Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 14 (33rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

33-2-14

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 18 March, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips : Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS <" MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. L. HARAPIAK: I'd like to table the Annual Report for 1985 for the Conservation Districts of Manitoba . MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Motion .. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. R. PENNER introduced , by leave, Bill No. 10,

An Act to Amend The Queen's Bench Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Gour du Banc de la Reine . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 52 students from Grade 5 in the Niverville Elementary School. The students are under the direction of Ms. Sharon Paschke. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Emerson. On behalf of all the members , we welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon. Also, before moving to Oral Questions, may I remind honourable members of Beauchesne, Citation 359(2) : " The question must be brief. A

preamble need not exceed one carefully drawn sentence . A long

preamble on a long question takes an unfair share of time and provokes the same kind of reply . A supplementary question should need no

preamble ." ORAL QUESTIONS Budget - personal income tax MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposit ion. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you , Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. On Monday evening, during his Doomsday Budget Address to Manitobans, the Minister of Finance stated that his personal tax increases would not affect low and middle-income Manitobans. Yet, the vice-chairman of the Manitoba Institute of Chartered Accountants 375 Taxation Committee is quoted tod ay as saying that the increase in 1988 will hit single people earning more than $12,000 .00.

Did the Minister mislead the public, or does he consider $12,000 to be a high -inco me earner? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance . HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I indicated at the time of the Budget Address, and as I indicated yesterday, in response to questions from members opposite , this government has looked at the overall situation with respect to the need to maintain services in our province and the need to get revenue in a fair and balanced manner .

We have looked at ensuring that we maintain health and education services in our province, unlike other Conservative Government provinces in this country. At the same time , we've looked at securing the necessary revenue to provide for those services and bring about some reduction in the deficit . The changes we introduced on Budget night are fair and balanced in terms of getting reasonable fair shares to provide for the services in our province. In excess of 100,000 Manitobans will see actual reductions in their income tax as a result of the changes that were brought in on Budget night, Madam Speaker. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker , my further question to the Minister is: Will the $12,000 income earner be facing a larger personal tax in 1988? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Madam Speaker , as I ind icated, the changes that we brought about with the imposition of the new net income tax will provide for a fair sharing of the tax burden amongst all income levels . You can't simply look at one aspect of it without looking at the impact of the Cost of Living Tax Credit .

In fact, this tax that we brought in place, Madam Speaker , was called laudable by one of the prominent members of the Conservative Party , who said this was a good way of providing for increased revenue, a good way to ensure that there is equal sharing of the tax burden . MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , I'm sorry that the Minister didn 't answer that question , so I'll ask him a different question . Is the figure of 100,000 Manitobans paying less tax, as a result of this Budget for the 1987 or the 1988 taxation year? HON. E.

KOSTYRA: Madam Speaker , as I've indicated , the situation is with respect to this taxation year, to 1987. That amount of people will not be paying taxe s at a level the same as the previous year. They 'll actually see a reduction . If you factor in the other changes that were made in this Budget , if you factor in the Cost of Living Tax Credit , if you factor in the special assistance

Wednesday, 18 March, 1987 to farmers, that figure will go to 156,000 Manitobans who will actually see a reduction in the amount of taxes that they pay in this year, Madam Speaker . MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, my further question is to the Premier. Is it the Prem ier's position that a fair system of taxation should apply a tax on personal deductions, on charitable contributions, on university and college tuition fees and education expenses , on the cost of medical expenses, for instance , or pension contributions? Is that the Premier 's idea of a fair system of taxation? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please.

Is the Honourable Leader of the Opposition asking a question on government policy or a personal opinion? The Honourable First Minister . HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , it has always been the position of this government that the burden of taxation should be shared and shared most by those with the greatest abil ity to pay. In other words, Madam Speaker, as one 's income increases, one's ability to pay increases.

One should pay a larger share of taxation toward the carrying of important services to the community at large, such as health, such as education, and important community services, rather than what has been the tendency, regrettably, in the last two years where the greatest burden of taxation and taxation increases has been weighted upon those of lower- income groups. Progressively, greater income tax being shared by those with the greatest ability to pay. MR. G.

FILMON : Madam Speaker, given that the Minister of Finance said that in fact his Budget would see low- and middle-income earners paying lower taxes, but in fact the vice-chairman of the Institute of Chartered Accountants Taxation Committee is saying that the taxes will fall upon the broad middle spectrum, which includes 80 percent of the taxpayers of Manitoba , is that the Premier 's idea of fairness? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , my view of what is equitable and fair by way of taxation again is as one's ability to pay, as one's income increases, then the sharing of taxation should be grouped insofar as those with higher income . That is indeed what this Minister of Fina nce has done by way of the Budget that he introduced to this Chamber on Monday night. Those of the lowest-income category, those with larger families, contribute less to the overall costs of vital public services than those with higher incomes . That's the way it should be.

That's the way it is insofar as New Democratic Party Government policy is concerned. MR. G. FILMON : An equal sharing of misery is what the Premier is telling us he's offering. MADAM SPEAKER: Question? Budget - hydro rate increase MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, the Budget further added a 5 percent increase to Manitoba Hydro 's rates 376 and it was said to be, by the Minister of Finance , a one-time increase. My question to the Minister of Energy is: Does this mean that 5 percent increase will be removed at the end-of this- year and not built into the rate structure?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, it's a one-time rate increase, but it will be built into the base. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker , I should add that the Conservative Leader of the Opposition last year specifically called that this be done, and I'm very surprised he's laughing today. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I did not call for the increase in Hydro 's rates. MADAM SPEAKER: The honou rable member does not have a point of order. A dispute over the facts - (Interjection)- Order please.

A dispute over the fact s is not a point of order. Manitoba Labour Board - Sooter Photo MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member fo r Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, my questio n is directed to the Minister of Labour . The United Food and Commercial Workers Union , headed by Mr. Bernard Christophe, presently has an application before the Manitoba Labour Board for certification as the bargaining agent for the employees at the Sooter Photo Company finishing plant in Winnipeg .

There are allegations of unfair labour practices , intimidation and threats on both sides , Madam Speaker, including an allegation that management actually communicated with the employees. Madam Speake r, in view of the fact that 104 of the 131 employees have addressed a petition to me, as Labour critic, expressing their view that no one shoul d have the right to decid e this issue on behalf of a very small minority of employees , my question is: Will the Minister cause an investigation to be made into this matter so that the rights of the workers at Soo ter may be protected?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable M inister of Labour . Order please, order please. I presume the honourable member who asked the question would like to hear the answer. The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, the Honourabl e Member for Brandon West should appreciate the fact that there is a Labour Board in this province. It is comprised of representation from both labour and business and it fairly adjudicates matters that come

Wednesday, 18 March, 1987 before it. That is the body that will be seized of any applications or any petitions or any motions that are appropriate to be made to that body in connection with col lectiv e bar gaining. Madam Sp eaker , for the honourable critic to endeavour to undercut the work of that board does a disservice to this province. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker , the emp loyees at Sooter want a secret vote on this matter, and they want to have individual rights to deal with their empl oyer.

Will the Minister ensure that there will be a secret vote, and what will he do to ensure that these rights are protected? HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker , I notice that the honourable member has a prepared text. He has several questions. Obvious ly, he will disregard the answers I give. He, Madam Speaker , is impugning the integrity of the Manitoba Labour Board. The Manitoba Labour Board has the responsibility to deal with this issue, and I will be not subject to this kind of undermining of a good institution in this province. MR. J. McCRAE: I wouldn't wish to undermine the integrity of the Labour Board at all.

I would like to bring about integrity in our labour relations in this province, Madam Speaker . Will the Minister, instead of taking his orders from Bernard Christophe, will he stand up for workers in this province? Will he stand up for workers instead of turning his back on them as he did with the Eaton's workers in Brandon? Will he protect the workers at Sooter? HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker , we know for whom the honourable critic speaks. He speaks for big business. His party speaks for the big banks and the oil com panies. We kn ow that th ey speak for big business. The Labour Board adjudic ates fairly.

I would like to remind the honourable member that the laws that we passed in this House are fair. I remind him of the fact - and I put that on record before; I put it on record again - that in respect to our first-cont ract legislation, just recently we had an application by an emplo yer to invoke first-contract legislation. The effect was that a legal strike had to be suspended, had to be ended. The workers went back to work and a first contra ct was im posed by the Labour Board. That's fair legislation; it works both ways.

For the honourable member to indicate that somehow the Labour Board is captive to one point of view, undermining their integrity, is shameful. MPIC - reinsurance contracts MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My question is for the Minister responsible for MP IC.

Madam Speaker , yesterday the Minister tabled the disastrous financial statement which pointed out a $58 million loss in MP IC; $36. 7 million of that loss was from the reinsurance portfolio. 377 My question to the Minister is this: Are the contracts involv ed in reinsurance renewed on an annual basis? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister responsible for MP IC. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, I believe they are. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, since the Minister has confirmed that the reinsurance contr acts are renewed on an annual basis, and since yesterday he indic ated that contracts written from 1975 to 1981 were very bad, why did his government renew those contracts on an annual basis if they were so bad? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Again, the Member for Pembina disp lays his igno rance of the insurance industry. The member is quite correct that the treaties are renewed annually, but he has not indicated that losses on reinsurance generally take three or four years to show up as a claim at the corporat ion.

In fact, the losses that may have been incurred in 19 83, in all likelihood the date of the loss took place prior to 1979. I want to remind the members that in 19 78, there was an underwriting loss or losses paid of $2.2 million; in 19 80 - $2.9 million; 19 81 - that was still a Lyon Tory year - $5.7; 1982 was an NOP year, but we're paying the losses of the Tory treaties - $9.5 million; 19 83 - these are still losses from the period '77 to'81 - $1 1. 5 million. N ow let's clearly understand where these losses originated. They originated in a period prior to 19 81.

As I indicated yesterd ay, the $36 million provision - and it is a provision - it is a book figure for anticipated losses which may not materialize. We may have those losses commuted at a much lesser cost than $36 million. Most of those, I dare say, 80 percent were incurr ed as a result of treaties entered into prior to 1981. One other factor, Madam Speaker , on the Autopac loss of $18 .3 million, I am somewhat surpris ed that the mem bers ... MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

May I remind Honourable Ministers that answers to questions should be brief, and if they have long, detailed answers, th ere are other methods of conve ying information to the House. MPIC - resignation of Minister MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker , my question is again to the Minister responsible for MP IC. In view of the fact that he attempted to misinform the House yesterday with his colourful figures, will he now do the honourable thing and resign as Minister responsible for MP IC in face of a $58 million loss under his tutorship?

MADAM SPEAKER: I do hope the honourable member is not accusing another honourable member of deli berately misleading. The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speak er, there was no indication of deliberation. This Minister knows not what

Wednesday, 18 March, 1987 he does . He may have inadvertently attempted to misinform the House. That's why I want him to now resign as Mini.ster responsible for a Crown corp oration that has now lost $58 million with him as chairm an of the board , Madam Speaker . MADAM SPEAK ER: The Honourable Memb er for Kildonan. The Honourable Member for Pembina on a point of order. MR. D. ORCHAR D: No, Madam Speake r, I have a question for the First Minister since his Minister responsible is mute. MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member cann ot insist that a Minister answer his question . MR. D.

