LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Friday, April 22, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Curran Contract Cancellation and
Pharmacare and Home Care Reinstatement
Mr. Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Ms.
Barrett). It complies with the
privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
An Honourable Member:
Yes.
Mr. Speaker:
The Clerk will read.
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
the Manitoba government has repeatedly broken promises to support the
Pharmacare program and has in fact cut benefits and increased deductibles far
above the inflation rate; and
WHEREAS
the Pharmacare program was brought in by the NDP as a preventative program
which keeps people out of costly hospital beds and institutions; and
WHEREAS
rather than cutting benefits and increasing deductibles the provincial
government should be demanding the federal government cancel recent cuts to
generic drugs that occurred under the Drug Patent Act; and
WHEREAS
at the same time
WHEREAS
the
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly urge the Premier to
personally step in and order the cancellation of the Connie Curran contract and
consider cancelling the recent cuts to the Pharmacare and Home Care programs.
Mr. Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr.
Martindale). It complies with the
privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
Some Honourable Members:
Dispense.
Mr. Speaker:
Dispense.
The petition of the undersigned
citizens of the
WHEREAS the Manitoba government has
repeatedly broken promises to support the Pharmacare program and has in fact
cut benefits and increased deductibles far above the inflation rate; and
WHEREAS the Pharmacare program was
brought in by the NDP as a preventative program which keeps people out of
costly hospital beds and institutions; and
WHEREAS rather than cutting benefits
and increasing deductibles the provincial government should be demanding the
federal government cancel recent cuts to generic drugs that occurred under the
Drug Patent Act; and
WHEREAS at the same time
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly
pray that the Legislative Assembly urge the Premier to personally step in and
order the cancellation of the Connie Curran contract; and consider cancelling
the recent cuts to the Pharmacare and Home Care programs.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker:
Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable
members to the gallery to my left where we have with us this morning Mr. Parker
Burrell, the former MLA for
On
behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this
morning, sir.
Also
with us this morning we have, from the
On
behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this
morning.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Victims' Assistance Program
Funding Reduction
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, there has been a considerable
discrepancy between the words of this government dealing with justice issues
and the actions of this government.
The
Victims' Assistance program is a program that symbolizes, in a very small way,
our commitment to those people that are unfortunately victims of crimes. Many people in our society are saying there
is too little balance between those who are committing the crimes and between
those who are victims of the crimes.
I
would like to ask this government why they have cut the Victims' Assistance
program in this year's budget and why they have demonstrated this cut at a time
when people are crying out for support for victims in our
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, this
government is paying a great deal of attention to the concerns of victims. Certainly in our initiatives in relating to youth
crime and also domestic violence, we are looking very strongly to support the
concerns of victims.
The
Victims' Assistance funding and programs within this budget does fund four
programs. I am not sure if the member is
aware of the four programs. We fund a
women's advocacy program. We fund the
child witness support program, the Criminal Injuries Compensation program, the
Victim Witness Assistance program, and we also have a fund in which we provide
grants for the community.
We
continue our commitment, and in fact my department continues to take a more and
more active role in terms of the support of victims within this province.
Mr. Doer:
Mr. Speaker, of course, we know that crime prevention programs were cut
by $100,000 a couple of years ago by this government. We know that Victims' Assistance programs are
down again under all the categories.
* (1005)
Department of Justice
Corrections Initiatives
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): I have a further question to the Minister of
Justice.
Since
1989, violent youth crime has increased by 58 percent. The youth corrections funding has gone down
in 1993 by 4.3 percent, and Corrections overall is about zero percent increase. We have a major increase in people committing
the crimes but yet no increase in commitment from this government to deal with
those people that are accused of crimes that are disposed of committing those
crimes.
I
would like to know why this government is saying one thing about getting tough
on crime and doing something else in terms of the resources they are putting
in. Could they not have taken some of
the tax breaks they had for business and put those into a real effective fight
on dealing with youth crime in our society?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to have the opportunity to speak about our efforts in Corrections
and our efforts to fight crime in this province.
Let
me start with the issues around youth crime, the nine‑point plan that
this government released to deal with youth crime and violence. That nine‑point plan deals with the
prevention end. It also deals with
community support, youth justice committees.
It also deals with Corrections.
