ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wonder if you would canvass the House. I believe there may be a will to waive private members' hour today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private members' hour today? [agreed]

Mr. Ernst: Would you please call, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Bills 28, 25, 12, 31, and then the balance of the bills as listed in the Order Paper.

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS

Bill 28--The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1995

Mr. Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on Bill 28, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1995 (Loi de 1995 modifiant diverses dispositions législatives en matière de fiscalité), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

An Honourable Member: Stand.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to deal with Bill 28 today and put a few comments on the record regarding this bill.

This bill is really a hodgepodge of measures that further illuminate the fact that The Income Tax Act is basically cumbersome and unworkable in this province and this country. Now there are many things wrong with the taxation system in the country and one only has to recognize that 10 percent--did you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that 10 percent of Canadians own 51 percent of the total private wealth of the country and that the richest 20 percent own 70 percent of the wealth of the country? So that means that 80 percent of the people in this country own only 30 percent of the wealth and that is a situation that has developed over the years. That system has developed in large part because of the nature of the tax system that we have developed in this country. It speaks to the point that we have to change the tax system in the country to create a more fair system for the country as a whole.

Now the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns), I think, would agree with me that unequal distributions of wealth in a country are both economically and politically dangerous to a democratic society such as ours. We only have to look at other countries around the world where the tax system is skewed in favour of the wealthy to see very few people controlling most of the wealth of the country and the masses of people controlling very little.

What does a situation like that lead to? Well, the member for Lakeside well knows that a situation like that leads to political unrest, instability and leads to overthrows of governments and violence. We in this country have to work together to try to avoid a situation like that from occurring here over the long haul in 50 years. We have to be mindful that 50 years from now we may not be here, but we want to work today to leave a system that is fair and equitable for the generations that follow us.

I do not believe that any of us in this House would feel satisfied upon retiring from political life knowing that he or she has furthered the cause of political unrest in this country. I think that we want to work together to work for a better system that gives a fairer share or fairer distribution of the country's wealth to all the citizens of the country.

Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have said that the act is unworkable, that over the years it has been amended. It has been amended in the interests of pressure groups. It has been amended in the interests of wealthy people to benefit wealthy people. So what we have is an unworkable hodgepodge of acts, and people do not understand these acts. People in this Legislature in fact, I do not believe, fully understand the implications of The Income Tax Act. If that was the case that people understood it, we would not have armies of accountants and lawyers to sort out the tax rulings for people in the country. The whole system is designed to be so complicated that it is only understood by these armies of accountants and lawyers.

The system is worked by private interests who can lobby the politicians and who can get favourable tax rulings for their particular interest of the day, and then the tax changes they get are interpreted by the accountants. The whole system is just one big circle and at the end of the day favours the people that run the system.

We have said that the public has to have a sense that the system is fair; otherwise they will not accept it. If we expect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the underground economy will disappear, that the underground economy will come aboveground and people will pay their taxes, those people have to understand and have to believe that the system is fair. And they do not believe. They do not believe that the system is fair. That is why we have the underground economy to the extent that we do.

People do not have faith in a system which they believe is fundamentally stacked against them and favours certain groups. All they have to do is read articles in the paper, and I am going to make some reference to some of them, that totally blow any faith that they have in the tax system. Tell me what sort of faith would you have in the tax system, what sort of willingness would you have to pay your taxes when you open the Free Press or the Winnipeg Sun and you look at an article which states that a restaurant chain goes under owing the provincial tax department $400,000, and you find that the minister is making no attempt to collect the money? What sort of faith would you have in a tax system that operates that way?

What sort of faith would you have in a tax system when you open the newspaper and you see an article in the Financial Post which indicates that of two million-plus Canadians who earned more than $50,000 in 1992, 12,120 had enough deductions and credits to end up paying no tax? What sort of faith would you have in the tax system when you find in the same article that, at the highest income level, 36,970 people who made $250,000 or more, 340 of them filed income tax returns which resulted in no net federal or provincial tax? What sort of faith are you to have in a system that operates like that?

* (1540)

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one of the root causes of these stories to be printed year after year has to do with the fact that there are so many deductions allowed in the system, deductions that came about as a result of pressure on the part of interest groups who lobby the politicians at a given time, under given conditions, that allowed them to knuckle under, buckle under and give the interest groups what they wanted in terms of deductions. Then another group comes to the fore. It lobbies, in its own way, for its set of deductions and the government caves in and so it goes, and we have an act then that becomes Swiss cheese. We have a Swiss cheese act that has got tons and tons of loopholes that you could drive a truck through, that would allow these 12,000 people to pay no income tax.

Unless we get a grip on this, unless we come to terms with this problem over the next few years, we are going to see a deterioration in the ability of respect for the tax system, we are going to see a deterioration in the government's ability to collect taxes and we are going to see a deterioration of the country's services. You are going to have what I had said we should try at all costs to avoid at the beginning: that is, a super-rich class and a super-poor class which will lead to trouble that we at this point do not want to even think about. That is something I think that is fundamental.

Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you know, and members in this Legislature know, that over the next 20 years an unprecedented amount of wealth is going to change hands as the older generation dies and passes the wealth on to the newer generation, and governments of all stripes, I believe, realize that the debt load, the debt problems in this country are too overwhelming to be solved by the current system that we have right now. We know that the government, I believe, of Saskatchewan has a plan of a 30-year retirement in the debt. Perhaps, over 30 years, it will be possible to reduce the debt to a sustainable level.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is possible that the levels of debt are just too high. We have a $500-billion-plus federal debt and growing. We have a $6.9-billion general-purpose debt in Manitoba and growing. We have public debt service costs of $647 million in this year. That is larger than some government departments. What I am suggesting here is the problem just may be too big for us to deal with in terms of simply looking at reducing services.

I am not saying that is really the way to go in the first place, but that is what the government is attempting to do through their balanced budget legislation. They are hoping to curb tax increases without referendum. They are attempting to solve the problem by cutting services, and they can get away with that to a certain extent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, fundamentally, the problem, I believe, is going to be solved through a combination of measures. One of them may be the expanded pie, which people hope for, but I think government is going to have to come to grips with the whole idea of succession duties or perhaps some sort of version of a net wealth tax when, over the next 20 years, this unprecedented amount of wealth changes hands and comes to, well, essentially, the younger people of today, the middle-aged people of today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the bill, while it deals, as I said, with a collection of measures, it does not deal with the problem fundamental to the whole system.

Now, one of the observations that I would like to make having to do with, I suppose, the education of people on finances--and it would be a suggestion--is that, in the school system, I think it is a valid argument that children should be taught financial affairs and budgeting and so on because, when people come out of high school, they know their subjects, their maths, their history, geography and so on, but, when it comes to finances, I believe--and I could be wrong, but I believe--that people are largely ignorant and that we learn our financial experiences basically on a trial-and-error basis. It is sort of like a brain surgeon learning his or her craft on a trial-and-error basis, going out and practising with the patients to learn brain surgery.

That is how people learn about finances, unfortunately. It is sad that we see young people getting out of high school and responding to totally irresponsible advertising on the part of the bank, the financial institutions, luring them into debt to buy cars that they perhaps do not need, to take vacations that they perhaps do not need, going into debt to do it. The people find themselves with their future mortgaged at age 17, 18, 19 years old to the extent that they never will get out of this morass. This is just a fundamental problem with the society.

I am not suggesting that we demand that the financial institutions be more responsible in their advertising and that the banks perhaps be a little more responsible in the way they loan their money, but I am suggesting that perhaps it should be an educational process. Perhaps we should be mandating some sort of financial training courses in the public school system so that the people graduating from high school at least have some sort of idea of money management so that we do not have to look at the business and law digest every week and find people in their early twenties declaring bankruptcy and losing faith in the system because they have managed to get themselves into debt to too high a level and had to go bankrupt and cause all sorts of family problems. It is a vicious circle that once the debt is incurred, then families break up and all sorts of other problems occur as a result. So perhaps we have to look at those elements as well.

* (1550)

Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I noticed in the bill the bill makes reference to the health and education tax levy. I have to look at this government and see a certain amount of hypocrisy over there when it comes to a health and education tax levy, because this government, back in 1986, before they were the government, went around the province promising people that they would get rid of the health and education tax levy. That is what they promised. At the end of the day, we still have the health and education tax levy.

So, obviously, they have recognized one of two things: they cannot get rid of it because they need the revenue, or they recognize that it is not such a bad idea after all and, in fact, all they have really done is move the limits. They have moved the threshold up a few times so that fewer and fewer people are actually paying, the smaller businesses are not paying the tax. That is what the NDP government did in its last couple of years as well. It increased the limit.

But here is a government that made considerable political hay talking ceaselessly and endlessly about this terrible--they called it job stifling. They called it all kinds of things. This was a vile tax that these people were going to get rid of and now eight years later--you know, speaking of hypocrisy, I just cannot let this pass. I remember in '86 going door to door and having motorcyclists accost me about the helmet laws and I remember the Conservatives--well, I know there were a few around here--that were actively participating and gleefully egging these people on, suggesting that somehow if you only change the government that these motorcyclists' problems would be solved. Then all of a sudden when the government changed hands, the motorcyclists demonstrations stopped all of a sudden but the helmet law is still here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I had indicated before, this particular bill deals with a number of measures, and I do want to make some comments on the bill relating to the whole question of where Proposition 13-type legislation gets us at the end of the day.

Now, we all know that people in California may in fact be affected by the sun, I am not sure, but there are a lot of ideas that get started in California, and one of them 20 years ago or so was the Proposition 13 in which people willingly walked forward and straitjacketed their government and themselves by mandating that governments could not increase taxes without referenda, and 20 years later we are now seeing in spades the effects of this particular type of legislation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are seeing entire counties going bankrupt in California because the system cannot sustain itself. The services have been cut to the point where they cannot be cut any further, and the local government is out of money.

This government feels that by bringing in balanced budget legislation, which they could have done anytime in the last seven years but did not do--they could have balanced the budget at any time in the last seven years but did not do it. They could have changed the tax system anytime in the last seven years, but they did not do it. They are essentially straitjacketing by passing this legislation, straitjacketing themselves, or certainly straitjacketing the next government that comes into office. I think that the logical extension of this legislation is that services are going to have to be cut. There is no question about it, that the services are going to have to be cut, and there is a limit to how many services can be cut.

