliamentary and should be withdrawn. If it is just "m islead ," it may or may not be parliamentary, depending on the context. On the same point of order. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I would suggest that it was my hearing very clearly that the Honourable Member for Pembina did accuse the Minister of Agriculture of misleading, that he did imply it was deliberate. I would suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you review Hansard to see what was actually said and make an appropriate ruling once Hansard has been reviewed. I am certainly of the very distinct opinion that the Member for Pembina has broken the rules and should withdraw and apologize. MR. D. ORCHARD: May I continue with my . MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In the absence of the word, "deliberately," I rule that the word "misleading" is not necessarily unparliamentary. The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I deeply regret that this Minister of Agriculture indicated that he was deliberately misleading. I never made that accusation of him, but he put in on the record himself. And, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is exactly the problem we have 2988

Thursday, 11 June, 1987 with this Minister of Agriculture. The farm community no longer trusts him as a representative of the New Democratic Government. And when they see the details of this $500 education tax refund program, they will find out that once again, wrong information, wrong impressions were left by this government. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I in no way can say - because you would rule me out of order - that their initial presentation was designed to deliberately mislead the people of Manitoba. I can't say that. But I want to assure you, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that is the impression that's left in the farm community of Manitoba. And I will give you any number of examples of why this program is a farce and a sham. First of all, I do not believe you will spend your $12 million, and secondly, in the second line unde rneath that, you mentioned that this will provide over $27 million of tax relief. Well, what they fail to say is where the other $15 million comes from is the property tax credit. I mean what kind of dou ble-speak, newspeak, double-talk are we getting from this group? What it is, Mr.

Deputy Sp eake r, this kind of manipulation of the facts is designed to do nothing but appeal to the City of Winnipeg and give the impression that there is something being done by this group in the New Democratic Party for rural Manitoba and the farm commu nity, because most people in the City of Winnipeg agree that the farm crisis is serious enough that governments should act. And so people in the City of Winnipeg actually believe you may be doing something for the farm community, but let me assure you, you're not. You talk about the amount of tax relief this will provide, it is miniscule.

And you know where the maximum tax relief will be provided to farmers? It'll be to farmer s in Ne w Democratic Party constituencies. The farmers south of No. 1 Highway, who farm in excess of four quarter sections of land, which is not a large farm by today's standards, will receive the minimum benefit from this. They are paying the maximum school taxes, and they receive the minimum benefit. In my municipality - and it's not unique, because it covers a whole group of municipalities in South Central Manitoba - the education tax is $500 per quarter section.

Now we have farmers, to have an economic unit, must own and/or rent a minimum of six quarter sections. And what does this government do to help them in Southern Manitoba?

Gives them the rebate on one-sixth of their land base, and if they're larger farmers, some farmers - oh, horror of horror - are large - they're big farms, and bigness is hated by the New Democratic Party, they might have 10 or 12 qu arter sections of land, they are paying $5,000 to $7,000 of education tax, but because th ey' re in Tory constituencies south of No. 1 Highway, they get $500 tax relief, the same tax relief that will be given to a two quarter

section farmer in the north end of the Member for Swan River's constitue ncy. And that is fairness and equity NDP style. If it happens to benefit your constituent, you do it. If it can be at the disadvantage of anybody in southern Manitoba, you do it. You pillage Southern Manitoba for the benefit of your ridings in the City of Winnipeg. That's what we call a caring, open, sharing government. I want to tell you that there are many disillusioned Manitobans out there that say the only thing you care about is supporting your union friends - the Bruno Zimmers, the Bernie Christophes. I mean, you even bring in legislation that you shouldn't have called

An Act to amend The Labour Relations Act; you should have called it the Bernie Christophe Relief Bill, because that's what the final offer arbitration is all about. That's a bill to bail out Bernie Christophe. The only problem is, th ese boys and girls in the government have underestimated the power of the unions and they're going to withdraw that bill. They're going to withdr aw that Bernie Christophe relief bill. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you know, my honourable friends over there are operating in a mental vacuum.

They've always operated in a busi ness vacuum because not one of them has ever risked a dollar in investment in business.- (Interjection)- With all due respect to the Minister of Natural Resources, I suspect he might fit into that category called hobby farmer because I believe he was principal of a high school in the Swan River Valley. Well, if he's proud of being a hobby farmer, so are many doctors and other professionals who are hobby farmers. I say, absolutely great, but don't tell me that you're entertaining - you're all of a sudden a businessman. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Natural Resources. HON. L.

