Manitoba Hansard — 29 February 1988 (Sitting 13A, 33rd Legislature, 3rd Session)

33-3-13a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 29 February, 1988. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Pres enting Reports by Standing and Special Comm ittees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. A. PENNER: Madam Speaker.

I beg leave to table three reports: the Annual Report for the Department of Education, 1986-87; the Annual Financial Report for the University of Manitoba, for the year ended March 31, 1987; and the Financial Statements, for the year ended March 31, 1987, the University of Winnipeg. MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Motion ... Introduction of Bills . . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have, from Murdoch MacKay Collegiate, sixty Grade 9 students under the direction of Mr. Green.

The school is located In the constituency of the Honourable Minister for Health. On behalf of all the mem bers, we welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS Budget - revenue increaaea MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you very, Madam Speaker. In rereading the Budget Address, in attempting to reconcile the appended financial statistics to the claims made by the Minister of Finance within the Budget, it is obvious, Madam Speaker, that the government has chosen a path of numb er manipulation to serve Its own political purposes.

Madam Speaker, over the next number of question periods and Budget speeches, we will endeavour to point this out. I honestly believe, Ma dam Speak er, that the Mini ster of Finance's credibility is on the line because of the manner in which he chose to present many of the figures.

Madam Speak er, given that the government is forecast ing revenue increases of $451 million and yet only $284 million is being directed to increases in program expendi tures as shown in detail on page 14 of the Budget, can the Minister of Finance tell me where the other $16 7 million is going? 339 MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The money that is in the Budget is going to the services that are outlined in the Budget Speech and in the spending department by department.

Again, the majority of the mone y, the largest increase of any spending area in this Budget is health care, and interesting ly, Madam Speaker, that's somewhat different than what took place at the federal level in the federal Budget. The largest increase in federal spending this year was for public debt costs. That is not the case in Manitoba. The majority of money is going towards health care. The other areas are outlined in the Budget. The member wants to talk about credibility of figures.

I would ask him to follow up on something he said last year during the debate - and the member is laughing because I think he knows what I am going to ask him - but he made a statement last year, Madam Speaker. in Hansard where he says, "I would love to see that." He was talking about last year's Budge t and the deficit figure.

He says, "I will give the Minister great credit if he brings in this deficit anywhere close to $450 million." Madam Speaker, given that this year's deficit is below the $415 million that was predicted in last year's Budget - in fact, as reported by the second quarter, is below $450 million - I would wonder if he would now like to take this opportunity to give cred it on last year's Budget and maybe some on the issues too. MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind all honourable members that question period is not a time for debate and that questions should have one short

preamble and answers to be brief. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Speaker, I reiterate my question. Where did the $167 million go that is not shown up as a program expenditur e but yet which represents the amount in additional revenue that has been increas ed? Where did it go? MR. H. ENNS: You know, if you've got the progam expen ditures, detail the Budget. We can read . HON. E.

KOSTYRA: Wel l, Madam Speaker, the Member for Lakeside says we can read, so I presume that if he can read , then also the Member for Morris can read and he can go through the Budget documents and look at spending area by area. The majority of increases that were available this year have been directed to program areas, particularly health care, followed by other areas such as educa tion, social services. Other funds that are not directly related to program areas go to other things such as public debt costs that received an additional $85 million in order to pay for the interest on the public debt.

And also, Madam Speaker, a good part of that money went to bring about a further reduction in the deficit

Monday, 29 February, 1988 - a reduction that again I thought the member would compliment me for because he's indicated how good the Federal Minister of Finance is doing with deficit reduction and yet our deficit was reduced at a far greater pace than the federal deficit. So I would expect that he would be complimenting me today on doing better than his federal counterpart. Budget - public debt costs MR. C.

MANNESS: Given that the government says in the Budget that the public debt cost will be $523 million - by the way, Madam Speaker, up nearly 20 percent, using the government's own figures - I ask the Minister of Finance to indicate whether all direct government borrowing costs are included within this figure. Is this the sum total of all the government borrowing costs, excluding the Crown corporations? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Madam Speaker , again the member would like to create an impression that isn't quite true.

The increase in public debt costs, Madam Speaker, are just over 19 percent over last year, and as a proportion of our spending is just over 11 percent, which is less than half the proportion that the Federal Government spends on public debt costs, which is about 25 percent by the latest Budget, and when you compare our borrowing costs - the costs that we associate to public debt - you find that it is in the mid-range of other provinces in Canada.

In regard to the figures that are in there, it contains all the costs associated with the public debt of Manitoba other than that which is directed to the self-sustaining Crown corporations. MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Finance explain why he wants to be less than forthright within this whole area, and why will he not admit that Manitoba Properties Inc., the cost of keeping this operation going, which is, in essence, an interest cost, has not been included within the $523 million?

Why will the Minister of Finance not be so openly candid as to tell us that within the $523 million figure that all the costs of borrowing by this government are not Included? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Madam Speaker, the costs associated with the lease costs of Manitoba Properties Incorporated is contained in the Spending Estimates of the Government of Manitoba. lt Is contained in the area that it always has been contained in since the commencement of Manitoba Properties Inc., and that is through the Department of Government Services.

That has been reflected in past years there and it is reflected in this Budget as part of the costs of those buildings that are paid for through Government Services. So I am not hiding anything, Madam Speaker. On the contra ry, we are presenting even more financial information year by year than has ever been the case in the Province of Manitoba and it's certainly more than is provided in other provinces that are governed by Conservative Governments. 340 Budget - borrowing costs MR. C.

MANNESS: Madam Speaker, given now that the Minister of Finance has admitted that there's some $60 million of interest costs, more or less interest costs which are not reflected in the statutory debt figure, Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Finance now indicate what percent of total expenditures are directed to borrowing?

Given also, Madam Speaker, that there was some $38 million that has gone into the hydro rate stabilizat lon which represents a liability against borrowings in outside markets, would the Minister of Finance now indicate that the true cost of borrowing represents 13 percent, not 11 .4 percent, but indeed 13 percent of all expenditures? Madam Speaker, this is the first contradiction of facts. HON. E. KOSTYR A: Madam Speaker , again the member is trying to create an impression that is not true. All the costs that he . . . MR. C. MANNESS: You said so; it's on the record. HON. E.

KOSTYRA: Madam Speaker, now he not only wants to ask the question, he also wants to give the answer, and I would suggest that he be patient and - (Interjection)- I would suggest the member be patient. I know he's having difficulty finding areas of this Budget to attack, but if he'd patient maybe he might find some areas that he might be able to raise some legitimate criticisms of the fiscal and budgetary capacity of the Province of Manitoba. But in this area, Madam Speaker, all of the costs are shown on the books of the Province of Manitoba.

The hydro rate stabilization costs are shown there, and I would remind the member that is as a result of a decision that was made by the Conservative Government which caused that expenditure to be shown on the books of the province like it is, rather than being borne by Manitoba Hydro where it should have been borne.

In regard to Manitoba Properties Inc., I have indicated and responded to the question that it is contained in the Spending Estimates of the province in the same manner and the same way that it has every year since Manitoba Properties Inc. has been put on the books of the Province of Manitoba through Government Services; and public debt costs, the costs associated with the actual borrowing of funds for nonsustaining Crown corporations, they're shown in the Department of Finance expenditures where it's always been shown, Madam Speaker.

Budget - sales tax revenue MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris, with a final supplementary. MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance has made the assumption the economy will grow next year at the rate of 2.5 percent real growth. Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance: Why is this fact not reflected in the estimate of sales tax revenue? Madam Speaker, why is the sales

Monday, 29 February, 1988 tax revenue forecast to increase only 1 percent? Is this not an admission that the Manitoba economy is about to go into the tank? SOME HON OURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! A MEMBER: Lucky you didn't estimate it at 3. HON. E. KOSTYRA: No, and it's not going to hell in a hand basket either, Madam Speaker. What that indi cates is that sales tax revenue is increasing by that amount over what was bud geted last year - the reality is this - or this current year.

This current year the expectations of sales tax revenue did not meet what we had put in place at the beginning of the year, and that's for a variety of reasons . First of all, there were a numb er of areas where we broadened the base of sales tax in a significant way and we had to make some assumption, some estimates, as to how much revenue would come from those additional sources because there was no track record of actual spending to be able to give a specific figure on that.

Some of those growth figures for the areas that were added into the retail sates tax base proved to be inaccurate, that they were not up to the levels of expectation. Secondly, the figur es that were used in Manitoba for retail sates tax growth last year proved to be somewhat optimistic, as was the case in terms of the Canadian figures because sales tax growth has slowed over the past few years. So the actual increase is significantly above the 1 percent because the actual revenue that we expect to get from sates tax this year will be about $25 million below that which was projected in last year's Budget.

Muni cipal paymen ts - cutbacks MADAM SPEA KER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In his decision, Ma dam Speak er, to li mit the provincial-municipal tax sharing payments to 3 percent of the 1987 level, could the Mini ster of Finance meet with the municipal corporations of the City of Winnipeg to discuss this proposal? MADAM SPE AKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: I'm not sure if I heard the member correctly, if he was asking if I did or if I will be meeting.

If the question is did I meet with him regarding this, no, I didn't. If the question is if I will be meeting with him, I un derstand that there are ongoing meetings that are scheduled with the Urban Affairs Committee of Cabinet, which includes myself and other Minis ters, to meet with the City of Winnipeg. I'd certainly be pleased, along with the Min isters of Mu nicipal Affairs and Northern Affairs, for those communities that come under Northern Affairs that are impacted by this decision, to meet with them to discuss the imp lications of this decision. 341 MR. J.

DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, so much for this great concilia tory government, this great handholding that they do with the people of Manitoba. A major tax move and a major taking away of funds from the municipal corporations, and he didn't have the intestinal fortitude to meet with them prior to it, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, a further question. How much revenue does this mean to the mun icipal corporations? How many dollars of a cutb ack is this 3 percent cap mean to the municipal corporations, Madam Speaker? How much money is involved? HON. E.

KOSTYRA: Madam Speaker, we're being criticized for not consulting prior to the Budget with the muni cipalities to indic ate to them that we were going to limit the amount of growth from the provincial/ municipal tax sharing. I don't believe, Ma dam Speak er, that in the Conservative provinces where they actually froze or decreased municipal support that there was any prior consultation with the municipalities on the freezi ng or the reduction that took place in those provinces. The reality is, Madam Speaker, that we are providing an increase in financial support through that mechanism to mun icipalities.

We are also providing increases in support in other areas to municipalities and to municipal governments, and certainly we intend to discuss the imp lications with them. The amount that they would have received if that cap was not in place would have been probably in the range of 9 percent or 10 percent over that which they received the previous year. MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, I would appreciate, not necessarily at this point, but a dollar figure on that amount as well. A final question to the Min ister of Finance, Madam Speaker.

He's indicated in his Budget Address that he will be providing $5.5 million to municipal corporations for the monies which they took away on the education tax payment system which was recently announced. Madam Speaker, how does he plan to break that down - on a municipal-b y-municipal program or does he have a formula for the province? How much does he plan to put into the city and how much does he plan to spread throughout the municipal corporations of rural Manitoba? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Madam Speaker, firstly there's some of the background or the

preamble to the question that is incorrect. The Province of Manitoba took nothing away from municipal corporations.

The member knows that on a long -standin g recom mendation of the Provincial Auditor, one which I think some of his members support action on, we took action to deal with the situation whereby municipalities were holding back funds that were due to school divisions, placing those funds into interest-bearing accounts while, at the same time, school divisions had to go to maybe the same or other financial institutions and borrow funds in order to provide for the costs of school education in the province.

