Manitoba Hansard — 1 April 1985 (Sitting 17A, 32nd Legislature, 4th Session)

32-4-17a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANI TOBA Monday, 1 April, 1985. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPOR TS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Energy and Mines. HON. W PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annu al Report of the Man itob a Oil and Gas Corporation for the year ending December 31, 1984. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . INTRO DUCTION OF BILLS HON. S. USKIW introduced, by leave, Bill No. 23,

An Act to Amend The Fires Prevention Act; Bill No. 27,

An Act to Amend The Wildlife Act; and Bill No. 28, The Manitoba Habit at Heritage Act;

Loi sur la protection du patrimoine ecologique du Manitoba. HON. M. HEMPHILL introduc ed, by leave, Bill No. 26,

An Act to amend The Teachers' Pension Act. MR. P. EYLER introduced , by leave, Bill No. 29,

an Act to amend The Architects Act. ORAL QUESTIONS Native self-government - Entrenchment in Constitution MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier in that it being the eve of the First Ministers' Conference on Aboriginal Rights, I wonder if the Premier could indicate to us what position the province will be putting forth with respect to the entrenchment of Native self-government in the Constitution. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, the position will be consistent with the basic positions that have been taken by the Provincial Government during the past two such Aboriginal Conferences which took place in 1983 and 1984. They will be, of course, distributed during the conference itself, but the honourable member will find they are basically consistent with the positions that 495 have been taken in the previous two conferences that have been held pertaining to aboriginal rights. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, is the Premier Indicating that the province will be supporting the entrenchment of Native self-gove rnment in the Constitution?

HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker , we're In basic agreement with the proposal that is, I understand, being ta bled by the Prime Mi nister tomorr ow at the Conference. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speake r, is the Premier indicating that the government will be supporting the principle of the entrenchment of Native self-government in the Constitution? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, as I indicated the Prime Minister will be tabling a proposal tomorrow, which basically supports the principle of the movement toward the establishment of the institutions of self-government insofar as Indian people are concerned; we are In basic support of that proposal. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, would the concept of self-government, as the Premier sees it, include that for Metis and non-status peoples? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, insofar as all evolution of different institutions towards self-government is contingent upon, (

a) it being done within the framework of the Canadian Constitution which includes there being advancing, subject to the provisions of the Charter of Rights; and secondly, there be accompanying any such transfer towards greater institutional development of self-g overnment, a fiscal responsibility to accompany that, and based upon those two conditions we support the gradual evolution of self-government insofar as all Native communities are concerned. MR. G. FILM ON: Mr. Speaker, did the Minister Indicate when he said all Native communities, that it includes Metis and non-status people? HON. H.

PAWLEY: On a territorial basis, Mr. Speaker. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier's definition of Native self-government include jurisdiction over such matters as labour relations, for instance? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, the very princi ple and basis of the agreement and concept that is being proposed by the Prime Min ister is that the working out of details would flow from the federal position paper that will be tabled tomorrow, that based upon the support in principle of self-government, then details as to the timing and the extent of the evolutionary development would take place as a result of negotiations and discussions. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, is the Premier indicating that the position is that there is support .in principle

Mond8J, 1 April, 1115 on the part of this admin istration, but that there is no accepted definition at the present time of what's meant by that principle? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is correct. The Prime Minister and the Federal Minister of Indian Affairs have indicated that there is agreement on their part, as there is on ours, insofar as the concept issues pertaining to definition, issues per taining to in stitutions, the extent of progression, and the accompanying fiscal transfer of responsibility.

Matters pertaining to ensuring that any transfer be consistent with Confederation and with the Canadian Constitution would require much more discussion that would have to take place. User Fees- Chronic and mental health centres MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Min ister of Health.

In view of the fact that in running for election in this province in 1981, the New Democratic Party indicated that it was totally opposed to user fees, will he now be rescinding the instructions from his department that daily residential charges for chronic care patients in hospitals and mental health centres will come into being as of May 1st? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, definitely not. The user fees that we are talking about are for people who have to maintain a home and are going in the hospital for a numb er of days, such as an acute hospital.

Let me explain that what we're doing now is that people in a mental institution will, If they have been there a year or so, have to pay the same -as if it was just a personal care home, the same thing. We wer en't allowed to do that before while there was cost-sharing. There's been a change as you know - as I say it will be at least a year in a mental Institution. lt will not be the revenue of the family; we're not going to saddle the family with any unjust or difficult situation; it will be the individual; and they will have to have at least $1 50 a month before anything will be charged to them at all.

Now, you can't have it both ways. We are talking about deficit. We have the situation - (Interjections) - Wait a minute. We have a situation where these people are receiving a pension, in most cases, from the Federal Government to pay for food and shelter; they're getting the food, shelter and drugs, and they're paying $1 5 or so, when the cost is $1 00 a day. We're not going to create a situation where the people will turn around and be able to give their money to their children while the taxpayers are asked to keep them in these Institutions. These institutions become their homes.

Now, the Rehab, that'll be the same thing; it'll be people that the doctor will have to say there is no chance of rehabilitation anymore after at least 30 days. It'll be the same, and they will not pay, as I say, they 496 would have to keep their first $1 50.00. So I have no hesitation in saying that even if things weren't so tough, I still think that this would be fair. I think that when you have people in geriatric and psychiatric institutions you should pay maybe, if your friends in Ottawa decide to do cost-sharing, and ins tead of saying, well, that's it, we'll cap it - (Interjection) - we might look at it.

MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, it's not I who wants to have it both ways. I'm not the one who's spending the money on advertising, and then putting the charge on the patients in the health care institutions. My question for the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker, is: does this mean that there will be a means test and an asset test used to decide who pays? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition who gave me a chance to answer these questions. I won't need anybody to advertise, if you'll give me a chance to explain the policy that we have. Mr.

Speak er, it'll be the same test as you have in a personal care home, nothing more. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, does that mean that there is a means test and an asset test applied? HON. L. DESJARDINS: it's the same test as the personal care home. If there is a pension, they will keep the first $150.00. MR. G. FILMON: If the indi vidual un der these circum stances happens to continue to own a home, does that mean they will have to pay? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I think the policy, maybe my colleague, the Mini ster responsible for welfare - this is not something that will be dealt with in our department.

I would imagine it will be the same, that whatever they have, they can im prove the equity in a home. They're not going to be able to pay a mortgage and so that it'll im prove the equity on it while we're paying to give them shelter, no; but they will not lose anything that they have. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Health could indicate what amount of money will be raised by the government as a result of these charges. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I'll be very pleased , Mr. Speaker, to discuss this in the Estimates.

I understand that the Estimates of Health, at the request of my honourable friend - we'll go in the Estimates as soon as this is finished, and as the Estimates of Health are the first ones, I'll give you the information. No, I don't know. Limestone Generating Station - Awarding of order to CGE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines having to do with the awarding to Canadian General Electric of a

Monday, 1 April, 1985 very substantial order for turbines and generators. Is the Mini ster indicating to this House that no other proposals were seriously pursued? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the House that the government pursued the exact same course of action that the Schreyer Government and the Board of Manitoba Hydro and the management of Manitoba Hydro pursued in 1977. They pursued the same course of action that the Lyon Government pursued in 1981 along with the management and Board of Manitoba Hydro.

At that time, we expanded on that beyond that. Both those previous admi nistrations were only talking to Canadian General Electric. We, in fact, asked a numb er of other com panies for their proposals beyond that, Mr. Speaker, but given the response of all of them, we decided that the best course was with Canadian General Electric. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, specifically, a spokesperson for the Marine Industries Corporation out of Quebec that makes this equipment indicates "that they were working diligently to put together, to prepare an industrial benefits pack age." Were they given an opportuni ty by this government, by this Minister, to present that package? HON. W. PARASIUK: I certainly thank the Member for Lakeside for that question. They, in fact, were asked to make a proposal in September of 19 84.

There were meetings that took place between Marine Industries and Manitoba Hydro officials in October; and then on November 15, 1984, an executive director of the Manitoba Energy Authority telexed the president and chief executive officer of Marine Industries asking them to submit a general proposal outlining pricing parameters and Manitoba industrial benefits. The telex indicated that we were waiting for this proposal, but we had not received it, and we asked them if they were considering such a submission, when we might expect to receive it.

At that time Marine Industries was involved and still is involved in major industrial disputes and we did not receive proposals from them, Mr. Speaker, and we did go with Canadian General Electric. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister would be prepared to table in this Hou se all correspondence inviting companies to participate in a major industrial order of this kind and their responses. Would he be prepared to table in this House the invitations to prepare proposals, if not open tenders, and their responses? HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr.

Speak er, I think that's normally a matter that would be best dealt with in Addr ess for Papers, but certainly we will provide the information in due course and I'll dig through the files of the previous admini stration to determine whether in fact they sent out any requests to anyone regarding 497 proposals for turbines and generators. Mr. Speaker, I'm quite prepared to undertake that on behalf of the Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, a final question.

Is this going to be the pattern for other major contracts with respect to the Limestone development project, that this government will set aside the normal tendering system which has I remind all members by and large served taxpayers of Manitoba well, and that. this government will be seeking out and making their own decisions with respect to awarding of future contracts? · HON. W. PARASIUK: No, Mr. Speak er, indeed I have said consistently that by and large Limestone will be built according to the competitive tendering process. We already have a call for tenders for the major civil contract.

We certainly should explain to the public if we depart from the competitive tendering process. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have explained that there was an agreement signed in 1977 where the government and the Manitoba Hydro would make every reasonable effort to purchase turbines and generators from Canadian suppliers. That intent was followed up by the Schreyer administration; that intent was followed up by the Lyon admin istration. I find it rather unusual that the Conservatives are now saying that what they did in 1981 seemed to somehow have been terribly irregul ar. I think, Mr.

Speaker, one has to weigh the benefit of this industrial offsets package. Manitoba Hydro is very satisfied with the price; it is lower. lt is lower than that which they estimated. We are very pleased with the industrial offsets, Mr. Speaker. We have a package now whereby we will create an additional 2,000 jobs In connection with the Limestone development, taking the total from 17,000 jobs to 19,000 jobs, Mr. Speaker. We have tremendous long-term investments in Manitoba, not only in the south but in the north as well.

We believe that this is the way in which one can use Limestone in a very beneficial way to ensure that there is a maximization of spinoffs for all Ma nitobans, Mr. Speaker. We certainly don't expect to use this instrument that often, because we do believe that it is possible, through the general system of competitive tendering, to achieve many of these objectives as well, but we certainly aren't departing from policy as was practised by two previous administrations. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy and ask him whether he can confirm that given the escalation clauses in the General Electric agreement that the final cost could be $250 million? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: That's true, Mr. Speaker. We indicated that the contract was in 1984 dollars and there are escalations built in. lt's approximately just

Monday, 1 April, 1815 less than 10 percent of the tender price. So in as-spent dollars by 1992, that tender, in fact, could amount to in the order of $250 million, Mr. Speaker, but I would assume that it will be less than that. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, it seems to be somewhat reminiscent of the old statement of two-and-a-half times one. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister whether he could give us and the taxpayers any reassurance that all the industrial benefits that he thinks are beneficial to the province are not simply going to be added to the basic cost of the turbines and then passed on to the people of Manitoba, so that the question basically is: Is this not an illusion? Is he arguing that the General Electric Company is giving us benefits when, in fact, they may simply be passing on costs? HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, not at all.