It deals with initiatives in relation to the federal government. It deals with councils of experts to be
available to assist the citizens of
In
the area of Corrections, the area of administration, as all areas of government
have, we have looked at reductions in the area of administration. I will remind the member that we have major
initiatives in the area of Corrections, particularly in the youth area, where
we are moving towards the wilderness camp model and a more rigorous confinement
of all people within our institutions in
Mr. Doer:
Mr. Speaker, I would invite the Premier to read the nine‑point
plan and look at the budget and see where the appropriate funding is in terms
of antiviolence programs in schools. Many
of the other programs in the plan are not reflected in the budget.
Provincial Courts
Backlogs
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): One of the areas that is not reflected in the
budget is, of course, the whole issue of the backlog in the courts. Justice delayed is justice denied. We have cited, and our Justice critic has
cited, on a number of occasions the backlogs of 11 and 12 months. We are hearing of cases being disposed of up
to two years after the initial allegations are made in our youth courts. For young people, immediate consequences are
fairly significant as a factor in our justice system.
The
court services have been reduced by this government, creating the backlog by
3.4 percent in '93 and '94, and this year they have increased funding .8
percent, less than 1 percent. We will
not even be funding our court services equal to two years ago.
I
would ask the government how this inadequate funding and inadequate priority
are going to deal with the backlog in our court system and start getting us
more immediate justice in our communities.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Justice and Attorney General): I am very happy to
speak about our court system also because the member has continually quoted
dates and periods of time which are inaccurate.
I can say to the member that the courts across this province are
functioning very well, that the one court in which we are looking at ways to
deal with the backlog is the
I
would remind that member that it was this government that showed the commitment
to the victims of domestic violence and to the issues of domestic violence in
the setting up of that court.
We
now have named a new chief provincial court judge, and I am working very
closely with the new chief judge to look at the operations of the courts. We are looking continually at ways to make
the whole system the most efficient system that it can be.
* (1010)
Bill 22
Health Care System
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
My question is for the Premier.
The
Premier stated publicly, Mr. Speaker, and I quote: The effects of Bill 22 only apply to the
administration, and we are not talking about patient care people.
It
is clear that the overall hammer effect of the government's imposition of Bill
22 will see a reduction in some patient services and probably personnel.
My
question to the Premier is: Why has the
government ordered Bill 22 be imposed at health care institutions and nursing
homes who have already seen their budgets reduced by over $58 million in the last
two years alone?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
As we have indicated, the intention is to try and ensure that we apply
Bill 22 equally across the province. The
nurses' union voluntarily took a minus 2 percent in their contractual
settlement. The intent is to have the
same kind of application available to other personnel working within all of our
areas of government, and so they apply in Crown corporations. So they apply to agencies that receive their
funding from government, and it is the equal application, Mr. Speaker.
It
need not reduce services as long as people are prepared to ensure that they
live within the means that are available to them and that all personnel take
that kind of approach that the nurses took and share the burden of living within
the available dollars that we have.
That, to us, was the preferable approach.
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Speaker, I think the patients of
My
supplementary to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, is:
Why is the government forcing places like
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Speaker, the way in which New Democratic administrations are sharing
this burden is to close 52 hospitals in rural Saskatchewan, to close hundreds
of beds as well as a major urban hospital in Vancouver‑‑that is how
British Columbia is sharing it‑‑to close 3,500 beds in
Ontario. That is how NDP Ontario is
sharing the burden. We think it is
preferable to have the staff work co‑operatively with the government to
maintain the services by accepting a reduction in their own pay packets as part
of the process of trying to maintain the quality health care system that we
have in
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the Premier.
I
will table copies of a letter from a hospital administrator which says, and I
quote: " . . . implementation of
Bill 22 will mean we have no option but to replace almost 100% of the staff
affected. We are unable to impose Bill
22 in a cost effective manner without compromising on standards and quality of
care."
How
can the Premier talk about patients after they have cut $58 million from health
care facilities and personal care homes and say we are not compromising? This is unfair, Mr. Speaker. How does the Premier justify it?
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Speaker, since we have been in office, this government has increased
funding in six years to health care by a half billion dollars, a half billion
dollars. This government has increased
not only total dollars on health care to a much higher level than they were
when we took office, but as a proportion of our budget at 33.9 percent, it is
the highest that it has ever been in the history of this province. This government has made its commitment.