The government is going to have to search for new sources of revenue--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

The honourable member is tending to drift a little bit. We are dealing with Bill 28, and I have visited the bill itself and what you are discussing at this time is Bill 2. The honourable member will have an opportunity on Bill 2 to discuss that bill. At this time I would ask you to speak to Bill 28.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am quite aware, as the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) has reminded me at various other points, that there is a wide latitude that is normally given in the debate on these bills. The member knows full well that I have the bill in front of me, that I have the spreadsheets.

You know, I think it is about time that we perhaps dealt with some of the minister's spreadsheets and minister's own words dealing with this bill, because I ask the Deputy Speaker whether he can make any sense, or anybody else for that matter can make any sense out of this statement: Eligible expenditures for the research and development tax credit will include proxy amounts as used for federal income tax purposes. The proxy amount is a simplified method of calculating overhead expenses which qualify as a qualified expenditure for purposes of the federal act. The definition of "eligible expenditure" for provincial purposes will more closely parallel federal legislation.

Now, if anybody understands that, anybody can explain that, if the minister understands it and can explain it, I wish they would come and do it because this is at the heart, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of what I have been talking about today. This is the heart of the whole bill, and the member knows it. The average person cannot be expected to understand this. I am not arguing the merits about whether this is particularly good or bad. I am just saying you cannot understand this.

The tax lawyers will now be visited by each of the companies affected by this for opinions. This is not the way for the tax act to be drawn up. We have to take away all of the exemptions, the loopholes, that are allowing companies, these 12,000 people and all these companies, to walk through, earning tremendous amounts of money without paying tax.

I have more than enough material today to use up my own time and a few others. I want to get to some other examples here of people walking through the tax system. You know, my good friend the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) will certainly appreciate this one.

In 1990, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Finance Minister Paul Martin--now we all know who he is--his company, the CSL Group, made a pretax profit of $19.7 million. Now that is more than Keith Tkachuk. And guess what he paid? Does anybody want to venture a guess as to what he paid of these $19 million?

An Honourable Member: Probably half.

Mr. Maloway: Well, a member says he should have paid half in taxes. The point is that he paid zero. The company paid zero in taxes and not only that, they got tax credits equalling $400,000. So he earned $19.7 million pretax, paid zero in taxes, and on top of that, even that was not enough, got tax credits. Your tax money--the sum of $400,000. Now does that sound like a fair system that has so many loopholes that people are able to walk through?

Now I remember John Rodriguez, a former Member of Parliament, used to use his corporate welfare bum of the week example. He would stretch a story out like this for a number of weeks. But I will save the members waiting around for four or five weeks. We do not have four or five weeks.

So I am going to give the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh), who probably needs the lesson as much as anybody over there, the information today so she can digest it and think about it a little bit.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, did you know that in 1992 the Royal Bank made a profit of over $63 million? And they paid how much in tax? Zero. Just like Paul Martin's company. A Royal Bank teller in B.C. earning $25,000 paid $5,732. More than the bank.

Now the Liberal party, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), the member of the Liberal party, I think would agree with me that he would never see $63 million in his lifetime nor will most of us here. Even he should rise up and do the right thing for his constituents in Inkster and demand that Finance Minister Mr. Paul Martin pay his fair share of taxes, that his companies pay their fair share of taxes regardless of loopholes. This man is the Finance minister of the country, has the ability to close the tax loopholes, so that companies will pay their fair share, and the problems of the country will not be solved unless this is done. I am sure the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) understands that. I am sure the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) understands that, that the problems in the country will only get worse as long as big companies can walk away, literally walk away from their tax obligations.

* (1600)

Between 1961 and 1992, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the percentage of tax dollars that the government received from individuals jumped from 32 up to 48 percent, and during that same period the percentage of revenue from corporations went from 21 percent to seven.

Point of Order

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wonder if the member would be willing to entertain a question as to the extent of information he would like to put on the record.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister does not have a point of order. It is up to the member if he wishes to take a question at this time, and the House would have to give leave for the honourable minister to pose that question, so that she did not lose her standing on the bill.

* * *

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have had numerous requests over the last nine and a half years for questions, usually from the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns). Nobody has managed to catch me yet on any questions. I will tell the member at this point that if there is time left at the end of my time, I certainly will happily take questions from her.

This whole bill is about loopholes to the tax system. It is about giving concessions to the member for Assiniboia's (Mrs. McIntosh) friends in the private sector, those tax avoidance experts, her friends, her supporters, those loads of companies who donated to the Tory party and their campaigns in the last election--

Point of Order

Hon. Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): I wonder if the member is aware of the concessions given the Canadian Autoworkers Association for their $49,000 donation to the Manitoba New Democratic Party in the past election or the concessions given--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member did not have a point of order.

An Honourable Member: He does not know what he got, but he knows what I got, and that is very interesting.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable government minister did not have a point of order.

Point of Order

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I would ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when this kind of abuse of the time of this Chamber takes place that you cut the member off, that that is nonsense. That is no point of order. That was engaged in free-style debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order. We have clearly got a dispute over the facts between the honourable members on both sides of the House.

* * *

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Deputy Speaker, well, you know, it is obvious to me that the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh) would not get herself into so much trouble if she did not have such a thin skin. In the political life that we are in, one learns to develop a thick skin in this business, and people with thin skins--

Point of Order

Mr. Pallister: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe that the member for Elmwood, with all due respect, should withdraw his personal attacks on the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh), and I ask you to consider the comments that he has just made in view of Beauchesne's interpretation of what is and what is not parliamentary in this House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Exactly what the honourable member is referring to I am not aware of. I was having a little bit of trouble hearing what the honourable member was saying because of some of the disruption in the Chamber at the time, but I will take the matter under advice and report back to the House at a later time.