I welcome the question from the Member for Elmwood, because I must say that from 1969 to 1977 this Member for Elmwood never raised one point about Hydro, Mr. Speaker. He never raised one point about Hydro at that time, Mr. Speaker. He didn't raise one point about two-and-a-half to one at that time, if I can recall , Mr. Speaker. He seems to be suffering from selective amnesia today, Mr. Speaker, but we expect that on this side of the House with respect to that person. Mr. Speaker, Manitoba Hydro has looked at the contract very carefully. They are satisfied that the price Is less than that which they estimated.

MR. F. JOHNSTON: How do they know? HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the people of Manitoba, I trust the calculations of Manitoba Hydro 100 times more than I trust the calculations of the Member for Sturgeon Creek, or their entire Conservative caucus, or their entire array of so-called experts who were completely and totally disproved by the NEB Report received a few weeks ago. What I am saying , Mr.

Speaker, is that there are no extra costs of those offsets , that we are getting the turbines and generators for a price cheaper than Manitoba Hydro initially estimated, but because this is a very good time in terms of the construction efforts and the supplying industry around North America. it's a very competitive time for us to negotiate an excellent deal for Manitoba whereby, Mr. Speaker, we will achieve 15 percent employment in terms of local sourcing compared to 8 percent or 7.5 percent which was achieved with the Long Spruce contract back when the Member for Elmwood was a member of the then administration.

So I believe that we have progressed tremendously since that time, Mr. Speaker. We are progressing in a very positive way, and I believe that the benefits to Manitobans will be much greater than the original contract amount. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I will avoid any cheap shots that are coming from the Honourable Minister.

I simply ask him whether he is now in fact abandoning the tender system, and whether all these decisions are going to be made by the Provincial Cabinet without the benefit of the tendering system, and I'd also like 498 to ask him whether he could indicate whether negotiations were on the basis of $100 million or $250 million? HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Spea ker, obviously the Member for Elmwood didn't hear my prior response to the Member for Lakeside. I did indicate that we in fact expect that most of the tenders awarded will be awarded through the competitive tendering process, and I indicated that before. Mr.

Speaker, I further indicated that the calculations were done in terms of 1984 dollars, and there are built-in escalators into that contract that could take it up to that amount. That depends on the rate of inflation and the rate of escalation. But, Mr. Speaker, in 1984 dollars, that contract comes out to just over $101 million, and Manitoba Hydro indicates that is significantly lower than the estimate they had put in place for that component of the Limestone Generating Station .

Manitoba should be very pleased that they are going to get the turbines and generators from Canadian General Electric at a substantial saving to Manitobans and, secondly, will be providing as many jobs in Manitoba In the construction of those turbines and generators as if they had been built here, Mr. Speaker, and that is a first. That is a breakthrough for Manitoba, and we, on this side of the House, are very pleased to have that break. Manitoba Oil and Gas Corporation - Success of exploration MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also for the Minister of Energy and Mines. Earlier today, the Minister tabled the 1984 Annual Report of the Manitoba Oil and Gas Corporation. My question is as to whether the corporation has struck any oil in its exploration activities thus far? HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to announce that the Manitoba Oil and Gas Corporation has participated in its first successful oil wells, and two of the wells are located in the Virden field and the other is situated in the Ebor area of the Daly field, Mr. Speaker. The thing that's significant about this - (Interjection) - Mr.

Speaker, I'm surprised that the members of the opposition wouldn't be pleased that Manitobans have this good news to share with them. Mr. Speaker, these wells were drilled on lands posted and acquired by the corporation in the October 24, 1984, provincial Crown lands safe. They acted in a complete competitive manner with all the other oil companies. They selected these areas, Mr. Speaker, and they found oil. Three oil wells were successful. Mr.

Speaker, I know that all members of the House would join me in congratulating the Manitoba Oil and Gas Corporation and in wishing them continued good health and good success. I forgot to indicate - I've had these in my desk for a while - it's actually real good oil. it's a soft crude, a sweet crude, Mr. Speaker, and undoubtedly there will be many more of these coming forward for the people of Manitob3 to benefit from .

Monday, 1 April, 1985 SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. Is the House prepar ed to continue with Oral Questions? Before calling on the next mem ber, I should remind the members that exhibits are not permitted in the House. The members should bear that in mind. Selkirk Mental Health Centre - Al leged mistreatment of patients MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, let me just slide into more questions here. I have a question for the Minister of Health. Mr.

Speaker, over the past several weeks, there have been a numb er of allegations about patient treatment at the Selkirk Mental Home, and recently there have been more allegations of patient mistreatment, etc., etc. Could the Min ister indic ate what investigative procedures he's undertaking to assure that the quality of patient care is being maintained at Selkirk? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health : HON. L. DESJARDJNS: I'd like to thank the member, Mr. Speaker, for this question. I think all the people of Manitoba are quite concerned.

I might say that there won't be any hesitation at all if there is any 1 document ation or anything that would help us in an investigation, and we could call an investigation either in-h ouse or an independent investigation if need be. But I think we have to be very careful, because so far I it has been just that, an allegation. I don't think it is fair to tar all the emplo yees of these institutions and bring discredit on them. In the meantime, I might say that first of all, we have · very few names. There was a Buccini that was mentioned today.

That was two or three years ago, and I'm told that the administrator was quite surprised today, because his report to me was that they were quite complime ntary to the group. I might say also that · somebody talked about being hooked on a respirator; there is no respirator in that hospital at all. I might say that in Selkirk they have established good quality assurance programs and the standards are constantly being reviewed not only in-hous e, but more important by external independent agencies.

In this regard, the Selkirk Mental Health Centre has just recently received a three-year certification award from the Canadian Council on hospital accreditation. But, as I say, there won't be any investigation at all. This is very important. The people must have confidence and we would not hesitate to have an investigation. In the meantime, if it's helpful, I would like to offer my honourable friend, the Member for Pembina, that I will make arrangements if he wished to discuss this with the admin istrator and to find out what has been found so far. I make that offer sincere. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Spea ker, my supplement ary question is along the lines that the Min ister alluded to, 499 that these are allegations, and all of us are concerned about the maint enance of quality health care at Selkirk and our other mental health institutions, and along that line, to avoid any future accusations of the impartial ity of an in-ho use report, would the Minister give serious consideration to having outside investigators check out these allegations to alleviate all concern that an in house investigation may not have been willing to reveal the true circumstances, if any exist? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: There is no doubt that we would follow that route if there is a need to do that, but with the in formation, the allegation and the lack of documentation that we have received so far, I don't think this would warrant it. lt would be just an added cost and I'd much sooner see that money spent in providing the mental health services that we would like this to do. We want to move in the community services as much as possible. That is why I say, if there are any names and documentation, this is something we certainly would be ready to look at.

That is why, in all sincerity, I had offered that maybe my friend could advise me once he's talked to Dr. Edwards out there, but I think that they are doing everything they can. On the other case - what's the name of the other case - the Veroneau case, the information, there is no way that we can say for sure one way or another, but there's certainly not any document ation that would indicate that venereal disease was contacted In the establishment. During tti e stay of Mrs. Veroneau, as a matter of fact there was a test on all the patients at Selkirk, and none of them had contacted V.D. there at all.

So if there's anything at all, if we can get any information from an outside interest to answer my friend's bottom line, we would have no hesitation in having an outside inquiry. Morgentaler Clinic - Government's position MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brand on West. MR. H. CARROLL: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the First Minister. If Dr. Morgentaler's Clinic were licensed to do abortions and therefore be outside of the ambit of the Criminal Code, we wouldn't have the squabble and the wrangling that we now have. Why won't your government license Dr. Morgentaler's Clinic? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, that's a matter that woul_d be more appropriately directed to the Minister of Health. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, it is very much a question to be answered by the Minister of Health, because the facilit ies are there now. There's no proof of anyone, wishing to have an abortion, having to go to the United States. As we announced earlier, we are

MondaJ, 1 April, 1115 trying to do everything we can to prevent unwanted pregnancies to start with and then, following the Criminal Code which is a federal law, to have these facilities instead of people having to go to the United States, and that is not the case in Manitoba. These legal abortions could be performed in Manitoba, and there certainly is no need to license a clinic to have somebody come in from another province to give the service that is certainly not needed here. MR. H. CARROLL: Mr.

Speaker, if what the Honourable Minister is saying is true and if the facilities in Manitoba are so adequate, how come Dr. Morgentaler has so many clients waiting to get in to see him? HON. L. DESJARDINS: If you scratch a bit, Mr. Speaker, you will find out that some of them are from the United States ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. That question is argumentative. Would the honourable mem ber wish to reph rase the question to seek information? MR. H. CARROLL: My question then is to the First Minister.

Is it not true that it is his party's policy that there should be freedom of choice for women to decide whether they want an abortion or not? MR. SPEAKER: The question is still argumenta tive. Manitoba Medical Services - Medical coverage outside province MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. 1 MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is also to the Minister of Health.

Based on statements made by the Minister's department last 1 week that health services that could be provided in Manitoba will not be covered by Manitoba Health Services Commission if they are obtained outside the province, can the Mini ster indicate to the people in my ' constituency whether they will still be able to obtain · health services in Roseau and Warroad, ·and will still be covered by the Health Services Commission? ' MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Health. I HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speaker, my honourable · friend quite conveniently forgets the sentence there that says: " ... unless approved by the Commission," and he kn ows full well tha t there has been an arrangement made, and that has been approved. We're talking about people who are going for second or third tests and tests that are being done either in Mayo and other places. We're trying to 1mprove the situation and give the best of care in this country, and this would not work in that direction. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Just a further question to the same Mini ster.

Is th e Mini ster indi cating then that the arrangement that is in existence right now will continue to be in existence for the people in southeast Manitoba? 500 HON. L. DESJARDINS: If my honourable friend is talking about those who are seeking help in the hospitals in the United States, in this case, yes. This is not the same thing at all. ARM Industries, Brandon - Number of employees MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, on Friday the 29th of March, I was asked a question by the Member for Turtle Mountain about the numb er of clients and employees at ARM Industries in Brandon. I have the figures for 1983 and'84; a total in 1983 of 149 clients and 153 in 1984. The number of employees in'83 was 12; the number of employees in'84, 11. There was a period of time at the end of'84 where the numb er of emplo yees was cut to half through job sharing; and through welfare and unemployment, people received only a minor reduction in salary, but now the orders for p1cnic tables are in.

We expect to produce 10,000 tables this year, so they're all back working full time. That's an increase over the level of production last year of 7,200. Gasoline tax - Transitional boundary area MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speak er. I have a question for the Mini ster of Finance. I understand today there are new gasoline tax rates in place in the Province of Manitoba and this question deals with the transitional area along the Saskatchewan boundary.