If
the workers would do as the nurses did and accept a voluntary rollback, maybe
some of these measures would not be required.
That is the way in which these things can be shared and can be done in
an effective manner.
* (1015)
Home Repair Industry
Standards/Regulations
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the
Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
This
government has committed $10 million under the Home Renovation Program
announced in the budget two days ago.
That $10 million at a thousand dollars grant per renovation equates to
approximately 10,000 additional home renovation contracts that will be signed
in this coming year, the government predicts.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I believe, has from time
to time recognized and acknowledged that there are in fact no regulations in
the home renovation industry, that in fact it is a wide‑open industry,
there are not standards in place, and that in fact the home renovation industry
themselves have repeatedly asked for those standards and some form of
regulatory regime.
Mr.
Speaker, my question for the minister:
Currently on the Order Paper at No. 32 is a resolution from our caucus
calling for those standards to be put in place.
Will the minister today bring that forward so that we can ensure that
the consumers are protected from unscrupulous home renovators and also
recognize that that is in fact what the industry has been asking for, for some
time?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer
and Corporate Affairs): I can advise firstly to my
honourable friend that there is a requirement, I believe, under this program to
have at least two quotes, two separate bids, from contractors so that there is
one to make a comparison with the other.
Secondly,
there are laws in The Business Practices Act, The Consumer Protection Act
contained in this province which will and can deal with unscrupulous operators.
The
member also is aware in terms of bringing his resolution forward that we are
for the next seven days involved in budget speech debate, and the rules of the
House do not permit that to come forward.
Mr.
Speaker, I understand the member's concern.
We have the Consumers' Bureau. We
will be on the lookout for unscrupulous activities amongst those few
contractors who might choose to do that kind of activity, but I think, by and
large, that there will be enough protection built into the program itself that
we should not have a major problem with respect to contractors who do not wish
to follow the rules.
Mr. Edwards:
The minister mentions the current legislative regime. That legislative regime can only protect
consumers if in fact there are standards, if there is some form of regulatory
regime in place for this particular industry.
My
question again for the minister: Is this
government actively considering in fact putting those into place in this
session?‑‑because that is important as thousands of people, they
hope, will take advantage of this program.
Is this government going to come forward with some form of regulatory
regime for the home renovation industry, which I remind the minister the
industry itself has repeatedly asked for?
Mr. Ernst:
Mr. Speaker, 99 percent of the problem in this area has occurred in the
past by door‑to‑door salespeople coming to the door and trying to
convince people, particularly those who perhaps are not well acquainted with
how these matters work.
Mr.
Speaker, we have licensing of door‑to‑door salespeople. They are bonded, and they are monitored very
closely to ensure that those kinds of unscrupulous activities are kept to a
minimum.
Mr.
Speaker, The Business Practices Act also deals with people who are unscrupulous
in their activities. The fact of the
matter is that by having programs with requirements for two quotations from
contractors submitted to the people who are going to be having the work done
and then filing that with the department as it is dealt with, should
reasonably, adequately protect the people.
As
well, of course, there is an association of renovation contractors who do follow
a code of ethics and practice. People
would be well advised to seek out those contractors who belong to that
association or other reputable contractors and to check that out before they
accept any offers, before they have work completed.
* (1020)
Consumer Education Program
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the
Second Opposition): The minister appears to be relying on the two‑quotation
system. That is going to be small
comfort for the many individuals out there who have in the past been taken
advantage of. When the RRAP program was
in place in prior years, this was a serious problem which in fact Consumer and
Corporate Affairs advocates recognized, the Consumers' Association and others
recognized; indeed, the association recognized it itself.
Mr.
Speaker, my final question for the minister:
Given that apparently his answers would indicate that there is not going
to be some form of regulatory regime coming into place, will the minister at
least agree to embark on an educational campaign to educate consumers about
what they should do, the questions they should ask and the type of
investigation that they should do as they move to enter into this period where
we are going to see a massive increase in activity in this area?
They
have money for promotional campaigns, for their own political purposes. Will they now educate the public about what
needs to be done to ensure that these are reputable people getting business at
fair prices?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer
and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Consumers'
Bureau today has all kinds of literature related to ensuring that people
understand what is going on, the kind of practice that they should follow to
ensure that they have fair and reasonable work done by others on their behalf. That information is available to people. We can provide it to the appropriate
departments, either Housing or Finance, if people are interested in having that
information. The Seniors bureau has a
videotape and contained within that videotape, which is widely spread, deals
with issues like home renovation contractors and what people should look for
and how they should conduct themselves when dealing with those kinds of people.