ORCHARD: That's right , absolutely, Madam Speaker . I unders tand that. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker , I was not too sure that question was proper . Howeve r, I will respond. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . I recognized the Honourable Member for Kildonan. I thought the honourable member was getting up on a point of order . I'll recognize the Honourable Member for Kildonan , and then I'll come back to the honourable member who can ask a new question to the Premier if he chooses . Budget - personal income tax MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan . MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Madam Speake r.

My question is for the Minister of Financ e. In light of the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition today and reports in the various newspapers, I would like to be able to pin down the effects of the Budget on a family in my constituency. For example, if people would understand , a family of four earning $29,200 , will their taxes go up or down? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance . HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you , Madam Speaker .

I'm pleased to answer that question and to correct a very significant error that was contained in the Winnipeg Sun of this morning; in fact , a number of significant errors . In regard to a family of four earning $29,200 , the Winnipeg Sun said this morning that family would pay $600 more in taxes as a result of this Budget this year. That is simply not true, Madam Speaker . The actual impact on that family of the change in the net income tax this year would be $116 .00. At the same time , that family would receive an increase of the Cost of Living Tax Credit of $95.00 .

So the actual increase would be closer to the area of $21.00 . The errors in the Sun even go farther if you look at what they did with respect to that same family of four earning $49,000 .00. The error in the Winni peg Sun this morning with respect to a fam ily of four at $49 ,200 was close to $1,800 higher than actually they will pay this year. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan with a supplementary. MR. M. DOLIN: A final supplementary, Madam Speaker.

My understanding is that from what the Ministe r says, the people who read the newspaper thi s morning and listened to the questions from the Leader of the Opposition should not be misled to think that taxes were going up when they make $29 ,200 , but the fact that the Minister is stating the correct situation is, the taxes are going down . Is that correct? MADAM SPEAKER : The honourable member knows that he cannot ask a question that asks the Minister to verify the facts .

It's a member's duty to ascertain the truth of a statement before he brings it to the attention of Parliament . 378 MPIC - resignati on of Minister MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Pembina . MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Madam Speak er. Madam Speake r, my question is for the First Minister. Madam Speaker , last year , when his Minist er responsible for the Telephone System , the Mem ber for St. James, reported to the House a $27 million loss in the Telephone Syst em, the First Minis ter accepted his resignation .

In view of the fact that his Ministe r responsible for MPIC has announced a $58 million loss last year in MPIC, will he demand the resignation of that Minister and chairman of the board of Autopac? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minist er. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , it's my understanding that these losses relate to a period of time in which there were treaties written when the Honourable Member for Pemb ina, the Honourable Member for Lakeside and the Honourable Member for Minnedosa all had important roles to play insofar as MPIC was concerned.

It's my understanding that these adventurers , Madam Speaker , these financial adventurers, were in charge and responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation during the material time in which the policies were written , from whence the losses were derived . So, Madam Speaker, I find it like the kettle calling the pot black, when these three financial adventurers suggest that the Minister, who corrected the situation by discontinuing the adventurism in 1984, should resign for their financial adventurism from 1979 to '81 .

Wednesday, 18 March, 1987 Budget - omission of Crown corporation losses MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Madam Speaker, the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation and the Manitoba Telephone System lost $58 million and $28 million respectively in their last fiscal year as detailed in annual reports tabled yesterday.

On page 32 of the Budget Address of the Minister of Finance, he indicated that Crown corporation losses incurred in 1987 and 1988 would be included at that time in the budgetary Estimates . · My question to the Minister : Can the Minister indicate why that $86 million , the summation of the losses in MPIC and MTS, were not included in this year's budgetary Estima tes? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hon oura ble Minister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA : I think, unfortunately, the member doesn't quite understand the situation that we are dealing wit h in respect to Crown losses and it's not unlike other members .

The area that we are looking at and will be reflecting in future years is the situation with respect to Crown losses, where there is no ability or no likelihood of those Crown losses being realized.

The member knows full well in the case of our outstanding self-sustaining corporations, like the Manitoba Telephone System, like MPIC , like Manitoba Hydro that have significant assets and have the ability to ensure that they cover those losses over a time, at the same time still keeping rates at the lowest level of any such corporations or private sector companies in North America, that those losses are contained within the operations of those organizations. So that is not the area that the Provincial Audito r raised; that is not the area that we are dealing with in terms of that refere nce in this Budget. MR.

C. MANNESS: Madam Speake r, can the Minister indicate how long before he prepared the Budget that he knew the Crown corporation losses with in all the Crowns, and can he indicate what that total is at this particular point in time? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Madam Speaker , the member knows full well that the impact of those losses are contained within the operations of those Crown corporations , that they do not impact on what was contained in the Budget. I think that's obvious and he knows that from his previous involvement in terms of looking at these areas.

So I think his only point in raising this is that he either doesn't understand, or as one of my members on this side says, he's being somewhat mischievous. MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Speaker , page 32, I'll quote out of the Budget Address.

The Minister himself said, in 1987: " The Crown losses in 1987 and '88 would be reflected in the Budget of the year following." 379 My question is: Using the Minister's own words, why was this government not more open , more candid and not tramp on Manitobans , like their badges should say, Madam Speaker , after this Budget has come down; why were they not more cand id and include the losses in the Crown corporations of fiscal year 1986 in this year's Budget? My question is straightforward. HON. E. KOSTYRA : I' ve already explained the d iffer ence and the member knows full well the difference .

Here we are , Madam Speaker , expanding the amount of information that is going to be available for members, expanding the method of accounting for the operations of government and its agencies, the member said selective - no. This is exactly what the Provincial Auditor was suggesting , so it's not selectiv e unless you're reflecting on the Provinc ial Auditor , a nd to suggest in any way that this Budget that was brought down this week is trampling on Manitoban s is simply not doing justice to the truth. The opposite is true , Madam Speaker.

This Budget is ensuring that we have the services available for Manitobans in a way that is not taking place in Conservative provinces and it is sharing the costs of providing those services fairly and equally throughout Manitoba. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris with a final supplementary. MR. C. MANNESS: A final supplementary , Madam Speaker. The Minister of Finance said in his Address , and I quote: " Crown corporation's losses as well as anticipated year-end savings resulting from unspent funds will be made in the province 's Budget.

Beginning with losses incurred in '87 and '88, Crown investment losses will be incorporated into government expenditure." My question to the Minister: What does he mean by that then , when he puts that in his Budget? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Exactly what I said in answer to the first question . MPIC - claims in other provinces MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights . MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for MPIC .

On the same day that Manitobans discovered that MPIC had lost over $18 million on their Autopac division, I spoke with a resident of this province who told me that the corporation was refusing to pursue his liability claim in the Province of Alberta because: " It wasn 't worth the cost of pursuance." Would this Minister tell me how many millions have been lost by the corporation through their reluctance to pursue claims in other provinces? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for MPIC . HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The Member for River Heights asks about a specific claim, one out of 245 ,000 , which I can 't possibly respond

Wednesday, 18 March, 1987 to. However, if the member provides me with information, I will provide her with backg round information. The other thing I should mention - it appears the Member for River Heights is now in the same camp as the members of the Opposition , wanting things both ways - the $18 million loss in Autopac was primarily because of an increase in a number of claims and the cost per claim, as well as a $5.3 mill ion provision for the prejudgmen t interest, which every member of this House supported.

One can 't get up in the House and scream about deficits when one, by sanctioning that legislation in this House, has caused that problem. It is not a problem. It is something Manitobans want. I don't think that MPIC, nor this side of the government, will apologize for something that is of benefit to all Manitobans. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Madam Speaker, to the same Minister. Is it MPIC corporation policy not to pursue claims at certain levels, for example, under $1,000 or under $1,500.00? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker, I think it would be prudent management in the case where it is anticipated that the legal costs will be greater than the benefit that is to be derived by pursuing through the courts that there be some other manner of resolving that issue. However, I will take that question as notice and determine what the policy is, the specific policy . MPIC - liability deductible claim MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: A final supplementary.

If it is the decision of the corporation not to pursue on the basis of the cost of legal action, will the corporation thereby guarantee the liability deductible claim on the part of the claimant? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: If I had the specifics of that particular claim - I will take that question as notice and report back. Library funding - City of Wpg. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ellice . MR. H. SMITH: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My question is to the Minister of Cultural Affairs.

Given the recent discussion by the City of Winnipeg subcommittee rega rding library funding, and given the recent excessive colourful comments by Councillor Lorenc, could the Minister of Cultural , Heritage and Recreation tell the House what the province is doing regarding funding for City of Winnipeg library services? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for Cultural and Heritage Resources. HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would go further in describing the comments by Councillor Lorenc and call those comments outrageously silly and ignorant of the facts.

The fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, that this government is committed to steady improv ement in our library services throughout the Prov ince of Manitoba, as evidenced by the fact that there was a 16.5 percent increase in last year's operating budget for the City of Winnipeg, and a supplementary $500,000 grant for book acquisitions.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that we are continuing to improve the library system in Winnipeg by contributing a further $160,000 grant to the City of Winnipeg public library service, representing a 12.25 percent increase and showing clearly our commitment to improved public library services. MR. H. SMITH: Could the Ministers tell this House what effect this funding will have on the maintenance of neighbourhood libraries, such as the local library in the riding of Ellice? In other words, what effect will it have on neighbourhood lib raries in the City of Winnipeg to main tain the ir standards?

MADAM SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member for Ellice rephrase his question to make sure it's within the jurisdiction of the Honourable Minister? MR. H_. SMITH: Would the Minister tell this House what effect this funding will have on the maintenance of nei ghbourhood libraries in this city that are so integral to the vibrancy and health of local communities; in other words, of what help to the City of Winnipeg library system? -(lnterjection)- MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. 380 MR. H. SMITH: How specifically will it help the local library branches like in your riding and mine? HON. J.

WASYLVCIA-LEIS: The Member for Ellice raises a very serious matt er for those of us on this side of the House . We would hope that with this kind of substantial increase to the City of Winnipeg that no neighbourhood library will be threatened whatsoever . In order to ensure that , I will be discussing with the city ways to ensure equitable distribution of these funds right across the board throughout the City of Winnipeg .

I should note, Madam Speaker, for the benefit for all members present, that a motion was passed by the City of Winnipeg Public Library Board in support of the notion of equitable distribution of provincial and civic funds across all six library districts. Native children - adoption policy MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Yes, Madam Speaker, thank you.

I have a question for the Minister of Community Services, Madam Speaker, with respect to a report today about a 14-year-old girl who has been the subject of a custody battle between her natural parents and her foster parents, who was returned to a reserve in Manitoba , raped, does not speak the language of her parents, has received no counselling, no support

Wednesday, 18 March, 1987 services and indicates that she wants to return to live with her foster parents. My question to the Ministe r of Community Services , Madam Speaker, is: What role is the government policy of not allowing Native children to be adopted by other than Native parents playing in this matter? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker , there are very important legal and agency accountability issues in this case. It's currently before the court; therefore, I think it's inappropriate for me to comment in detail.

The overall policy though of the government always puts to the fore the best interests of the child . The expectation is, Madam Speaker , that the agency and the courts will always put that to the fore. If there are any erro rs of omission or commission in this particular case, the directorate will hold the people accountable , but the particulars of this case are currently being argued before the court. MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, would the Minister of Commun ity Services request the Ombudsman to investigate the handling of this matter by the Awasis Agency of Northern Manitoba? HON. M .