Can the Minister indicate to the House how much tax is presently being collected in Zone A, which is the Town of Flin Flon, today as compared to last week? And the supplementary would be: how much is collected in each of the other zones today as compared to last week? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. I presume that depends on how much gas is pump ed in some of those zones. I'll take all of that as notice. MR. H.

GRAHAM: At the same time as the Mini ster is taking that as notice, could the Minister indicate to the House what rationale was used in the selective discrimination of rates that apparently is taking place in his new rates on the transitional boundary area? HON. V. SCHROEDER: I'll take that as notice as well, Mr. Speaker. Family Life and Sex Education Course - Status of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris.

Monday, 1 April, 1985 MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Last week, I posed a question to the Minister of Education, and I asked if she would tell the people of Manitoba specifically what

schedule she had in place for the revision of the Family Life and Sex Education Course. The Minister at that time indicated that I could ask the question during Estimates. In view of the fact that Education Estimates are to be one of the last on the list and possibly not till late May, I am wondering if the Minister would care to tell Manitobans what she has in store with respect to that course. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure that I just said that the question was appropriately dealt with during Estimates, rather than now.

I think that I also suggested that we are developing all of our curr iculum in the normal curr iculum development process, and that when it is completed and when it's appropriate and when we're ready, we will release it and announce the timetable and how it is going to be handled. So it is not just a matter of when the Estimates do or don't come up in the House, it's a matter of when the curriculum is completed to my satisfaction. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The ti me for Oral Questions has expired. HANSARD CORRECTION MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A. ADAM: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to make a correction in Hansard, if I may. On Page 425 about two-thirds down, the right-hand side, in my comments on the Throne Speec h, I was speaking about the beet producers in the Province of Manitoba and change of . policy in this regard, and I made this comment: "Since I the Federal Government wants to change its policy and provide support for beef producers . . . "lt should be "beet" producers, not "beef ." A very small error. MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. NON-P OLI TICAL STATEMENT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin Russell. MR. W McKENZIE: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to· make 1 a non-political statement, if I could. . MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable mem ber have leave? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell. : MR. W McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand here this afternoon and congratulate Roblin Truck Service, one of the great small business operations of this province, in receiving the award from the Winnipeg Cham ber of Commerce last week as the Enterprise of the Year Award from outside this capital city of ours. 501 Mr.

Speaker, this is one of the classic examples of what a small business can do without the hand of government pushing them over here and moving over there and trying to . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kurchak, his wife and his staff of some 35 employees have started from $7,500 and built up one of the finest trucking industries we have in this province. Mr. Speaker, they provide free service for charities, for churches; they clear snow; they do all kinds of good things for people free. Isn't that a wonderful thing today, Mr. Speaker!

I hope all the members of the House will join me today in wishing Mr. Kurchak, his wife and Roblin Truck Service all the best for the future. Those are the kinds of small businesses that are going to make this province tick, Mr. Speaker. They are not having their hand out with a tin cup looking for a handout. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I trust it wasn't with a hand of government - it could be so interpreted - that I had the very pleasant experience of presenting to Mr.

Kurchak and to the Roblin Trucking Service the award of appreciation this past Thursday in the City of Winnipeg, alon g with six other very successful Manitoba businesses that have demonstrated not only by way of their ent repreneurial spirit but by the way of their community contribution in many ways that they are indeed good Manitobans, and I am pleased to associate, certainly thi s side of the House, wit h congratulations to those so affected. ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE MR.

SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of th e Honourable Minister of Finance, and the amendment thereto proposed by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, are you ready for the question? Prior to recognizing the Member for Turtle Mountain, I would remind members that he was deprived of five minutes of debating time on the Throne Speech. With the indu lgence of the House, I will propose to give the honourable member an additional five minutes at this time. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am so closely programmed in these matters that I am not sure that I will be able to take advantage of that generous offer proposed by yourself and consented to by the House. Mr. Speaker, this Budget was described by the First Minister as being carefully crafted. Carefully crafted it may have been, Sir, but not well-crafted, not honest, not informative, not unifying and certainly not in the best interests of the public. lt was carefully crafted to divide our people, to divide them into opposing groups, it misleads our people as

Monday, 1 April, 1115 to the real state of our fiscal affairs and, contrary to the public utterances of the Premier against blaming scapegoats, this Budget does exactly that, to cover up for the gov ernment' s own incompetence and mismanagement. The Budget can also be said to be carefully crafted in the sense that it can be summed up in two superficial slogans: fairness to ordinary Manitobans and putting people first. Slogans, Mr.

Speaker, that are calculated to be of benefit to the NOP in the upcoming provincial elect ion. it is carefully crafted in the sense that anyone · who attempts to defend the scapegoats tha t are identified by this Budget. or to quarrel with the simplistic slogans, will become targets of political demagogu ery. But depite the risks, Mr. Speaker, the dup licity and sJoganeering of this Budget need to be identified for what it is and for what it is, being a not-so-subtle attempt to promote class divisiveness and at the same time · cover up for years of fiscal mismanagement. Mr.

Speak er, did you kno w tha t there are two categories of people in Manitoba that are identi fied by this Budget? There are ordinary Manitobans and there are other Manitobans, Mr. Speaker. They go out of their way in this Budget to speak about ordinary Manitobans. Repeated ly, they speak about ordinary Manitobans. it's a curious distinction, Mr. Speaker, but it's one that is deliberately made and is also intended to be part of the NOP election strategy, just as it was part of the NOP election strategy at the federal level. I will give you a couple of quotes, Mr. Speaker, from the Budget to indicate what I mean.

Page 2, for example, the Mini ster of Finance has said, "This Budget builds on that commitment because this NOP government cares deeply for ordi nary Man itobans." Another sentence on the opposite page, on Page 3, "In Manitoba we have put ordinary people first and the results are clear." Now, repeatedly, this government says that they are concerned about ordinary Manitobans, but nowhere do they say that they care about all Manitobans.

Instead, they divide them into these categories of ordinary Manitobans that this government cares about and, presumba bly, extraordinary Manitobans that this government doesn't care about. That doesn't happen just by chance, because it's 1 repeated again and again and again throughout this Budget, and that's part of the carefully-crafted reference that the First Minister makes. What the government wants to do is to leave the impr ession that they're on the side of ordinary people. i Of course, most people would identi fy, I think, with themselves as being ordinary people.

They have some idea of what the government means here, but clearly the government wants to be on the side of ordinary people and not on the side of extraordinary people. And of course, by imp lication they want the public to believe that while they're on the side of ordinary people, the Progressive Conservatives will, of course, be on the side of th ose extraordinary people that the government doesn't want to back. We all remember how that sort of theme was exploited in the 198 1 elect ion. Mr.

Speaker, you may yourself 1 recall that some of the ad campaigns of the big hand 1 with the big cigar, cutting up the cake shaped like the I Province of Manitoba, I'm sure that must have been · one of the extraordinary people cutting up that cake 502 tha t thi s go ver nment didn't care abou t. But it's interesting to look at just who are these ordinary people that the government talks about and who are the extraordinary people that they don't seem to care about.

The Budget gives us some indication of that although the government has not been very forthcoming in identi fying just who these people are, but there is a quotation In the Budget which comes from a paper that the First Minister presented at the First Ministers' Conference in Regina a few weeks ago. That gives some indication of just who it is that the government would consider to be these ordinary people and I'll give a couple of quotations from that Mr. Speaker.

This appears on Page 09 of the Appendix to the Budget, and this says and I quote "Our decisions must be fair, fair to ordinary Canadians, fair to working women and men, fair to the employed and unemployed, and fair to youth and future generations." So, presumably, Mr. Speaker, if that's some of the people at least that are included in the government's definition of ordinary Canadians, we can only assume that that's also a definition that they would use for ordinary Manitobans. And, indeed, on Page 08 of the Appendix, there is an even more revealing and explicit statement.

This says and I quote "And, while well-to-do Canadians and profitable corporations are avoiding taxes, leaving ordinary working women and men to pay the bills, the resulting deficits are being used as justification for a tax on public programs and services." So there it is. There's the identification. You have the ordinary people that include such people as employed and unemployed, youth, and the people who are not include d in that definition, the extraordinary people that the government doesn't back and indeed wants to set up as targets are the well-to-do and profitable corporations. Well, Mr.

Speaker, this statement and it's repeated in the Budget, it doesn't just appear in the statement that the First Mini ster made in Regina some weeks ago, but it also appears in the Budget. lt spells out why ordinary people should not like these other people, these extraordinary people, these well-to-do people and the profitable corporations. The reason that they shoul dn't like th em, Mr. Speaker, is that the y'r e responsible for the deficit. Those people are responsible for the deficit . This is really an astou ndi ng quotation.

And I recommend to the members opposite, who haven't looked at it carefully, to look at it, to read this statement through very carefully. I'll read it again Mr.

Speaker, because it is really, truly, an astounding statement that reflects the kind of poisonous attitude that th ese members opposite have towards certain people. certain segments of our society. it says again and I quote "And, while well-to-do Canadians and profitable corporations are avoiding taxes, leaving ordinary working men and women to pay the bills, the resulting deficits are being used as justification for a tax on public programs and services." One sentence, let's look at it very carefully, Mr. Speaker, because it says a lot.

" ... while well-to-do Canadians and profitable corporations are avoiding taxes ... "- it doesn't say, some well-to-do Canadians, some profitable corporations. it says well-to-do Canadians and profitable corporations are avoiding taxes. A blanket statement made against a segment of our society.

Monday, 1 April, 1985 Then, Mr. Speaker, it goes on from there. There's a great deal in this one sentence. lt says, ". . . leaving ordinary working women and men to pay the bills . . . "So these ordinary working women and men, apart from the well-to-do and apart from the profitable corporations, according to these members opposite are being left to pay the bills. The resulting deficits are being used as ju stification for attacks on pu blic programs and services.

Not only does this sentence say that these people are being left to pay the bills, but this is crafted as the First Mini ster said, carefully crafted, in such a way as to leave the im pression that a deficit is deliberately being created by well-to-do people and profitable corporations avoiding taxes in order that they can launch attacks on public programs 1 and services.

Because it says it's being used as justification for attacks on public programs and services, ' not that public programs and services are under some question because there isn't money for them, but that there has been a deli berate effort to create a deficit so that these programs can be attacked. Mr.

Speaker, I find that kind of approach just ' absolutely astonishing and shocking to be coming from the First Minister of this government. it's a very, very, slightly more subtle version of the slogan "Make the Rich Pay," that we see plastered all over construction sights by Marxist Leninists and various other fellow travellers.

This is only a very slightly disguised version of that and what it is calculated to do is to create divisiveness within our society, and to make these ordinary people feel that somehow it's not they who are responsible, lt's those extraordinary people and it's certainly not the government that's responsible for the kinds of deficits that have been incurred. That's why the government makes a call for tax reform as well. I wondered when I heard the First Minister speak at Regina and I heard him call for tax reform.