* * *

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you know, the member for Assiniboia is very sensitive over there. We are talking about loopholes to the tax system, loopholes that she and her government create for--

Point of Order

Mrs. McIntosh: Specifically, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the member is revising history. Specifically before, he said that my friends were given tax loopholes by me, and I would like clarification, which friends, which loopholes, by me, when.

I would like that clarification or a complete withdrawal with an apology. I want names, dates, places, and I want it now, or I want a withdrawal, and I do not want revisionist history that he now changes into me and my government create loopholes for a generic group of people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I have already taken that matter under advisement. I will review Hansard and I will get back to the House.

* * *

Mr. Maloway: The fact is, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Bill 28 just continues on the same path, that this government, her government, Conservative governments of her stripe--she is a member of this government--promote loopholes which benefit their friends and their supporters, their friends and supporters who give them their donations to run their campaigns, to keep the playing field--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am having great difficulty hearing the honourable member for Elmwood, and I ask all members to choose and pick their words very carefully so as not to provoke any more debate than we actually have to have, other than what we are dealing with and that is Bill 28.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I really do not want to provoke the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh). I can provoke the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) and Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), and do, and they do the same to me, and we have no problem. We have been going on for years this way, but the member for Assiniboia, on the other hand, seems to react rather quickly to comments--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I have advised the honourable member for Elmwood to please refrain from directing references to other members at this time. Let us deal with Bill 28 which is before us at this time.

The honourable member for Elmwood, to continue.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Deputy Speaker, all I was saying was I was commenting in reference to comments that were made to me from my seat. If they were not made, I would not have made the comments.

I want to deal with Bill 28, once again, the promotion of loopholes that companies use that are supporters of that party in power, and reference is made to the election donations and so on of the parties. It is very clear to me that the perpetuation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of this system is done by governments, like the one across the way, who owe their allegiance to the people who pay their bills. It is as simple as that.

Now, why get upset about that? It is the truth; accept it. But what I am saying is that is not necessarily the proper attitude to have, the proper attitude and the proper approach for the good of the country, and members over there know that. They know that if you skew the tax system too much, in favour of the rich too much, what you are going to have is anarchy in the streets. That is all we are saying, and we want to avoid that. [interjection]

Well, the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) is concerned about increased taxation, and the argument will be that companies will go somewhere else. Well, if you follow his trickle-down theory, his race to the bottom approach to life, then all companies will be in a no-tax--you know, in the tax havens, in the Caribbean. You cannot sustain a system that gives tax loopholes continually to wealthy friends of Conservative governments, both here and across the country, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that is straightforward. [interjection]

* (1610)

Well, you know, the member is now talking about big money from unions, and the NDP does get donations from unions. There is nothing wrong with that. The point is, the Conservative government that bends like a pretzel to the Chamber of Commerce and draws up the rules the way the Chamber of Commerce wants them drawn up, that is the big menace in this society, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is the absolute hijacking of the tax system by a few powerful corporations and company people, and the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party are merely pawns. They are merely puppets, acting on the instructions of their controllers in the boardrooms, and the member knows it. The member knows full well what I am talking about. All I am asking is that she be reasonable and simply admit it, that, yes, we are puppets of the corporate establishment.

I mean, how else, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can we explain Paul Martin and his company making $19 million and paying no income tax? How else could you explain that unless you could explain that the tax system is designed by the very people who benefit by the tax system that is drawn?

That is all we are saying, that in 1992, Mr. Deputy Speaker, 93,405 profitable corporations paid no income tax at all on $27 billion in profits. Yet this government is prepared to tell the working-class people in Elmwood that they have to pay their fair share of tax and they are supposed to have respect for the system. They are supposed to have respect for the system when they see what Paul Martin's company paid in taxes and they see what they paid on their very small incomes. They are supposed to have respect for the tax system and then they see that companies that run amuck and run aground in this province do not pay the PST and this government lets them off. This government lets them off. Clancy's Ventures owes $400-and-some thousand in PST, and that is just one example, and this government does nothing, will do nothing to collect this money.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired. The honourable member for Inkster, to continue.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is actually with pleasure I can stand up and rise to speak to Bill 28 and add a few words. I always enjoy listening to the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). He has this way of ensuring that everyone is--at least he attempts to put them in their place and at times exaggerates somewhat.

If you listen to the member for Elmwood, you might be of the opinion that, in particular, the Liberal Party--and I am a bit sensitive on that particular issue--being in the pockets of corporations or something of that nature, and he points out to a piece of paper that says, it says it right here. Well, it also says right here--and this is an annual report of the Chief Electoral Office in which the New Democratic Party does actually exceptionally well when you look at contributions from unions, $18,000 here at the UFCW Local 832, U.S.--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would like to advise the honourable member we are not dealing with The Elections Act at this time. We are dealing with an act which deals with taxation. It is Bill 28, and I would ask the honourable member to be relevant.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Speaker, not wanting to reflect of course on the ruling, but all of these donations and many, many more that the unions have donated, in fact, are tax credits. When the member talks about inequities and how money is taken away, this is one of the areas in which the New Democrats have absolutely no problem at all of taking away money from the working person and they have demonstrated that.