So the real win ner in all of that was not the municipa lities, was not the school divisions, but it was the financial institution that were making the profit on the interest spread between that which was on the

Monday, 29 February, 1988 interest-bearing accounts of the municipality and that which school divisions have to pay. So the net benefactor was not the taxpayers, which will be the net benefactor in terms of the changes we put in place with respect to having a more timely payment of - (Interjection)- if the member doesn't want to hear a rebuttal to his inaccurate accusations, he ought not to make them, Madam Speaker, when he raises a question. We expect, within a very short period of time, to be able to indicate to the municipalities how the grants will be paid.

They will be paid on some form of per capita payment to all the municipalities in the province, taking into account the fact that it is a special payment from prior year's adjustments of the provincial/ municipal tax-sharing formula, and taking into account that some municipalities have had a greater benefit from that interest than other municipalities. Indeed, some municipalities had no benefit whatsoever from the previous arrangement that was in place with respect to the forwarding of those tax revenues to the school divisions. Budget - interest costa MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. M.

DOLIN: Madam Speaker, my question also is to the Minister of Finance, listening to previous questions on fiscal prestidigitation. it's been reported in the Winnipeg Free Press and picked up by the other media that the second largest item in the Budget now is the Department of Finance because of interest rate payments. 1t was my understanding that this item includes other such things such as rebates for whatnot. I'm wondering if the Minister could state whether or not this is the case. Is this now the second largest Budget item? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. E.

KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the member for his questions because there is some inaccurate information with respect to the spending of the Department of Finance. Yes, it is true. In terms of total spending, the Department of Finance is receiving the second largest amount of money next to health care in the Budget.

What is unfortunate that it was not mentioned is that .25 billion or over $250 million, actually an increase of $3 1 million over last year, is going to tax credit payments, which is payments back to individuals, either through the Cost of Living Tax Credit, the Property Tax Credit Program and other tax credit programs that go directly to ease the burden of taxes or ease the burden of the costs of education, municipal services on the individual taxpay er.

So while it's true that the Department of Finance has significant spending, it is untrue to suggest that all that is due to interest costs and that the second largest spending in the government is due to interest costs. That is not true, Madam Speaker. 342 Chuchman Report - Hydro objection MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro.

During the recent Public Utilities Board's hearing regarding hydro rates, Manitoba Hydro objected to the presentation of the Chuchman Report because they said it forecast beyond the five-year minimum limit set by the PUB. In the new spirit of accounta bility announced both in the Speech from the Throne and repeated last Thursday in the Budget, will the Minister order Manitoba Hydro to lift its objection to the Chuchman Report in order that it may form a significant part of the PUB report due in the immediate future? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. J.

STORIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think the Member for River Heights knows that the PUB hearings have concluded. I think perhaps the member also knows that the particular report in question, in the opinion of the PUB - and I think correctly - had nothing to do with the issue of the rate increases, the '86-87 and '88 announced increases. The PUB, I think, looked at the relevant factors and that is the rate structure, the requirement that Manitoba Hydro has for increasing its reserves, Madam Speaker, and the necessity of modest increases.

The report that's referenced by the member had little to do with those matters and more to do with the question of long-range planning. Madam Speaker, I should indicate to the member that the issue of alternatives have been explored, not only by the department and the Energy Council, but also Manitoba Hydro. In fact, Manitoba Hydro is involved in a very extensive least cost energy alternative study and that will be useful information, Madam Speaker.

But it does not detract from the fact that neither the rate increases that were being requested were out of line and the PUB, of course, will be recommending and making a report on that issue. But it will not be dealing with the question of the longer term alternatives that the province has with respect to energy generation. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: So much for open government, Madam Speaker. A supplementary question to the same Minister.

Why did Manitoba Hydro, which had the Chuchman Report in September, not object to it until it was brought before the PUB, thereby denying the opportunity to present any of the relevant data that Dr. Chuchman had gathered? HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker, I don't particularly understand those facile comments. The Chuchman Report can be made public by the individual in question. Manitoba Hydro does not have any interest in denying that kind of information to the public, Madam Speaker.

Monday, 29 February, 1988 The individual in question has discussed that report with other individuals, including the press. There are other individuals, Madam Speaker, both consultants who were brought before the PUB and individual members of society who have done their own analysis of the direc tion Manitoba Hydro should be taking, assessed the de cisions which have been made, Madam Speaker. Manitoba Hydro has no control over that information and neither, frank ly, do I. Madam Speaker, if the press or the public want to rev iew those particular assess ments, they're free to do that.

Ma dam Speak er, in our opinion they have no relev ance on the question that was before PUB. The PUB will be making its re co mmendations and its vie ws known as a result of the hearings; and, Madam Speaker, I will point out that those hearings were extensive, exhaustive, certainly the most exhaustive in 10 years, and neither the Liberals nor the Co nserv atives had representatives there to make any pres entations whatsoever. So their co ncern comes a little belatedly. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: With a final supplementary to the same Minister, Madam Speaker.

When I get the same budget they have for researc h, I'll appear. Why does Manitoba Hydro believe it is acceptable for their chair man to discuss the effects of the NSP power sale which doesn't take effect , for the most part, until the next centu ry, but objects to consumers presenting material of more than five years in the future? Who is Manitoba Hydro serv ing themselves or the co nsumers of this province? HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker, Manitoba Hydro serves the interests of cons umers in this province and has done for many, many decades.

Madam Speaker, the issue which the Member for River Heights would like addressed through this form has been addre ssed in other forms. Madam Speaker, the National Energy Board did a rev iew of the decision and its implications for Manitoba, and what did it find? lt found that it was in the best interests of Manioba, the best interests of Manitoba Hydro and in the best interests of Canada, and that, in fact, it would lead to the substantial profits we said it would, Madam Speaker. That decision has been taken.

The Limestone construction is under way and the benefits, frankly, because of the foresight and the vision that the prev ious Minister had, and the Manitoba Hydro Board of Dire ctors had, will be taking place because of those decisions, Madam Speaker. So we need not be defe nsive about the information that was available when those decisions were made. That information has been made availabl e at successive standing com mittees of this Legislature. lt has been made available through the National Energy Board hearings, Madam Speaker. There is no la ck of information around which the decisions were made.

Madam Speaker, they were good decisions and they stand to be good de cisions in the long-term for both the ratepayers of Manitoba Hydro and the province. 343 Lottery revenues MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cha rleswood. MR. J. ERNST: Thank you, Madam Speaker. On Friday last, the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation informed the ex e cutive direc tor of the Manitoba Sports Federation that the $7 million lottery allocation to health care done in last year's Budget was in fact unexpended. Could the Minister of Finance advise whether the money has been expended, and if not, why not?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't know what the member means by being ex pended. Any lottery re venue which will flow into the Budget, into the provincial coffers this year, will be put into genereal re venue as will the case be nex t year in terms of the additional amount that we're talking about.

As I understand it, that lottery rev enue is not at the le vels that was anticipated and it may not be possible to move all or some of that portion which was contained in our re venue for this current year into the Budget this year, but that will be determined as we move towards the year- end. At this point in time, no monies have been moved from Lotteries into general rev enue as was put in the Budget this past year. MR. J. ERNST: Madam Speaker, then again to the Minister of Finance.

If, in fact, lottery funds are accum ulating at the Lotteries Foundation, why are we out borrowing in foreign markets rather than taking that money as it accumu lates over a period of time? If the allocation of $7 million, presumably, was coming from Lotteries, it would come in any ev ent. So, Madam Speaker, could the Minister of Finance advise why money isn't acc ruing over a period of time instead of accum ulating at the Lotteries Foundation? HON. E.

KOSTYRA: The practice with respec t to lottery re venues has been that they've been put into trust acco unts for specific purposes and any of the interest that is available in the trust acco unts accumu lates for the purposes of those designated funds, and that has been the practice for as long as I'm aware since the esta blishment of the various trust accounts for Culture, Heritage and Recreat ion and Sports, Health and Fitness. So that has been a practice that is longstanding. The money stays in those accounts.

The practice has been to try to have enough rev enue in the lotteries accounts to sustain the following year's spending of those particular areas. That again has been a practice that has been in existence for some time now. So that practice is in place and there's no thought, at least at the moment, to change it. MR. J. ERNST: Madam Speaker, again to the Minister of Finance. If the expectations of lottery rev enues for the fiscal year are current, are below that anticipated in the

Monday, 29 February, 1918 Budget, that is to say ability to transfer $7 million, then on what basis does the Minis ter now ex pect to accumulate $10 million in fiscal year next? On what basis does he expect to get $10 million if he couldn't get $7 million for last year? HON. E.

KOSTYAA: lt's done on the basis of looking at all the lottery revenues that are available and the fact that revenue last year may not have been at the levels that were consi dered appropri ate to be able to effect that kind of trans fer. lt's our indi cation from both the Lotteries Min ister and Lotteries officials, and my own, that we will be able to accomplish that this next year. Livestock Feed Security Progra m MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MA. C. BAKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Concerns have been expressed by some farmers about the Livestock Feed Security Program.

I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture could make us aware of what these concerns are. MADAM SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet please rephra se his question? The Honourable Memb er for Lac du Bonnet. MA. C. BAKER: Yes, Madam Speaker. I wonder if the Min ister of Agriculture could identify what these concerns are.- (I nterjection)- Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Min ister of Agriculture could identify the concerns of some farmers in regard to the Livestock Feed Security Program, and I wonder if he would also tell us what he's doing about it.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Opposition House Leader. MA. G. MEACIEA: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. The concerns of farmers are not within the admin istrative competence of this government. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Lac du Bonnet, would he care to rephrase his question. MA. C. BAKER: Madam Speaker, there are several farmers who are conc erned About the Livestock Feed Security Program. I would like the Mini ster of Agricultur e to Identify these concerns and to tell this House what he's proposed to do about it.

MADAM SPEAKER: I'm sorry, the Honourable Member for Lac du Bon net's question is not In order. The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, for the last time, please rephrase your question so it's within the administrative responsibilit y of the Min ister. MA. C. BAKER: Madam Speaker, some farmers are having difficulty with the Livestock Feed Security Program. I'm wondering if the Min ister of Agricultur e can tell us what these concerns are and if, in fact, what he's doing about them. 344 MADAM SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Min ister. HON. L. HAAAPIAK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The Livestock Feed Security Program, I'm sure members would know, is a program offered through the Manitoba Crop Insura nce Corpora tion, which is a joint federal-provi ncial program with farmer participation.

There has been concern expressed on the part of farmers who are participants that there has not been a payout from the program when they in fact did expect that there should have been one. lt seems, Madam Speaker, that the concern arises from the nature of the program, wherein rather than providing for individual coverage within the munic ipality, a payout is triggered when the production for that mun icipality is below 70 percent of the historical average.

Now, given that kind of a program, Madam Speaker, it is quite possible that an individual farmer could have production below the historical 70 percent average where the average for the muni cipality might be at 70 percent or above; therefore, an individual participant may not receive the benefits. Farmers should be aware, and I think some are, Ma dam Speaker, th at if they are not wantin g to participate in the group package that they can, for domestic forages, subscribe to individual coverage and that concern would be addressed. Leaded fuel tax MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MA. H.

ENNS: Madam Speaker, a numb er of my constituents have asked me to raise with the Minis ter of Finance a Budget item that we find particularly hard to explain - how hard to explain when a government singles out lower income, poorer people of our province for a specific tax penalty. I refer to the additional tax on leaded fuel.