I thought now that's a curious thing for the First Minister of the province to be doing as he comes up to within a few months of an election because tax reform is a process that's going to take a long time, and it's not likely to have any sort of im pact on the revenues that the province might have. But I was, of course being naive, Mr. Speaker, to think that it was revenues that the First Minister was concerned about even though they want to leave the im pression that it's revenues that they're concerned about. On Page 31 of the Minister's Budget there is a statement.

The Mini ster of Financ e says: "U nfortu nately , the national income tax system is seriously flawed. lt is not producing revenue in line with economic rene wa l." Then on Page 34, he says: "Increases in revenue from the personal income tax are also showing slower growth than incomes." So I began to examine those statements and those assumptions, Mr.

Speaker, and it's evident from the facts quoted in the Minister's own Budget provided in the appendices and in the information appearing in Pu blic Accounts from previous times, that those statements in fact aren't borne out by the facts; that in a five-year period, from 1980 through 1984, the gross provincial product grew by 48.2 percent. In that same period of time, personal income grew by 54.4 percent, and personal income tax revenue to the Provincial Government by 56.9 percent.

So over that five-year period, incomes of people grew faster than the economy, 503 and the return to the government grew even faster than the income to the people. So the statements that the Minister makes in his Budget really are not borne out.

But there is another reason, of course, for wanting tax reform, for calling for tax reform, and it ties in with the distinction that they make between ordinary people and these other people, because what they want is for the public to believe that it's somehow a few wealthy people who are avoiding taxes and profitable corporations who are to blame for this decline in. revenues. I'll certainly acknowledge there's been a substantial or very slow growth in the corporate income taxes over tha t five-year peri od.

But there's never any acknowledgement from this government that it might be because those compani es are not profitable rather than tha t they are profitable. There is no acknowledgement that it may be is a consequence of this government's policies, that they may be contributing to the fact that those compani es aren't doing as well. No, they want to leave the impression with these ordinary Manitobans that somehow out there, there are wealthy people and profitable corporations who are not pulling their weight. And that may be. They use as justification, Mr. Speaker, a statement in here, in the Budget.

For example, it says that in 1981, there were 8,000 people who earned over $50,000 income and paid no tax. I accept that figure, Mr. Speaker, and I say it's unfair. lt is extremely unfair that people in our society should be making more tiJan $50,000 and not paying any income tax.

But don't confuse that with any sort of reason for the deficit being the size that it is because, again, if one does some calculations on information - and the latest information that I have was from 1980, but the First Minister's reference was to 1981 and I don't think there would be very much difference - if one looks at the number of people, of tax filers who earn over $50,000 and you calculate an average of that income, and you then applied the average tax rate to it and updated it with inflation, you would find that the government might take in, in today's dollars, roughly $350 million, if those 8,000 people paid tax at the average rate.

Now $350 million is a lot of money, Mr. Speaker, but it only represents about 1 percent of the deficit that the government is incurring this year - only about 1 percent. So this government should not go out to try and tell the public that the financial situation that this government finds itself in today, or the Canadian Government finds itself in today, is because wealthy Canadians, wel l-to-do people and profitable corporations are avoiding taxes. lt just isn't so. The facts don't bear that out, Mr. Speaker, they just don't bear it out. They talk about tax reform. I'm all in favour of tax reform, Mr. Speaker.

I think there should be tax reform and I think it should be done perhaps for different reasons than the members opposite think, perhaps for some of the same reasons. I think we would agree that the tax system should be fair, and that even though I'm sure those 8,000 people who weren't paying any tax were doing so perfectly legally within the system established by the government, so they should not be vilified for taking advantage of a system tha t government has brought in. But I don't really think that that's fair, and I don't think the public would think that it was fair and therefore

Monday, 1 .April, 1185 there needs to be some kind of system brought in that has more fairness to it. Maybe some sort of flat rate tax sytem would be more fair. I don't know , I'm not familiar enough with the details of various tax proposals to be able to say specifically, I favour one over another. But I know there is a tremendous amount of effort in this country goes into tax avoidance as to people planning their affairs so they can save on paying taxes.

For most people the easiest way to make a buck is to properly manage your affairs, to take advantage of all of the opportunities that there are for saving taxes, and that extends right down to people of low incomes as well as to people of high incomes , whether it's just the proper use of Registered Retirement Savings Plans, etc., and shifting from one spouse to another. There are various things that individuals can do.

But I find that there is just, in my judgment , an unacceptable amount of effort devoted to manipulating affairs to save on taxes, rather than devoting that effort to really being productive and to figuring out new ways of how we're going to produce more . So I favour tax reform from that point of view, and I favour it because if we don't do that , and if we don't have a fair system, then you're going end up with an underground economy here, that more and more money is going to miss the system.

But what this government is telling people is that somehow if you plug those loopholes, as they call them, you would have a lot more revenue. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can't accept that. The tax reform, if they mean the same thing by it , will necessarily yield more revenue. They could get more revenue by raising the present tax system. So they should be more clear about what it is they want to accomplish. 1 say let's stop blaming the wealthy people; let's stop blaming profitable corporations , and let's stop blaming tax loopholes for the fiscal problems that this government has.

Let's look at the problem that the government has, and people can make up their minds for themselves if they look at the facts, as to whether or not these other factors are responsible for the problem that the government has. From 1981 to 1985 it appears that the gross provincial product in Manitoba will rise by approximately 31 percent. We're not going to know until the final figures are in. In fact we may never know because it seems to be such a difficult thing to measure, but I think it is a fair judgment at this point that the growth of the economy would be about 31 percent over those four years.

At the same time, the government 's expenditures have gone up by 48.8 percent . The economy is growing at 31; expenditures have grown by almost 49. But the important thing to consider here is that inflation has been about 25 percent, and that's a figure that I take from the Minister's Budget, which means that real economic grow1h is going to be in the range of a 6 percent increase over four years and that real expenditure grow1h is going to be almost 24 percent. So while the real growth in the economy is at 6, real expenditure is at 24. You have a ratio of four to one.

The government's expenditures in real dollars have been growing four times as fast as the provincial economy. The government wants to blame wealthy people and profitable corporations for evading taxes or avoiding taxes for that problem. lt simply doesn't wash. it simply isn't borne out by the facts. Of course. because you have an economy that is growing, or the government expenditures are growing so much faster than the economy, that naturally is reflected in the revenues as well.

So the province 's revenues have grown by 43 percent over that period of time, and with an inflation of 25 percent, of course , that's a real increase of 18 percent. Well, that's a ratio of three to one.

The government has been taking an increasing amount of money from the economy at a rate that is increasing three times as fast as the grow1h in the economy, and that's money that's coming out of the pockets of everybody. lt is coming out of the poor people's pockets. it's coming out of the wealthy people's pockets, but it is coming out at a rate that is three times as fast as the economy is growing . 504 They have only been able to achieve that much revenue growth by imposing a very substantial amount of new taxes over their four years .

I don't think that the public are really quite aware of just the extent that taxes have been increased over the four years. I looked at the revenues that the government is getting this year and, by going back and looking at previous Budgets and the Estimates that were made there, and looking at Public Accounts, etc., it appears to me that in today's revenue that the government is getting - about $310 million of that comes from new taxes that this government has imposed in its four years.

So there is very clearly $310 million that is not out there in the pockets of consumers. it's not out there in the pockets of employers to create jobs. So while the government makes much of their Jobs Fund, which is reputedly to be $210 million, even though a great proportion of that doesn't even come out of this pot, the fact of the matter Is that the government has taken far more money out of the economy, out of the hands of consumers and employers through its increased taxes than they're ever putting back into job creation efforts.

One final figure that should be taken very seriously by anyone who cares at all about the state of the economy, and that is the proportion of the government's new spending over the last four years that has been financed through borrowed money. If one takes the level of spending that the government inherited in 198 1- 82 and put that base across all four years and considered any money above that to be new government spending , that comes to something like $3.419 billion . Of course, we know that the government 's four deficits are going to come to over $1 .8 billion .

What it means is that , of all this government's new spending in the last four years, about 54 percent has been financed by borrowed money. Over half of the new spending of government is financed by borrowing. Now I find this very shocking and I find it even more shocking that this government hasn't come to grips with it. There is nowhere in this Budget where they offer an explanation of what is happening . What's going on? How are we going to work our way out of this, Mr. Speaker?

We are told, we're given a couple of empty sentences that says that the government is being responsi ble, it's handling its finances responsibly. it's being fiscally responsib le , but there is no place in this Budget where the public is told how are ·you going to get out of this problem. The government has acknowledged, members opposite have acknowledged on previous occasions

Monday, 1 April, 1985 when I have spoken here and when other members have spoken, that they believe that, at some time, the government's revenues and expenditures should balance. When? When and how is it going to happen? Now we don't get any explanation of that. We don't get any extension of the growth rates, of how they're spen ding on th e Jobs Fund, etc., of how Hyd ro development, or how laying $40 million on the table for Pratt and Whit ney, how any of those things would bring the public to the point where they could believe that our finances were indeed in sound order. Instead, Mr.

Speaker, what we get is the old class warfare from this government. They're on the side of ordinary Manitobans and it is those other extraordinary Manitobans that are causing the problem, because those wealthy people and those profitable corporations are avoiding taxes. Well, what it really needs in this province is more well-to-do people and more profitable corporations that would pay more taxes, Mr. Speaker, and then we wouldn't have some of the problems that this government has brought on us today. The ultimate fall-back position that we get from the government, Mr.

Speaker, is the other slogan, "Put people first." Now there is nowhere in the Budget Speech that we're told, first ahead of what. lt's just: "Put people first." 1t isn't until you look carefully at the fiscal management of this government that you begin to realize that what they mean is, they're going to put people ahead of sound fiscal management. That's what it means. Put people ahead of sound fiscal management. That raises a question in my mind. When that kind of slogan is thrown out there for the public, it raises a question about their other slogan having to do with fairness to ordinary people.

I raise the question, Mr. Speaker: is it fair to those ordinary people, whether we're talking about working people, empl oyed people, unemployed people, business, youth, students, farmers, whatever, is it fair to them for this government to spend money four times as fast as the economy is growing? Is it fair to those people to take tax money from them at a rate three times as fast as the economy is growing.

Is it fair of this government to have increased the debt placed on the average family of four - this is just a direct debt for government, this has nothing to do with their plans for Limestone or telephone or anything - is it fair for them to have increased that debt by just under $7,000 per family of four, over four years? Because what th at do es, Mr.

Speaker, is to add approximately $833 of interest costs to that average family of four, to tha t average family of ordinary Manitobans that next year are going to be asked to pay $833 approximately for interest charges, most of which is going to leave this country and go to wealthy investors and institutions outside of this province and outside of Canada? Is that fair to ask those people to do that? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: I point out to you, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that in 1980 people earning from $1 0,000 to 505 $30,000 paid 57.4 percent of the personal income tax in this province. Over 57 percent of the income tax is paid by those people. Is it fair to ask those kinds of people to assume those costs for services that have essentially already been consumed? Is it fair to say to the youth of today that tomorrow and for the foreseeable future, because this Budget offers no light at the end of the tunnel, that they will be asked to go on paying for services that have been consumed already?