So, ultimately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, yes, there are many different forms of tax loopholes that are out there, but I take exception to the member for Elmwood trying to give the impression that it is the Liberals or it is just the Conservatives when this is in fact a party if there is ever a party that is in a political pocket of an interest group, it is in fact this party.

Bill 28--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I have reminded the honourable member once already that we are dealing with Bill 28. I have allowed the honourable member a few extra minutes, so I could carefully listen to where he was headed, and I still have not found him heading in the direction of Bill 28. So I would ask him to carry forward.

Mr. Lamoureux: Bill 28--

Mr. Chairperson: There.

Mr. Lamoureux: --every so often you are supposed to make reference to the number, I am told--provides for an extension of the manufacturing tax credit, changes The Income Tax Act to more closely parallel federal legislation in the area of proxy amounts, a method of calculating overhead costs which qualify as deductions for research and development, a credit based on unused dividend tax credits of mutual funds trust is created, sales tax rebates for the first-time buyers of new homes, bad debt allowances to forgive taxes on bad debts, several new or expanded exemptions from sales tax, simplification of sales tax collection and processing for used vehicle sales, exemption from fuel taxes for cargo component of intercontinental passenger flights, exemptions from land transfer tax on the transfer of land for the benefit for an Indian band, amendments to allow the taxpayer to appeal an assessment or a reassessment to the Tax Appeal Commission.

These are all aspects, if you like, of Bill 28, but the principle of the bill talks about tax and what is fair. The member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) made reference to the importance of how he perceives taxes collected in areas in which it is not being collected. I guess, in just listening to the remarks, because there was a considerable amount of heckling that was going on during that particular speech, that it is important that we all realize that, yes, there is a need for change, and this is why we see a bill of this nature in front of us. We need to see, through evolution, hopefully, we will see, and hopefully it will not be too long of a period of evolution, taxation policies that are more fair to all Canadians. We all attempt to strive for that.

Why is that important? And why is it that we would want to see this particular bill go into committee? Well, there are different ways in which we finance the many different programs that are out there: through taxation, through deficits in many cases and through other forms of revenue. With respect to the taxation, people want to feel that the money that they are contributing towards taxes is, in fact, being utilized to its fullest degree.

Over the last couple of weeks, to give a specific example, we have a government that has been talking a lot about the emergency health care services. We have to take a look at what tax dollars we have and what sort of services that we can provide. There are certain areas in which we would agree and there are certain areas in which we would not agree. I want to use, for example, the emergency services as a specific example. Here we have an envelope, if you will, in health care in which tax dollars are brought in and we spend over one and a half billion dollars on expenditures, and we would question in terms of why it is government would be allocating some tax dollars towards one service and not towards the other service.

* (1620)

That, for example, is the reason why I brought up last week to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) why it was so very important that we preserve the emergency services in our seven community hospitals, Mr. Deputy Speaker, something which we believe very firmly in.

Obviously, the Premier and Minister of Health take a look at those tax dollars and say, we believe the priorities need to be elsewhere. So it is a question of establishing priorities in the many different government programs that are out there. But, when it comes to coming up or providing the financial resources in order to implement those programs, we have to evaluate on an ongoing basis.

We have seen The Statute Law Amendment Act in different forms in previous sessions where there are in some areas significant modifications; in other areas, it is somewhat mild or a modification that does have somewhat of an impact but relatively a minor one. There is no doubt I would like to see much more in terms of tax, changes in the way in which we collect our taxes.

I have stood up on so many occasions inside this Chamber and talked about the property tax and the school portion of the property tax, and how it is that we should be attempting to shift more of that school tax, property tax, if you like, onto the general revenue side. Maybe if we approached in a more aggressive way tax reform, we would be able to facilitate that change much more quickly. Because there are many different forms of taxation, some of them are much more progressive than other forms of taxation. Ultimately, one of the more regressive taxations that is out there is, in fact, the property tax. A more progressive tax would be, in fact, our income tax.

The member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) makes reference to loopholes. Yes, there are loopholes, and there are big-time loopholes. It is not just the multimillionaire, if you like, that takes advantages of loopholes; there are loopholes in taxation law that individuals of almost every economic strata will attempt to take advantage of. Ultimately, the biggest winner, in my opinion, in many cases is, in fact, the accountants and the H & R Blocks and these organizations.

I would like to see a tax form in which the average person with a Grade 12 education can actually sit down and fill it out and make a submission and not have to worry about, well, gee, did I fill it out properly? You know, I have assisted or had discussions with people that I represent. One of the concerns that they have is that, look, if I do not go to H & R, or if I do not have an accountant, I could be losing out more money than if I would have had H & R and they might have found some little loophole in there that I could take advantage of that would have paid for the actual cost and given a further enhancement on my tax refund.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that over the years there have been some changes to try to simplify them, but we need to go a significant distance yet in order to try to put people, the public, as I say, the ideal, the average individual that has that Grade 12 diploma to be able to make them feel comfortable that they are not losing out on monies that they could be receiving by not bringing it to H & R, by allowing them themselves, or him or her, to fill out their own tax forms.

There are other forms of taxation that frustrate. We talk about the GST. We talk about the PST. In fact the GST--and I was here when the GST was being introduced and remember quite vividly the uproar that was out in the public, in the communities. In fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I actually had petition cards that were circulated in my area and received just an overwhelming response.