HARAPIAK: I would just like to have the record show clearly that I was a school principal and very proud of it. I gave up a solid career in education to pursue farming on a full-time basis in the spring of 1981 and undertook the same kind of risks in agriculture as some of the members opposite did. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Deputy Speaker, just to make the record completely complete, that was the year that the honourable member ran and was defeated in the election.

Then, to reinforce, the next time that he withd rew from his profession of teaching was the time when he got appointed as chairman of Autopac, MPIC - chairman of the board for $40,000 a year to pay his election expenses while he resigned as a teacher. He was on the government dole then; he's on the government dole now; he never has been a businessman; he never will be. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think it should be pointed out for the record that the Member for Pembina is totally incorrect in the statements that he has put on the record.

I did serve in my capacity as a chairman of the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, and for a period of six months, I served, just prior to the election of 19 86, as chairman of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: A dispute as to a statement of facts is not a point of order. The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the more this man talks, the more he gives us targets. MACC, under his chairmanship, was a disaster and it's a disaster today. It's tougher than any lending institution, any evil bank or any evil credit union and that's part of the 2989

Thursday, 11 June, 1987 legacy of having him as chairman of MACC. Mr. Deputy Speaker, he mentions that for six months he was on the dole from the New Democratic Party as chairman of MPIC while they were covering up $36 million of reinsurance losses from the people of Manitoba prior to the election. Is he proud of that cover-up as chairman of the board? Now, obviously he is, Mr. Deputy Speaker - obviously he is. So, you know, I welcome more points of order from the Member for Swan River. He's a delight to get on the record as to how he's helped this government cover up, shred documents, whatever, Mr.

Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the NOP don't appreciate what they have done in this Budget to Manitoba business, to the farm community and to those businesses in rural Manitoba supplying the farm community. Mr. Deputy Speaker, one might ask what does something as infinitesimal as the payroll tax do to a farm machinery dealership in the Swan River Valley? Well, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, many businesses and I know if the Member for Swan River wanted to be a little bit forthright with the House, he would be able to tell us of busine sses in the Swan River Valley that have told him that with a 50 percent increase in the payroll tax they will be laying off some workers. He would be able to tell us that if he was forthright with the discussions he's had with the business community. If he can't tell us, then he's not in touch with them, because that is what is happening in the Province of Manitoba.

Busi nesses in rural Mani toba that depend on agriculture can no longer afford to pay that payroll tax which is a tax on salaries. Before any profit, before any employee is paid, this tax must be paid. By the fact that it's been increased by 50 percent, people are laid off and it contributed to the closing of busi nesses in rural Manitoba as did the hydro rate increase, as did the sales tax increase. Mr.

Deputy Sp eake r, we no w have another incom petent Minister, unfortunately a brother of the Member for Swan River, now in charge of the Workers Compensation Board, where we find out through the King Report that the de ficit in the Worker s Compensation Board is not $84 million, it is $18 4 million. No w, Mr. Deputy Sp eaker, let us put th at in perspective. In 1981 - well, I'll go back even further; I'll go back to 1977.

In 1977, we formed government and we took over operations of the Workers Compensation Board and we didn't significantly change basic policies over there, but we did do a review, we did offer additional benefits in WCB from 1977 to 19 81. We in fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, improved upon the system we inherited from the Schreyer Government. Now we improved upon it from 1977 to'81, but in 19 81, that system, the WCB system, had a surplus of $35 million to $36 million.- (lnterjection)- Well, you know, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the Member for Thomp son is chirping from a seat beside the incompetent Minister: what about the workers? Well, what about th ose workers un der Sch reyer? We improved the benefit package to them. Are you saying that the Schreyer administration, an administration with the Member for Brandon East, the Member for St. Boniface, the Premier and others in it, were pillaging the workers at that time? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The member's time has expired. MR. D. ORCHARD: Including the time deducted for the points of order, the phony points of order?

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I seek the advice of the Clerk because there is a distinction between question period where we deduct the time used and this is not question period, this is debate. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is the practice of this House that it's only in question period that we deduct the time spent for points of order. The Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I would, first of all, in my speech recommend to you, Sir, that you look back at what has happened in previous times, because it is my understanding that there is additional time allowed for the speaker if he's been interrupted on a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would advise or suggest that you take a look at what has happened. I would hate to think that a member's time would be depriv ed because of the trivia of interjection of the Minister of Agriculture or any member of the government. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak today on Interim Supply at a time in our provincial history which I think is an extremely important time, particularly when we're dealing with the request of this government for the massive amount of taxpayers' money that it is asking for. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have seen a massive increase in demands put on the taxpayers by the Government of Manitoba, by the New Democratic Party. In fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when one looks at the record, in 19 81, every indiv idual in the Province of Manitoba was carrying a provincial debt sbare of some $4,000.00.