Not services that have been consumed by those same . people, but services that have been consumed by others. Those are questions that the public has to ask themselves· when this government puts forward the slogan of fairness and tries to use fairness as a measure of what they have done. Is it fair to lead these ordinary people to believe that if only the rich would pay their fair share then we wouldn't have a problem, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Is it fair to lead them to believe that?

Because one has to look again at the figures for 1980 and you will find in those figures that people who earn over $50,000 - and I think most of us would agree that someone who earns over $50,000 a year that most people would regard that as being a pretty wealthy person - anyway, people who earned over $50,000 in 1980 represented 1.9 percent of the tax filers but they paid 17.3 percent of the tax. So does that really sound like a group of people who aren't pulling their weight as a group, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Over eight times the proportion that they represent.

Within the number of tax filers, they pay eight times the proportion in terms of tax. So is it really fair to go out there and tell other people who make less than that, that if only those rich guys would pay their share then we wouldn't have this deficit problem? I don't think it is. I don't think that's fair at all. But most of all, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is it fair to threaten the fiscal integrity of the province by spending more money than the taxpayers are prepared to pay? Because that's the situation that this government finds itself in now.

They know that if they increase taxes to pay for their spending, they would be defeated. So they are spending more money than the taxpayers are prepared to put up. And by continually doing that for an extended period of time without offering any kind of strategy for how they get out of this mess, how they see the light at the end of the tunnel, is really to threaten the financial integrity of the province.

The one thing that we can be sure of - I think we should make no mistake about this - is that investors, whether they be outside of Canada or outside of Manitoba, will not indefinitely continue to finance the kind of deficits that we have today. They will not do that. At some point, if the government persists in this type of spending pattern that they are pursuing and the sort of excuses that they are giving, they will eventually come to a point where they will not have the money available and then, who is going to suffer the most? Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I say to you that the people who will suffer most when that happens are going to be these ordinary Manitobans, as they call them and the people at the lower end of the income scale will suffer the most: The youth, the students, the people on minimum wages, the unemployed, the people on welfare, those are the people who will suffer the most

Monday, 1 April, 1115 because, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will find that the wealthy people in our society will always be able to look after themselves. lt isn't going to matter to them if the health care system is cut back because they have money to go somewhere else and to get their health care. lt isn't going to matter very much to them whether they don't make quite as much money as they did before because they have quite a lot of money anyway.

What ever kind of service the government opts to cut back to them, they will still be able to pick it up but the people who will be hurt are the people at the other end of the scale. This is what is not fair to those people is what this government is doing in trying to pretend that we don't have a problem. · This government doesn't know whether it wants to shun the deficit or whether it wants to embrace it. They used to say that deficits were good and presumably when they say that they are fiscally responsible, then a deficit that size is good, but yet they want to blame it on somebody else.

They want to blame it on those wealthy people who are avoiding their taxes. That's what's unfair to people to run on these kind of shallow slogans. Put people first before fiscal responsibility is what they are saying and that doesn't put people first at all, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That puts people last. That's where they end up is last because if they don't acknowledge today that they have a problem and that they must come to grips with it in a realistic way, then they will inevitably come to the point where the very people that they pretend to champion are going to be hurt the most. So, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I maintain that this is not fair what they are doing. lt is patently unfair. lt is not putting people first at all. What it is doing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is putting the NDP first - not people - but the NDP. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Burrows. MR. C. SANTOS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this Budget. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. C. SANTOS: How do you like that!. Just listen. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. The Opposition House Leader on a point of order. MR. H.

ENNS: On a small point of order, we are addressing ourselves to the amendment put before us by the Leader of the Opposition, and I encourage all who rise to speak and support it. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader to the same point. HON. A. ANSTETT: I don't think the point of order taken by the House Leader or the Official Opposition is well taken. I think the statement by the Member for Burrows is a clear repudiation of the amendment by affirming his support to the Budget Address. and that's what he's speaking to. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Burrows. 506 MR. C.

SANTOS: To clarify, Mr. Speaker. I speak against the amendment, and I speak in support of the main motion. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. D. MALINOWSKI: No shadow in your mind, eh? MR. C. SANTOS: In doing so, I intend to reply to some of the arguments raised by the mem bers of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition Party on their dislike of the Limestone Project, of their disdain of deficit spending and their distrust of government advertising, and after I rebut their arguments, successfully or not, I intend to specify my reasons in supporting the Budget message and in opposing the amendment.

The Member for Turtle Mountain speaks of putting sound fiscal management ahead and people last. To me, this is a dangerous statement, because it will mean that we are putting priority over techniques, and there will be a triumph of techniques, of fiscal management over human purpose. Fiscal management first, people last is an irresponsible statement. Why do they di slik e this Limestone Project so vehemently? The reason is simple, Mr. Speaker. They know and fully well understand that on the success of the Limestone Project Development, the success of this one is crucial to the outcome of the forthcoming election.

They know that very well, and therefore they oppose vehemently and passionately any kind of expression of satisfaction and appreciat ion of people for the success of the Hydro Limestone Generating Project. My reply is this: is it honourable for the mem bers of the opposition party to castigate at every opportunity the superb success of this New Democratic Party Government in secu ring an electric energy sales contract with the Northern State Power Corporation?

Is it rational behaviour on the part of the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to tear down and to detract from the importance of the approval of the National Energy Board of the Export Licence Application by the Ma nitoba Hydro Crown Corporation? Is it responsible behaviour on the part of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to try put down the Hydro Limestone Electric Construction Project that will provide much needed job opportunities for many of our people who are presently unemployed? Mr.

Speaker, for the audacity of the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to hinder and denigrate the general public acceptance of such an economic breakthrough towards industrialization of Manitoba's provincial economy at the dawn of the 21 st cent ury is for the opposition members to place themselves into being an enemy of the people's hope and aspiration for a better economic future.

The second argument of Her Majesty 's Loyal Opposition is that it would cost too much to advance the Limestone Construction Project by two years, because such a move on the part of the present government would push the deficit spending upwards to huge amounts of public borrowings. The reply, Mr. Speaker, is to assert that a debt incurred for a justifiable purpose is the necessary and unavoidable price of public investment in order to create a valuable capital asset for the province. The borrowed money that the

Monday, 1 April, 1985 province shall use to pay the ten turbin es and electric generators that will be supplied by the General Electric Company will transform the intangible debt obligation into a tangible, solid and concrete hyd ro-electric esta blishm ent that will convert the waterflow into electical energy, which is renewable, saleable, and an income-producing commodity . 1t is a bles sing in disguise. lt is good fiscal management to borrow money to invest in order to create capital assets. lt is a blessing in disguise to borrow money in order that the hydro electric plant at Limestone will be put into shape so that we will have an almost perpetual supply of electric power so long as the snow flakes are falling and so long as the rivers are flowing, proceeds and profits from the sale of electric currents will be forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker, a good government which borrows money and invests such money in income-producing capital assets is like a wise farmer who borrows money to buy seeds to sow in his farm. lt is written: "He who soweth sparingly shall also reap sparingly; but he who soweth bountifully shall also reap bountifully." A tight fisted fiscal conscious government that invests very little will also reap very little. But a good, generous and well-intentioned government, like the NDP Government, which invests money bountifully, shall also reap profits bountifully.

The third argument of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is the claim that the present government is spending too much money in advertising, in advertising the Jobs Fund , in advertising · the Limestone Hyd ro-Electric Development Project, in advertising other publicly funded job creation progr ams.

The reply to the opposition's criticism of what they perceive to be an excessive advertising expense is that such informational dissemination expense is a justifiable expense. lt is a justifiable expense because what is being advertised are not mere matters of memorandum of intentions, what are being advertised are real contracts, real products producing real incomes. To advertise truthfully, Mr.

Speaker, is good public relations. lt is good public relations for any organization, whether it be a private business corporation or a public Crown corporation. lt is good, so long as what is being advertised is good and doing that which is good. Public relations is doing what is good and letting people know about the good that is being done.

The New Democratic Party is the only surviving compassionate government that is people oriented and future directed in the whole country of Canada, which is overwhelmed by Tory Government, who are so obsessed with callous budget cuts, service cuts and have a morbid fear of debts. Through the dark Tory land, the New Democratic Party Government is .like a beacon of shining light brightly shining through the dark clouds of Tory pessimism, of doom and gloom, so that the rest of Canada may see and appreciate and perhaps emul ate a Pawley-Parasiuk polic y of promoting economic recovery for the Twenty-First Century. Mr.

Speaker, having answered at least three major arguments of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, let me now focus on at least three basic reasons why I oppose the amendment and why I speak in support of the Budget message of the Hono urable Minister of Finance. Mr.

Speaker, I support the Budget for the following reasons: First, the Budget responds to people as people with basic needs and wants, to people who are different, enigmatic people, people who are precious to the NDP Government; second, the Budget creates work and job opportunitie s for our people in this province and elsewhere; and third, the Budget looks towards reforming the Canadian income tax system perceived by many observers as unjust and unfair. Mr. Sp eak er, people are enigmatic. They are magnificently mysterious beings, difficult to fully fathom.

While human behaviour in general may have some general patterns, it is usually difficult to completely know. what a particular person will say or do under a given set of circumsta nces. The reason lies in the fact that a human being has an indomi table human spirit with a will that can will the opposite of what others expect that the person will probably say or do. Not only are people difficult to predict, people are also different from one another. They have different sets of beliefs. In the same way that no two snowflakes are the same, so no two people are identical.

Even the so-called identical twins who have so many simila rities are not necessarily of the same likes and disli kes. Every human being, Mr. Speaker, is uniquely different in integrity and in personal qualities. Not only are people enigmatic, not only are they different, but people are precious. People are more precious than any material form of wealth that I know of. People are more im portant than money that some people value so high in their scale of priorities. People are more important than deficits. People are more important than public debts. People are more important than paved cement hig hways.

People are more important than anything of material value in this materialistic world. lt is this basic adherence of the New Democratic Party to the basic principle of the supreme importanc e of the human personality that this New Democratic Party has rightfully achieved; a well-earned reputation of being a caring and compassionate government that deserves a second chance to serve the people of Manitoba by being re-elected to political power. 507 Mr.

Speaker, I suppor t this Budget and I oppose the ame ndment, because this Budg et creates job opportunities and work for the unemployed, for people who cannot find work and for people who are out of work. Working on a job, Mr. Speaker, Is not only a means of earning one's livelihood, working on a job is a method of preserving one's self-respect. Working at a job is a means of restoring shattered self-esteem of individuals. Working on a job is a mode of discovering what was once lost, but now a newly-recovered, self confidence of people.

At this juncture, I would like to ask some philosophical questions which I do not intend to answer. I would like to know why we have to work in order to live? Do we work in order to make a living, or do we live in order to work? Do we live in order to eat, or do we just eat in order to live? I don't kno w. I will not answer these questions. All I can say, Mr.