SMITH: Madam Speaker , I th ink it is premature to take

an act l ike that while the court is reviewing the situation and while the directorate also are reviewing the situation. The Om bud sman is a final route, along with the court, that an individual or an agency can follow . I'll certainly review that option as we find out more from the court case. Native children - private adoption MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, would the Minister indicate how many Native children have been allowed to be adopted by other than Native parents since the beginning of their nonsensical policy sometime in 1983? HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker, I'll take the particul ar question as notice, but it would be remiss of me to let the indication that it is nonsensical, considering the best interes ts of the child, paying some consideration , not exp licit consideration but some consideration to lingui stic and cultural matters, that is what the law says, Madam Speaker , and that is what we uphold; and it is a gross distortion by the member opposite to suggest that we have ever said anything else. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert with a final supplementary . MR. G.

MERCIER: My question, Madam Speaker , to the Minister: Can she explain why young Native mothers currently are privately placing thei r children in white homes , or non-Native homes, because they don't want those children to be subjected to some of the things like this 14-year-old girl has been subjected to on reserves? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, if the member opposite has indication of some case where the law is 381 not being followed or where the best interests of a child has not been followed, I wish he would report it to me so we could look int o it.

Madam Speak er, the prime criterion in placing any child is the best int erests of the child. I think that if the member will review the new legislation he will find , both in the pri ncip al statement and in the body of the act, that is the prime conside ration . We have said that the linguistic cultural elements are significant, Madam Speaker , not the only criterion . Again, I think it 's a distortion of what the law says or any offic ial policy statement ; and I think it does a disservice to the white community and to the Native co mmunity.

Budget - personal income tax MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourabl e Minister of Finance . HON. E. KOSTVRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was asked a detailed question by the Leader of the Opposition and I can now provid e him with the answer with regard to the singl e tax filer and the impact of the changes in the income tax on Budget night. Assuming that that person has no pension deduction, no RRSP 's, or no union due s deduction or chil d care deduction, etc., that individual for 1987 would pay $9.00 more under the net income tax and for a full year of '88 would pay $31.00.

If you add to that the Cost of Living Tax Credit increase, that same individual this year will see a reduction of $21 in his taxes and next year a reduction of $13.00. I might just add, Madam Speaker, that this same net income tax is the one that the Leader of the Opposition called on December 14 as a laudable goal because it works towards getting tho se who benefit the most paying their share . MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE MADAM SPEAKER: On the adjourned debate of the Honourable Minister of Finance , and the proposed amendment thereto, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. "It's a pleasure to be taking

part in this debat e," are the usual words that are put forward by a member , but unfortunately it's a very black day for Manitob a that we have to take

part in a debate on this type of a budget. Madam Speaker , I sincerely hope your job is made easier by the government than it has been previously. I would also like to congratulate the Lieutenant Governor, Mr. George Johnson , for being promoted to that position in the Province of Manitoba. It is a position that he deserves and will fill well and honour ably. I would also like to say how pleased I am that Mr. Justice Sterling Lyon has been appointed to the Bench

Wednesday, 18 March, 1987 in Manitoba , and I find it rather disgusting that the Attorney-General of the Province of Manitoba would have the audacity to say that the Federal Governm ent should consul t with him on Federal Governm en t appointments in this province. It's typical socialist practice to want to have their hand in everything . Madam Speaker, I'm rather disappo inted in the Throne Speech Debate , and I guess that's the reason why I didn't speak on it.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that the Throne Speech Debate had nothing in it, and it always . .. - (Interjecti on)- Oh, there goes the Minister of Industry who now laughs every time something's said to him. The only reason he does that, Madam Speaker, is because of his insecurity, and the fact that he doesn 't know how to answer questions withou t laug hing. But anyway, Madam Speaker, the Throne Speech Debate again this year, was proved to be wrong, was proved to be misleading , as the Throne Speech Deba te was last year.

Last year, in the Throne Speech Debate, we were told abou t hydro contracts which don't exist; we were given impressions that things were all right in the province and certainly, Madam Speaker , the province can 't be all right if you 're closing hospital beds and having people suffering the problems that are being suffered in the Province of Manitoba .

Again this year, we have a Throne Speech that talks about what there will be done for agriculture, and yes, Madam Speaker, the Budget did say something abou t agriculture; it did give agriculture what the Progressiv e Conservative Party has been advocating for years . This government finally realized that it would be one of the better things to do for farmers, but on the whole , Madam Speaker, they have done nothing for the No. 1 industry in this province .

They don 't recognize, Madam Speaker, or let's say they haven 't been here long enough or they weren 't born here or they haven't taken the time to realize that Manitoba 's No. 1 industry is agricultu re . The reason for Winnipeg even being here is because of the agricultural community in the Province of Manitoba; that was the original reason for Winnipeg to be here . And to be a distribution centre to the agricultural community to the west of us, distribution of agricultural machinery and other products to the west of us - that's what bui lt up the manufacturing in the Province of Manitoba.

But honourable gentlemen opposite have no idea about that, they don't recognize it, they don't even - if they do recognize it they choose to throw it aside and not pay any attention to it. Madam Speaker , I'm disappointed that the honourable members opposite will defend, defend misleading statements to the people of Manitoba . Madam Speaker , they often talk about being on that side of the House and we're on this side of the House . I can only say that the gentlemen who are wearing the " Stand up for Manitob a" badges were the only party that lost seats in the last election.

They were the only party that lost the percentage of popular vote . Since the election , the people who have taken the polls that they like to brag about said in those polls, "50 percent or close to 75 percent of the people contacted that were asked , 'Is the Government of Manitoba doing a good job?', said, 'No, they're doing a bad job." ' (Mr. Deputy Speaker , C. Santos, in the Chair .) 382 MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Deputy Speaker , when you have a party, when you have a party . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. F. JOHNSTON: Oh, listen to this, would you? Listen to this.

Would you believe that they now defend that? They have a party - well, the Minister of Finance laugh s, but I would say it' ll be more than 100 percent, more than 100 percent, Mr. Deputy Speaker . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: A point of order being raised. HON. E. KOSTYRA: I was not laughin g at that point, Mr. Deputy Spe aker. I was laughing at the po int that in all the information tha t was cont ained in th at particular poll , that the member is only referencing one small little statistic . I thought he might reference the general stat istics that showed the Conservative Party as having much decr eased in support. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A point of order is a deviation from the rules of the House . I don't know if laughin g is a deviation . MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Deputy Speaker, he wanted to bring that point out because he was talking about the overall poll. But the Minist er of Finance doesn 't recognize the fact and refuses to recognize the fact there are more people in the province today, saying this government has done a bad job, than there was since the election. Now , is that right or wrong? A MEMBER: Right on . MR. F. JOHNSTON: That is right.

Well, now the Minister of Finance likes to refer to the poll, the Mini ster over on the oth er side who 's chirping, "doesn't lik e to refer to the poll." He doesn 't like to realize what it says . Mr. Deputy Speake r, I would rather be sitting on this side of the House or anywhere - I would rather be sitting anywhere, Mr. Deputy Speak er, as an honest man. I would not choose to be sitting anywhere if I got there by misleading the people. I wou ld be testi ng my conscience daily if I was sitting there because I misled the people.

I assure you the people of Manitob a expect the Government of Manitoba to be straightforward with them, not mislead them, and to handle their finances, which the government , Mr. Deputy Speaker, takes from them. They do, there's nobody stops them or can stop them from taxing, they take their money, and the people of Manitoba expect that that money will be handled properly for them. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker , we have heard how they 've managed the money, and I'll touch on that later. I can assure you, as I've said before, I wouldn 't like to be anywhere if I was there under false pretenses.

Were the people told during the election about the deficit? Were they told about the Crown corporations? Was the financial statement hidden from them? Were we told that we were going to close hospital beds? Were we told that we were going to have the worst child-care system the province and , proving to be at the present time, in the country? Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I sit and listen to the answ ers from that Minister about a child in desperate

Wednesday, 18 March, 1987 straits and I hear those kinds of answers, I can assure you I can say that we are probably the worst in Canada under those circumsta nces.- (Interjection)- I don 't, but that little girl does. Maybe you 'd think about that, and what would you do if it was one of your own children? -(Interjection)- Yes. Oh, I'm sure you do. • Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Premier said in his speech, he used the words: " What is happening in Manitob a," and he went on to list many of the things that were happening in Manitoba. The Premier went on to talk about the economy.

The Premier went on to talk about employment ; he talked about housing starts; he talked about -(Interjection) ! just heard one of the gentlemen opposite talk about the Budget Speech . I'm referring to the Premie r and , to my knowledge , the Premier hasn 't spoken on the Budget yet, .but I guess the honourable gentlemen over there don't recognize it. He talked about the Federal Government programs, but he didn 't talk about manufacturing being down in the Province of Manitoba. He didn't talk about many of the farm problems.

He didn't say the reason that housing is up is because of interest rates put in by the Federal Government. I watched a newscast the other night and I watched the Hou sing Minister in Ontario. He actually complimented the Federal Government because of interest rates being down and, because interest rates being down, they were able to put up more housing for the many, many people who are moving into Ontario and, by the way, moving from Manitoba to Ontario at the present time . He also had a lot to say about the service industry and what is our industry built on?

We hear this bragging about the bank reports all the time and at the end of every bank report, at the end of every financial report , or nearly every one, we get these words : The reason for our forecast is because of Limestone and because of the core area projects.- (lnterjection)- Those are all borrowed monies and we have an economy that's built on borrowed money with short term jobs at the present time , and anybody that I know of in the financi al industry says that Manitoba , if it continues on that path , will be heading for the worst financial situation that you could ever believe because you cannot continue to live on borrowed money .

The Minister of Finance knew that before he brought this Budget down. He only decreased the deficit by $70 million and we're still going to be moving along on borrowed money. But , Mr. Deputy Speaker , I will touch on that later because that's what the socialists want. There is no question that the socialist does not want investment in this province . There is no question that the socialist wants control of the finances of this province and they want to be in the position of the man who pays the piper calls the tune and they always have been that.

Look , have you ever read the " Regina Manifesto " that you people believe in? Well , if you believe in it, stand up and say what you are then .- (lnterjection)- A MEMBER: I'm a socialist. MR. F. JOHNSTON: That's right. If you believe in the Manifesto, you are a Marxist or a communist. That you 383 can be assured of.- (Interje ctio n)- I have . Mr. Deputy Speaker , they've told me they 'd send me a copy. They don 't have to. There 's one in the library and I'm disappointed that a document of that type would even be in this building. That's correct. Mr.

Deputy Speak er -(Interjection)- well , I'm hearing some words from the other side and I don't blame him because I do a lot of talking in the House when I'm speaking . I would like to quote from the Member for Kildonan's speech . I don't have to look it up. He said when he was speaking that he doesn't know of anybody who wants to work . That' s what he meant . Now, I honestly believe that he is right , at least his associates don't want to work, and the people around him don 't even think the idea of working is good. So his statement was that I don't believe that anybody wants to wor k.