Madam Speaker, I wonder, if prior to imposing that tax, had the department run off any figure s to ind icate how many people are using the older vehicles, which normally are those people who are less able to pay, generally speaking, on the farms or in the driving public, as to how many you're hitting with this tax. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYAA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. First of all, the member mentions farms.

The situation Is as it was before that farmers will not be paying any fuel taxes and certa inl y not any increase, as we ind icated, with the incr eased differential on leaded gasoline. The reality of the situation is the pricing polic ies of the oil companies, for the last period of time, had a lower price for that more pollutant gasoline than the less pollutant non-leaded gasoline. In fact, if you survey costs right across Canada, yo u'll find that in most provi nces the cost of leaded gas and non-l eaded gas Is the same. The reality is that ... - (Int erjection)- MADAM SPEAKER: Order please.

Monday, 29 February, 1988 I'm sure the Honou rable Member for Lakeside would like to hear the answer to his question. The Honourable Minister . HON. E. KOSTYRA: The reality, Madam Speaker, is a lot of vehicles that are equipp ed and are able to use the non-leaded gasoline are using the leaded fuel bec ause of the fact that it is a difference in price. That is ca using a serious pollution problem to th e environment.

Studies have shown - and I know maybe the Member for Morris doesn't care - that the leaded fuel is causing significant health problems in Manitoba, as it is in other provinces, particularly for children. As a result of that concern, we put in place the increased differ ential. lt will mean a dec rease in consumption of that particular gas, we estimate, by about 30 percent, as a result of those people who were previously using that re verting now to the non-leaded gasoline. MR. H.

ENNS: Madam Speak er, I don't argue with and I'm prepared to even acknowledge the laudable objectives of reduc ing pollution with respect to the use of leaded and unleaded fuel, but the solution is very simple for it. Do at least what the so-called big business co rporations are doing and ac knowledging that poorer people, people of lower incomes drive the older vehicles that aren' t equip ped to use the unleaded fuels, so you just drop your tax on the unleaded fuels and you accomplish the same objective.

Madam Speaker, a simple question is this, that the more wealthy people, the people who can afford it, drive the newer vehicles, they use the unleaded fuel. They get the tax advantage out of this government. Those of us, particularly many of my co nstituents . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the member have a question? MR. H. ENNS: . . . drive the poorer or the older vehic les, that have to use leaded gas. They are the captive audience of this tax Minister and they pay the tax. I am asking him.

Has he at least done a count as to how many people of lower Income is he hitting with this tax, how many people with the least ability to pay? That principle should strike a note with members of the New Democ rats - the ability to pay. How many people are being subject to this new tax? HON. E. KOSTYRA: The simple answ er, Madam Speaker, Is that less people are being affected by the 1 cent per litre increase in the federal tax right across the board on all forms of gasoline.

Madam Speaker, again, if you look at gasoline taxes right across this count ry, Manitobans pay amongst the lowest gasoline taxes of provinces in Canada. We always maintain to try and keep costs down for Manltobans, particularly on the area of co nsumptive taxes, whether they're gasoline taxes or retail sales taxes where we have again amongst the lowest rates of retail sales tax in Canada, and certainly to the east of us. That has been a delib erate policy.

We believe that there should be a balanced approach to taxation and that more emphasis should be put on the ability to pay, whether it is through the higher 345 incomes, through income tax, or whether it is taxes on large corporations like banks and mining companies. Ticket fixing charges MADAM SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have a question for the Attorney -General.

Madam Speaker, a few months ago, the Attorney General appeared at a press conference to announce the laying of certain ch arges against judges, magi strates, lawyers and private citizens in regard to alleged ticket fixing. I do not want to, because it certainly would be out of order, get into the merits of it, but I would simply ask the Attorney-G eneral whether he rev iewed and approved the laying of those charges? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney- General. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The charges were laid after they were examined by our se ni or pros ec uting attorne y, the Dire ctor of Prose cutions and our Assistant Deputy Attor ney General. MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speak er, a final supplementary question. I would ask the Attorney- General whether he has authorized the co ntinuing investigation into this whole matter. HON. V. SCHROEQER: Madam Speaker, I don't see that as being -(Inaudible)- police are investigating this case in the same way that they would investigate any other case where there is a suspicion that there is something wrong.

Air ambulance policy MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourabl e Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Health. lt falls on the announcement in the Budget on Friday that there's going to be a new out-of-province policy for transportation with the air ambulance. My spec ific question to the Minister of Health is as to whether that will apply to Individuals who re cently had to use the air ambulance. I know of one couple in Thompson where they are currently faced with a bill of $8,000 for the use of the air ambulance for an operation that was not available in Manitoba.

Will that policy be retroa ctive? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to announce that we have indeed brought in a new policy whereby air ambulance will in fact be paid for for those people who are critically ill, who need an air ambulance.

,.onday, 29 Febr&�ary, 1* We have sent letters off to those people who have incurred expenses in that res pect over the last year, indicating to them that we are prepared to sit down with them and discuss that matter with them, and we hope to res olve this issue to everyone's satisfaction in the near future. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Orders of the Day, I have a ruling to pre sent to the House.

On Wednesd ay, February 24, 1988, I took under advlsement a point of order raised by the Government House Leader respecting the words used by the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek in referri ng to another mem ber. I have reviewed page 270 of Hansard and note that the member made the following statements : ". . . if anybody lies about what I said in this House, I take it as an insult to myse lf. I did not say that, what he (meaning the Premier) said . . . "; and "If that First Minister wants to tell lies about what I said ...

"; and ". . . and he (meaning the Premier) deli berately presented to this House a completely wrong impres sion of it to this House, which I believed was downright lying.". The Oxford English Dictionary defines "lie" as an "an intentional falsehood ." The words "lie" and "lie s" appear only in the list of unparliame ntary expressions contained in Bea uchesne Citation 320(2).

Citation 322 indicates , in part, that "no imputation of intentional falsehood is permiss ible." I conclu de, therefore, th at the remarks of the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek are blatantly un parliamentary and I must ther efore ask him to withdraw his un parliamentary language. The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F.

JOHNSTON: Madam Speaker, in using the word "lie," I have examined your ruling and, of course, it says, "the Oxford English Dictionary defines ." I probably could have used or said a pers on that twists other people's words is a per son who is incompetent and Insec ure and desperate, because those people who choose to interpret people th� wrong way are usually desperate people when they're telling people wrong things. So from the point of view that I probably interp reted his statement wrongly by using the word "lie," I will withdraw the word lie beca use we have a desperate Premier in our province.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker , I wonder if I might have leave to make a non-political statement. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable Minister have leave? (Agreed) 346 NON-POLITICAL STATEMENT HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker , I know that all members of the House and I think the entire province would join me in congratu lating all the people involved in st aging what I thi nk ha s been universally acknowledged as the bes t Winter Games for the Olymp ics ever.

The Olympics that began just over two weeks ago with high expectations and with high national feeli ngs of good will in part engendered by the Olympic Torch Relay that passed through Manitoba. The Winter Games concluded yes terday and the expectati ons were exceeded and the good will has grown beyond people's wildest dreams. Other than the weather, which I told the Alberta Minister of Sport was a federal res ponsibility when I met with him, everyt hing went off extremely well. Manitobans, I think, made a great contribution to those games . We had 10 athletes and I'd like to read their name s into the record.

We had Lyndon Johnston from figure skating pairs; we had Paget Stewart from biathlon; we had Lorna Sasseville in cross-country skiing; we had Greg Haydenluck, Cal Langford and Peter Robertson-Stovel in bobsledding; we had Vaughn Karpan and Bob Joyce in hockey; we had two people involved in demonst ration sports - Patti Vande from curling and Susan Auch in short track speed skating. I would slip In one other name. This pers on competed for another country. Karl Frie sen was the goalie for Wes t Germany, from Wes t Kildonan.

I think that virtually every Canadian was on his side as he stonewalled the Swedes and almost enabled Canada to achieve a medal in hocke y. Manitoba was also well repres ented in terms of coaches, officials and volunteers . We had bands , cultural groups and artistic performers there as well in Calgar y. Manitoba was als o represented in the closing ceremon ies . These closi ng ceremon ies were choreographed and designed by Jacques Lemay of the Royal Winnipeg Ballet. The light show was put on by Wes tsun Media of Winnipeg, supported by Wardrop Engineers.

I think all the athle tes and volunteer s from all of Canada and the world were indeed superb. I think speci al credit should go to Calgary and its supporting commu nities and community groups, and to the Province of Alberta. Calgary was visionary, Calgary did take risks, and Calgary succeeded. They, in fact, did this before. Calgary set the stage for our Grey Cup classic in 1948 when they made a football game into a truly national event by making the game an occasion or a happeni ng.

I've been told this by people of the age group of the Member for Lake side, but what they did for the Winter Olymp ics is in that category. They did themselves, and through them, Madam Speaker , the rest of Canada very proud. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speak er. I'm sure all members on this side of the House would join in the words of cong ratulations from the Minister

Monday, 29 February, 1988 to the parti cipants, the volunteers, the City of Calgar y, just everybody. it was simp ly a splendid event. Madam Speak er, no doubt this government will want to adopt the attitude of Eddie "the-Eagle" Walker, at the top of the 90-meter ski jump, who said, "I just want to survive." ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE MADAM SPEAKER: On the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance, standing in the name of the Honourable Leader of the Opposi tion. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you very much, Mada m Speaker.

Two weeks ago, the government presented Its Throne Speech with its goals and its plans for this Sessi on. I said then that it was a hollow document, a shallow piece of political double talk designed to sugges t action not to be active, a document that lacked focus, directi on and foresi ght. Now, Madam Speaker, we have been pre sented with a Budget that is equ ally lacking, equally shallow and equally hypocritical. We've been pres ented with two pictures. One is the image that the Minister of Finance and his army of NDP public relations people and apple-polisher s have manufa ctured.

The other picture - the real picture - is the one that ordinary Manitob ans, the worker s and the tax payers , will experience as a result of this Budget. What was the picture that the Minister of Finance and the NDP apple-polis hers wanted to portray? We ll, the headline s that they wanted were "NDP reduces def icit with no Increase In taxes , and NDP gives larges t Increase to health care despite cutbacks from feds ." Given the res ults of last Friday morning's headline from a pre-Budget leaked by the Finance Minister, the im age manipula tors must have been ecstat ic. "No major tax boost," it said.

And the story talked of shifting attenti on from inc rea sing revenues to decreasing expenditures. They were beginning to gloat, the strategy was working. The Finance Minister was ef fusive last Friday morning, If that's possible. He talked of an electi on, and he said, "I wouldn't be afraid to go to the people on this Budget." That's what he said. And then, as the Budget address unfolded, the rest of us got the full treatment. Throughout the Budget Speech we heard phrases like, and I quote, "we have managed well" - that was on page 1 -and "our rec ord is good" - that was on page 2.

How In the name of reas on can this Finance Minister stand before this Legislature and the people of Manitoba and utter such obviously inaccurate statements ? lt's pure and utter crap. Where has he been for the last six months , Madam Speaker? Where has he been for the last six years ? Wha t have th ey managed we ll? What have they managed wel l? Te ll me - nothing. Was it MPIC? MTX? Worker s Comp ensati on? Flyer Industrie s? Manfor? What? What have you managed well? What records was he talking about? What records was he talking about when he said, "Our record is 347 good."?