Speaker, is that since the fall of humankind in the Garden of Eden, it appears that due to this disobedience the ground of this planet Earth has been placed under the curse of the divine affecting all of us as human beings, our body that came from the earth, being that we have been doomed to work hard all our life to make the soil produce enough foodstuff for us to eat. So by the sweat ot our brow,

Monday, 1 April, 1115 we shall eat bread until our bodies shall have returned to the ground out of the soil from which it was taken, formed and created into human beings, for dust our bodies are, and unto dust are bodies shall return. But the indomi table human spirit shall stay. 1t is the ind omitable human spirit tha t gives sign ificance to our existence, and it is work that gives meaningful existence to all our lives in this earth. To work at the job that we enjoy, the one that we like doing, we avoid the triple evils of boredom in life, the evils of vice and the evils of want.

Work is a basic need for every human being in order that he may find living worthwhile, that he may gain self-esteem and, through his achievement and his accomplishment, he may find the true contentment which is the secret of human happiness. Mr . Speaker, I support this Budg et because it responds to people as people, not only because this Budget provides work und job opportunit ies but also this Budget looks towards a long-range possibility of reforming our present income tax system. Taxes are the price that people pay for the privilege of membership in an organized and civil ized society.

Yet our taxation law'3, especially our income tax laws, are so complex. Our tax law is like a jungle of legal rules through which angels even fear to tread. Moreover, some of our tax rules are so biased in favour of business corporations, which are merely artificial persons, and at the same time such tax rules are so inconside rate of human taxpayers, individual taxpayers who are · natural human beings. Let me be specific.

In the case of a business corporation, all expenses · that are incurred by the entity for the purpose of earning or generating income from business will be a deductible item, for example, business rentals, the cost of utilities it consumed and other operating business expenses. These are all deductible under the rules including travel expenses, cost of corporate executives atten ding convention meetings that are lavish, intended for their pleasure but purpo rtedly under serious business purposes.

Yet at the same time, the same tax rule will deny deductibility for personal expenses of individual human beings for food, for clothing, for shelter. Obviously food, clothing and shelter are necessary in order that a human being can generate his personal income .. Yet our tax laws will not allow a natural person to deduct such expenses which, if incurred by an artificial person like a corporation, would be tax deductible. Income tax rules, therefore, favour artificial corporate persons and abhors natural human persons in the matter of procedures relating to the computation of income tax.

Moreover, through the instrumentality of the corporate form or organization, many wealthy individuals with large amounts of income are able entirely to avoid paying income tax that, in practical effect, the burden of our income tax system operates adversely only against the lower- and the middle-income groups of people. But, Mr. Speaker, the needy shall not always be forgotten. The expectation of the poor shall not perish forever. The hope of the jobl ess shall not be shattered forever. There is an NDP Government that cares.

There is an NDP Government that through trial and error, through self- critic ism and self intr ospection, have been discovering the true path to social justice. There is an NDP Government that is 508 see king economic development.

The re is an NDP Government seeking economic development, hand-in hand and along with social development, promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of all Manitobans and furthering our prosperity in order to reduce disparity in economic opportun ities and providing essential public services of reasonable quality and reasonable quantity to all of the people as human beings equal in dignity and equal in opportun ity. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Roblin Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, just listening to the Honourable Memb er for Burrows, I wonder if he ever goes back and reads the first speech that he made in this House. I think he was the mover or the seconder of the Throne Speech in those days. Then after sitting here for the time that he has sat with this government, I wonder If he goes back and recollects at how closely this caucus has followed the guidelines that he so skillfully laid out in those days. I'm sure that speech must haunt him, Mr. Speaker, everytime that he reads it, like it does a lot of other members. Mr.

Speaker, I speak today on the motion that is before us on the Order Paper as proposed by my Leader and the motion as it reads: "On the proposed motion of Hon. Mr. Schroeder, "THAT this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government. "And the proposed motion by Mr. Filmon an amendment thereto: "THAT all the words following the word 'House' be deleted and the following added: First of all, "Regrets that the budgetary policy of the government: 1. "Fails to offer a framework for economic renewal that will provide jobs for the record numb ers of unemp loyed people in our province; 2.

"H as resulted in deterioration of social services and basic infrastructure; 3. "Has imposed increased taxation; 4. "Has failed to control the rapidly expanding provincial debt which places a burdensome cost on tomorrow's taxpayers - the young people of today; 5. "And continue s their sad record of incompetent management of Manitoba's public affairs." Mr. Speaker. there are so many things I would like to put into the record that I doubt very much if I'll even get past the first item on the amendment that has been proposed by my Leader. Mr.

Speaker, I was calculating in my office this morning what it's going to cost the people of this province to try and re-elect this government. There's what, 32 of them - it's 100 million each that it's going to cost the taxpayers of this province to put that government back in place, 100 million for each and every one of them. God forbid, God fdrbid, the re election of that gang at that price, lOO million each. Mr. Speaker, that would be a tragedy and I'm satisfied that the people of the province are not going to pay that

Mondar. 1 April, 1115 kind of money - lOO million each to put this government back in office to operate the affairs of our province. Mr. Speaker, to go through this Budget, which I daresay, is the worst Budget I've seen in the years that I've been here. Can you imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the people of the province facing one more Budget like this, let alone four more or five more, if they happen to form the government of this province. That would be a disaster, the largest that this province has ever seen.

Just imagine, we've had four years of deficit financing from this government since they took office to the tune of 1.8 billion. Can you imagine putting them back in office again and add another 1.8 or $2.5 or $3 billion whatever, deficit financing, bills unpaid, walking around and getting re-elected, people who don't understand what economic stability is all about and economic sanity is all about. Somebody has to pay these bills. Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure the Honourable Member for Burrows that just spoke knows what I'm talking about because he's a professor and talks economics, one and one doesn't make five, and he know's that. lt doesn't make five anywhere. The other thing, of course, Mr. Speaker, when you go through this Budget and analyze this Budget very carefully, you have to go back to this message that the Premier sent out in 198 1. You have to go back and read that again with the Budget, before you can thoroughly understand what's going on in these little socialist-tinkering minds that we have over here. Mr.

Speaker, here's what this man Howard Pawley said in 1981, and I'm going to put it in the record again and use it for my comparison in the Budget. He starts off, he says "Great people, great future. We can build a dynamic future in Ma nitob a." Tha t was his first statement. His second statement, Mr. Speaker, "We can turn around the harsh economic circumstances of the past four years." That's what he said. He says "We can tap our sources of energy wisely." Secondly, "With ManOil and Manitoba Hydro . . .

"he said, " ... we can develop programs to guarantee that no Manitobans lose their homes or their farms due to high interest." He goes on and he says this great eulogist, who is now the Premi er, he says, "We can ins ure th at Manitoba's farms remain in the hands of Manitoba farmers through the development of an effective Farmlands Protection Act." He goes on, "We can im prove the quality of life in small towns and rural communities." He says, "Manitobans are great people. Together we can build a great future. That's a promise we can guarantee." Signed by Howard Pawley.

The first question that comes to me when you guarantee something, what does it mean? What does guarantee mean to members opposite and what does it mean to us? What is the penalty for a guarantee? Well, Mr. Speaker, I happ ened to pick up a speech that the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose put on the record Tuesday, March 26th, page 425. He said, "We had to clean up a mess." That's the way he started. He said, Mr. Speaker, " ... I don't blame the private sector. lt's not their role to create jobs." That's what he said.

That is the socialist-tinkering mind, that the private sector shall have nothing to do with the creation of jobs. He goes on and he says, "The job of a private entrepreneur is to make a profit." Nothing else. That's his only responsibility is to make a profit. He goes on and he said, "That is the role of capital, to make a profit, not to create jobs." Tha t's the learned mem ber, now the executiv e assistant to the Premier of this province, that's the man that's telling our Premier how to run the affairs of our province that made that statement, Mr. Speaker. Isn't that a strange mind?

Wouldn't you class that as a socialist mind, or somebody that doesn't care? I'll read more. He said, "So there Is a role for the public to play, and particularly more so when you're going in to a rece ssion, and th.at 's where the Conservatives of this province went wrong when they took office." Now we see four years of the wisdom of the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. There are others like him, his Premier, who have four deficits in a row which almost totals $2 billion, they are running around with a tin cup which they said they wouldn't do.

They are pla ying Mi ckey Mous e with multina tional corporations which they said they wouldn't do. They said they wouldn't cut the health costs or the services to the public in this province which they wouldn't do. Remember the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose standing over here and said the people In the Lyon days had no bacon in the hospitals, they had no sheets on their beds? That's what he said. Now he has been over there, he has been in the government, and now he, of course, has left the government and that's fair ball because of his retirement. But he said, Mr.

Speaker, "We had to clean up a mess." And he said, "I don't blame the private sector. lt's not their role to create jobs." What an insult to the private sector, the small busin esses, the people that create money, the people that pay taxes in this province, and this honourable member who is the Premier's advisor tod ay, the economic advisor, says that kind of a statement and then we face this kind of a Budget. 509 Mr. Speaker, it's a strange world. I got a letter today from the Premier's Office. lt says there is going to be a big reception here on April 24th honouring volunteers in government public service.

I wonder, can I get permission from the Premier or from the Mem ber for Ste. Rose to have one of them in my constituency because I've got lots of volunteers for public service in Roblin- Russell constituency? Can I ask the Member for Ste. Rose, who is in the Premier's Office, will the taxpayers pay for it, which the Premier is asking them to do? Well, If he can have it in this building - my constituency is 250 miles from here - will the Honou rable Member for Ste.

Rose take that to the Premier and see if I can have one, or the Member for Arthur constitutency, or can all the MLAs have a reception in their constituency at taxpayers' expense? This is the kind of new world that the Member for Ste. Rose is talking about, and his Premier: "The attendance of as many members as possible from each constituency would be appreciated." I'd put the same letter out in my constituency gladly but I certainly wouldn't ask the taxpayers to pay for it. I would pay for it myself.

I don't believe that the Premier has the right to ask people to come in here at taxpayers' expense for political advantage. I honestly don't because I wouldn't do it in my constituency and I don't feel any other members should. If you want to have people in for political advantage, you had better pay

Mond•y, 1 April, 1985 for some of it at least yourself. Why shouldn't he? We are getting well paid. Mr. Speaker, this Filmon amendment that we are addressing ourselves to that the NDP has failed to offer a framework for economic renewal that will provide jobs for the record numbers of unem ployed people in our province, well, let's deal with that first

part very briefly. Three years after this bunch of incompetents took office in this province and assumed the role of government, Manitoba had lost what? There were 15, 000 people more unemp loyed than the day that they took office. That was three years after they had a chance to get themselves fitted into their desks, get acquainted with their staff and look after the affairs of our province. After the three years of this government guiding the destiny and the wisdom of this province, we find out there were 15, 000 more unemployed than when they took office.