I believe that Manitobans want to work. I believe the ladies he was talking about want to work , because they've got ambition and they 've got some conscience. They don 't want to be on the dole like a lot of you people would like them to be. Now, Madam Speaker, Mr. Speaker, or Mr. Deputy Speaker - you keep changing things around on me. (lnterjection)- Yes. Yes. So now what is happening in Manitoba? Let 's take the words of the Premier : What is happening in Manitoba? Well, we'v e just started, for one thing , taxing, as was brought out today, people who earn just over $12,000 or more.

We have what we call Line 224 in our income tax, which is your net income, and you know, underneath that, in the deductions, there's one that really bothers me. If you're caring for an invalid father or mother or relative, is that not taken? No, that government didn 't think of that, did they, the fact that those people aren't in nursing homes? The fact that they 're being taken care of in a house with parents or sons and daughters, was that thought of? And you call that conscience? Where is your conscience when you do things like that?

That's the type of socialist thinking when they 're grabbing peoples ' money . Take a look at Line 224 in your income tax and I bet you none of you did it before that Budget was passed and realized what people will be paying ta x on when they pay on the net tax of Line 224 . I assure you that is disgusting. That's what's happening in Manitoba . Would you like to read the Budget that says net? Well, you wrote it. I hope the Member for Inkster has got his driveway shovelled . He didn't the last tim e I went past his place. Well , as I said there is nobody on that side who wants to work . Mr.

Deputy Speaker , the fact that we've now taken $368 million out of the pockets of Manitobans - $368 million more will be taken out of the Manitobans ' pockets - who could sleep at nights when they have taken the largest tax bite ever in a province in this country in peacetime . They think that's funny. They think that's the thing to do. They came up with a statement in the Budget that 100,000 people will not be paying tax , which I dispute . They will be paying higher hydro; they will be paying higher telephone; they will be paying tax when they go to the stores and they buy their family clothing, etc.

They 'll be paying another percentage on tax , and the Minister keeps talking about these little kickbacks they're going to get on taxes, which will never add up to the amount of mon ey they will have to pay because of this Budget.

Wednesday, 18 March, 1987 It will never add up to the increases that are in this Budget, and yet this government thinks that was the right thing to do. That was the fair thing to do. I can remember the NOP in Ottawa being so annoyed when the Federal Gove rnm ent put a tax on hamburgers and pizza , this type of thing . What can we call it, the Pizza Budget, or something of that nature? I can just visual ize now, a young family gett ing in the car, going out to the hamburger spot. The hamburger and chips and everything for four people or five people or even three people can come to maybe $10, and now they pay tax .

What a cheap , low thing to do. What a cheap, low thing to do, to be grabbing money from people under those circumstances; and they think it's fair. Is that fair? We really had a pretty good system as far as our meal taxing was · concerned , but no, they had to take it a step further, and they had to say, convenience foods . Young people , the teenagers who go and eat the convenience foods in the convenience stores and what have you, Now you 're going to tax them? Oh well, I heard the Member for Kildonan again say, " Just like Ontario." Just to make a brief side comment, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , I am so sick of a group of people who demonstrate comp lete incompetence, who demonstrate that they have no knowledge of administration. They demonstrate they have no knowledge of how to operate or run anything, other than to blame somebody else , or say somebody else did it.

If they were in a board of director's room - which they'll never be - or if they were in a management position in any company or if they were working in any one of those things - which they will never be, Sir - I will tell you that they 'd be the first ones fired if they tried to run it on the basis of what somebody else did all the time instead of their own ability to do things within their own competence, within their own province , in this case . They don 't have that ability and they admit it every time they make that comment . Now then , Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'd say to you , the payroll tax.

Investment in Manitoba is finished. I mean , let's face it. Is United Technology coming? I guess anybody who believes that if you were going to invest in a province, between Saskatchewan , Manitoba and Alberta in Western Canada, or anywhere in Western Canada, if you had to pay 2.25 percent payroll tax , and you don't over there, who in their right mind would do so unless you give them a great big incentive? It won't happen. If he really believes that you're going to have a company -(Interjec tion)- my colleague from Portage la Prairie ... Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I'll take my chances with them, they start a company, I'll start a company and we'll see who wins, be glad to. I can tell you that the comments I hear when members opposite believe that a company would come somewhere when they have to sell probably 10 percent more product to make the same profit as they would in another province. Who in their right mind? I was going to say, the comment was to my colleague from Portage la Prairie . I can assure you he's been involved in a business that isn 't all that great and big a business in this province, but I can assure you he knows what it costs.

I can tell you that everybody else knows what it costs. Would you believe what it's going to cost our hotels and what it will do to our tourism industry? Do you know that most hotels are close to a megaproduct - the Westin , the Holiday Inn, the Downtowner - one of those hotels , those big ones, hire 500 people? And they are now going to have to put on more payroll tax. But isn't that something? The Attorney-General jumps up and says, "And doing very well ," and that's his way of doing business. If they're doing well, I'll getcha. I'll getcha if you're doing well , and that's exactly what you said . HON. R.

PENNER: Would pay their way. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Would pay their way? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. F. JOHNSTON: They are paying their way. What does the tourist industry do for this province? This is the warped-mindedness , and that of course - which I will touch on later - will prove that this government does not want investment. Nobody in their right mind , that would want investment, would do that. It was told to them when they put it on . The worry was when they put it on that they would increase it.

No, the Premier of this province went through the last election and said - he didn't say there wouldn 't be, but he said there won 't be for two years, an increase in the payroll tax. Of course, who can rely on the word of the Premier of the Province of Manitoba? I've been sitting opposite him since 1969 . . . There again , Mr. Deputy Speaker , I'm hearing 3 percent somewhere else. Does that mean you should do it? That is your way of operating business. Isn't that something?

We've got another clear admission from a member, another member, that if somebody else does it, we'll do it. 384 In other words, they don't operate by analyzing what can or can't be done or should be done in Man itoba, and they say, well , we've got the lowest hydro rates in North America. Not any more - they say, we are among the lowest rates in Nor th America. Is that a reason to charge the people of Manitoba more? Is that a reason to take this great heritage that these fellows talk about all the time, that they say belong to Manitobans and charge them more for it because they happen to be the lowest?

You should be proud to be the lowest and you should be trying to get them down, instead of saying, the other guys are higher; I'm going higher. What kind of treatment is that to the people of Manitoba? What kind of treatment is that? The Minister of Resources keeps shooting away, or the Minister of whatever it is, he keeps shooting away. Why don 't you just go and kick them? When you've got them down, why don 't you just go and kick them? You've got them down and you're taking $368 more million out of their pockets. Why don't you?

You're taxing them to the limit now and now you're going to kick them while they're down, and he thinks it's funny. Mr. Deputy Speaker, then we have a situation where we have another 1 percent of the sales tax , the tax that the NOP Government doesn't believe in, and they say that 100,000 people won't be paying taxes. Of course, 400,000 will, and 100,000 will too. I say 500,000 people in Manitoba will be paying more taxes because they're going to be paying that extra on clothing , etc . It's worth $100 to a family; that's what it costs them

Wednesday, 18 March, 1987 per person. So it could be $400, $600, $500 .00 . So we kick them again when they're down . I had a fellow say to me the other day, "You know ," he said , "Mr. Johnston, it doesn't matter what you earn in this province, you just can't get ahead ; whether you make a lot of money or you make a little amount of money , you just can 't get ahead. This government just waits until they can see some parti cular spot, some particular place, and then they tax you." Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I refer to a book called "Douglas in Saskatchewan." It's a history of the Saskatchew an Government during the NDP days . In that book , they show you where they put on at least 150 new taxes and increased every tax there was in the province , and we have the same government doing the same thing in the Province of Manitoba. We've got a government that has put on payroll tax, increased the sales tax twice now , but had increased the sales tax once, increased every fee there is in this province from death to marriage licences .

They 've increased all the court things that you have to have that lawyers charge when working with clients . They've increased the parks' entrances. They have not missed a fee in this province that they have not increas ed since 1981. With all of that money, they still have had $500 ,000 deficits eve ry year. They 've had the ir credit rating drop three time s. They've increased taxes more than once. With all of th at money, we are still in a financially desperate position in the Province of Man itoba. That is management? Mr. Deputy Speaker , that is not only disgusting, it's stupid.

I don 't know how anybody can be that stupid or how any body can manage that badly, other than the fact that socialists like to gouge from people 's pockets to try and get control of the financial situation and have people always respons ibl e to the government. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have another thing happening . Casinos! We are now going to run this province with casinos on the backs of the poor. I will tell you , lottery tickets, racing - you go and buy a ticket on a horse or something - but cas inos are the most drastic, worst things for the poor that you can find.

All you have to do is walk down to that one that's operating eve ry five days. Gambling never hurts a rich person, Mr. Deputy Speaker . How can it? A rich person doesn 't get hurt gambl ing. Of course , if they 're crazy enough to go and lose it all, that's up to them, but that person , that average ordinary Manitoban that this governme nt keeps talking about, are taxing them with those casinos , and it's not only disgusting, it's immoral that you increase the days of casinos in this provinc e. I remember the day, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , when we increas ed them to 12 so that we could take care of different fairs like the Red River Ex and the St. Boniface Festival du Voyageur and the Brandon Fair. We felt that there were 12 places in the province that you could legimately have a casino. I remember the Member for St. Johns at that time, Mr. Saul Cherniack , getting up and just berating us something terrible over that. I can tell you that this is the worst typ e of tax on the backs of the poor.

If you think that the people that you're going to have this money go to for their communities, for their libraries, they really want to know that that is t;>eing given to them at the expense of the poor and it is being done by gambling in this province , 385 you 've got another think coming because the peopl e of Manitoba have enough moral conscience to know that that's wrong . It is wrong , and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for doing it. I can tell you , Mr. Deputy Speaker, that will hurt people in this province.

But when you have a government that has taxed the people to the extent they have, and they still haven't got the ability to run the provin ce financially, what do they turn to? Gambling! Boy, that's a poor excuse for being good admi nistr ators, and the Minister of Finance ought to be asham ed of himself . He's got to be ashamed of himse lf to even consid er that that should be part of the income of this province. There should be no increase in casinos in this provinc e because it is immoral and wrong .- (Interjection)- They don't care, but since when would a soc ialist have any morals? Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we have this situation about agriculture, which I mentioned , and if they don't rea lize the importance of agriculture more than they demonstrated , do they really not understand that the communities th at support agriculture, the sm all towns, will be hurt badly in this province because the y have not paid attention to agriculture? Why didn't they pay attention to agriculture? Because they're broke. They' ve spent their money fool ishly on political hack s, advertising, all of these crazy, stupid things that they 've put together -(Interjection)- Wait a minute, wait a minute , Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I would like to say, you know , in this Budget , did they get rid of any one of those people , those hangers-on tha t they 've got? Not one . Because I'll tell you , Mr. Deputy Speaker , they' ve decided to keep the deficit high, keep those people on the salary of the government, paid for by the peo ple of Manitoba , to get them working for them and do their damned programming for the next election. Is it just as simple as that? They did it the last election; they 'll do it again because they have no morals. They don 't care about the people's money .

They just stick their hand in somebody 's pocket, take the money out , and laugh at them . Why don 't you just carry a gun? Why don 't you just carry a gun? At least you ' d be straightforward about it . Crown corporations, Mr. Deputy Speaker , I was going to say that you don 't need all this stacking of people to run the Crown corporations that's going around in circles on who has the authority. You know, when we were government, the chairman of the board - I can remember with housing - he had to report to me on what was on the agenda .