Was he talking about re co rd ta xation? Was he talking about rec ord losses in every aspec t of government? I'm surprised that the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks was able to utter these hypocrisies without a blush of emba rrassment. There was plenty of rhetoric on sp endi ng cu ts. Three pages out of the 30-page document demonstr ated how they have found ways to manage better , a page-and-a-half on spec ific spending cuts, and you know they amounted to $3 million out of a $4.557 billion expenditure. That's .06 per cent; that's what they found. And his colleagues , as they're doing now, are congr atulating him.

They were applauding wildly at the time as they were enthralled with the rhetoric that suggested that the NDP ec onomics really work, or as the Finance Minister said in his speec h, and I quote, "The government's fiscal strategy is working." I watched members opposite, you know, how they applauded on cue as eac h key pronouncement was made, as eac h self-serv ing co mparison was used, illustrating how they comp ared with other provinces , with previous administrations, with other decades and other eras . We heard about it - Tommy Douglas, Duff Roblin, Alberta, Sask atchewan.

Surprise, su rprise, Madam Speaker - in eac h and every distorted, contrived comparison the Pawley NDP came out best every single time - every time they came out best - and the delusion co ntinued as they became even more convinced of the wonde rfulne ss of this Budget. They were litera lly frothing at the mouth, puffing thems elves larger and larger, as their champion, the Minister of Finance, was wielding that big sword - that plastic sword of his. The former Finance Minister from Rossmere, he was saying, "Take that." "Now there's a good Budget for you," he shouted across the way.

Later , of course, many of our colleagues saw some of the NDP supporters who had been brought in for this great event. There was Wilf Hudson, there was John Pullen, all smiles, co ngratulating eac h other . Cy Gonick, the ghost of Christma s past, was brought in here from another era, from another sphere of ec onomic influence, to extol the virtues of this NDP Budget - the triumph of NDP economi c policies .

And some members of the staff of the Department of Finance were telling a couple of my colleagues , when they went over to the Minister's office for a re ception, they said, "You're sure going to have a tough time criticizing this Budget, I'll tell you." Another one said, "You know, this was the most fun of any Budget that I've ever worked on." Can you imagine that? The NDP acte d like the cat that swallowed the canar y. They really thought that they had achieved a monumental victory. They thought this Budget would turn around their fortunes ove rnight. Where have they been for the last 12 months?

I recall how proud the government was of its Throne Speech a year ago. I remember how members of the govern ment boasted that the speec h was so cle verly put together that it didn't provide any targets for us to shoot at. That approach didn't work last year - you can remember what happened last Session - and I tell you, Madam Speaker , it won't work now. If you can pretend that there Is nothing wrong ec onomically in Manitoba, if you pretend that last year's obscene tax grab never happened, if you pretend that the Crown

Motlday, 29 February, 1988 corporations are doing great, then this Budget is a success. If you believe the Minister from Concordia when he claims that Crown corporations made a $90 million profit last year, then you'll probab ly, Madam Speaker, believe this Budget. He says they made a $90 million profit. That's firstly if you exclude $1 85 million of write off of Crown corporation losses, and if you add to it $14 2 million of profit from the Liquor Commission, then you can say that they made $90 million in profit. That's what he tried to tell John Harvard.

We ll, Madam Speaker, if pigs had wings, they'd be birds, you know, and that's the way it is with this Budget. But I'll tell you what this Minister thinks that the public will believe right out of his Budget. Here's what he says on Crown corporations on page 11 , and I quote, "Our efforts to ensure full value for money do not end with departmental operations and direct program deliv ery . We are aware of some problems in some Crown corporations and are taking action. Last year, we initia ted the first com prehensiv e reform of Crown corporations in Manitoba's his tor y.

The Crown Corporations Accountability Act provides ways to make corporations more accountable to Manitobans. The Public Investments Corporation of Manitoba has now been established with a strong mandate for financial monitoring to ensure the corporations meet their prime objective of serving Manitobans." You know, Madam Speaker, it reminds me of the old days. Wasn't it to refo rm school that you sent bad kids to? Well, now we are ref orming Crown corporations. But I have to tell you that we didn't have any need to reform Crown corporations before this bunch took over government.

We didn't have any need to do that. We didn't have MTX, we didn't have M PlC and its foreign reinsurance fiascos. We didn't have the CEDF fiascos. We didn't have the Workers Compensation disaster. We didn't have any of those things, Madam Speaker. I figured I would give you another bit of news. Crown corporations were accountable. They were accountable to government; they were accountable to the people before this bunch took over. Wel l, Madam Speaker, fear not, this government will always respond as it has responded in the past. They will hire more bureaucrats.

That's what the Public Investment Corporation of Manitoba means. That's what the super Minister said that that corporation was going to do. He issued a news release on June 4 of this year saying, "The Public Investment Corporation would hire 25 professi onals." - 25 finarleiill profes sionals. And he talked about it in question per iod earlier this Session. He said, "I believe we have ... " - he's talking about hiring these profes sionals who are going to give us accountability now - "I believe we have some out of the Auditor General's Depart ment who had been in Winnipeg and are now hired in the holding company.

We have four expert accou ntants," he says. That's what they have believed, that you hire more bureaucrats and that'll solve the problem just like Robert Silver solved the problem in M PlC, just like the new Department of Crown Investments did when they formed it. They formed it way back in the early Eighties, Madam Speaker. And I'll tell you, did it help us to avoid MTX? lt was there, the Crown Investments Department. In fact, Mr. Silver was sitting on the board of MTS throughout the 348 whole MTX fiasco. Did it help us to avoid that $28 million boondoggle? Not a bit, not a bit.

Did it help us to avoid MPIC getting into those foreign reinsurance losses when the Minister from Gimli hid them from public view for four years? Did it help us there, that Crown Investments? No, not a bit. Did it help us to avoid those huge losses of $80 million in Manfor in the early Eighties, or of $50 million in Flyer in the early Eighties? Not a bit, even though their Crown Investments Department have people sit on the board. lt didn't help us one single bit, but it's the same answer over again: we're going to bring in more bureaucracy; that's going to give us accountability.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, most Manitobans do not have scores of public rela tions magicians to camouflage the truth. They live in the real world. They don't have the luxury of pret ending that their taxes aren't going up or their Crown corporation utility rates aren't going up. Every day Manitobans pay the price of this government's waste and mismanagement. They will never believe that this NDP Government manages well. But if those statements weren't enough, Madam Speaker, he had the gall to state, on page 9, that last year they im proved gove rnment's overall financial management.

When I heard the Minister of Finance make this incredible observa tion, I assumed I must have heard wrong. He must have meant mismanagement, not management. But I did hear him correctly . I got the printed version and he did say that government has improved its financial management. I guess he meant that the NDP had done so badly in previ ous years that 1986, by comparison, looked good.

Maybe he was making a distinction between being absolutely terrible and just plain terrible, but either way the government has so lost touch with the real world that its de finition of what constit utes sound management is beyo nd belief, it borders on malicious. But the Finance Minister continued with his self-praise by claiming that his gove rnment had made, and I quote, "effective use of each tax dollar spent." HON. R. PENNER: Right. MR. G. FILMON: The Member for Fort Rouge says "Right." What does he mean by eff ective use of every tax dollar?

One hundred sixteen public relations hacks on staff - is that what you mean by effe ctive use of the tax dollar? How about $3.2 million in Community Places grants to NDP constituencies - is that ef fective use of each tax dollar? How about a 60 percent increase in senior management staff since this government has been in office since 1981? How about a doubling of the political support staff in the Ministers' offices under the Pawley regime? How about that? Is tha t effective use of every tax dollar spent?

Does he really believe that the $28 million that was lost by MTX in Saudi Arabia - that money that the Member for St. Vital said was spilled on the sand somehow - that that was money well-spent effe ctive use of each tax dollar, or the $36 million in foreign reinsurance losses that the Minister from Gimli covered up for a couple of years from public attention? Let's just examine, Madam Speaker , how far they'r e prepared to go to pretend that ev erything is okay. Firstly ,

Monday, 29 February, 1988 they pretend that the deficit has been reduced. Madam Speaker, on paper it has been, and I'm grateful for that, but this government has had the largest increase in total revenues in this Budget that any Manitoba government has ever enjoyed.

You have to wonder why only $61 million of the $450 million went to deficit reduction, and of course, even aside from that, there was a $18 5 million write-off in Crown corporation losses that doesn't show up in any Budget, that doesn't show up anywhere in any deficit that this government is prepared to acknowledge; and that's because of all of the embarr assment that goes with those write-offs, the sham and the scandals, the mismanagement at Crown corporations such as Manfor, Flyer, McKenzie Seeds, and now they've conveniently written off their misadventures of the past seven years in one stroke of the pen - just one small step for Manitobans, but one giant step for NDP economics out of the shark in fested waters and into the sunli ght of NDP management glory by just shoving that $1 85 million under the carpet.

The Auditor has insisted, Madam Speaker, that they come clean in the future and show Crown corporation losses and write-offs in the financial statements of the government, and the new ones are in this year's Budget. There are a couple of items In there on CEDF, on Venture Manitoba, but there's always a catch to that; and that is, before they were willing to come clean and be honest, they had to get rid of $1 85 million under the carpet that would never show up in any deficit or budget .

Mem bers opposite will shout, as the Member for Concordla did, "Well, what about the Conserv ative losses that were in those Crown corporations?" Well, the reality is that not even 10 percent of that write-off cou ld be ever attributed to a Cons ervative Government's actions. The big three that were included in those write-offs - Manfor, Ayer, McKenzie Seeds - operated virtually at break-even during the Lyon years.

In the next six years of NDP administration, they collectively lost over $1 30 million, and as disturbing as these sleights of hand are, Madam Speaker, we should be grateful that the Minister - who is becoming agitated right now - has reduced the operating deficit to some extent, because in the words of the Finance Min ister, this is what he said, "Deficits are deferred taxes," and, oh, how much tax he has deferred for yet unborn generations of Manitobans to pay! lt's like beating your head against the wall, you know. lt feels good when you stop.

And they think that Manitobans should feel good that they have made a slight reduction in the deficit, that they have taken a very small portion of this $450 million bonanza windfall they got and put it towards the deficit reduction. Hallelujah!

After listening to the business commu nity , after listening to the Opposition, the financial experts, after listening to ordinary Manitobans, for seven years, saying you can't continue to live beyond your means, you can't borrow from tomorrow to pay for today, you can't make long-term prosperity on debt, after listening to all of that, the Finance Minister finally agrees, and now we are supposed to say he's a financial genius. Hogwash, Madam Speaker. Next, of course -{Interjection)- no, as a matter of fact, I have used that word because it's the Premier's word and I know that at least he understands it.

At least I assume he und erstands it, because he uses it regularly . 349 Madam Speaker, next of course, the NDP and this Budget want to pretend that they haven't increased taxes. That's what Friday's headline said, wasn't it - no major tax boost? Well, if that's the case, how have our revenues gone up by $450 million? Is it just because of the growth in the economy? You mean, those 4,000 new jobs have each paid us $1 10,000 in additional taxes this past year? I don't think so, Madam Speaker. I don't think so.

Is it because of those minor tax in creases that bring in so much revenue on cigarettes, on leaded gasoline, on mining? No. Those don't even amount to $15 million. The reality is that ordinary Manitobans will pay $18 5 million more on income tax this year - $1 85 million more. That's about $450 per taxpayer in Manitoba. You add that to last year, they got hit for over $300 more in increased income taxes. That's the delayed effect, Madam Speaker, of last year's tax in creases. So they pretend that there are no tax increases. They have just been built in from that obscene tax grab last year.