Is that what the Premier said when he made this gua rantee, this pledge, and swore allegiance to our people that he would not let that happen? Two years after I went through some figures of Stats Canada the other day, Mr. Speaker, and it shows that citizens drawing une mployment insurance benefits in this province stood at 40, 13 5 two years after this government took office, and those are the latest stats that are out. There may be some out later; this was about three weeks ago. When the Pawley Gov ernment took office, Mr.

Speaker, check the unem ployment insurance rolls in this province . to find how many were dr awing unem ployment insurance benefits. You'l l find the number just slightly over 20,000. So in a matter of two years the unemployed in this province, the ones that are drawing unemployment insur ance benefits under the guidan ce of this government had doubled, Mr. Speaker, doubled unemployment after two years only in office by this government. And they are seeking re election? Mr.

Speaker, check the welfare benefits, check the welfare rolls if you want to see how competent and able this government was to deal with the affairs of our people and saying they didn't have problems. Mr. Speaker, the welfare benefits in those first two years went up 43 percent. The people couldn't find work; they had to go on the dole. In fact, it appears that some $50 million extra in benefits had to-be paid out for people that couldn't find work after this government was in office two years, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it's a strange set of circumstances.

They don't go and tell the people this with their big glittery campaign today of high-priced propaganda and ads and the glowing terms of this incompetent government, Mr. Speaker. They promised jobs; Pawley promised jobs. He said great people, great future, we promise jobs. He doesn't say anything here about the welfare. Mr.

Speaker, during the Pawley Government's first couple of years in manufacturing - I went through some of those statistics this morning - the manufacturing industry - agriculture used to be the No. 1 indu stry in this province and manufacturing was seco nd. 1 understand now man ufacturing has moved up to the No. 1 indus try and agriculture has slipped down to the second slot. But, Mr. Speaker, the Pawley Government lost 10,000 jobs in manufacturing between '81 and December'84. Ten thousand jobs gone down the drain in manufacturing. 510 Mr. Speaker, what does the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose say?

The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose says, "Mr. Speaker, and I don't blame the private sector. it's not their role to create jobs." That's what the Member for Ste. Rose put in the records - the Premier's executive assistant, his economic advisor, Page 425 - "The job of a private entrepreneur is to make a profit." Mr. Speaker, if you read the Premier's guarantee In those days, he promised, the First Minister, no business, no home, no farm would be lost due to higher interest rates. Farm bankruptcies, Mr. Speak er, that Is int eresting.

In 1980 it shows there were 14; in 1981 there were 14; in 19 82 there were 30; 1983 there were 62; 19 84 anot her 62 - farm bankru ptcies year after year after year and escalating. I wonder how many there are going to be this year and I wonder how many didn't even report their bankru ptcy. Mr. Speaker, there is, I dare say, some 15 4 or 155 - or somewhere In that neighbourhood - farms that have gone bankrupt since this government took office. Busin ess bankru ptlces, Mr.

Speaker, almost 1, 000 businesses have gone bankrupt in this province, I think the last figure that I saw last week since the Pawley Government assumed office in this province, some 966 ban kruptcies are in the record. Mr. Speaker, the list is a long one and I am sure most of it is already in the records of Hansard and I am not going to labour the House with the names, but there are a couple in the last little while. The closing of the killing plant of the Pool in St. Bon iface is one that concerns my constituents a great deal in the last few days.

The closing of Co-op Implements, another one that concerns my people greatly, because I have a lot of very strong co-operatives in my constituency which I fully support, and they are very unhappy because of the fact that this plant which they put their money in and their time and their talents, has had to face the trials and tribulations of this day and some of the taxes that this government has levied and the payroll tax sure didn't help the demise of that industry. I certainly hope, Mr.

Speaker, the talks that are going on between labour and Vicon Incorporated in the apparent deadlock for the settlement of Co-op Implements can be resolved at an early date and that the firm will be able to stay in this province. Mr. Speaker, I am scared that we are going to lose that indus try in this province. I don't know what this Minister has done, or this government has done, other than say they won't change the labour legislation which apparently is one of the problems that Vicon is facing.

I asked the other day what kind of money the Minis ter is offering to them and he didn't give me any indication whatsoever, because the co-operative movement has a very very strong base in this province, Mr. Speaker, and if we lose that to one of our sister provinces to the west of us, it will be a sad day for the co-op movement in this province. Mr. Speaker, the business community in our province reading speeches such as the Honour able Member for Ste.

Rose put in the record the other day, they just don' t kno w how to deal with a New Democratic Government and especially this government because it's like the old shell game, one minute it's there and the other minute it's there. One minute they decide that they're going to move in a certain direction, and all of a sudden the go vernment moves in more

Mqnder, 1 April, 1915 reg ulations and more taxes, and the busi ness community actually doesn't know how to play ball with this government. I don't know, but it's my understanding that discussions with the small busi ness from the rural area when this Labour Relations Act was amended last year, Mr. Speaker, were not of the quality that they felt they should have been. But nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, it's part of the statutes of this province, and we shall proceed. Mr. Speaker, I look at Roblin- Russell constituenc y as an example. What's happened in Robli n-Russell constituency since this government took office?

The Premier and the Minister of Housing took a flip through Roblin-R ussell, looking around just before the House opened and of course they got their pictures on the front page of all the local papers. But, Mr. Speaker, they got some understanding of what the problems are out there and why this government is so hated in that general area of our province, because they haven't done anything. First of all, let's look how they handled the potash development.

Remember what the Premier said he was going to do about potash and all these big statements that were made, and the potash was going to flow, and the people were going to go to work, Mr. Speaker. Now, what does he say here? "We must be cautiously optimistic." This is what the Premier said in Roblin. He said the stud ies have indicated the quality of ore present is superior, its proximity to land surface is very close and when the local people asked him why development isn't progressing more rapid ly, he said, we've got to be cautiously optimistic.

The ore is there, the people are there, the money is there to develop it, the quality is there, everything is there, Mr. Speaker, and he said, we have to be cautiously optimistic. So they did another study. Now what kind of a study would you need when the product is there? The local people were expecting this government to live up to their commitments. They said they were going to develop the potash Industry in this province. Mr. Speaker, they'v e failed. lt's strange, Main Street Manitoba, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder what happened in my constituency to Main Street Manitoba. lt wouldn't have been political, would it? - that we were not able to qualify for - Russell maybe, but Roblin certainly didn't qualify - they still haven't qua lified to this day. I don't know where the problems were, but they certainly didn't qua lify. The Honourable Mem ber for Ste. Rose was the Mini ster. He was asked the question in Roblin and he said, Roblin was not able to qualify under the province's Main Street, perhaps it was too stringent. That was the reason that we were given. · Mr.

Speake r, Lake of the Prairies, the third best pickerel fishing grounds in Canada, Lake of the Prairies - (Interjection) - lt's a hive of bureaucratic nightmare. Let me put into the record what the local people say about the way they've handled and managed affairs of the Lake of the Prairies development, Mr. Speaker. 1t says here: "Campground facilities along the lake drew fire. Washrooms, boat docking and sites in general must be improved and expanded.

Government has done nothing but tie it all up into one bureaucratic mess." That's what the Premier and the Honourable Minis ter of Housing was told when they arrived in Roblin to deal with some of the local problems of the area. When you're looking for development, you're looking for revenue, that is an extremely important link to the development of this province, Lake of the Prairies. They come there across from the border of Saskatchewan by the hundreds, they come into that area. Mr. Speaker, there was nobody there to collect money at the gate.

Certainly the cleaning people were there and the park wardens and that, but the facilities are not there to handle those kinds of things. They've tried now to find a possibility of bringing in private capital to develop the area, Mr. Speaker, and they were left high and dry. Nothing has happened as I understand it, Mr. Speaker. And it goes on and on. 511 The tourist camp at East Bull Lake. I got a letter today from the Minis ter of Energy.

One of the nicest lakes that we have in this province, the Blue Lakes, Duck Mountain Provincial Park, and I'm sure most members that are sitting in the Chamber here have been there. I've been trying for all the years this government has been in office to get the Hydro in there, because then it would expand the lake and expand the use of the facility, people would be more happ ier. But Mr.

Collier, I got the letter again today and he says: "No, it's not economically feasible to undertake this project without a sizable capital contribution in aid of construct ion." I'll just ask the Honourable Member for Housing, what kind of local capital did the people of Hecla Island put up when you put the Hydro in there? What kind of capital did they put up? Mr. Speaker, they didn't put any up. Why can't we. have the same treatment and the same understanding from the government on the lakes in our province? He goes on and he says here, Mr.

Speaker: "lt's Manitoba Hydro's longstanding policy to assess capital costs of construction over the extension allowance to users, to ensur e that these costs are not borne by all their customers." They're certainly not talking to the users of Hydro on the Limestone Project, Mr. Speaker, as to what it's going to cost them. lt's never been discussed, but they're sure prepared to discuss it with regard to putting the Hydro into Blue Lakes.

Hydro would be a tremendous boon to that area for people who like to go there, have facilities there, the cottages are there, rather than run that diesel generator 24 hours a day to provide them with energy, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on and on. The Rural Munic ipality of Shellmouth, and I've raised this in the House before, had lost the tax base in the development of Assessippi Provincial Park which the Schreyer Government and other governments since have promised them that they would help them to try and recover.

They have never had a chance to recover one cent because the governments have left the R.M. of Shellmouth holding the bag. A MEMBER: So what did you do? MR. W. McKENZIE: Well, I certainly got it under discussion. No, the department is fully familiar with the pleas of the people. And the tragedy was, Mr. Speaker - (Interjection) - those arrangements were made when Schreyer was the Premier of this province. - (Interjection) - Certain ly, after a lot of prodding and nudging, Schreyer put - (Interjection) - well, that's what I'm asking this government to do. You've got

Mond•y, 1 April, 1985 unemployment coming out of your ears; you want to have development in this province; and you want to make the province a better place than it was when you took office. You haven 't done anything, Mr. Speaker. And he's telling me, what can I do? I don't have the purse, Mr. Speaker. They are the members who have it and it goes on and on. Mr. Speaker, let's look at what the payroll tax has done to this province, some of the taxes that this government has levied: the sales tax, the workers' compensation tax, the labour legislation. Mr.

Speaker, it's extremely difficult for small business today in this province to carry on. We were talking, the Honour able Mem ber for Pembina, about road construct ion the other day and his comments that he put in the record of this province, where the Mini ster of Finance in his Budget has misled the people of this province by the statements that the people are not contributing to the revenue in gas taxes and other levies through licences and that to pay for the road system of this province. 11 turned out after the honourable member finished his debate, Mr.

Speaker, that the people of this province are more than paying for the construction and paying for all the staff that's in the Highways Depart ment. Mr. Speaker, they are not building any roads out in rural Manitoba at all. I don't think there has been a road built in my constituency in the last th ree years. The bridge across the river at Gr andview was constructed, and we're still waiting for the Minister to put a name on· that bridge. There have been several letters drafted. Now they want to call it the Hume Bridge, Mr.