You know, it is interesting when you compare, let us say, the GST to the PST, the provincial sales tax compared to the goods and services tax. You will find in many ways that the GST is more of a progressive tax than the provincial sales tax, yet we parliamentarians want to say let us get rid of the GST. Ultimately, I would love to be able to see us get rid of the GST, but equally it would be nice to get rid of the provincial sales tax too.

Ultimately what is needed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is there has to be some sort of a rationalization of the way in which we collect our taxes, and, you know, I expect and I wait, I will have my fingers crossed, the federal government did make a commitment to replace the GST. Many would argue that they made the commitment to abolish it, and I have read in the past the actual red book commitment in terms of replacing. I believe the intent was to try to attempt to make it more of a harmonized, a fairer tax. Now what seems to be coming out of the national government regarding this tax is some form of a value-added tax which would include or incorporate the provincial PST. You know, I do not want to be premature in making any sort of statements that might not be happening, but I do believe that this whole area of discussion has been lacking, in terms of inside this Chamber.

In fact, I recall the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) when he made reference in private members' hour to how wonderful it would be to have a resolution in which everyone can just kind of speak their minds and not have to worry about the political repercussions of doing that. One member says: maybe on another day. Well, it sure would be interesting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to try to get individual members' opinions on some form of a harmonized value-added tax, or whatever one might want to call it, in which the PST and the GST are no more. I think that sort of a discussion would in fact be most interesting.

No political party can come out shining on this particular issue. Ultimately, the New Democrats might argue that the Conservatives brought in the PST in the province of Manitoba, but then I could argue, or the Conservatives could argue, that the New Democrats increased the PST on a couple of occasions, thereby also reinforcing that they believe in a sales tax.

I bring it up primarily because when we talk about income tax or property tax or sales tax or consumption taxes, if you like, we have to acknowledge that there is a need for change. This Bill 28 does not significantly change the ways in which we are going to be collecting taxes. When I say significantly, it could be a relatively large sum of dollars, and no doubt there is a certain amount of equity that it will be bringing in and so forth. But in the broader picture of overall reform of taxation it really does not go far enough from my personal perspective.

Hopefully, in time, what we will see is a broader debate on taxation policy. I know that the Estimates do provide us that opportunity to exchange thoughts and ideas on different forms of taxation because I have only alluded to a few of them. There are many others. One that comes to mind, of course, is other consumption taxes, whether it is your gasoline tax or your tobacco tax. Your tobacco tax in particular has been a very controversial one over recent years because of the way in which the federal government was trying to address the smuggling issue.

* (1630)

But again it was an issue which proved to be very interesting when it came right down to the impact on the province of Manitoba. When you try to take the politics away from it, as I believe we did in committee one day with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), the Minister of Finance indicated the impact on Manitoba was almost insignificant. That is in essence what the Minister of Finance was trying to imply. The following day the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) tried to imply that it was actually very significant.

It proves, or at least it demonstrates, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, yes, there is a lot of politics played when it comes to taxation and the way in which government generates its funds.

With those few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we do not have any problem in terms of seeing Bill 28 going to committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

Bill 25--The Real Property Amendment Act

Mr. Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Attorney General and Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), Bill 25, The Real Property Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les biens réels), standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).

Is there leave that this matter remain standing? No.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I believe the member for Burrows had turned this for me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

This bill certainly at first appears innocuous, and the minister described this bill as dealing with the correction of typos and improving consistency and allowing for administrative efficiency. As well, she said that the bill addressed more technical aspects of the act, but as my comments will bear out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it appears that the legislation signifies something greater than that, and I will get to that later in my comments. [interjection] I am going to leave you hanging.

First of all, the bill recognizes the changes to government services as a result of what has become known as Filmon Fridays, and what it does is it loosens up the requirement on the Land Titles Office to remain open on a consistent basis with regular hours. I think this is an example of how Filmon Fridays has affected the public services provided by government at the provincial level.

Land transactions take place every day, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and land transactions cannot stop simply because of different arrangements for employees, and as a result of closure on certain Fridays of the year. We have a concern that the turnaround time for the closing of transactions are affected by Filmon Fridays, and I will pursue this matter further in committee with the minister to determine the number of complaints, if any, and I do not know how extensive the complaints are right now, and, as well, we will also be looking to see what the turnaround time is currently at the Land Titles Office.

I know there have been some delays that have been suffered due to the computerization of the titles. Whether that has been worked out now, I do not know, but we would like to know whether the Filmon Fridays have resulted in problems and extensive delays, particularly in the later weeks of summer.

Second of all, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the bill does something that we certainly support, and that is to put the liability for sloppily prepared documents on those who prepared the documents. In particular, the Land Titles Office is relieved of any liability to pay compensation where errors are made by the lender to the name or the serial number on the standard-charge mortgage terms and also relieves the Land Titles Office of liability where the standard charge mortgage terms are not even filed. That amendment only appears to affect lenders. It says that the problems are those of the lawyers for the lenders and not that of the Land Titles Office and the general public of Manitoba. We support that change. We think it is common sense, and I am not aware at this time of any other thinking on that.

The third area dealt with in the bill is to remove the requirement that notices given under the act be published in the Manitoba Gazette. I think this raises the whole question of what is the future role for the Manitoba Gazette. It raises a question about its relevance and whether government is committed to maintaining that official publication of government. By withdrawing its support for the Gazette in this particular instance, is the government spelling the end of that publication? I do not know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we will want to pursue that issue with the minister. I understand that it has become practice that notices are not always published in the Manitoba Gazette and that causes some concern.