Last year, it was a tax grab; this year, it's a tax fall. You see, they have already made the grab. Now they just pull in the net and, Glory be, there is $18 5 million more. Oh, aren't we good managers? Every Manitoba taxpayer will be poorer as a result. The Bandi ts of Broadway have struck again, Ma dam Speaker; only this time they didn't tell anyone. They told them we weren't in creasing taxes.

The incredible part of it all is that since 1986, in just three Budgets, personal income tax revenues in Manitoba have grown from $649 million to $1 .066 billion, an astou nding 64 percent increase in personal Income taxes paid In just three years under this administration. Madam Speaker, Manitobans will certainly look back on this period of time as the cost era. That's what they will look back on - the cost era. Next, this government pretends that it's problems are due to Federal Government cutbacks.

This is what the Budget Speech says, and I quote: "Manitobans recognize that equality of opportunity for all Canadians, rich and poor, in all regions requires a committed central government. Recent federal actions are threatening this progres s." And then the Budget goes on to say, and I quote: "Federal fundin g for health and higher education was cut back twice by the previous Liberal Government ... "- they want go get at the Member for River Heights - " ... and further limited to a declining share of Canada's gross national product by the Conservatives. So the problem is federal cutbacks - right? Wrong.

The Federal Government has given them an increase in revenue of $1 19 million in this Budget - $1 19 million! Ooes this Finance Mini ster honestly believe that he can dazz le the citizens of Manitoba with statistics and rhetoric and avoid respo nsibili ty for his fiscal incompetence? Well, maybe he does, Madam Speaker, but I don't. Another area of great hypocrisy is the fact that the government is telling mun icipalities that they'll have to control their expenditures.

In fact, they'll have to limit the growth of their expenditures to 3 percent below the rate of Inflation because that's what the province's tax transfers will be limited to. Isn't that a great bit of hypocrisy? This NDP Government increases its spending by 8.8 percent in this Budget and says to mu nicipal

Monday, 29 February, 1988 governments, "You're going to have to hold the line at 3 percent." But you know what? I think that the mun icipal governments will probably manage that because they're good managers, unlike these people, and they'll find ways. They'll find ways to live within their means and they'll find ways to make do. A MEMBER: They're good managers. MA. G. FILMON: They're good managers. But what hypocris y, Madam Speaker. Next of cou rse, the NDP Government attempts to pretend that they have been good managers.

They list the elimination of those positions in the Budget Speech, fewer than 50 positions and a couple of programs. They say that they're saving money because they'v e disbanded the Law Reform Commis sion and they've elimi nated the Manitoba Design Institute. Then they proudly proclaim, and I quote: "These measures are examples of ini tiatives designed to improve and streamline the internal operations of go vernment without affecting public service." Well, what measures are they referring to?

Firstly, they say that they will eliminate 21 senior staff positions in 13 departments, next 14 positions In communications, next 7 positions in personnel, next 5 postions in smaller departments. By these measures, this government is trying to demonstrate its good business sense. However, upon closer examination, its actions can be seen in a different light. lt was the Pawley adminis tration which expanded government bu reaucracy by creating hund reds of new positions after taking government in 1981.

The Member for Concordia, at one time when he was the President of the MGEA, called them "app le polishers." He said that they were hi ring communi cations people and senior bureaucrats and political support staff and cut ting back on those delivering the services. A MEMBER: Is that right, Gary? Did you say that? MA. G. FILMON: That's what he said when he was President of MGE A. Her e's a head line from the Winnipeg Tribune of January 21, 1983.

The headline is: "MGEA roasts Evans over P.A. job opening." it says, "Community Services Min ister Len Evans has come under fire for his plan to hire a communications director at a maximum salary of $43,000 when the Provincial Government is reducing its Civil Service." A MEMBER: Who said that? MR. G. FILMON: "Gary Doer, President of the MGEA said yesterday, the hiring 'makes a charade of the government's restraint program .'" He continues.

"He said: 'I find it absurd that the Mini ster is hiring an apple-polisher at the same time as he's laying off front-line civil servants.' Doer says the MGEA has heard from a reliable source that the Department of Community Services and Corrections will soon lay off three workers at the Portage School for Retardates. 'I'm not against hiring people. I just have a problem with their priorities .'" Well, I'll tell you, Madam Speaker, every Manitoban still has a problem with their priorities.

The only one 350 who doesn 't have a problem with their priorities any longer is the Member for Concordia because he's now on the gravy train. Madam Speaker, at the time these jobs were created, the ones that the Member for Concordia was referring to, we argued that of these hundreds of political-support positions, the apple-polishers and so on, many of them were unne cessary, totally redundant. In some cases, they were created to pay off political debts. With their usual arrogance, they proceeded and they moved their friends in to feed at the public trough. We saw them come in one by one.

Terry Sargeant got a job, of course, and relatives of former M LA's got jobs. Aleda Turn bull got a job, and Harvey Bostrom got a job, and on and on and on. Now, Madam Speaker, the government says we do n't need some of these jobs. No w they've concluded after bloating the Civil Service that some of these jobs they don't need. The Minister responsible for Finance says we're streamlining our operat ions. The NDP are simply taking credit for being efficient when they earlier created the inefficiencies. They started by putting the positions in that never were there, now they're removing a few of them.

Now that's efficiency NDP style. They parade these cuts, Madam Speaker, as examples of their dedication to reducing government expenditures. Well have they really reduced government spending? Are you kidding? Overall government spending went up 8.8 percent in this year's Budget. Again that's double the rate of inflation for the seventh straight year. The positions they cut, as I said earlier, were generally in the areas in which they'd made massive increases in their earlier six years of government. For instance, the reduction of 14 communications positions, now isn't that ironic?

They reduced the communications function by 14 positions, a small, small fraction of the massive increase of positions they put in, in co mmuni cations. They bloated the communi cations function at last count to 11 6 positions. Now they're taking back 14 of them. Isn't that dalllly? More than half of those 21 senior management positions that they are eliminating didn't exist under the Lyon administration, weren't even there. They're all part of tha t overall incr ease of 60 percent in senior management positions that they created in their first four years of government.

This is just one example of the political hypocris y. They honestly believe that Manitobans won't remember. Again, Madam Speaker, they're wrong. Every now and then, you know, I do find myself agreeing with the NDP. lt's so rare that the experience usually sort of catches me by surprise. lt takes my breath away. Such is the case in the area of health care. I agree with the stated goals of this government. We all must work to enhance health care now and in the future. The init iatives stated in the Budget Speech are indeed steps in the right direction.

Madam Speaker, why should we believe that the NDP are going to use the new monies in health care wisely? Why should anyone trust this government when it comes to effective management? Does their past record suggest that we accept their declaration of efficiency at face value? Of course not. I'm afraid, Madam Speaker, tloat once again the NDP have opted to throw money at a problem without analyzing if the money is going to be wisely spent.

Monday, 29 February, 1988 (Mr. Acting Speaker, C. Baker, in the Chair.) For instance, in the health care trust fund that they've just set up, is that going to be the Health Departm ent's version of the Community Places fund where the main objective is to maximi ze the political direction and the political credit for the expenditur es? Is that what we're really going to see out of this health care trust fund? I'd like to believe that our health care system is the best it can be. Like every Manltoban, I'd like to know that my family will be protected and will receive the best possible care when it's needed.

However - and of course, Mr. Acting Speaker, there's always an "h owever" when examinin g this go ve rnment's procedures - we have to ask the question: Are we going to get good value for the dollar being spent? Quite cle arly, the Manitoba Medical Association doesn't agree. Its advert isements in recent newspapers reflect its dissatisfaction with existing conditions. Of course, Mr. Acting Speaker, if our doctors are unhap py, they can always accept the Health Minister's invitation and go elsewhere. That's the alternative that they've been given. That's the ultimatum they've been given by this Minister of Health.

But you have to ask the question, Mr. Acting Speaker: Is the MMA wrong when it talks about waits of more than six months for urgent surgery? Is it wrong when it refers to serious shortages of psychiatric and medical specialists? Is it wrong when it notes the closure of over 100 hospital beds throughout the province? Let's take a look at some of the things that they said in their ads, and I haven't heard the Premier or the Minister of Health challenge them and say that they were wrong, say that this is absolutely false, maybe sue them. He might be inclined to do that if this was wrong.

Here's what one of the ads said - and it's entitled "About Manitoba's Ailing Health Care System" - "The Pawley Government claims: 'In Manitoba, the torch of universal health care has been held high, in sharp contrast to many other provinces where a crisis m£..1tality In health care has been fueled by harsh budge tary measures, program cutbacks."' That was In the 1988 Throne Speech.

"In reali ty, " so says the MMA, "the Pawley Government has dropped the torch: waits of more than six months for urgent surgery; serious shortages of psychiatrists and other medical specialists; 100-plus hospital beds to be closed; confrontation with doctors instead of Impartial fee arbitration. "If this Isn't crisis mentality, Mr. Pawley, what is it? Manitoba doctors working for Medicare, not just talking about it." That's what that ad says.

Here's another ad that they put In, and it said ". . . about wai ting for urgent surger y, the Pawley Government promised: 'My government is determined to meet the challenge of protecting and maintaining needed vital public services like health."' That was in the 1987 Throne Speech.

"The realit y," accord ing to the MMA, "is that Manitobans are waiting six months and more for brain and spinal surgery which could correct: (1) progressive mental deterioration and loss of bladder control caused by pressure on the brain; 351 (2) twisted and distorted facial feat ures caused by spasms; (3) skull deformity caused by brain tumour; (4) int ense pai n caused by neck and back problems. "Sur gical treatment for these ser ious medical conditions is available in Manitoba if you can stand the wait. Don't Manitobans deserve better, Mr. Pawley?

Manitoba doctors working for Medicare, not just talking about it." What else do they say in these ads, Acting Speaker?

We ll, they put out the ad here, Acting Speaker, in which they give just a series of headlines, and it says: "Wait your turn, government backlogs run gamut from the irritating to the perilous, " talking about the waits in the health care system as a result of this government's priorities; another headline, "City hospitals to close 111 beds"; anot her, "Waiting for surgery"; another, "Heart patient dies awaiting surgery "; another, "Universal Medic are termed the big lie." That's what the MMA says about the way in which they manage our health care system, Acting Speak er. There are serious problems.

Will they be addressed, will the measures in this Budget solve the difficulties noted by the MMA? I wish I could believe that they would. I wish I had the faith in this government's ability to manage, but like most other Manitobans, Mr. Acting Speaker, I don't believe they can manage any1hing. Their record of bumbling and waste has become legend ary. Their solution to every problem is to throw money at it - Flyer, Manfor.

Always more tax dollars, but sell them a different outcome. it's difficult to assume that one area of government will be run well when we have evidence that every other area is a model of inefficiency and mismana gement. The health and welfare of our citizens demands good, eff ective, competent management. The money is there, the personnel are available. What is lacking is the skill to manage, and this situation must not be allowed to continue, Mr. Acting Speaker. Even the Member for River Heights recognized that this was an opportunistic Budget, a Budget designed to appease Manitobans.

She recognized that the outrage over Autopac had made the government nervous. She refuted the NDP claim that the Budget reflects increased contributions to health and educati on, and she claimed that the monies directed to education and health were not increas ed. In terms of percentages, she said their funding was down. We ll, if the honourable member wants even more money to go to education and health, I have to say we can't agree. The funding is sufficient if it's managed wisely . The honourable member praises the gover nment for efforts to reduce the deficit, we do not.