Speaker, but for some strange reason, the Minis ter doesn't want to accept the wishes of the local people. Why would the Minis ter of High ways want to get in conflict with the local people over the naming of a bridge? lt's ridiculous. 1t has been delayed two or th ree years now, Mr. Speaker, the naming of the bridge. Mr. Speaker, the road from the Lake of the Prairies across into Saskatchewan - now Saskatchewan, they've got a Conservative Government have finally paved the road up to the Manitoba border. The NDP never did it. This was Devine's Government that finally paved the road to the Manitoba border. Mr.

Speaker, what's the problem - we have two-and-a-half miles of gravel road - to hook it up to Assessippi Provincial Park? 1t stands there, gravel of the worst kind. The road 's in bad bad repair. Why wouldn't it be? Find some place in the Estimates of the department. But we won't get that built this year. Mr. Speaker, Road 254, we can deal with all these various road problems when we get into the Estimates of the Honourable Minister. the highway, the road system in my constituency has been badly badly neglected by this government.

I don't see how the honourable member - the Roblin Truck Service could possibly feel happy receiving this award from the Premier the other night, and knowing how this gang have wrecked the highway system in this province. That's the only way we can move goods and services in rural Manitoba today, Mr. Speaker. There is no other way. In a lot of cases, the rail service is not there. We're going to have to depend wholly on the trucking industry. You know where the trucking industry and transportation sits with the priorities of this government, Mr. Speaker? They're down about - what? - ninth, tenth.

They're 512 certainly way down on the list, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think that is fair. Mr. Speaker, the other point that my leader put in the record regard ing the performance of thi s government and why we couldn't support this Budget - I'll find my copy of it here - " ... has resulted in the deterioration of social services and basic infrastructure, Mr. Speaker." This is one that I think we are going to have to devote a lot of time during the upcoming weeks of the Estimates. Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member, the Minis ter of Slats Canada or Economic Security has very skillfully and very slickly cut the CRISP Program in my constit uency and I guess most of the rural constituencies across this province. Mr. Speaker, they changed the rules for eligibility and, for the first time, all the families whose assets are in excess of $50,000 are classified as not eligible to make application under the CRISP program. I would ask the Member for Ste.

Rose and others that live in rural ridings - you only need about a tra ctor and a combine on a farm today when you have assets of $50,000 - what about the family tha t is trying to make a living, or the family that was at Gilbert Plains the other day, Mr. Speaker, where the husband's in a wheelchair, but because of the assets of the farm they don't qualify under the CRISP program? So these changes, as I understand it, have borne a severe hardship on the rural families across this province.

Some of the figures show that as many as a thousand families, most of them from rural Manitoba, have been removed from the program as a result of the social program policies of this government. Mr. Speaker, I will not delay the debate any longe r. I will be supporting the motion as presented by my leader, and I'll have a difficult time, if I can, to support the government when this Budget comes before the House for a vote. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Welding: The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to be able to speak on the Budget today.

Since I last spoke during the debate on the Throne Speech, I must say I've been very interested in the tone of the debate, the tone of question periods that we have seen from both the opposition and the government side. In fact I must say, Sir, that I find it somewhat amazing sometimes. I sit here and I look at a situation where thi s government has been in office now - we've been in over three years. heading to our fourth year - where we find that the opposition has had th ree years to develop a consistent attack against this government.

We find that day after day it's the government which is taking the offensive on issues, and it is the opposition which is being defensive. In fact, you know, if you look at some of the substance that we're seeing or so-called substance from members of the opposition, it really leads one to ask exactly what has been happening to those members opposite. I today, Mr. Speaker, will be submitting that there is a reason why we're seeing that take place during the sitting of the Legislature. In particular, the main reason for that is that a number of key elements in the

Monday, 1 April, 1885 opposition's political approach over the last three years are in dan ger, Mr. Speaker, in some cases of collapsing entirely and in other cases at least of showing the incons istencies and confusions that exist amongst members opposite. Now, I would take one example, Mr. Speaker, of the lack of a response from the opposition to something that has been put forward from this side. When I spoke to the Throne Speech, I talked about the Tory hidden agenda. I expected when I made that call that there would be a response.

I expected at that time that the Tories would get up and say, no, that is not true. Here is what we are going to do. We do not have a hidden agenda; our only agenda is a public one. But we haven't seen that, Mr. Speaker, in this Assembly. In most cases, those members who did even respond to the suggestion there might be a hidden agenda did nothing to dispel that fear, but only indicated, at least to myself and I think any objective observer, that they do have a hidden agenda. Now, take the example of the Member for Stu rgeon Creek. He spoke shortly after myself.

What was his response to the suggestion that they have a hidden agenda? His response, Mr. Speaker, was not to say that this is what they would do. They had a platform and a public agenda, but it was to say, well, you, being the NDP, should talk about hidden agendas, and then spent the remainde r of his speech talking about what he felt was the NDP hidden agenda prior to 19 81. I wish I had time to go through each and every one of his points, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately though I don't, but I will say this, if you look at each and every one of his points you will find that, firstly, none of them could have been predicted by anybody, whether it be members of the NDP or the Conservatives prior to that previous election. Most refer, for example, to the fiscal situation of the province and measures adopted by the government in response to that. Now, I am an economist by background, Mr. Speaker.

I have had some experience in econometrics and I can tell you that in 198 1 no one could have predicted the fiscal situation of this provi nce with any certainty in 19 83, or 1984 and 19 85, let alone even 1982. But it's not so much the content of what the Member for Sturgeon Creek put forth that is important. lt's the complete absence of a public agenda. He spent 40 minutes responding to the charge that there was a hidden agenda without saying what their agenda is, and that's just one example of the confusion and the defensiveness we are seeing from members opposite. Let's take another example.

When we were out of Session, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives said that they wanted the Legislature called back at the earliest possible opportuni ty. Why? They wanted to ask us questions. And in particular they wanted to ask us questions about Hydro development. We came in, Mr. Speaker, and we had to wait nearly two weeks before we heard even one question on matters related to Hydro, from members opposite, and then it was from a government mem ber. For eight months they said they wanted the Legislature to sit, to debate Hydro, and when they had that opportun ity, Mr. Speaker, they said nothing.

There are other examples, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to get away from some of the things that we've seen in the Legislature, to some more general themes 513 of exactly the problems that we're seeing from members opposite. I think that the most important thing we can do is start with what I see as the conception members opposite have about their role in opposition and our role as a government. I think it's clear that they feel that the main thing that happens in elections is that governments either get re-elected or they defeat themselves.

Their essential strategy therefore is to oppose the government at every opportunity , and try . and put the government in a position where, because of its perceived unpopul arity, it will be defeated. I think that is their political strategy. The difficulty with that, as they are finding, Mr. Speaker, is that if you oppose the government on everything, you oppose them not only on items where you may be able to obtain support as an opposition, but other areas where you as an opposition end up on the wrong side of an issue. Let's take Hydro for an example.

Let's look at some of the twisting and turning that we've seen from members opposite on the issue of Hydro and where it puts them today in regard to public opinion. You know in the 1960s the Conservatives were the party of Hydro development. lt's hard to believe as we listen to speech after speech from members opposite today that the Roblin Government and previous to that the Campbell administration, the Liberal admin istration, pion eered Hydro development in this province.

That was continued and accelerated by the NDP in the 19 70s, and then, of course, we get to the Lyon Conservative Government, that government which has the most influence on members opposite. We all know what happened when they were in power, Mr. Speake r, in regard to Hydro, absolutely nothing. For four years absolutely nothing happened with Hydro development. But what was the response back then from those members opposite as a government? Their response to the fact that they did nothing was trying to give the appearance that they were going to do something.

That's where the mega projects came in - the maybe mega projects as I would call them; that was where just prior to an election they attempted to make it appear that something was happening with regard to Hydro development. When they first got into opposition, they attempted to criticize this government for not making things happen. They were saying that we would develop mega projects. They were criticizing us for not starting Limestone. I remember the former Leader of the Opposition actually asking us questions with regard to when we would start up Limestone.

But somewhere along the li ne their overall politica l strategy of emphasizing the negative caught up with them. They ended up in a situation where this government put forward maj or in itiativ es in regard to Hydr o development - the NSP sale and the startup of Limestone; and instead of going back to their original roots in the Sixties when they were a party of Hydro development, they adopted the strategy of opposing whatever this government would do. They opposed the NSP sale; they opposed the resumption of Hydro development at the Limestone Hydro Dam. But look what's happening on those issues.

What is happening is that we're moving ahead with that, and all across this province the people of Manitoba are

Monday, 1 April, 1915 saying that that is exactly what we should do. Now, is that iust New Democrats? Is this government hearing only New Democrats say that? No, Mr. Speaker. I would just point, for example, to a recent editorial in The Thompson Citizen, not normally known as being very supportive of the NDP, which said quite clearly that Limestone is needed and it's needed now.

I can point to any number of editorials in other papers, rural and urban; I could point to comments that have been made at public meetings by contractors, by union officials, by members of the general public, all saying that we want Limestone started and we want it started soon. So here we have that situation. But now the Tories are going one step further. Under the dir ection, from what I can see, Mr.

Speaker, of one, Fred Cleverley, they seem to be accepting his advice that they've lost the battle on Limestone, and that they now should oppose the concept of taking revenues from the NSP sale and other Hydro developments and using it for job creation. I would call it, Mr. Speaker, a Heritage Fund type of concept except that in this case it would based not on oil as in Alberta, but on Hydro as in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, if you talk to anyone, if you conduct any opinion poll, you will find that the people of Manitoba support that.

The people of Ma ni toba regardless of their political affiliation support the concept of using revenues from Hydro development for economic development. So there we have another example of where the knee-jerk reaction from members opposite of opposing what this government is doing, is putting them into a minority situation; putting on the wrong side of the issue when it comes to the general public. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think if you look at other issues that they have raised in this Legislature, you will see the same thing. They talk tremendously about the Jobs Fund - they call if a "fraud" fund, Mr.

Speaker - but we all know where they really stand on that issue. When it came to the vote on the Jobs Fund, they voted for it. When it comes to projects in their constituencies from the Jobs Fund, Mr. Speake r, when it comes to the opening ceremonies and the ribbon cuttings, they are there, like bees after honey, Mr. Speaker, because they know that what the Jobs Fund does is good for Manitoba. We have been reminding people that they oppose, at least in words if not actions, and once again they are finding on this important of job creation, that they are on the wrong side of the issue. There are other issues, Mr.

Speaker, which are coming to light again; one which I think is resu rfacing throughout this province is the issue of rent controls. We all know where the people of Manitoba stand on that issue, they ind icated quite clearly in the last election; they favour rent controls. We also know where the Conservatives stand, Mr. Speaker; they are opposed to rent controls. Let's take another issue, Mr. Speaker, that of federal provincial relations. Since we've had a Conservative Government in Ottawa, we've heard nothing but apologies from members opp

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-4-17a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 4th hansardpdf 17a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f5e77d65d6aef0fe1c45340039d0e99b1400f1a1

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