He came in after the meeting s of the board and went over the meetings and told me what had happened , kept me up-to-date at all time s, and we were able to have a firm grip on the Crown corporations and know what was going on . I thought that there would be Ministers over there capable of doing that , but there isn 't one capable of it.

You've got them as chairmen of the board ; they 've got members on the board; they're got absolutely no knowledge of what goes on within the Crown corporations because they haven't got a group of Ministers who knows one thing about administrating or knows one thing about how to work with a chairman of a board of a Crown corporation. My God, when the chairman of the board is the Minister and you lose $56 million, you know something's wrong and somebody should use their brains.

Wednesday, 18 March, 1987 The F-18 that they talk about, they didn't stick up for the province . What did we do? We sent a resolution down to the Federal Government that said we were drastically disappointed, displeased , etc., but we will work hard in the fut ure for the Province of Manitoba, and you know, we got the CF-5. And what did the Premier say? "Was it any good?" He really didn't think that much of it. Then we got the program for more canola to be brought in Manitoba. We got a small program in Great West Life to cover the dental program for the Federal Government . Then we've just had Versat ile.

So what did we do? We said, sure, we had a setback but we'll carry on and we'll do things and work with the Federal Government to see what we can do for Manitoba, and what did you people do? You wouldn't even debate at it at your national convention, the F- 18. What a bunch of - why don 't you just take a gun? No, I wasn't there, but on television I saw them all stand up and - we're very pleased that they couldn't do it. (lnterjection)- Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me say this one thing that I was going to touch on . I think I have a minute-and a-half . They do not want any investment in this province.

Do you know why? If you have -(Inte rjection)- Oh, there's big mouth again.- (Interjection)- Yes. If you have a situation that the socialists prefer - manufacturing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is your base ; manufacturing of your renewable resources is your base, use of your renewable resources is your base. There are your non-renewable resources and then there's the manufacturing within the province which is geometrically right for the province . That is what starts the ball rolling. That's why you have grocery stores, service stations, insurance people.

That's why you have them because you have your investment base in the province . Mr. Deputy Speaker , the socialist does not want that private industry investment. They want to be the manufacturer of the province and as manufacturer of the province the only way that they can make money is tax people. They take the money out of the peoples' pockets , Mr. Deputy Speaker , and they spend it wildly. They don 't want investment in this province . Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker .

It gives me a great deal of honour to follow the oratory and rhetoric of the Member for Surgeon Creek who I always find extremely entertaining although not too informative . I would like to discuss some of the items and the philosophy behind the Budget . There are also some issues that I would like to bring up which I think honourable members on the other side might have some interest in, Mr. Deputy Speaker . The first thing I would like to point out is that this is a fair and honest Budget.- (Interjection)- The Honourable Member for Minnedosa just suggested I read the paper. I will do exactly that.

I will quote from the Globe and Mail , March 17, 1987, which says, "Manitoba Budget makes well-off pay as poor get break. In an attempt to reverse the impact of recent 386 federal budgets , Manitoba's New Democratic Party Government will make the province's rich pay the highest ta xes in the country while cutting taxes fo r people on low incomes ." That is, as the Member for Sturgeon Creek has called it, "a sociali st Budget. " It is not a Budget that we on this side of the House are ashamed of; it is a Budget we are proud of. As a matter of fact, I would remind , Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the members of the Opposition, in hearing them oppose universality as a principle, I have heard them constantly state that those who can afford services should pay and those who can't should not pay. (lnterjection)- Where is the consistency in their logic? This is exactly what this Budget has done. This is exactly what members from the other side have called for, but when they call for it, it's right; when we do it, it's wrong. The fact of life is that this Budget does provide fairness to ensure that those who can afford to pay do and those who cannot don't.

I would also like to point out that I had some problem, Mr. Deputy Speak er, today in understanding the Leader of the Opposition 's quest ions and also in his response to the Budget Speech. I really think that the Leader of the Opposition, being a reasonably intelligent person , having some experience as a legislator , should understand the meaning of the term " fair" and the meanings of the term "hon est. " I did not get that today. What I got , and I reread his speech today because I found it hard to believe , Mr.

Deputy Speaker , what I got from his speech is here is the Leader of the Opposi ti on lowering himself, demeaning himself , attacking the Member for Thompson, a backbencher , attacking the Member for Ellice . Now, talk about demeaning and cheap. For a Leader of an Opposition to lower himself to those kind of cheap shots supposedly while discussing a Budget which is fair and honest, I find appalling , but those are the tactics and I would like to get into that a little more.

From their seats during the course of thi s Session , the Member for Riel, the Member for Roblin-Russell, I have heard on a number of times sneering across the House at me "draft-dodger." "Draft-dodger, " I have heard the Member for Riel say clearly on more than one occasion . I have heard this from the Member for Roblin-Russell also. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Riel. MR. G. DUCHARME: Howeve r I might have wanted to say it, I have never called the member a "draft dodger. " MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order. MR. M.

DOLIN: I would suggest to you honourable members I do not accept that; it is not a point of order. My hearing is as good as the Member for Riel and I heard him on more than one occasion. However , if you would like some further proof, I will quote from Hansard, page 252, March 10, 1987 - the Member for Turtle Mountain referring to me - and I will quote this because I would like it repeated in the record. "I resent having somebody who fled his own country, because he was afraid to defend it, stand in this House and criticize the same institution, namely , the

Wednesday, 18 March, 1987 Government of Canada, who let him in. Or maybe we should find a way of sending him back ." I would also like to quote the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek today, a mere 45 minutes ago, who said, and I quote, when talking about our supposed lack of concern for the agricult ural industry who said, "There are those of us on this side" - and I quote verbatim and you can check Hansard tomorrow - "haven 't been here long enough or who weren't born here ," Mr. Deputy Speaker . Now, this is interesting.

No. 1, to go back to the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain's statement about myself as a draft -d odge r, I would suggest , Mr. Deputy Speaker , that this is, No. I, unfounded ; it is untrue ; it is false ; it is insulting; it is dishonest; it is prevaricating; and if it were within the rules to call this statement a lie and the person who made it a liar I would do so, but it is not within the rules , so therefore I cannot do so.

To set the record straight on the preva ricating accusati ons of the Member for Turtle Mountain, when I came to this cou ntry I was over age - perhaps my youthful appearance belies my age - to be eligib le for the draft. I was also married at the time . I would also like to go on the record in saying I did , when I was in the United States and I do now in Canada , oppose the dirty little war that Lyndon Johnson , Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon imposed upon the people of Southeast Asia.

I would also like to say that I am very proud of the time when I came to this country where I supported war resistance , people who did not want to fight that dirty little war. I would also suggest to the critics from the other side that if they had any guts and they believ ed in free enterprise they would have joined that dirty litt le war. I know many Canadians who did enlist in the U.S. Army . Many of them have come back disillusioned and many of them have not come back.

Now, I would suspect when you start yelling " draft dodger" across the House that you think a little bit about defending whose cou ntry and in what circumstances. I came to Canada by choice because I believe in Canada. I did not believe in that dirty little war in the United States . There were many of us who didn 't, but certainly I would have fought any war where I was defending my country, and I will defend my country which is Canada . What does this all mean? -(Interjection)- Well, let me tell you something .

The night of the Budget, I was walking into the parking lot with the Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell. I queried him , saying , " Why is it that all you people think that everybody who comes from the United States is a draft dodger? " And he said - and I can't quote him verbatim, but I will quote what he said . He said, " Who do you people think you are, coming here and telling us how to run our country? " Now I hear from the Member for Springfield saying, "Righ t, right ." Well , let me tell you something. I've thought about this and I've been thinking about this until today, and I wondered, Mr.

Deputy Speaker - and you , Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think would understand this MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order please. Has the Member for Roblin-Russell a point of order? 387 MR. L. DERKACH: Thank you , Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would just like to point out to the House that the comments that were made by my honour able friend were not only incorrect , but in fact , he is misleading this House and the people of this province by making that kind of innuendo, and I would ask the Chair that that remark , if he cannot quote it, be remo ved from the record . MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A dispute as to what happened is not a point of order . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. L. DERKACH: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am asking that the member withdraw the comments in reference to me when he said he could not quote them directly . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member be more specific? What did the member say? What did the Member for Kildonan say? MR. L. DERKACH: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I deny the fact that I said : "Who do you think you people are, coming over here and telling us how to run things?" Mr.

Deputy Speaker , that is a direct misrepresentation of the conversation , and I demand that that man remove that from the record. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the same point of order. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Deputy Speak er, yes, on the same point of order . That is not a point of order. Any difference of opinion between members as to what was said outside of this House does not constitute a point of order. If, at a suitab le occasion, the Member for Roblin-Russell wants to correct the record as to his impression of that conversation he can do so, but it is not a point of order. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Membe r for Brandon West . MR. J. McCRAE : On the same point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker . Madam Speaker , has ruled repe ated ly, certainly during the last Session, that language found on one side of the House to be offensive language offered by members on the other side, if that language is found to be offensive then , therefore , that language must be withdrawn from the record and we , on this side of the House , ask Your Honour to direct the Honourable Member for Kildonan to withdraw his offensive language. HON. R.

PENNER: The Member for Brandon West , once more , reveals that his readings of the authorities are somewhat limited , and I can understand that. The reference to unparliamentary remarks are reference to remarks made within the body of the House. Differences of opinion as to what was said outside of the House do not constitute a point of order, do not call for withdrawal. A member may, if a member wishes , correct the record to the extent that that member is able to do so, and I invite the Member for Roblin-Russell to

Wednesday, 18 March, 1987 do so at the earliest opportunity. But that does not constitute a point of order. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the same point, the Member for Robl in-Russell. MR. L. DERKACH: Than k you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the same point of order . The Member for Kildonan has named me as making that rema rk, Mr. Deputy Speaker . I am saying to the House, I did not make that remark , and I find that remark offensive and I would appre ciate, and I would demand that that member remove that remark from the record. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the same point of order, the Member for Kildonan. MR. M.

DOLIN: On the same point of order. I would point out to the honourable member, who I do not believe has a point of order in dispute, that I distinctly heard him say that. We walked to our vehicles which were parked together; we discussed further ite ms of that nature an d he certainly did say that and I will not withdraw it in any manner , shape or form because he said exactly that, and that was his intent . Now, if he is trying to deny that here , Mr. Deputy Speaker , I suggest he withdraw the denial. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Roblin Russell. MR. L. DERKACH : Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Once again, I say to you and to this House that what the Member for Kildonan is saying is completely erroneous , and I think the fact that he is saying that is just simply a misrepresentation of a conversation that I had with him. It is unfortunate that his memory is so short that he cannot recall the incidence of that conversation. Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I find this offensive I think he should be an honourabl e member and withdraw those remarks. SPEAKER'S RULING MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Under our Rule 46: "No member may speak twice to a question exce pt in explanation of a material part of his speech in which he may have been misquoted or misunderstood, but he shall not then introduce any new matter, and no debate shall be allowed upon the explanation." Clearly, a point of order is a deviation from the Rule of the House inside the Chamber . A disput e as to matters of fact that take place, or have taken place somewhere else, is not an event or incident that is related to the Rules of Proceedings in the Hou se.