We 've heard the arguments put forward in the past by this Minister of Finance and his predecessor , the Member for Rossmere, who was termed a financial ignoramus by some. He pretended that deficits wer en't a problem. How many times did he tell us that the deficits really didn't matter? He said we owed the money to ourselves. Do you remember him putting forward that argument? We owed the money to ourselves! And he said we were buying all of these assets out of the deficits so, therefore, it was okay to have these huge deficits. We even have a statement, Mr.

Acting Speaker, in this year's Budget that's designed to make people think

Monday, 29 Februarr, 1t88 that the debt really isn't of serious proportion. Here's how they phrased it in order to make their case, and I quote: "Today it would take less than one year to retire the outstanding net debt from current rev enue comp ared to 1 11 4 years un der the Roblin admin istration." That's what he said. Mr. Acting Speaker, to begin with, let's address the argument that they put forward about owing the money to ourselves. Let's look at page 7 of the tables in the deficit, the financial statistics, and find out where we owe the money to. Where do we owe the money to?

There's a wonderful table in here that tells us where we owe the money to. Of the $10 .85 billion of outstanding long-term debt, 58 percent of it Is in foreig n curren cy, 58 per cent. So every Manitoban owes $1 0,000 today, and about $6,000 of that is to some foreign bondholder or banker. Every family of four owes $40,000, $25,000 of it to some foreign Interest. Welcome to Ma nit oba. You owe $1 0,000, most of it to some foreign unknown interest . Is it any wonder that national companies have difficulty transferring people here with both the tax rates and the debt load that they face in coming to this province?

So that's one-half of the argument, the argument that we owe it to ourselves. lt isn't proven by the facts in their own Budget. The second argument, of course, that the previous Finance Minister made is that interest costs were manageable and that we should pretend that they're not a serious concern. This Budget says, and I quote: "Debt service costs paid by taxpayers remain in the mid-range among provinces. In 1987-88, five provinces had higher debt costs per person than Manitoba." Well, that may be true, Mr. Acting Speaker, If you Ignore the cost of Manitoba Properties Inc., because Manitoba Properties Inc.

In this year's Budget accounts for another $61 million, and that Is Interest in another form. it's being paid in preferred dividends to the preferred shareholders of this corporation, In lieu of paying interest payments. So that's another $61 million. Then you have the Hydro rates stabillzatlon payments that are Interest or particularly foreign exchange debt service costs which are another $30 million. But even ignoring these debt -service costs that have been excluded from the figure that they like to talk about, this year, direct interest costs In this Budget Increased by $85 million.

That's almost a 20 percent Increase in one year, Mr. Acting Speaker . it's a runaway train, it's an absolute runaway train, and has been since 1981 when these people took gove rnment. That's what the $0.5 billion deficits year upon year upon year have left us with - a legacy of inter est costs that are rising at a rate of almost 20 percent per year. The Department of Finance has gone from being the fourth-largest department in spending, in 1981, to being the second largest department in spending tod ay, second only to health care and rising more quickly than any other department.

The fastest growing area of spending for the NDP in their entire term of office has been the Department of Finance. A MEMBER: That's when re venues were rising. MR. G. FILMON: So, it's not going to health, it's not going to education, it's not going to agriculture. lt's 352 going to the bondholders in Zurich, in Paris, in Tokyo, in London and in New York. That's where it's going, Mr. Acting Speaker. These are the real benefactors of NDP economic policy.

The government 's rev enue has increased by $450 million, because of the policies of the last Budget and some windfall increases that they got thanks to the feds and some others, but only $6 1 million is directed towards deficit reduction. On the other hand, this government continues to increase spending at twice the rate of Inflation. This may be acceptable to the Member for River Heights, but it's not acceptable to us, Mr. Acting Speaker. In the Throne Speech, we warned Manitobans that this gover nment would try to use statistics, charts, graphs, to convince us that our lot is improving. Mr.

Acting Speaker, that's exactly what they're doing by this Budget. We've another example of it's "le t's pretend" In this Budget, and that is the selective use of tables and statistics in the Budget. Page 15 of the financial statistics presents the total debt per capita, interprovincial comparisons, according to 19 87 provincial budgets, figures taken from Midland Doherty. lt shows Manitoba to have the fourth highest per capita debt.

Obviously, it leaves out some major portions of debt though because, when you examine the gove rnment's own listing of its total debt on page 7. this table shows a net total debt, direct and guaranteed , after subtracting all sinking funds, of $8,691 per capita. After taking into account the foreign exchange losses, it's $1 0,056 per capita. So on the one hand, they clearly demonstrate with their own figures that net per capita debt is over $10 ,000, but for the purposes of the Finance Minister's speec h, they pretend it's only $7,720.00. That's the table, I might add, that was in the Sunday newspa per.

They took it right out of the Finance Department's fig ures because I gu ess they felt that they were legitima te. Then, of course, we have the comparisons of growth forecast in the Budget. You can imagine my surprise when I heard the Finance Minister say that Manitoba was expecting an annual GDP growth of 2.5 perc ent, and I quote: "Overall growth in Manitoba in 1988 Is predicted to be clos e to, or, according to some forecasts, slightly above the Canadian avera ge." Wait a minute, I said. I was talking to some colleagues.

I says, wait a minute, we just had a federal Budget three weeks ago, and I distinctly heard the Minister of Finance say that growth would be 2.8 percent in Canada, so how is 2.5 greater than 2.8? How is 2.5 greater than 2.8? What that would show, if they accepted the growth rate of the federal Minister of Finance, it would have meant that they would have to admit that Manitoba's growth rate was below the national averag e. They couldn't do that, so what did they do? Here's how they reco nstructed that in the Budget. They pretend that the national growth rate won't be 2.8 perc ent.

The Budget says, as the Finance Minister delivered it: "The February 1988 federal Budget predicted growth of 2.8 percent in real gross domestic product." However, the Budget papers also pointed out that, on average, forecasters expected slightly lower real growth. According to indep endent assess ments, real GDP is expected to increase by 2.5 percent. So we ignore what

Monday, 29 February, 1988 the Minister of Finance fed erally says, and we say we've got some other independent asse ssments that say it's less. Well, who would their other independent assessments be? Would they be Midland Doherty , because they pu blished five tables in this Budget with Midland Doherty statistics? Should we take their word for it, Mr. Acting Speaker, because they obviously have the best independent statistics? Right? Wrong, wrong, wrong. Mid land Doherty says in its economic forecast

summary for Canada which they published January 17, 1988, just five weeks ago, so its got to be fairly recent, they say, and I quote: "We maintain the view that the North American economy will continue to grow at a fast pace with Canada GDP rising by 2.9 perce nt." Midland Doherty says 2.9 percent, but they wouldn't use Midland Doherty unless it was in their favour. So they find somebody else, some other un named , unk nown independent forecaster who says that it's going to be lower. it's going to 2.5 percent. You'll recall Mr.

Acting Speake r, that they tried the same tactic last year when the former Minister of Energy had said that he vowed to keep our increases in our hydro rates at or below the rate of inflation. Manitoba Hydro came forward with an increase of 4.5 percent. We pointed out at committee that inflation was expected to be by all of the forecasters between 4 percent and 4.2 percent. So, therefore, they were bringing in an increase above the rate of inflation. They scrambled around, Mr. Acting Speaker, and they found some forecaster who said it would be 4.5 percent and they said, that's why we chose that level .

Real ly, all these other people don't know what they're talking about. That's the forecast Manitoba Hydro was using. That's what you do Is you shop for the right opinion. Another area that we have concern about is that the sales tax generally is an indicator of how they're expecting the province to grow. Sales tax reve nues increase more or less with inflation, and that's where you can look to see how you're finding the growth - (Interjection)- ! know the answer.

The Premier says that I'm ignoring the answer of the Min ister of Finance who said that they were predicting a low increase In the sales tax income because, last year, they made a mistake of $25 million. They overest imated by $25 million. So that's why it's only expected to go up by $8 million according to this year's statistics. Mr. Acting Speaker, even If you correct for that, we have now got 12 full months of the 7 percent sales tax,

whereas previously of course it was at 6 percent and we only had 10 months of it last year, in our last fiscal year. As of May 23 last year, which was about two months into the fiscal year, we broaded the sales tax to increase take-out foods, energy consumption, energy conservation materials and cigarettes. So there still should be more money in that sales tax than just that increase, Acting Speaker, but I believe that this Minister is acknowledging that our economy isn't growing as fast as he would like us to believe, that in fact, we will be below the national average.

But he wants us to pretend that our economy is growing at or above the national average. Another area In which they want to prete nd, Mr. Acting Speaker, is what we as Conservatives would do. I've 353 got a good little reference for the Minister here, for the Premier here as a matter of fact, if I can find it. it's a reference that goes back a few years.

As a matter of fact, I'll just start to quote and perhaps the Premier will remember. it's preten ding what the other side is going to do, In this case what the Conservatives will do, and I quote from the newspaper: " ·A vote for the Conservatives is a vote for a higher sales tax, reint roduced Medicare premiums and fewer hospitals,' two Cabinet Min isters said Thursday during Budget Debate in the Legisla ture." Now, Mr. Acting Speaker, would you say that this was from this Budget Speech? Would you say that it was? We ll, the date on it is April 23, 19 76, Winnipeg Tribune.

And I'll go on: "Attorney-General Howard Pawley and Autopac Minister Bill Uruski based their predictions on events in provinces with Conservative Governments. They also defended the NDP spending record and Public Insurance Program in Manitoba." Does that sound familiar? Could we be using the same

article today here in Manitoba? Do you recall what they were saying last week about us getting rid of the Public Insurance Corporation? Do you remember what they were saying about it? Mr. Acting Speaker, that's what they said, that's what they said in 1976. They said that Conservatives would increase the sales tax. Do you know what? In four years of the Lyon administration, the sales tax didn't go up. In fact, taxes went down. Hydro rates were frozen , all of those imagined dire consequences that they put forward to the public didn't happen. But what happened when they got re-elected to government?

The sales tax went up 2 percent, from 5 percent to 7 percent. That's what happened. That's what has happened from "Back-Door Billie" and the Premier who was then Attorney -General. Mr. Acting Speaker, here's what the Member for Selkirk, now the Premi er, said at that time, and I quote, "All Tory Provincial Governments are spending money like drunken sailors." That's what he said. And then this is what else he said, Mr.

Acting Speaker, and I quote - this is still the Member for Selkirk spe aking In 1976 - "lt is Conservative policy to dismantle the Manitoba Medicare Plan and introduce competition for Autopac and maybe even Manitoba Hydro and the Manitoba Te lephone System ." So when they are backed into a corner , they immed iately place the big lie on the table and say, ah yeah , but the Conservatives would do all of those things, all of these things that would be harmful to Manitoba.

I just bring that forward because it's almost identical to what tactics they're using today, when they are so unpopular, when they are so desperate to hang on to govern ment, when they are Insecure and put into the worse situation in terms of public support, they then place the big lie on the table, but these are all of the things that the Conservatives would do to you if they were elected. Mr. Acting Speaker, nobody believes them about their good management. Nobody believes them about their wise use of taxpayers' dollars, and nobody believes them about the big lie eith er.