I now want to deal with what I see as the main issue in this bill. Essentially, it is twofold. The bill removes the obligation to file a plan of survey when there is an easement filed in the Land Titles Office. What it does, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it instead enables the deputy registrar to require a plan of survey but only where the deputy registrar is of the opinion that the easement is not sufficiently defined on any registered plan. This gives a great deal of discretion to the deputy registrar and it gives that discretion without anything but a very vague guideline to the deputy registrar.

What is the meaning to the landowner and to the public, Mr. Deputy Speaker? We have to always ask that question. We have to get beyond the legalese and beyond the concept to see how this may affect ordinary Manitobans.

* (1640)

The bill says that where an easement is registered no longer must you file a survey plan. The survey plans show exactly where a utility cable, for example, is buried. It will indicate for the homeowner and for anyone else where Manitoba Telephone lines are buried, where Manitoba Hydro lines are buried.

We are aware of many instances where not only have people been injured--and I am sure there has been loss of life--but where utility services for an area have gone out because of interference with a utility line. I think more recently we have seen difficulties in the city of Winnipeg regarding the gas lines. We have seen a real effort on the part of some utilities to educate the public and convince them to call before you dig. I think that is the term that is used. Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are currently in many homes, plans of survey which show where easements have been granted and where utilities are buried. All the caveat on a title will show is that there is in fact an easement, whether by MTS or Hydro or another utility, and usually there is no detailed description. Sometimes there may be a sketch.

So that leads me to the second part of my concern here. I looked at the minister's comments on second reading where she said, "This amendment will provide improved protection for the public by facilitating registration of utility easement agreements which disclose the location of utility installations such as telephone, power or gas lines which are often underground." She went on to say, "The implementation of these amendments to The Real Property Act do not represent any additional cost to government and will reduce costs associated with utility easements." The minister is purporting to convince Manitobans and this Chamber that these amendments will improve protections to the public. What in fact they do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is they remove a protection to the public, the protection being the detailed plan of survey of buried utility lines.

I do not know if the minister had a hand in preparing the notes. I suspect that the notes for this bill and this type of bill are prepared by staff, but this raises an issue that goes way beyond this bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It raises an issue again of the credibility of this government. It raises an issue once again of how this government cannot wait to engage in every opportunity even when dealing with relatively technical matters like The Real Property Act amendments, to engage in public relations exercises and to say things which do not bear out. Now one thing that does appear accurate, by eliminating the need or the requirement for filing plans of survey, costs will be reduced and they will be reduced to the utilities.

I wonder where the demand for this legislation came from. Was it from the Manitoba Telephone System? Did MTS come to this government and say, hey, reduce our costs; do not require us to always file surveys and the detailed descriptions of where our lines are buried; do not do that, and do not do it because that will save us money?

Well, there may be some money in the short term saved for MTS, or for any other utility for that matter, but what are the real costs to the community? What is the effect on the greater good if you are removing this requirement? Where can it be shown that these amendments will improve protection for the public? I do not see that borne out whatsoever. All I see here, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the removal of protections and a protection which could make all the difference between life or death.

Why is it that even in such technical legislation the government has to come in and give a bunch of baloney? It makes no sense to those on this side of the House. I can see the government where it has major policy initiatives that it wants to fool Manitobans about, and we have seen enough of those lately, to get out there and engage in public relations stunts, but now it has drifted down even to the level of the technical bills before this House. What it says to me, as a relatively new member in this Chamber, is there should not be one piece of legislation that is not thoroughly reviewed. There should not be one piece of legislation that should not be passed out in the general community or to those that have expertise or interest in a bill because the credibility of this government now extends even to the more mundane.

We have seen, particularly from the Department of Justice, the public relations stunts over the last couple of years. I think that the nine-point plan on youth crime is a real doozie. It was a promise a year and a half ago that nine initiatives would be undertaken, and we have seen now, a year and a half later, how six of those initiatives have still to be put in place. Only three out of the nine have been fulfilled or are now in place, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have seen two councils promised: the youth advisory council on youth crime, as well as a provincial council on youth crime promised. There is nothing there, but I will go so far as to say, and I think this is where the real PR stunt is exhibited, that the provincial council on youth crime is actually one part-time volunteer. We see underneath, when you scratch, near-tokenism, if there is any action at all.

Today we raised the issue of the reporting of defaulters to the credit bureau. The minister got up just two weeks ago and she said to this Chamber, do not worry about the lack of proclamation of most of the sections of the bill because the provisions regarding the credit bureau came into force on Royal Assent. And she says, and I quote, that has a really great effect, current tense, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

She wanted Manitobans to believe that people were now being reported to the credit bureau, not only that but it had a really great effect. But not one person had been reported to the credit bureau when she made those comments, not one person, and in fact not one person was reported until after we raised the question about the maintenance enforcement amendments in this Legislature. I think that is sad that we have to have, we have to stomach in this province a government that will resort to cheap stunts like this, that has to completely abandon its responsibility both as a moral force and as a tool for action and betterment of the community.

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have gone from nine-point plans and amendments to The Maintenance Enforcement Act. Oh, we have had boot camps and it was so sad to attend a meeting the other day of the minister's staff and seeing them so embarrassed--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. Johns is debating Bill 25, The Real Property Amendment Act, at this time. I would ask him to be relevant to the bill.