And a dispute as to events or facts somewhere else about misunderstanding can be corrected under this provision, Rule No . 46 . The Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a new point of order. I believ e that thi s whole problem could be reso lved 11 the member would feel some incumbency to address the motion, and that is the Budget. I have listened to him for 10 minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I haven't heard him mention one aspect of the Budget. And I think if you will draw him to order we won't have this prob lem . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Kildonan wil l proceed. MR. M.

DOLIN : Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speake r. As I think you 've made clear to the House, there was not a point of order. I would also like to refe r members back again to something I comme nted on earlier, the matter that is on the record from the Member for Sturgeon Creek this very day, where he said, there are those of us who haven't been here long enough, or who weren't born here, which is somehow casting aspersions as far as the Member for Sturgeon Creek is concerned. I resent th at.

I also resented the comments that I heard from the Member fo r Robli n-Russell in the parking lot, and I certainly have no intention of withdrawing my resentment. 388 To answer the Memb er for Morris, I was dealing with the Budget. I was talking about the understanding of fairness on that side of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker , and why I un derstand that the Leader of the Oppositi on an d his colleagues have such a difficult time understanding fairness. They have this definition of "us." Who is "us"? That this province and this country was made for us. "Us" are the people who were born here.

"Us" are the people who have the right religion. "Us" are the people who have the right skin colour. "Us " are the right people who have the right social class and social values. Well, I'm not a member of " us" and I don't want to be a member of "us." I think we rule this province and we rule this country because we are the cu ltural mosaic that this country speaks about. I also feel when honourable members, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, from the other side of the House, stand up and use the terms "cultural mosaic," they must choke on that, after the kind of comments I hea rd from the Member for Sturg eon Creek today, and after the kind of comments I heard from the Member for Roblin Russell the other day. I would like to go back to the idea of fair Budget and maybe exp lain the term "fa irness" to the members for the Opposition. Fair is not dealing with us. Fair is to deal with all the people of this province.

I believe that this Budget meets the commonly accepted definition of fairne ss; that is, sharing the burdens based on ability to bear those burdens, the more well-off being able more easi ly to carry a heavier burden. the less well -off being less easily able to carry a heavier burden. Therefore, we have designed a Budget, the Minister of Finance of this province, to reco gniz e that fact. Now, I think the reality is. I heard the Opposition Leader, yesterday, Mr. Deputy Speaker. in his s peech. talking about 400,000 versus 100,000.

I was under the impre ssion th at we lived in a fair multicultural civilized socie ty, wh ere the strong assist the weak and do not crush them, or as the Member for Sturgeon Creek would put it, put a gun to them. That's the intent of thi s Budget. It' s those, who by no fault of their own. are unabl e to help themselves, such as the farmers in this province.

Wednesday, 18 March, 1987 who are facing severe problems. We are attempting, through our Budget, to provide them assistance, not kick them when they're down, not just take care of us, the Opposition's definition of us, but all of us in the Province of Manitoba and all of us in the state of Canada. I would also like to point out in some way some of the things that are in the Budget that exemplify this fairness.

Farmers - the Opposition has expressed its concern when it seems politically appropria te and expedient to be concerned about farmer s. (l nterjection)- Actual ly, a question has arisen: How many farmers do I have in my riding? As a matter of fact, I do have some farms in my riding. The relevant point I'm making, and I think that question brings out, is the matter of fairness. I am not only concerned as an urban member about urban people, I am concerned as a member of this government, Mr. Deputy Speak er, about all the residents of this province.

As has been correctly pointed out by members opposite, as the agricultural industry in this province goes, so go many other industries, and that is a concern to me, and it is a concern to this government, which is why we have taken this Budget to provide assistance to farmers, $85 million, a 20-percent increase for the Department of Agriculture, which includes $12 million in special farm school tax assistance, which I have heard crying and bleating from the opposite side that they want this to happen. Have we heard one word of praise, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Not a peep. It's not enough - spend, spend, spend.

The $84 million in financial support from the Manitoba Agricultu ral Credit Corporation, including $29 million for new interest-rate buy down, I would suggest to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker , that as an urban mem ber, I have concerns in my own riding, which I think should take precedence, but I do have concerns and understand the plight of the farmers.

I am not specifically conversant with the technical details, but I do unde rstand the need for fairness to the farmers, and this Budget provides it. (Madam Speaker in the Chair .) Tax credits, tax exemptions and other programs to impr ove the viability of farms and the farm community in Manitoba - it's a matter of dispute. Earlier this afternoon, in question period, Madam Speaker , was that this Budg et provide s personal income tax reductions to more than 100,0 00 Manitobans. Those are the Manitobans, Madam Speaker, who are in need; those are the Manitobans who are less able to bear the burdens.

We, as the other Manitobans, living in a fair society, believe we should assist them, and this Budget is doing exactly that. As a matter of fact, as the Minister of Finance pointed out earlier tod ay, in this year it assists 15 6,000, not just 100,000. The Budget elim inates the levy for health and post-secondary education for an additional 3, 700 small business emplo yers. The smallest of the small busi nesses are the ones we have done this for. Why? Because it's fair; it's fair according to our definition of fair, not according to your leader's definition of the Opposition.

This Budget raises needed revenue fairly. This Budget protects our vital health care services, education and social services with an incr ease of $209 million, Madam 389 Speaker . It expands our initiatives in areas such as child care for families and home care for seniors, the least fortuna te in socie ty. This Budget promis es continuing progress. Madam Speak er, I have lis tened in this House for two Sessions.

Maybe I haven't been here long enough; maybe I'm unfortuna te enough not to have been luck y enough to be born in this cou ntry, but the fact is: I think this is a good countr y, and this is a good province, Madam Speak er. This provi nce, because of th e efforts of this government, has the lowest unemplo yment rate in Canada. We have programs which are enabling us, within the limits of our abilities as a small province, to assist the less fortunate, the farmers in particul ar, the aged. We have home care programs here; we have Pharma care programs.

We do not have programs to provide deterrent fees on medical care. We do not have the kind of programs that I gather members opposite, Madam Speaker, would be envious of in the U.S., where, hey, if you can pay, you can get the best medical care; but, if you can't pay, you die. That is not the kind of country I came to live in, and that is not the kind of country I am willing to continue living in. I would think tha t mem bers op posite should conside r the inconsis tency of their arguments.

To say on universality - well, let's get rid of universality, Madam Speaker , and to say on that - let's allow those who can pay to pay, and those who can't, we will provide charity for. We're not interested in doing that in universality; there are other ways, Madam Speak er. We can do that by providing universal programs, which do not demean people or deny people their rights to independence. But we can, in a Budget, ensure that there is a fairness in ability to pay. We can also ensure, Madam Spe aker, that this Budget goes a long way towards meeting the needs of the people of this province.

Let me comment on a few things. This Budget is an honest Budget. It is honest in a number of ways, but the particular way is that we are not kidding anybody, the taxes are going up. We are not kidding anybody and statistics do not distort the truth, that people are going to pay more taxes. The Minister of Finance, Madam Speaker, made that abundantly clear. What we are telling people is, yes, taxes are going up, but we are telling them why taxes are going up. We are going to protect the services of the people of Manitoba and improve service.

We, as a government, believe that is what the people of Manitoba elected us to do; that was our mandate and that's what they want us to do. In this Budget, we are going to do it. I would also like to mention some of the criticisms I've heard of this Budget. The Chamber of Commer ce of the City of Winnipeg, Mr. John Doole, and repeated by the Hono urable Member for Sturgeon Creek, is that somehow the evil, iniquitous payroll tax will have no more investment in the Province of Manitoba. No one will ever come here anymore because of this evil, iniquitous payroll tax.

Wel l, I would like to suggest that we have had this payroll tax in this province for a couple of years. I would also like to point out that we gained 13 ,000 job s in 19 86 - 13 ,0 00 jobs. We have the lowest unemployment rate in Canada as of this point and time,

Wednesday, 18 March, 1987 with the iniquitous payroll tax, Madam Speaker . We have the second stronge st job-creation record from pre -recession peak through 1986, Madam Speaker . We have new jobs created in 1981 to '86, 57 percent were full-time jobs versus the national average of only 45 percent. Well, the horrors of horrors, it's the payroll tax that did this . I think maybe we should raise it to 5 percent, so we'd get 26,000 jobs instead of just 13,000 jobs. If this is frightening investment away from this province, let's frighten them a little more and get another 13,000 jobs.

I would also like to point out non-residential capital investment has averaged 13.5 percent increase in the last three years in the private sector . That doesn't sound like there 's a great deal of fear of the evil socialist in the private sector . Madam Speaker , I don't think this sounds like there is a great deal of fear or trepidation about the iniquitous , horrible, terrible payroll tax.

I would also suggest that the payroll tax in Quebec which , Madam Speaker, my understandi ng is 3 percent, did not scare off Brian Mulroney from issuing the CF-18 contract to Canadair in Montreal.- (Interjection)- Or the prison , as my honourable friend mentions - or the prison . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. M. DOLIN: The Attorney-General has suggested that there are perhaps other reasons for building a prison in the Prime Minister's riding, such as a place to hold a Cabinet meeting . I would not say that, but I suggest it may be food for thought , Madam Speaker .

Another thing I see is from the same John Doole, this bearer of gloom and doom , is every time any tax goes up, payroll tax, which is a fairer tax by the way, Madam Speaker, because it is broader based than the sales tax, any time something goes up there is doom and gloom. There will be no investment, there will be no jobs . I hear that from the Leader of the Opposition ; I hear it from the Member for Sturgeon Creek ; I hear it from Mr Doole . Well, that has obviously not been the facts statistically .

If they would read the statistics put ou t by this government, by the Government of Canada, and by their own organization , they would realize this is the case. I would also like to point out other horrors of horrors - the minimum wage . They complain about the minimum wage and how this frightens away investment and jobs . I would like honou rab le members from the other side of the House, Madam Speaker , or the Chamber of Commerce, if they wish to, to look at the minimum wage in every province of this country and then compare the minimum wage with the unemployment rate .

They will find in the provinces with the highest minimum wage the lowest unemployment rate. Now, if the minimum wage is scaring employers out of those provinces, it sure doesn't show that statistically . That is not a fact. Employees stay here . Employers open businesses because they have a work force they can trust, they have a work force that does its job and because they get fair and honest remuneration for a day's work .

Contrary to what the Member for Sturgeon Creek is trying to suggest, people want work; this government 390 wants to put people to work ; but we want to put them to work in a fair and equal situation and not in the kind of situation where below minimum wage were without proper labour management protection . I would also suggest that there was a resolution before us in this House, brought in by the Member for Brandon West which says, "

WHEREAS Manitoba labour law is frequently cited as a key negative factor in inves tment decisions which benefit workers in other parts of Canada to the disadvantage of Manitoba workers," and further goes on to say "where certification and cancellation of certification provisions of the Manitoba Labour Relations Act are viewed by investors as a disincentive to investm ent in Manitoba ." Madam Speaker , the figures speak for themselves. We have been praised nationally as having the best and fairest labour laws in this country. I would also like to point out that the investment figures in this province belie the

preamble of this resolution and the principle stated by members of the Opposi tion . I would also like to point out that this province has the lowest rate of person days lost to strikes and lockouts between 1982 and '86 of any province in this country, Madam Speaker . Time lost for work stoppage has been less than one-fifth of the rest of Canada and this is because of these terrible draconian labour laws.