Just a period of six years later, that share of provincial debt had gone up to $9,500.00. We still have, Mr. Deputy Speaker, unfortunately, an NOP Government in office and probably will have for three more years, unless they screw up their courage and go to the people on such an important issue as delving them deeper into debt with the setting up of another Crown corporation. Look at that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what will happen by the year 1995? They more than doubled the debt in the last six years. I believe by 1995, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that's eight years - let's come back to 1993, let's add six on to 1987 - another six years, at the rate that this government is going, let's take a look at the debt that will be carried by each Manitoban at that particular time. Because my colleague, the critic of the Department of Finance - and I hope the Minister of Finance is listening because this is the trend that we're going - that my colleague, the Deputy Minister of Finance has indicated -(Interjection)- the deputy critic has indicated - I don't know what the Minister of Finance finds so humorous about it . . . 2990

Thursday, 11 June, 1987 HON. E. KOSTYRA: It's his promotion. You just made him Deputy Minister of Finance. MR. J. DOWNEY: Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the greatest of respect for the current Deputy Minister, we wouldn't do that badly with this member as well. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I say this, and I hope that the members of government listen, and my colleagues listen: Where are we going to be at in 19 93 with the per capita debt that's on the backs of each taxpayer in the Province of Manitoba? A MEMBER: Where are we going to be? MR. J. DOWNEY: Where are we going to be?

My colleague has asked the Minister of Finance to lay before the public what his plan is for five years, where is he headed. We aren't headed to reduce the deficit with the actions that this government is taking. We aren't putting anything in place, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that would expand the tax base to generate more revenue from. We are just continually seeing the heaping on of the backs of taxpayers, continuing to use the tax system that's there, and increasing that tax on those individuals. We're not broadening the base; we're doing nothing to get new sources of revenue other than using those same taxpayers.

Let's use the numbers that we have, $4,000 per capita in 19 81; by 1993, using the same multiplier effect - and it's much greater when you get into the larger numbers - we will have a doubling again of the $9,500 per capita. Can you imagine that every Manitoban, by 1993, will have a $20,000 per capita provincial debt on their shoulders?

I would like them to stand up and tell me that I'm wrong.- (Interjection)- Well, the Minister of Health, who is the biggest hypocrite in the whole place, I'm surprised he hasn't switched over to sit with the Liberal member of the House now, to go back to where he came from when he was in here, because it was his decision to join the socialists that has put us into this debt. (lnterjection)- Mr. Deputy Speak er, the point is - and I hope the Memb er for lnkster will sit down and seriously consider the legacy that he's leaving to his children and to his constituents' children, by 1993.

Does he disagree with me that there will be a $20,000 per capita debt on the shoulder of each Manitoban at the rate we're going by 1993? And is he proud to leave that kind of debt or give that kind of debt? He says it won't be. Well, tell me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how it will be? Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Finance is asking for $1. 7 billion, or approximately, in this bill. Well, he'll get it. The bill will pass and they think it's just a matter of putting in time, that they have to listen to us and we'll just pass it anyway. Well, it will pass, but I'll tell you, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, there are some other issues that are out there before the public than what we're debating today. And it's some of the ill-conceived legislation that the Attorney-General is forcing the Minister of Health to vote on. It's some of the ill conceived legislation that the Attorney-General is forcing the Members for The Pas and Swan River to vote on. Their priorities, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are not financial at all. Yes, they're forcing. My colleaugue from St.

Norb ert yesterday truly indicated - he gave an excellent speech as to how they were being forced into voting or giving up their rights to support the wishes of the Attorney-General. That's precisely where it's at, and I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they should come to their senses. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the government is talking about buying or expropriating Int er-City Gas. Not expropriating, a friendly takeover. Well, my colleague from Pembina put it very well. He said, I'm surprised that there weren 't hundreds more businesses lined up the next day to sell to the province with the busi ness climate that's here.