Port of Churchill
CN Rail Commitment
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Minister of Highways and
Transportation.
Canadian
farmers continue to face financial problems because the Canadian grain
transportation system cannot meet its commitments to ship grain, yet each year
in Manitoba the Port of Churchill remains underutilized. Last week the Minister of Transportation said
he would meet with CN Rail to ask that they maximize the Port of Churchill
shipping line and ship grain to Churchill.
Can
the minister tell us today if CN is committed to fully utilizing the Hudson Bay
line and to ship the maximum amount of grain through the Port of Churchill this
summer?
Hon. Albert Driedger (Acting
Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker,
most of the question I will take as notice on behalf of the Minister of
Highways and Transportation, but I want to say that if the member had listened
very carefully to the budget speech that was made the other day, there was a
further commitment for assistance for the rail lines to make them more
competitive. I think this is a good
indication of the position that we provincially take in terms of our concern
for the rail industry in Manitoba as well as Churchill.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Mr. Speaker, since the NDP along with many organizations has asked CN to
use hopper cars and move grain on the bayline for many years, and since there
are tanker fuel cars going to the Port of Churchill at the present time and
since Keystone Agricultural Producers have passed a resolution calling for the
testing of hopper cars on the bayline, what steps will the minister take to
ensure that CN will start using hopper cars to haul grain to the Port of
Churchill?
Mr. Driedger:
Mr. Speaker, I feel as if I have not even left the Department of
Highways and Transportation, because for five and a half years, this is the
regular debate that took place in terms of what the government is doing.
The
member should be well aware of all the players that are involved in this thing,
the first one being the Wheat Board basically that sells the grain. If you are not going to have customers to
take grain through the Port of Churchill, then there is no sense shipping
anything through there. But I have to
tell you there are other players involved as well, not just CN.
If
the member wants to take some time, maybe go through the records of what has
happened, not only during our administration of six years but also when the
member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) was the minister there, I mean, go through the
whole history of it, I just want to say that I think there are positive things
that are developing in Churchill that will ultimately, I think, assure the fact
that we will have the line there.
Swan River, Manitoba
Rail Access
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River):
My question is to the First Minister.
Since
the federal Liberal M.P. for the Dauphin‑Swan River area has indicated
that she feels no responsibility to keeping the Cowan subline open, which is
very important to the area both to farmers and other users of the area, will
this government give a commitment that they will stand behind the people of
Swan River and ensure that the Cowan subline, which is protected till the year
2000, will be reopened?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
The people of Swan River certainly know that this government stands
behind them. This is the government that
is working with them to ensure that they attract and are able to have 450 jobs
as a result of a forest products business that members in the New Democratic
caucus are opposed to.
This
is the government that is working with them to protect hundreds of jobs in the
PMU industry with the Ayerst plant that members in the NDP caucus are opposing.
This
is a government that is working to keep taxes down to ensure that the people of
Swan River have a better quality of life and a better ability to maintain all
sorts of things that are important to their families.
This
government will stand with the people of Swan River at all times.
* (1025)
CN Rail/CP Rail Merger
Impact on Employment
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona):
My question is for the Acting Minister of Highways and Transportation.
Despite
the promises by the federal government that Manitoba would be restored as a
rail transportation hub, 30 northern rail maintenance employees have received
layoff notices.
The
announcement that CN would cut 10,000 jobs has not been rescinded to this day,
Mr. Speaker. Since both CN and CP are
planning to merge operations from Winnipeg east, what studies has the
Department of Highways and Transportation undertaken to determine the impact on
rail jobs and rail service in the province of Manitoba.
Hon. Albert Driedger (Acting
Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker,
that question was raised to some degree in the last day or so. The Minister of Transportation (Mr. Findlay)
at that time indicated that he had been corresponding with CN on the
issue. This question is also not a new
question. This has been going on for a
long, long time, and we have made our position known very clearly.