Well, let me tell you , if I were an employer in this province - and I have been an employer in this province - in spite of what some of my failure friends on the Opposition side may think, is the fact you like honest, open, above-board labour negotiations where management and labour can sit down and come to a fair working agreement without the need for stoppages , for lockouts , because that makes your operation efficient, it makes business efficient and it makes this province progress.

I think the honourable members from the Opposition side, if it is that they do not understand this , Madam Speaker, they are unwilling to face the facts. The facts are investment has improved in this province; labour strike has decreased in this province ; fairness in taxation is appearing in this province as a reality because of this Budget , that we are taking a compassionate and fair role. We are explaining to the people of this province , Madam Speaker, that , yes, your taxes are going up, but we are going to do things fair, honest and compassionate with that money.

We are going to increase health, education and social services by $209 million, Madam Speaker . We believe the people of this province do not believe in the "us" that I have heard from members of the Opposition, that you do not have to be born in this country to reap the rewards and to take the responsibilities for being a citizen of this country . We believe that people in this province want to share. They want to share the burdens; they want to share the rights; they want to share the pleasures of being a citizen of Manitoba. And we are providing them with the opportunity of doing that.

We believe that the people of Manitoba will grumble about this Budget . Nobody likes their taxes to go up. Nobody is pleased by increasing monies coming out of their pocket, but we believe the people of Manitoba will accept what is fair, Madam Speaker . We believe that this a courageous Budget . Not only is it a courageous Budget, it is a Budget that is a lot

Wednesday, 18 March, 1987 more hone st than has been put in by the honourable members from the senior level of government. We don't see any hidden sales taxes. We don't see any costs that are being talked about equivalent to a VAT, which is a value-added tax which the Federal Government is suggesting which has been put on in the U.K. which taxes at the middleman level so the consumer really never knows that he is paying the tax. We are letting people know, yes, you are paying. We are more importantly telling them what they are paying for.

People in this province gave us a mandate one year ago tod ay, Madam Speak er. They gave us a mandate one year ago tod ay. I congratulate, by the way, all members for having gotten their mandates one year ago tod ay.

The mandate was that the people said what we want is we want a government tha t 's fair, we want a government that's com passionate, we want a government that's upfront, that does not present us, Madam Speaker , with a position that we are going to build a bridge in every little riding in the province, that we are going to build a hospital where anybody asks for one, that we are going to build anything that anybody wants, and then come back and say we can't afford it, we're going to balance the Budget at the same time.

What people in this country and in this province have seen, Madam Speaker , they have seen what this government provides, what this government is going to provide - an honesty in the Budget. It's tough hones ty, tough love. This could be probably called a "Tough love Budget." The fact is people are not going to see 2,000 civil servants in this province lose their jobs as they did in Saskatchewan. They are not going to see 3 percent cuts in hospital care and personal care homes as they did in Alberta. They are not going to see the massive deficits that those two provinc es have. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. M. DOLIN: I have been asked to entertain a question by the Member for Brandon West. I would suggest if the Member for Brandon West listened a little more carefully to some of the facts and figures that I have been quoting, he might have less of a need for questions and might have a little more information, rather than just talking about the terrible labour relations in this province when that is not the case. Madam Speaker , I will close by saying this about this Budget: this is not a pleasant Budget; this is a fair and honest Budget.

It is balanced and it will help to ensure, Madam Speaker , continued growth and well being of the people of our province. It is not a Budget that sneaks around. It is not a Budget that goes behind somebody's back. It allo ws the Opposition to do its job to criticize. It allows us to stand up for what we believe our princip les are. I commend the Minister of Finance for having the courage to put in this Budget. I commend him not only for having the courage to put in this Budget, but for the principles articulated in this Budget and the principles that we, as a socialist party, stand for.

Thank you, Madam Speaker . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Me mb er for Minnedosa. 391 MR. D. BLAKE: It's always a pleasure to rise and debate the Throne Speech or the Budget Speech. The Throne Speech really wasn't worth debating, I suppose, so I didn't bother with it; but I wouldn't want to miss an opportunity on this glorious Budget, as we've just heard from the Member for Kildonan, which I may have a word about later. But, Madam Speaker , it's customary to recognize, I suppose, those that have been shifted or elevated in the benches across the way. There have been some changes in some portfolios.

I suppose it's a little like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. I congratula te the Member for Rupertsland on being elevated to a full Cabinet Minister's rank, and I'll have the opportunity to go over his Estimates with him when we get into the Estimates process. I don't know whether to congratulate the Member for The Pas on his new responsibilities for the Workers Compensation Board because I do sympathize with him on some of the problems that he has over there.

There are some suggestions that it could be another MTX, but I know there has been a pretty compr ehensive study undertaken; and I'm sure, when he gets that report and provides a copy to the members of the House, we may be able to provide him with some constructive suggestions or criticisms on the way that department is operating.

Madam Speak er, just to digress for a moment and mention the Member for Kildonan went on one of his usual tirades, but he seemed to emph asize that the party over there represented the ordinary people - they don't like "average" now, so they're using "ordi nary" - and it's always been a belief of members opposite that they have a mono poly on ordinary people, that tho se are the people that support them.

I want to tell the members opposite that I have an awful lot of average or ordina ry Manitobans living in my constituency and a number of them support this particular party, so if there's any misconception over there that they have monopoly on the so-called "little man," I want to dispel that myth that they've carried with them for so long. The Member for Kildonan mentioned the president of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce who was a doom and glo omer.

This particular Finance Minister has met with a great number of groups throughout Manitoba to glean their ideas and thoughts on how he should proceed with a good and fair Budget, but those meetings, I don't know how many years he's going to continually take those people in, because he listens to their remarks and their ideas and then goes merrily on his way, so the listening process doesn't seem to amount to too much.

Just to alleviate some of the concerns the Member for Kildonan has about not having been born here, let me assure him that I, for one, don't particularly care where he was born or if he was - he might have been issued, for all I know - but we do appreciate good citizens coming into our country and making their contributions. I would like some of those that have been born in his motherland to maybe be a little supportive and helpful in our friendly relations with our good neighbours to the sou th. I haven't seen that forthcoming too often from members that have come to us from the United States.

But, Madam Speaker , a year ago today - I notice the members opposite are wearing buttons of "Stand Up

Wednesday, 18 March, 1987 for Manitoba" - and it was a year ago today when the voters of Manitoba decided that they would re-elect this government. I just wonder how many of them, after analyzing this Budget and finding out how they're being ripped off by this socialist governmen t of ours, just whether they would feel the same way on giving them a vote of support today as they did a year ago. I would just keep reminding members opposite that it wasn't that great of a majority that they got, so they should be ever vigilant because things can change very quickly, Madam Speaker.

This is the time, I suppose, in this particular phase of the debate, that we speak on the amendment that was put forward by my leader, which I can support wholeheartedly. I can't say the same about the Budget Address. I won't digress too often, I hope, Madam Speaker , but I did want to touch on some of the remarks that the Minister of Labour made yesterday when he went into one of his usual tirades . We know that he's the most incompetent Minister over there . I can't say it's one of the worst speeches - all his speeches are bad - but it was a particularly bad one yesterday.

I wasn't in the House for it all, but we happen to have sound in the caucus room and I caught the portion where he was talking about raising funds and he was going to cut out the defence spending . I think he said we could do with one less CF-18 here and there, and the Navy has ordered a bunch of frigates; and in his attempt to be humorous , which he has difficulty doing, said we could just frigate away in one of those boats. He knows all about frigating things away. He was pretty successful with $27 million bucks in MTX. But that was a new concept , Madam Speaker.

And I thought on how to raise funds for some government spendi ng, and it might be nice , but I think the general agreement seems to be in balance now that the two super powers are getting somewhere in their talks to try and slow down the arms race and that's certainly all well and good. But I don 't think, as the Minister might have suggested, just because Gorbachev says, " Let's lay down our arms and be friends," that we should just jump to that bait too quickly because we've seen some of the negotiations with that particular group in the past , Madam Speaker , that haven't been all that successful.

The point that I wanted to make in his suggesting that the Federal Government could cut a few billion dollars out of their Budget , and I suppose he wanted it directed into the Province of Manitoba because that's the province that seems to be shortest of money , but that becomes a matter of priorities. Th e Federal Government happens to feel that's a strong enough priority that is necessary to direct certain funds to them. If the Minister was really serious about having priorities on the raising of funds and the spending of funds , I would direct him to the money that was lost in MTX.

That could have been directed into health care. We're not sure what the cost of the bridge is yet, Madam Speak er, because it started out at 10, but then we had to build it twice as long, so it became 20; and I suspect that it may be a little more than that when they finally build some roads to connect it to some place or other . There's a great deal of money there that could have been directed to Farm Aid, to agriculture, which got 392 some aid in the Budget. We're happy for that, some $14 million, but if we hadn 't have spent $20 mill ion or more on that bridge, maybe we could have built some more highways.

Just while I have the Minister of Highway's attention, Madam Speal<er - we won't "say foo much about it until we get into his Estimates - but there was $50 million offered by the Federal Government for the Yellowhead route if it was matched provincially; and I hear pretty strong rumours now that they're going to blow about $15 million of it on a cloverleaf at 16 and No. 1 at Portage that we need like a hole in the head . It's like the bridge north of Selkirk; it's not necessary at this time ; and in time, they 're probably going to need a bridge there .

I understand they're already planning now another bridge south of the one they've got at Selkirk where the first one should have been located and we wouldn't have had this great expense. That money, if we're talking about priorities , Madam Speaker, could have been directed to agriculture or to health care, and God save us if we're going to have to rely on the lotteries and the gambling casinos to provide extra funds for some of these social programs. But, Madam Speaker, the Member for Thompson put some great material together and, of course , he went off on his usual speech on the Budget.

He started off saying that he wanted to talk about policies , but we didn't get to the Budget and we didn't get into much of it that I listened to in the first 15 or 20 minutes. All he did was run down the Tories. He did ment ion tuition fees . In our time, we had increased tuition fees at the univ ersity , and I remember that very well, Madam Speaker, bec ause he was leading the pack when they marched on the Legislature. Here 's this young radical , president of the students' union, in hamme ring the counter in the Cabinet room, saying that we had done great damage to the university.

I noticed enrollment didn 't drop all of a sudden and thos e tuition fees really didn 't hurt that much and they have to go up, as we all know, and they probably have to go up again. But we all know with the wild spending , Madam Speaker, that this government embarks on - we saw 16 year s of it in Ottaw a with the Liberals that has pretty well rui ned this country and we're well on the way to that in Manitoba , which disturbs me greatly with many of the rumours that float around about the chances of the federal NDP forming the government in Canada.

All I can say, Madam Speaker, is God save Canada, if that ever happens . The Budget , I think this time, Madam Speaker, I think the Financ e Minister has gone a little bit too far. I think he's gone a wee bit too far on this particular Budget , becau se the people have finally caught on . This is the biggest tax grab in our history - that's been stated over and over and over again. I think the people are now finally sitting down and realizing just what was in this Budge t and what it's doing to their income and to their way of life.- (Interjection)- The average Canadian, the average Manitoban. HON. B.