Who wouldn't want to be taken over by the government with the environment that they have created and the tax load that they put on every indi vidual? I'm sure there would be a line-up of companies that would give in to this government rather than be continually raped of their tax money as this government have been raping them. The Minister of Finance is the biggest culprit in the province as far as that's concerned. Mr. Deputy Speaker, let's just stop one minute and look at some of the record, and this is why the public � are phoning in, this is why the public are contacting , us.

The public isn't against lower gas prices for their homes. One would be foolish to think that any politician would stand up and say that we're for not having lower gas prices. The Member for Lac du Bonnet is a smart enough politician to know that. Nobody would be against lowering gas prices for consumers, but Mr. Deputy Speak er, the problem is there hasn't been one bit of assurance given from this government that that in fact will happen. It is all a dream.

It's a dream of the Minister of Energy and Mines, the Premier, that all at once they see what appears to be a popular political issue to run and get favour with the electorate because it's going to lower their gas prices. Well, I talked to a colleague of mine earlier today and I'm going to recommend to the constituencies of this province that there's a comparison that should be made. There's a direct comparison that should be made. Anybody that uses gas in their houses should compare their last few years' gas bills to see how much increases they've had in their gas prices.

They should also take � their hydro bill; they should also take their telephone , bill; they should also take their Autopac and their public insurance bill and compare the increases that have taken place. I would recommend that every taxpayer in the province do that, that they say my hydro has gone up, since the Tories were in, X dollars. -(Interjection)- The comparison is for the Mem ber for lnkster who has a hard time catching on. We're seeing what in fact the Crown corporation, Hydro, has done.- (lnterjection) Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Member for lnkster is tryng to deflect what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is compare your utility bills, those controlled by the Crown corps. and those controlled by the Inter-City Gas. The member says it's a false comparison because there's a surplus of gas. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'm of the understanding we've had a surplus of hydro. We've had a surplus of hydro, and what's happened to our hydro bills? Have they stayed constant? No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they've gone up too. And if he'd stop and listen once, he may learn something. 2991

Thursday, 11 June, 1987 A MEMBER: You're comparing apples and oranges. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Deputy Sp eak er, I'm not comparing apples and oranges. I'm telling him, compare the Crown corporation utilities and the rate of increases to the private sector utility services. That's all I'm asking him to do. I'm saying Hydro have a surplus, natural gas was in surplus, so it's a fair comparison.- (Interjection)- Well, he wants to be so thick- headed and not pay attention. That's fine; that's why the province is in the state that it's in. But I'm not going to waste my time with a lightweight like that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I'm going to continue on with my comments. Let's look at the record of the province in the handling of Crown corporations. The Member for Lac du Bonnet, I'm sure would agree that there's been a tremendous amount of loss in most of the Crown corporations. Manitoba Telephone Syst em, look at the ManOil, Manfor, Flyer Bus, MP IC, Commu nit ies Economic Development Fund. Every time we turn around, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the public are having to pick up the mismanagement and the loss of money in crown corporations. That, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, is why the public are so nervous and concerned about again, another public takeover. It's not cause they don't want lower gas prices, everybody wants lower gas prices, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that's a fair and laudable objective. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, nobody is proving to them that it can be done. The Minister of Mines and Energy loves to keep the cards close to his chest, he goes out and he says, we've got long term contractual agreements. Yes, but they're at the National Energy Board, and we can't do anyt!:!i,{lg that might upset that. The rules say that we c'ti'n't disclose it.

Very convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Very convenient. I tell you, they'll have a tough time with the record that they have selling to the public of Manitoba another Crown corporation. MR. M. DOLIN: No problem. MR. J. DOWNEY: Well, the Member for Kildonan says "no problem." I would suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the honourable thing for the Premier to do if he's sure he's on the right path - he didn't tell the people of Manitoba last March that he was going to nationalize or take over a gas company and set up another Crown corporation.

The public didn't know at that time of the massive losses in all the other Crowns. Maybe he should put it to the public. Maybe he should call an election and see if he has the mandate to proceed. A MEMBER: What about Mulroney and free trade . . . MR. J. DOWNEY: Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'll tell you if we'd had a little tighter controls on free trade a few years ago, the Member for Kildonan wouldn't have been here. I think if we'd had a tighter border policy we wouldn't have had -(Interjection)- That's right; that's the other thing.