Another area in which they want to pretend is their priorities, and it's unfortunate that the Member for Lac du Bonnet is not in a position to respond to me at the

Mond•r. 29 February, 1988 moment, because this government wants to continue to pretend that agriculture will be getting more money. The Throne Speech said that farmers will continue to experience difficulty, and we're in need of support, and it's promised, and I quote, "to establish a stabilization plan for the feedlot sector of Manitoba's beef Industry." Here's what the Budget Speech says about it, and I quote, "Farm Income support programs will be strengthened.

A new stabillzation program for cattle feeders will be established to encourage feed lot finishing of cattle and to increase a number of finished cattle marketed in Manitoba." And further, the Budget says: "Economic and resource development, including agriculture, receive $19 million, or 7 percent of the new funding. Well, to begin with, since agriculture is singled out in that way, I rushed to the Budget details, to the Main Estimates of Expenditure, to find out how much agriculture was really getting. Was it getting the major share of that $19 million? No. lt's getting $4.7 million.

Well, in that case, the $4.7 million must go to the Beef Stablilization Plan. Right? Wrong, wrong, wrong. The expenditure for the Beef Stabilization Plan actually goes down. lt goes down from $6. 16 million to $5.95 million. Farmers might well echo the commercial and ask: "Where's the beef?" lt's not her.e. Where's the beef? Where's the beef? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, ohl A MEMBER: You got caught, Gene; you got caught. MR. G. FILMON: So where, Mr. Acting Speaker, where does it go? lt goes to MACC. lt doesn't go to farm programs; it goes to MACC. Where in MACC does it go to? During the lockup, Mr.

Acting Speaker, during the lockup the question was asked of the resource staff there: "Why does MACC get an increase in administrative costs of $4.2 million?" The answer was: $6.5 million of bad debts is being written off by MACC. So it's bad debt write-off. The total increase in expenditure by this government in agriculture is in bad debt write-off. The entire increase in Agriculture is bad debt write-off. Is that the misinformation you want to perpetrate on the people of Manitoba? Is that how you want the farmers to think of you? Is that your idea of honesty? The Premier is agitated here.

The Premier is agitated here because he's been caught in a lie in the dishonesty of his Budget Speech. Instead of supporting farmers, instead of programs for agriculture, he has an increase in MACC spending to write off bad debt. No new programs, no new increases for agriculture. All it is, Mr. Acting Speaker, is let's pretend; let's pretend that we're doing something for agriculture. Shame! Shame on the Finance Minister and shame on the Premier! SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Acting Speaker, another area of pretence is that the Finance Minister has implied to the public and the media that he has shifted his government's priorities. In fact, the Friday morning

article in the Winnipeg Sun says, quote: "The attention 354 has shifted, howev er, from raising revenues to decreasing expenditures." Well, the Finance Minister may wish to pretend that, but let's look at the reality. Revenues have increased $450 million. That's 11 .9 percent. Expenditures have increased 8.8 percent, double the rate of inflation again. Is this really shifting from increasing revenues to decreasing expenditures? Expenditures are up twice the rate of inflation. How is that a decrease in expenditures, I ask? They used to, in the past, pretend not to be concerned about foreign borrowing.

The former Finance Minister from Rossmere used to say foreign borrowing was a good idea, that we were getting a big benefit for Manitobans. The Member for Concordia last year, in committee, defended the foreign borrowing for the Manitoba Telephone System. He said that it was okay, that as long as they did it in a balanced fashion, it was okay. Well, now of course, a!;! of January 29, 1988, our foreign exchange losses, due to their borrowing, stand at $1 .47 billion - $1 .47 billion. Now, in this Budget what is the Minister talking about?

He's talking about U.S. currency swaps - getting out of some of these very volatile foreign currencies and getting into U.S. currency swaps. Now he's saying we have a better idea, we're not going to borrow on the foreign markets very much any more. That's his better idea, Mr. Acting Speaker. But you know what, that's the same idea that financial experts have been giving him for seven years. Those in the investment community have been telling him of the dangers of foreign borrowing. They've been telling him that it can cost you big bucks in the future.

They've been telling him that although the nominal interest rate may appear attractive, you lose huge amounts if there's a fluctuation, a negative fluctuation, in the currency. That's exactly what has happened for seven years. So now the Minister of Finance wants everybody to give him credit because he's finally adopting the policies that everybody is telling him he should have adopted in the first place. Well, that's one idea that we've shared with him in the past and it took seven years for him to understand it and adopt it. We'll give him another idea, Mr. Acting Speaker.

My colleague for Morris, our Finance critic, colleagues on this side, have suggested that we have to have longer-term budgetary forecasts. Whether it be five years, whether it be three years, whether it be two years, we've got to start looking ahead at the effects of each Budget in a longer-term sequence because the huge increases in Interest costs, those problems with revenues that required the massive tax grab last year and the massive tax haul this year, could have and should have been forecast and predicted.

If they had looked at longer budgetary procedures, longer-term budgeting, they could have been looking at what their revenue needs were in the future. This year's $334 million deficit, for instance, at 10 percent interest will add $34 million to next year's Budget and $37 million to the Budget beyond that, and that has to be raised in taxes. it can't be spent on health care and it can't be spent on education. Three year Budget forecasts will warn the taxpayer and, more particularly, it'll make the government more responsible when it realizes and has to put forth publicly the downstream effects of its actions.

For instance, by absorbing the huge increase in revenue this year and putting very little to deficit

Monday, 29 February, 1988 reduction, and Instead giving an 8.8 percent increase in expenditur es, next year's deficit must go up or else taxes have to go up. There was a chartered accountant on the radio this morning and he said that that's the downstream effect - the continuing downstream effect of using this great windfall to just add to the expendi tures of government. They just plow it into further expenditures and you don't set anything aside for the deficit, or very much aside for the deficit.

He said next year you're going to have to have another tax increase or a larger deficit, because you can't expect the same windfall next year as you got this year. You can't expect every year that your Income Is going to go up by 12 percent. (Mr. Deputy Speaker, C. Santos, in the Chair.) Well, Mr. Deputy Speak er, I want to assure this Mini ster and his colleagues that my colleagues and I are committed to respon sible budgeting and we're going to use longer -term forecasts and three-year budgeting as an absolute minimum, as a management tool. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, finally I guess the pretence of this Budget Is that this Mini ster is pretending to be a Conservative. He's pretending to be a very conservative guardian of the public treasury. He's talking about program cutbacks, he's talking about wiser spending. He's even trying to echo Michael Wllson when he used the words "deficits are deferred taxes." lt's a little rem inis cent of Allan Blakene y. You remember Allan Blakeney was quoted In Diane Francls' book talking about deficits, Allan Blakeney being the former NDP Premier of Saskatchewan.

He said that he believed that you have to control deficits, not because he wanted to be a better Conservative than the Conservatives but he believed that, If you didn't control your deficits, you couldn't manage ultimate ly. You couldn't manage the affairs of your province. You wouldn't have money for health care, for your social safety net, and you wouldn't have the money for the things you wanted to do if you didn't control your deficits. That's what Allan Blakeney saio in so many words. Well, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, when people listen to the things that this Minister has pretended to do, they'll know that recently he's been doing a lot of public opinion polling and that his media relations people, the Balaguses and the Kramers, have been telling him what words to use no w. He probably doesn't really understand it, but he knows that's what he's supposed to say. He's supposed to say that deficits are deferred taxes. He's supposed to say that we have to spend more wisely , that we have to cut back on our expenditures. In his heart of hearts, we know and the public knows he's not really committed to that.

He's not really committed to being a Conservative fiscal guardian of the Treasury, because his first priority is to get re elected. But he is even willing to act like a Conservative if it'll help him get re-elected today. But no, Mr. Deputy Speaker , the public will not be fooled. When New Democrats ask, what would you do different ly, well, I'll give them another suggestion, Mr. Deputy Speaker , we would do a complete program audit of every department, area by area, function by function, 355 job by job, program by program.

If this Finance Minister can find 50 jobs that are wasteful or duplicated and $3 million that can be cut out of the Budget without affecting services, just imagine what a real Conservative Finance Mi nister could do and a real Conservative Government could do. How much more money could be saved for the taxpayer if you really had somebody who believed and understood Conservative economics. Mr. Deputy Speaker , I'll tell you what a real Conservative government could do, a hell of lot more than this bunch ever could. Mr. Deputy Speake r, I've got the attention of the Finance Min ister , and he's pretty agitated.

But I'll tell you, the public won't listen to the "let's pretend" suggestions of this Finance Min ister. They'll remember Cooper's and Lybrand's comments during the MTX review, that the NDP Mi nisters, in trying to figure out what was going on, didn't even know what questions to ask. Tha t's what they' ll remember about the management abilities of these people, about the financial understan ding. They'll know that they couldn't even read a financial statement when they were looking at the Crown corporations, and they couldn't find out where the Member for Gimli had buried the losses in re-insurance. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the public won't pretend to believe this·government any longer, because they know that there isn't a single Manitoban who is better off as a result of this Budget. Not a single Manitoban is better off, and the public won't pretend to vote and won't pretend to support this government any longer. No, Mr. Deputy Speak er, the day of reckoning that the Member for St. Vital talked about, when he talked about the effects of the waste, the mismanagement and all of the long-term debt financing of this government, that day of reckoning he talked about is fast approaching for Manitoba.

But the day of reckoning for this government Is approaching even more quickly. This Budget, far from turning things around, as this Min ister of Finance suggested , has brought that day of reckoning closer at hand right here today. That's what this Budget has done. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker , I move, seconded by the Member for Sturgeon Creek, THAT the motion be amended by deleting all the words after "House" and substituting the following therefor: Regrets that In presenting its Budget the government: 1.

Has ignored the long-term effects of uncontrolled spending by once more increasing Its expenditures at twice the rate of inflation, 2. Has dipped into the pockets of ordinary Manitobans for an enormous tax haul of $18 5 million more In personal income taxes, 3. Has absorbed the largest increase in revenue in the province's history while applying less than 15 percent of it to deficit reduction, 4. Because of its continued policies of foreign borrowing and deficit spending has brought about an increase in interest costs of almost 20 percent in this year's Budget, and 5.

Has thereby lost the confidence of this House and the people of Manitoba. MOTION prnented.

MondaJ, 29 Februerr, 1118 MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister of Urban Affairs. HON. G. DOER: Mr. Deputy Speak er, it's indeed an honour to speak on the very, very positive accomplishments listed in this Budget and to talk about the priorities In this Budget. I also have a few minutes, Mr. Deputy Speak er, to talk about what I consider to be a very, very weak response from the Leader of the Opposition, in terms of the Budget of the Province of Manitoba. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I've received a numb er of calls over the weekend from the people.

I guess it's very easy for all of us to get a little bit out of touch. These were calls from constituents and other groups of people In the area, not all of which were New Democrats, Mr. Deputy Speaker , and they were asking me one fundamental quest ion. How can the Leader of the Opposition be so phony? When Michael Wilson drops the deficit a little bit he falls all over himself to praise Mlchael Wilson. These same constituents, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, asked me, and when you people drop the deficit, massive amounts of mo ney, year over year, all he does is criticize and come out with weak slogans like let's pretend, let's pretend. Mr. Deputy Speaker, these same people are mad at Autopac, there's no question about it. We've admitted that, and we've got a lot of work to do on our side to correct a problem th at they perceive in their pocketbooks. We consider that legitima te; we've heard them. Mr. Deputy Speaker, but they also say to us, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, give us a good Conservative Government.

He said give us a good Conservative Government to get this province In order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have a good Conservative Government in Ottawa, and it won't last another 12 months. We have a good Conservative Government in Saskatchewan, and it's got a deficit year over year of $1.2 billion. We have a good Conservative Government In Alberta, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are more public employees per capita in Alberta than any other province In Cana da . Is th at good management? Is tha t conservative management, Mr. Deputy Speaker , when people are losing millions of dollars in terms of their investments?