* (1650)

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can understand why you thought I might be straying, but what is very important here and the principle on this bill is the misinformation that is contained in the minister's remarks when she described what this bill is purporting to do, and it is that issue that is critical to this House. It is that issue, of the lack of credibility of this government and the minister and her department which are at issue now. It goes way beyond the amendments to The Real Property Act or what the Land Titles Office does or who files just a plan of survey or an easement or any of those issues. We are talking here about how a government has stooped so low that it now goes into The Real Property Act amendments. It goes into it in a way which does not do any service for elected legislators.

Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if the minister wishes Manitobans to believe that the changes will improve the protection for the public, she should be considering requiring plans of survey to always be filed, and I will pursue that with the minister in committee. If that is her intent, then we will hold her to that.

We will also be asking the minister to tell us why these amendments were brought in. Where did the pressure come from? What is the problem with the current regime that required her department and Legislative Counsel to go through all of the rigmarole that is needed in order to bring legislation into this Chamber. What great pitfall is there in the current regime, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

So with those comments and those concerns, we will allow this to go to the standing committee. As you know, we have a serious reservation about the changes to the requirement for filing plans of survey, and we look forward to the presentations. I hope there will be presentations there on this issue, and I will look forward to hearing the answers from the minister, but, at this time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are prepared to let the bill go to committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Bill 12--The Louis Riel Institute Act

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister responsible for Native Affairs (Mr. Praznik), Bill 12, The Louis Riel Institute Act (Loi sur l'Institut Louis Riel), standing in the name of the honourable member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), who has 27 minutes remaining. It is also standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).

Is there leave that this matter remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows? Leave? [agreed]

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to carry on where I left off two days ago, when we made some remarks about the Louis Riel Institute. There are some questions that we have that, I am sure, will be addressed at a later time in committee. I believe I left off with: Will this institute credit be recognized with other institutions? As well, we would like to ask--and this will come up in committee, I am sure, under Section 5(g)--what kind of agreements? Another matter we will like to pursue is: Will the mandate of the institute focus specifically on Metis contributions, issues and so on, or will it encompass First Nations and Inuit, thus carrying on with separate arrangements according to status?

I was most pleased with the remarks made by the Governor General yesterday in this House with respect to the realities that were faced in this province concerning the very real problems. Certainly Metis people are also experiencing the whole illness of child poverty and the other issues that the Governor General raised yesterday, and certainly his recognition of the role of the Metis people was truly appreciated in the remarks that he made in this House yesterday, and also the recognition that the Governor General made of Louis Riel.

Quoting from a book called The Ojibwa of Berens River, Manitoba, by A. Irving Hallowell, edited by Jennifer S.H. Brown, in his book, he said that, when the Manitoba Legislature first met in 1871, it was composed of men typical of the new frontier. Moccasins could be seen on the feet. The Cree and the French languages mingled with English, and rough suits, bright shirts and gay sashes were à la mode. In 1881, the population of the province had increased by 40,000, as a steady influx of settlers, mainly Ontario British, arrived to take up homesteads under the Dominion Lands act of 1872. In the same year, 1881, the eastern and western boundaries were extended to include all the new settlements that had sprung up, and the northern boundary was advanced to 53 degrees north of latitude, which included the mouth of the Berens River.

In 1912, the boundaries of Manitoba were expanded further north to reach Hudson Bay and to encompass the 251,000 square miles of land and water that is seen on modern maps now.

This is something that I believe we can only imagine in our own minds, as to how the Manitoba Legislature first looked when they first met here back in 1871.

The point I am trying to make is the unique language that the Metis people have come up with, which we commonly refer to as Michif, which is a mixture of the French, the Cree and Ojibway languages.

We believe that the institute is unique to the advancement of cultural awareness amongst nonaboriginal populations in Manitoba. We respect the government's acknowledgement and appreciation of the contributions of aboriginal people of Manitoba.

We believe it strengthens the movement toward aboriginal self-government in Manitoba, since "aboriginal" encompasses Metis, Indian and Inuit people. We believe it will enhance the historical, cultural, educational, linguistic qualities of eventual aboriginal governments once autonomy is achieved.

Metis people's lives have somewhat improved in this province, but conditions are far from being perfect in many, many Metis communities throughout this province, and work is carrying on. There was one time that Metis people were not acknowledged. If I can refer back to my earlier remarks about Metis people being the forgotten people, in fact, they were the forgotten people in this province at one time, and most particularly were the ones that lived next door to First Nations communities in years gone by.

I had the opportunity of witnessing that firsthand. They are now recognized under the Canadian Constitution of 1982. We believe and support any achievements and the aspirations of the Metis people of this province.

As a First Nations person, we regard the Metis people as our relatives, and together with the Inuits we are the aboriginal people of this province.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will be the last one on behalf of our party to be speaking on this. We are prepared to now move this into committee stage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

When I had previously canvassed the House, someone had said yes to leaving it stand in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).

Is there leave that this matter not remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows? Agreed? It is agreed? Agreed.

Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? It is agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I believe that you may find that there is a will of the House to call it six o'clock.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it six o'clock? [agreed]

The hour being 6 p.m., this House now stands adjourned until tomorrow morning (Friday) at ten o'clock.