We got him free; we didn't even have to trade anything to get him.- (Interjection)- At least mine didn't come out of some jungle someplace. No reflection on anyone else, I just told him where mine didn't come from. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'm dealing with a matter that I think is so important to the public and that is the taxpayers being asked again to foot another bill, another experiment by the socialists and I think that it would only be incumbent upon them to go to the public and get a mandate to do it. I don't see there's anything wrong.

Look what's happening in Western Canada with some of the new party developments. A MEMBER: . . . happening in England today. MR. J. DOWNEY: Yes, they get extremely upset, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of governments not paying close enough attention to the electorate. Well, I say there's one way that they could get the message from the electorate and to find out how popular they are in the polls because they continue to say that they're really popular with the people. Let's find out how popular they are and see if they have a mandate. I would have no trouble, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in going to the people on an issue such as this and putting our position forward. I want to, as well, talk briefly about how the public feels on government in busine ss because, again, there are no assurances that what they say will happen, will happen. The Premier's credibility, when it comes to dealing with the gasoline prices in the Province of Manitoba is a good example. They were promised, they were told during the election of 1986 that there would be in fact a lower gas price implemented by the Premier of the province. He made a lot to do about it, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, as they're making a lot to do about the prices of gas for the homes right now. But what happened with the price of gasoline for your automobile? How much did it go down, Mr. Deputy Speaker? How much responsibility did this Premier have in making it go down? No. 1, it didn't go down, because he wasn't able to make it go down. He failed in that effort, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, as I am sure that the same path is going to be struck on the path that he's on now, only this time the taxpayers will have the opportunity to put in massive amounts of money to support their ideology and their approach to trying to do it. Mr. Deputy Speaker, how many Canadians remember what Petro-Canada was going to do for the consumers of gasoline and oil products in this country? Petro Canada was Pierre Elliott Trudeau's national dream to lower fuel prices or to make sure that nobody was ripped off.

Who has pulled into a Petro-Canada station that has bought cheaper gasoline than they'd buy at any of the other ones? A MEMBER: Why did they expand it? MR. J. DOWNEY: Why did they expand it? Because it was an ill-conceived policy decision of government. They bought Petro-Canada and Petrofina for the purpos es of an ideology not to lower prices. (lnterjection)- The Conversatives, to my knowledge, did not add to it. In fact, I remember a policy of Joe Clark was to sell it. If I remember correctly, it was his policy to sell it.- (Interjection)- Well, probably they added to it.

The only ones that I know added to it was again the Liberals when they bought their friends out of Petrofina. 2992

Thursday, 11 June, 1987 How do we know how many friends of the government are involved in any of this deal? How do we know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how many colleagues, how many friends or businesses of colleagues in this House aren't involved in some way in what's going on right now? How do we know that? Mr. Deputy Speaker, I don't think the public have been sold that the sole answer to lower prices is through Crown corporations. I'm not op posed to Crown corpor ations.

Good ness sakes, the Progressive Conservative Party, it's very clear on the record as to what they've done as far as Crown corporations are concerned. The Mani toba Te lephone System, no trouble; Progressive Conservatives set up the Manitoba Te lephone System. Who set up the Manitoba Agricu ltural Credit Corpora tion? Progressive Conservative Party under the Duff Roblin Government. Who set up the Manitoba Crop Insur ance? The Progressive Conservative Party under the Manitoba, Duff Roblin. Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who set up all th ose Crown corporations?

It was Progressive Conservatives that set up a lot of Crown corporations. I make no apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for being involved in a party when it comes to the best interests of the taxpayers. I'm not opposed to that. But I'll tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we didn't have the horrendous debt on the taxpayers that these people have imposed on them, and yet, shove more onto them. We were in a lot better financial condition, as taxpayers and the province was, at that time. Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we were in a lot better financial condition.

We didn't do it for the thought of trying to help the party politically, as is the objective of these people. These people stand and say it's their objective to help who? Yes, the average Manitoba. Who do they think they're taxing every time they increase taxes? The average Manitoban, that's who's paying. Everyone is sharing their misery equally, that's really what their policy is . . . A MEMBER: That's socialism. MR. J. DOWNEY: That's socialism. Everyone shares their debt and misery equally; that's what their socialist policies are. Mr. Deputy Speaker, let us look at the whole question of contractual agreements.