URUSKI: It's the average for you. MR. D. BLAKE: Thirty-fiv e thousand is the averag e wag e. The Minister of Agriculture says, " It might be

Wednesday, 18 March, 1987 average for me. " Thirty-five thousand is the average wage in Manitoba. You love to brag about that on how well our province is doing .- (Interjection)- Certainly, they're going to get walloped pretty hard. They're going to get walloped pretty hard. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Tell me how many departments pay their workers $35,000.00? MR. D. BLAKE: You'r e making well over $35,000.00. A MEMBER: Whose fault is that? MR. D. BLAKE: Who said the farmers made $35,000.00? HON. V. SCHROEDER: You said that's the average wage. MR. D.

BLAKE: Not on the agricultural sector , not on the agricultu ral sector . I never said the average farmer was making $35,000.00. Madam Speaker, they're trying to put words in my mouth over there.- (l nterjection) l'm using some of the Member for Brandon East 's statistics, when he brags about how well we're doing in Manitoba. You take all of the teachers, firemen, policemen, politicians, they all make over $35,000.00.- (l nterjection) Sure they are. We're their representatives; we have to be average. Some of them not quite as average as others, some a little better than others.

But, Madam Speaker, I think this time this tax grab is finall y going to come home to roost on this government, because spending hasn't gone down; spending has incr eased over 9 percent, double inflation. Where are they going to get the money next year? They're not cutting back on their spending. Next year they're going to need a bunch more mo ney. Is there going to be another tax inc rease next year? Will we see 1 percent on sales tax next year and another .5 percent on the payroll tax? There just doesn't seem to be any control over the spending and I think that's what people were looking for.

They know that if we're ever going to get rid of the deficit, taxes have to go up.- (Interjection)- It's too late, he missed it. He'll have to read it in Hansard. I thought maybe he was out arranging another flag burning or some thing.- (Interjection)- This is a broken record theme we get from members opposite. Madam Speaker . Where would we cut? I'l l tell you where we would start - with about 130 apple polishers you've got, you did make an attempt in your advertising budg et which was $4 million or $6 million - you are cutting that a little bit. There are some places to cut.

A MEMBER: That runs the hospitals in Manitoba for half a day. MR. D. BLAKE: Well that's right and they're not being run that well. They're going to need more mo ney. You'v e got half yours in Brandon closed now because there's no funds for them. We're just waiting with bated breath to see when we're going to get the CAT scanner in Brandon. We had th ree of them promised du ring the election but that was a year ago, so we'll be happy to 393 see that. I hope the Member for Brandon East invites me to the ribbon cutting. HON. L EVANS: Yes, sure, you're welcome to come. HON. R.

PENNER: Not only that, you can go through the CAT scanner while you're there. HON. V. SCHROEDER: That's right, there's more than one way to scan a "CAT." MR. D. BLAKE: I've been through one, I don't want to go through another one. Madam Speaker, the Member for Brandon East wants to know where we would cut. There are 21 Cabinet Ministers over there, Madam Speaker, the high est numb er of Cabinet Ministers we've had. I suppose in history; you could drop three or four of those. A MEMBER: Oh, Dave, don 't be cruel. MR. D.

BLAKE: Absolu tely, double up some of these portfolios - I know the former Minister of Finance could handle another one on his lunch hour - some of the smaller ones. you kno w. But the minute you start that. right away they say, oh you're going to slash this and you're going to slash that. You'r e going to bring in user fees. I'm glad the Minister of Health has walked into the House. because privately maybe he might be a little ambiv alent on user fees, but in the political arena. you'll never get him to mention it. But the Minister of Health. Madam Speaker, has got the biggest chunk of the Budget.

He's probably going to need a bigger one and I don't know how he's going to stop those costs from rising. We don't want to see services cut; nobody wants to see them cut. but it's becoming a bigger and a bigger problem.- (Interjection)- No. you' ve got to create more wealth. get a bigger pie and a bigger pie. Open it up for business. open Manitoba up for business. Madam Speaker. and possibly we might get a little bigger share of that pie. The Budget. Madam Speaker. with its taxes - and we know how much of it is going to go for debt servicing - we have to borrow another 1.5 billion this year.

We don 't know what kind of a rate we're going to have on those borrowi ngs, because we're not too sure what this Budget's going to do to our credit rating. It dropped in Saskatc hewan with th.eir deficit. This deficit. we don't know what it's going to be. It's going to be higher than the last one probabl y, even though they're projecting it a little bit lower. The Min ister. in pr esenting his Budg et. Madam Speaker . it was carefully crafted. He mentioned there'd be 100 .000 paying less. He doesn 't mention the 400.000 that are going to be paying more.

That's a cute little play on words that all politicians use. I suppose. and that's fair game but I say they're catching on to them. This Budget has gone a wee bit too far. and the people out there are starting to analyze it and just see what it's going to cost them. I won't bother going through all of these clippings. but it's all over the papers. Madam Speak er. It's not just the members of the Conservative Party saying this. I mentioned earlier about the consultative process that he uses with the Chamber of Commerce and

Wednesday, 18 March, 1987 various other groups that he doesn't seem to listen to. One of the editorials says exactly that, "There are None So Deaf," and I'm quoting from it: "Could Finance Minister Eugene Kos tyra have possibly have been any more divorced from reality than he was on Monda y night?

Kostyra is fond of quoting his two rounds of consultations with business , labour and communit y leaders to justify the government's final decisions, but those meetings were clearly set-ups in which Kostyra heard only the voices he wanted to hear." Madam Speaker, exactly what I'm saying, the great charade they go through every year of having these meetings throughout the country to try and listen to the various groups that should have an input into what's happening in Mani toba just doesn't seem to materialize .

I mentioned some of the losses, Madam Speaker - MTS and the cost of Sam's Bridge north of Selkirk - but it's absolutely shocking when we get the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation report and find out the massive losses that we've suffered in that corporation. Like the former Minister of MTX , the Minister said : Well, we're not responsible, the management must have done something wrong .- (Interjection)- The Ministe r, Madam Speaker , is chairman of the board - not only Minister responsible , he's chairman of the board - and I assume sits in on the meetings.

I was a bank manager for a long time, Madam Speaker, and if the staff got their fingers in the cookie jar, I was the guy to answer for it. I was the guy that got canned . When you've got some responsibility - and he's the guy running it, he's chairman of the board. You take a big corporation that takes a bath on something , the chairman of the board 's gone . (lnterjec tion) - Absolutely. We'll have to wait and see just what the final results of this particular development are.

Madam Speaker, we've heard them on that side of the House bash the feds : if we only had more money from the Federal Government, we could do so many more things, and we could provide these services . We have to cut here and cut there , because there's no more money coming from Ottawa . Madam Speake r, some figures crossed my desk today that I would like to relate to you and it's the Federal Government expenditure on agriculture in Manitob a. I should send a copy of this over to the Minister of Agriculture because he may not be aware of it.

This past year, Madam Speaker , in excess of $500 million has flowed into agriculture from the federal scene . The Western Stabilization Fund provided $150 .8 million; Agricultural Stabi lization, 6; Crop Insurance, 20 million ; payments under The Western Grain Transportation Act, 158 million ; Special Canada Grains Program , 151 million; and other programs such as Dairy Subsid ies Advance Payments and Research 47.7 million ; 533 ,900 million, Madam Speaker. All we hear from them on the other side , well it's the feds, if only we could get more money from Ottawa we'll be able to do so much more .

There's no question, Madam Speake r, that th e Federal Government inherit ed some tremendous problems when they formed the government in Ottawa. It's going to take them a long time to come out of it, but they 're making great strides . I think Finance Minister Wilson is one of the best finance Ministers we've had .- (Interject ion)- I'm going to get to that because it helps you . The Federal Budgets , 394 the better they are , the bett er yours can be. He's one of the best Finance Ministers we've had and he's going to need time to right the ship.

He's going to have to right that ship that was floundering badly when he took it over; he's on the right track; he's staying to course; but he's got a terrible mess to clean up, just as the next Finance Minister, who takes over from this government , is going to have a terrible mess to clean up. The Budgets have soared under this government's misma nageme nt, Madam Speaker. The deficits have soar ed into astronomical amounts. The average Canadian , or the ordinary Canadian, as they want to call them, cannot com preh end the size of the debt that thi s government is running up.

When you talk in the millions and billions, it gets lost on the little half-section farmer, the grocery clerk . He doesn't real ize what 2 billion or 1 million is, but you relate it to his house, and you tell him his taxes are going to go up another $600 or $700 , he might understand that. The feds are on track and they 're trying to get the ship righted. I hope this government will take a little lesson from some of the actions that they've been taking down there about trimming some of the fat and trying to control some of their expenditures .

There doesn 't seem to be any effort being made by this government to control expenses, absolutely none . There 's no layoff on the apple polishers. I don 't know how many the Minister of Natural Resources has got in his department, but he's probably got a handful. I expect they're doing a fairly good job, because he gets here on time every day for question period , his tie is on and he's well dressed. So I think they 've got him presenting a nice image. He smiles at the camera nicely. So they're doing their job, I suppo se; but for 50,000 or 60,000 a year, I don't know whether the taxpayer really need s that.

I know the Premier does, because he may have trouble dressing himself and getting here on time. Madam Spe aker, this is where some fat could be cut and there 's no one on the other side can tell us any different. That department has - what's the right word I'm looking for? - burgeoned. Close. There's no need for that at all. The Premier gets up and says we're going to have a leaner , meaner government. My goodness, talking about leaner, meaner governments, I mention ed "Mean Gene the Tax Mach ine." I just wondered if he posed for this picture, or did they just snap it of him, because they've captured . .

MADAM SPEAKER: Ord er please . May I remind the hon oura ble member to address members by their proper titles. MR. D. BLAKE: My apologies, Madam Speaker. I was referring to the friendly Minist er of Finance. Mada m Speaker, that 's what I'm getting at. They've taxed us with a tremendous tax bite. As I mentioned earlier, I think the public are finally on to them this time, that they 've gone a wee bit too far. People are starting to take a long hard look at their incomes and many of them now have had to send a second member of the family out to work.

Well, with two incomes , you 're over that little poverty line of $15 ,000 , or whatev er the

Wednesday, 18 March, 1987 limit is where you eliminate your tax or get away without paying tax. The Minister of Finance can juggle and come up with all the figures he wants, but at the end of April , when those people make out their tax return and find out what bite has been taken from them after this Budget, they're going to be reeling and saying what has really happened to us in Manitoba? We've always had a pretty good province and why do we let 10 or 12 years of socialist government bring us down to this state where we've got debts that we'll never get out of years and years?

Heaven forbid the next Finance Minister, who takes over that portfolio, Madam Speaker , has got a horrendous job in front of him to try to get this ship of state, the finances of this province , back into some sort of order where they can start cutting the deficit and start cutting the taxes. There's a great cry across the way, Madam Speaker, that they're taxing the wealthy. We all know they could take all the wealth and what they consider wealthy in this country and it wouldn't run the government very long .

The Minister of Corporate Services said all of these cuts wouldn't run the hospital for half a day, and I agree the h

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-2-14
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 2nd hansardpdf 14.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	cd59dcefab68436c8511efa7f3cba935b842f900

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