The closest place they can find the Premier Is on the golf course. That's a good Conservative Government that we have in others provinces In Canada. Mr. Deputy Spea ker, the Leader of the Opposition talks about having audits In all departments. A MEMBER: What have you got against golfing? HON. G. DOER: Nothing, I'm a very poor golfer. There's a time to golf and there's a time to act on behalf of the cit izens, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When people are losing their livelihoods, the Premier should not be on the golf course. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the recommendation of the members oppo site was to have audits in all departments. This is where they'r e going to find the millions and millions of dollars that they say that they can save in government. lt reminds me of 1977 when we had audits in all kinds of departments. They had 358 groups of citizen repr esentatives; they had groups of business represen tatives, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They flew into various commun ities that meet with the Cham ber of Com merce.

They'd meet with some busin ess commun ity, they would have a luncheon, they get in the chartered plane and move out again to another communit y. What were the kind of reco mmendations these so-called audits came up with? Close Brandon Un iversity was one of the reco mmendations. The government couldn't act on it obviously. lt was a stupid reco mmendation. Decrease spending in the Department of Community Services by 33 perc ent. Sounds great, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but yet we hear time and time again to spend more money on le gitima te needs of child welfare and community services in this House for children in need.

Some of these ideas look great on paper, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We had the audit, as I say, in 1977. Very few of the rec ommendations were acted upon by the former government because they were just not viable for the people of Manitoba and for the citizens of Manitoba. So I found it very curious that we get from the Leader of the Opposition a similar recommendation to what we had in 1977. Mr. Deputy Speaker , there is a cred ibility problem when the Leader of the Opposition is able to praise a 1 percent decrease in a deficit at the Federal Government.

When a massive decrease of deficit takes place in relative terms - it's still got a long way to go - we still have $60 million to go in terms of balancing the operating deficit which I think is a concern to all members of this House. The operating Budget, as much as possible, should be balanced. But when this deficit comes down close to 35 percent In the last two years, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we think that the deficit reduction track is on the right course. We believe that Manitobans believe that you can . . . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Opposition Ho use Leader, on a point of order. MR. G.

MERCIER: I was wondering if the member would permit a quest ion. HON. G. DOER: When I'm finished, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Besides he has a knowing smile on his face. Mr. Deputy Speaker, so these constituents were asking the very fundamental question: How can you praise Michael Wilson and not praise Eugene Kostyra, when he comes down in a much more dramatic way? lt was a very obvious question, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that's a question Manitobans are going to be asking because they expect acco untability on behalf of their govern ment.

They hold us accountable when they perceive that we're wrong and we should be held accountable. Mr. Deputy Speaker, they are also cynical to comments that are made by Opposition members dealing with the same su bject from two different governments and it's such an obviously different way. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we also have, in my opinion, a numb er of other excellent issues that have been addressed in this Budget. Not only, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has the deficit gone down at a much higher degree than the Federal Government and the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, but the Budget has a

llond•J , 29 February, 1988 number of other major spending areas which I want to talk about in a minute. When we're looking at Budgets, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think it's very Important to never lose sight of the fact that all of us, I believe, in this House have strongly articulated a need for tax reform in this country, because I believe that the average wage earner, under the New Democratic Party of Manitoba and under any political party in this country, has been getting hit by the nature of the tax system that we have in this country.

I believe that some $45-billion worth of write-offs that the federal Auditor-General has ide ntified should be tackled in a meaningful way, that we should get rid of these loopholes and write-offs, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we were to get $45 billion into this country that has been lost to all of us through lost reve nue, if we were to get just a portion of that in Manitoba, it would be close to $1 billion.

If we were to get our per capita portion of $1 billion, not only could we decrease and eliminate the def icit, we could ret urn health care funding to 50-50 and, I believe, we could give a legiti mate break to the average wage-earners in this country who, we all admit, are paying the freight across this country, both in their federal and provincial tax, because of the lack of the ability to get on page 1 of the income tax form where the majority of these write-offs take place. I believe, Mr. Deputy Speak er, that we can't talk about revenue without talking about tax ref orm.

I believe that the recent announ cement of Michael Wilson has been positive in a relative sense. lt's better than what we have now, but when we look at the potential to get some $45 billion, I think it's the crumbs off the table in terms of what potential we could have, if we had legitima te tax reform in this country.

I also hear from constituents, who are also mad at taxes that we've imposed - there's no question about that -s tating, "Why aren't the Leader of the Opposition and the members of the Opposition critical to the same degree . as they are of you of the federal taxes that have taken place, and tax increases that have taken place in this country over the last num ber of years, and ," Mr. Deputy Speaker, "In the recent Wilson announcement In the November statement of 1987"? Sure, no one likes to pay the 2 percent additional tax that has been Imposed, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, but they also ask about the 13 percent, on average, in personal income tax increases that have been initiated on behalf of the Federal Government. Again the question really, - I have no problem with governments raising revenues to ensure that deficits don't go too high, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The real concern I have and this party has is that where we get the money is always from the average wage-earner, because we can't get the money from the various groups that have loopholes in the existing tax system. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in reviewing this Budget, the priorities that are in the Budget in terms of the increased spe nding, I think are very positive and are consistent with the desires of Manitobans. The major task that they expect from any provincial government, whether it's our provincial government or any other provincial govern ment, the major role th at any provi ncial government has as its first priority is the management, in an intelligent way, of almost one-third of their Budget, and that is the management and allocation of resources to the health care system .

That is the No. 1 priority 357 for any provincial government. That's the largest area of spending, that is the largest program that the Provincial Government is respo nsible for running, and it is the major priority for any provincial government for their operat ion and their administration. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is indeed the major priority that is in the Budget that was tabled by the Member for Seven Oaks, the Minister of Finance. The largest increase in the provincial spending in terms of the percentage increases for 1988 and 1989 was in the health care sector, Mr.

Deputy Speaker; $111 million or more for health care; including another $10 million for a new $50 million He alth Services Development Trust Fund, which I believe is ess ential for this province and for our health care system. We all admit that we have too many dollars in the institutional area of health care. I believe it's 93 percent or 94 percent of the money In health care goes to what is classified as the traditional institutional health care services. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I'm hoping we can use that money to get the public of Manitoba more involved in their health care system, to get more preve ntion going on in our socie ty. People are already taking

part in their own lifestyles and health care to utilize the tremendous community resources which are available in health and in our environment, to utilize ideas, to utilize profe ssionals, to utilize community groups, church groups, athletic groups, etc., in the development of our health care system. Wouldn't it be great , Mr. Deputy Speaker , that if every year we could move a massive amount of that Budget - 1 percent a year - over from the institutional side of the health care spending into the community and prev entative side.

Every year that we can move from 94.6 percent to 93.7 percent and 92.8 percent because we all re cognize that the existing system is large with many, many very capable groups working within it, with many capable groups that have strong vested inter ests within that system. And it will move slowly to move it to where we all know is (

a) more cost effe ctive, and (

b) more qualitative in terms of our Manitoba health care and our Manitoba environment. So, I think the idea of a fund is a great idea. I'm sure it'll have lots of ideas. It'll be insatiable in terms of requests that 'll come to it and I think the largest challenge we are going to have is administering that fund to ensure that the priorities of moving the system more into the community is taken care of. Mr. Deputy Speak er, I'm proud, too, that the community services program has seen an Increase of some $11 million for child prote ction and foster care. I dOfl't believe this Is a political issue.

I believe that all members of this House and all Manitobans believe that children requiring protection should get a standard that is second to none in this country. I have always believed we've had excellent programs and excellent workers across this province working in our child care systems, the types of systems of various degrees, whether they're the old traditional aid societies or whether they're the new community dev elopment systems or whether they're part of the health and social services single-unit deliv ery system.

We've had a numbe r of excellent people who are working in a system under tremendous demands and I'm pleased to see that money go into the child protection area. I do not believe that that will solve all the problems because we can't solve all the economic and social

Monday, 29 February, 1988 problems just by reallocating more money, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it will give some of our workers some more resources. lt will give some of our foster people some additional resources. I believe that it will never be a 100 percent perfect system, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I dare say it is one of the finest systems in this country, indeed, if not In North America. In times of tough fiscal situations, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I quite frankly am glad the 11 million additional dollars went into Community Services instead of going $11 million more to reducing the deficit from what it was at 3.36 to 3.25. I think it's better to have that money there because I believe it's an Investment In our youth, and an investment In our youth Is an Investment in the province. lt may show up at a different place on the deficit versus spending side of government, but I think it's worthwhile. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'm pleased to see again the Minister of Finance has placed a number of dollars to enhance our education system.

I have talked to members of our school divisions In the commun ities I represent. You don't o ften hear them In the media because they've got some positive things to say, but they've said that, quite frankly, things have gone quite well in terms of the funding and the funding decisions this year. I guess their comments to me have been: We've got nothing to complain about In terms of the education finances this year.

I talked to a senior administrator at one of the universities at a joint function we were at the other day, and he too was saying that the support they're getting here - they'd love to have more - there's lots of things they could do, Mr. Deputy Speaker. But In their estimation it was one of the finest levels of support in Canada for our education system. I would like to clarify something, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I was listening to comments on the Budget the other day and heard the comment that the Inflation rate was 4.5 percent and therefore anybody funding the system at over - I think 3.8 percent or 3.9 percent was the figure that was being used - was under the Inflation rate. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe it's very important when people are going to make comments on Budgets that they at least know the Inflation rate in Winnipeg.

I would refer the Member for River Heights to the latest inflation statistics of the City of Winnipeg, which of course are the CPI statistics for Manitoba, and point out that the latest statistics show a 3.6 percent Inflation rate in this province. Indeed, the announcements made by our Minister of Education and articulated in the Budget are indeed an enhancement beyond the existing inflation rate and should be treated that way. We shouldn't use Inflation rates that are a year out of date for present day expenditure purposes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. (lnterjectlon)- Well, I think it's a very important point.

So I'm pleased to see the priority areas of this government - health care, co mmuni ty services, education and, in addition, the other programs that have been articulated by the Minister of Finance In the Budget. The Member for Tuxedo talks about the management system in government - he makes some quotes of previous years, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I find it quite curious, by the way, that some of the major financial issues facing us were never even 358 addressed by the Leader of the Opposition.

Is the economy after the next U.S. election going to slump because of the massive deficit by the Reagonomic types in Washington? Are we going to have a massive increase in taxation, and a massive stagnation in the United States because of the benign neglect of the Reagan government? Those are some of the very important issues, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I think they are important for Manitoba.

We have a steady-as-you-go Budget, and if I could suggest the one area that would cause me concern, it wouldn't be the area inside of our Budget this year, but a potential North American down-turn that I think all of us have to be concerned about, given the absolute fiscal disasters going on in the United States under the existing administration. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, instead of talking about those kinds of scenarios, which I think are legitimate to talk about in this House vis-a-vis this Budget, we're not getting that kind of questioning on the Budget. We're getting quotes back from 19 83 and 1976 and 19 81.

We're not getting any look at the economy in the province with the future challenges of our economy in mind. We're getting sort of out-of-context quotes from the past, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think it's very important that we get value for our money in terms of the management of this provincial economy. If I recall, Mr. Deputy Spea

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-3-13a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 3rd hansardpdf 13a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ee5189e9f0befe3607026f46627c36ea7007fa7b

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