They're trying to sell the public - they're trying to sell Manitobans that we're going into the United States and selling hydro at a fixed basis, at a fixed rate, and if that's going to give us the assurance that we're going to recover money to pay for Li meston e and the Hydro projects, that's a contractual agreement. Now they're saying, and we bide by that -we build by it and we bide by it, and everybody expects the United States, forever and a day, to pay their money into the Hydro coffers. What happens, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if all at once Alberta or Ontario or Quebec go to that same area and say: Look, we've got a bunch of extra hydro; we'll sell it to you for at least $1 per thousand kilowatts or 1, 000 per unit less than what you can get it from Manitoba. Do you know what they'll do? They'll say: Well, look, if we haven't got the distribution system, we'll buy it or we'll set it up; we'll break the contract with Manitoba because they're charging us too much. We'll go to Quebec or to another province - B.C. or to Alberta or Saskatchewan or wherever they can buy the energy - Ontario, and we will buy it cheaper.

Yet they say, oh, I'm sure that there wouldn't be one of them would agree that that was right. But that's what they're telling now they're doing when they go to Alberta to buy gas - that they're going to now say, look, we're going to break a contractual agreement; we're going to resign another agreement that's going to buy it for a lower price. What we want to see in this Assembly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the proof that we're going to have a long term gas supply, a long-term gas supply for the people of Manitoba.- (Interjection)- The Member for The Pas says, we've got it. I can tell you, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, until they table it in the House we have to say they haven't got it. We cannot believe anything this government do or say. The MTS and MTX affair was one good example to see the massive cover-up and the lack of information to the public. We have now seen the Public Insurance Corporation shredding of documents - the Minister. We've now seen massive losses and continual cover-ups. Who in the devil would believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that they have anything that's in the best interests of the people of Manitoba until they lay it before us and show us in writing?

Certainly not the electorate, I can tell you that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to, as well, indicate another area where this government have failed with the use of taxpayers' money. I touched on it briefly this morning, and that's dealing with the Manitoba Beef Commission. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Manitoba Beef Commission has lost or is in deficit by some $27 million plus. Canada Packers have closed; the beef herd has reduced by thousands of numbers. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the program failed.

Now, because the program failed and we don't have the numbers to go to slaughter, we have to have a special program, a special grant, both from the Federal and Provincial Government to help Burns rebuild their plants or redo their plants. I tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they're not doing it on the strength of cattle numbers or business; they're doing it on the strength of again another government handout. That's what's encouraging Burns to do it. If Burns were asked the question, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, are you inv esting, increasing your expansions in Manitoba because of: No. 1, the increase in beef herds or the number of livestock to kill, or the fact that both Federal and Provincial Governments are laying money on the table, I can bet you what the answer would be, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It's because there's a handout of government grants for them to do it, not because the numb ers are there, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but because there's government money on the table. I have one other area that I want to touch on, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I think it's extremely important about what kind of government and what kind of people we really have. We have, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the situation in this province, in the City of Winnipeg, where 600,000 or 700,000 people depend on a long-time pure water supply. We have had for years water coming out of Shoal Lake and it's been pure, good water. But what's happened in the last while, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and where has the government been? The 2993

Thursday, 11 June, 1987 Premier won't even stand up and defend the 600-and some people when it comes to maintaining a pure, long-term water supply.- (Interjection)- Yes, 600,000 people in the City of Winnipeg getting their water out of Shoal Lake. The Premier won't even stand up and respond to it; he says it seems to be somebody else's problem - the Federal Government or the Minister of Environment. He's ready to stand up and spend $1 00-and-some million. The water intake is in Manitoba, Mr. Deputy Speaker. -(Interjection)- Shoal Lake is in Ontario and the natural gas is in Alberta.

The Member for Kildonan says the water is in Ontario and so is the natural gas in Alberta. We've already got the infrastructure to bring the water out of Alberta. There's no charge to it. It's clear, pure water. You stepped into that one pretty good, Mr. Kildonan. The water comes from Ontario, the gas comes from Alberta. -(Interjection)- No, the gas is coming from Kildonan, that's right. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the 600-and-some thousand people have had, and will continue to need th at renewable resource water. The Premier won't even stand up and speak on it. I say, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, why haven't the government taken action? Why haven't the government taken action on behalf of the 600-and some thousand people, to guarantee that that water supply stays at the state that it's at and that nobody has a cottage development? Why don't they, as my leader has indicated a while ago, why don't they develop a land exchange for the Native community that are now living there, in fact, have moved in several years after the water was taken for the City of Winnipeg?

Why don't th ey move in and suggest to the Federal Government that we want to have that guaranteed forever for the people of the City of Winnipeg, clear, pure water? Why don't they do a land exchange and move that Native commu nity to another location, because we were taking water from there before they were there. The people of Winnipeg were taking water many years before they moved onto that site, so it's not a matter of taking away their rights. I have some severe concerns again for the taxpayers of the City of Winnipeg. Why should they spend one nickel to treat the water?

It's not right that they should have to spend any money to treat the water. Why don't we do what is proper and right, and put that into a long-term permanent water reservoir for the purpose only of the City of Winnipeg, nothing else. It wouldn't cost the city taxpayers any money. It shouldn't upset those people who want to develop too much, because if they get a fair land exchange and a fair property exchange, it shouldn't hurt them because what they're after is development. Give them an equal development site or better. Be fair with them, but don't, don't, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, allow 600,000 or 700,000 people to have their cl ear, pure potable water supply held up for blackmail; don't allow that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Defend, stand up for the people of Winnipeg with their water supply and don't force them to spend one nickel to do so. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if this government, if thi s government truly cared about the interests of the people of Manitoba, they would do exactly that. But you know what they care about, No. 1, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

That is their political image of having to take on in some big way another jurisdiction like Alberta, take on a private corporation to take it over because they're leaving the appearance that they're ripping off the users of gas, while in fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the biggest ripp er off in this whole busi ness is the hydro. (lnterjection)- Yes, that's right, ripper off, that's the "Min ister of Tax"; I mean the Minister of Finance. I think that would be an appropriate amendment to this act, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, of this Interim Supply bill, would be to rename the Minister of Finance, the "M in ister of Tax Grab." That wou ld be a more appropriate name for him.- (I nterjection)- That's right, Tax Grab and Deficit, an appropriate amendment. But I'm serious, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think the public is fed up with the losses of their money. They're fed up with them not standing up on matters of essential services that in most cases doesn't cost near the amount of money that this group of people are prepared to spend. I say, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if we continue on with the path that we're on, there will be very little flexibility for any government. In fact, there is very little flexibility right now. The Minister of Finance knows that. He has very little flexibility. In fact, it would be interesting for him to, in this debate, tell us where he is going to raise the money to buy Inter-City Gas. Where is he going to raise the money? Is he going to go again to the international money market? Is he going to go to the Lotteries Fund? Where is he going to go to raise the money? We know who is going to pay for it.

It's not going to be all the users; it's going to be carried by all the taxpayers. They're hanging a carrot out to the rural members, saying wouldn't you like to have gas in your community? Wouldn't it be nice to expand it? Well, yes, I think it certainly would be. We would all love to see natural gas at low prices. Again, we haven't got any guarantee of that. If they wanted the company to do that right today, I'm sure that the company would if they gave them a tax break or a tax incentive to do it. Yes, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I think that it could be done; it could be accomplished without having government ownership. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I don't want anyone to leave this Assembly today thinking that I'm not for lower gas prices for the consumers of gas. Yes, I am. But what I want to come from his government before the action is taken, to again burden the taxpayers with the kind of debt that they are going to be burdened with to do it, I want the assurance that we have long-term gas supplies lined up and in contractual arrangements that are tabled in this Legislative Assembly. I want to make sure, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that we aren't imposing on the taxpayers the kind of fiasco that we've seen with all the other Crown corporations, whether it's the Public Insurance Corporation, whether it's Manitoba Telephone System, whether it's the Flyer Bus, whether it's ManOil, whether it's all that whole realm of massive losses, probably in excess of $200 million to $500 million in losses incurred by this incompetent administration from Crown corporations. I'm not talking about the annual deficits that are incurring at $500 million, not reducing that deficit with the tax grab that's in place, but closing hospital beds.

You see, that's their answer. You cut back on essential services because you say what do you want us to do, 2994

Thursday, 11 June, 1987 spend more money? We say, no. So they take out hospital beds. They take out RCMP service. They take out all those essential services, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the people of this province were promised wouldn't happen in 1981 in 1986. Mr. Deputy Speaker, enough is enough. That's why I conclude my remarks today by saying that the Premier doesn't have the mandate to move again on another massive expenditure, that we don't know what we're going to get back for it other than possibly just more taxation. We have no idea, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of where we're going.

This has been thought up in the last few weeks and months. It hasn't been properly aired and now, in the dying days, or what some people think are the dying days of the Legislature, they're going to ram it through. Well, I can assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it's not the dying days of the Legislature. With the heavy legislation and the proposals that they're laying before us, we're going to be here for some time, making them justify publicly just precisely where they're going.

I say that the public cannot afford to have another $9,500 foisted on their backs in the next six years, putting them well into the range of $20,000 per taxpayer on their back, or per individual. It's too much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to expect them to withstand it and I think you will have a taxpayer revolt and this government can be the ones to thank for it. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister of Education. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I had not intended to address any remarks to this particular bill at this point, but having had the fortune or misfortune of being in the Chamber when the Member for Pembina spoke, and the Member for Arthur, I felt somewhat obligated to put some remarks on the record to dispel some of the myths that are continually expostulated by members opposite. The irony, I suppose, of the situation, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, is that the issues that the Member for Arthur has raised, in particular, are important ones and no one should dissuade themselves from being concerned about the size of the deficit, the nature of the deficit, in terms of its systemic origins. I think we all should be concerned about it. The fact of the matter is that the Premier has announced and the Minister of Finance, through his consultation meetings, has indicated quite clearly that it is a matter of concern to the people of Manitoba and the province. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the latest Budget did assault the deficit. The fact of the matter is that . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Deputy Speaker, "Chuckles," as he is affectionately known, the Memb er for Sturgeon Creek, can, I suppose, comment from his seat all he will.

The fact of the matter is that if you consider the anticipated deficit, and we will have confirmation very sho rtly for 19 86, and com pare it to the deficit projections in the Budget tabled on March 16 , it will ind icate that the reduction in de ficit is far mo re signi ficant than any effort of the Co nservative administration who told us that it was no problem, that, yes, they in fact could handle it. We have made a significant reduction and, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Member for Sturgeon Creek from his seat is talking about the efforts that his government made when he was a member in 1977 to 19 81.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when that government left in 19 81, in disrepute, because they had not lived up to any of their commitments to young people, to commitment of jobs, or to lowering the deficit - in fact, in 1980 -8 1, we had the highest deficit in the history of this province and they're still blaming the previous government and they're not even in government. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, let's not lose sight of the important question and that is, how do we manage the deficit? Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Finance in his Budget of March 16 did acknowledge the problem, did address it, through the Budget measures, at the same time taking extreme care not to cut the foundation out of the social programs that have been established and that Manitobans want and expect. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I had a chance to have a brief chat with the Member for Morris some time ago.

I guess the difficult issues that all politicians are facing, all governments are facing in terms of raising revenue to meet the expectation of the people of Manitoba and the many interest groups in our community with respect to services and we both acknowledged that I suppose Manitobans are not unlike politicians, they want it both ways. They recognize that the deficit is a problem, that taxation is a problem, but they also say without reservation that they want Manitoba to maintain its essential services. They want Manitoba to have a quality education system.

They want us to have a health care system which is second to none. Mr. Deputy Spe aker, the challenge of being in government in 19 87 is to address the issue of repriorization, of selectivity, when it comes to services and the delivery of services and the elimination of services and make sure that, in doing that, you maintain the trust with the people, that you maintain those essential services, and that, at the same time, you allow yourself the flexibility in a cooperative way to reduce and hold constant those services which are of a lower property. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the Member for Sturgeon Creek and the Member for Pembina ask, why are the hospitals beds being closed? The Minis ter of He alth has addressed that question at length. The members on that side both know that the hospital boards who have the responsibility of maintaining some semblance of order in their own budgeting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Manitoba Health Services Commission has in fact reviewed those issues on a number -(Interjection)- of occasions. Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the member rising on a point of order? MR. D. ORCHARD: I am indeed rising on a point of order. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Mem ber for Pembina state his point of order? 2995

Thursday, 11 June, 1987 MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Deputy Speaker, my honourable friend is saying that boards of hospitals are making the decision to close beds and that it has nothing to do with the Minister of Health and the inadequate funding of the Government of Manitoba. Mr. Deputy Speaker, my point of order, quite clearly, no hospital board in the Province of Manitoba would close beds if they were adequately funded. This government has cut back funding to hospitals, increased taxes to hospitals in the payroll tax, hydro rates and that is why hospital beds are closing. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

Disagreement as to substantive matters is not a point of order. HON. J. STORIE: I would comment, but even the Member for Pembina, even he kn ows what he is saying is a pile of crap. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Deputy Speaker, all of the 200,000 students know

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-2-67
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 2nd hansardpdf 67.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c8e41f52cd09770d31163ad1d07a3627cca0e549

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