I
again want to repeat, part of the issue that was raised in the budget was a
further reduction in the diesel fuel tax to make us competitive. I would suggest that the member for
Transcona, who is the critic of Highways and Transportion, support the budget
which basically puts them in a more positive, competitive position to deal with
these issues.
Mr. Reid:
Since this government has given back vital revenue to the province, back
to the railways by way of fuel tax reductions, what assurances did the Minister
of Highways and Transportation receive from the railways since he has met with
them that no more railway jobs would be lost in Manitoba?
What
assurances do we have that no more railway jobs would be lost since you have
given up this vital revenue?
Mr. Driedger:
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the member, just to give him an indication
how this system works a little bit, by the reduction that this government put
on the diesel fuel tax last year, we ended up getting a whole bunch of jobs
through CP when they set up their system out here.
Mr.
Speaker, he claims that we are giving away money to the railways. If we are not going to be competitive, we are
not going to have the railway here. So
it is a matter of taking and working together with the railways.
The
concerns about jobs being gone and being moved, it has been in the mix for a
long time. We have constantly during my
tenure as well as the minister who is responsible right now‑‑we
have been working with the railways to make sure that the impact is going to be
as minimal as possible.
VIA Rail Purchase
Impact on Employment
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona):
Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the same minister.
Considering
today's report that Railex wants to buy VIA Rail, lay off all its employees and
abandon nonprofitable service in western Canada, what action has the Minister
of Highways and Transportation taken to protect VIA jobs and routes in
Manitoba?
Hon. Albert Driedger (Acting
Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker,
I took the privilege of speaking with the Minister of Highways and
Transportation (Mr. Findlay) this morning.
As far as he can establish‑‑and we are trying to establish
whether there is some validity to do it‑‑it is just a rumour. I am not prepared to take and answer a
question on rumour.
* (1030)
Department of Education
Curriculum Development
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):
Mr. Speaker, people involved in education were shocked by this minister's
flip‑flop on a major issue involving curriculum development in this
province of Manitoba. I want to ask the
Minister of Education a question in light of the fact that over the last year
at least, he has literally destroyed‑‑he and his predecessor, the
former Minister of Education, have literally destroyed the Curriculum Branch
with the co‑ordinator, the director, either leaving or being fired. Many of the assistants that were there‑‑Joanne
Bevis, the gifted consultant, has left.
The guidance and child abuse prevention person, physical education
consultant, industrial arts consultant, the co‑ordinator for heritage
languages‑‑all of these professional people have left.
Now
this minister says that he is going to make curriculum development a major priority
in this province. I want to know how he
thinks he can have any credibility in developing curriculum after the record
that he has in curriculum in this province.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, when members want
to talk about credibility, our Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) brought down
a budget dealing with $5.5 billion giving a global fiscal picture of the
province last year and the future and, the second Question Period, not one
question with respect to the budget from the benches opposite. It shows you how good the budget was.
Some Honourable Members:
Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Mr. Speaker, the $58‑million reduction in hospitals and personal
care nursing homes that I talked about in my question is partially as a result
of this budget.
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member does not have a point of order.
That is clearly a dispute over the facts.
*
* *
Mr. Manness:
Mr. Speaker, the curriculum development branch certainly has gone
through a period of change. That was by
design. I know members opposite do not
take the view that sometimes you have to begin to build in efficiencies. You have to make some structural changes
internally and then build up from there.
That is what this government has been practising over the course of the
last two years. It is part of the plan.
I
dare say in Estimates I will have an opportunity to give greater explanation to
the increased funding that is presented in this year's budget.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Speaker, that was precisely a budget question.
Distance Education
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):
I want to ask the minister another budget question. He also says that distance education is a
major priority, and they are going to pump more money into‑‑and he
has just finished destroying the Distance Education Branch. As a matter of fact, it is not even listed in
the Estimates for the Department of Education any further. The director has been dismissed. The administrative officer, the co‑ordinator
for educational television have all left in the last year.
I
want to ask this minister, once again, how he thinks anyone is going to believe
that he has credibility in establishing this as a major priority after he has
destroyed that branch of that department.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I am not going to
embark upon a debate on credibility with the member for Dauphin.
The
member is mindful of the initiative this government is taking with respect to
Dr. Beth Cruickshank, who is dialoguing with all the school divisions in the
province, trying to lay into place for government a blueprint with respect to
the provision of educational technology services.
The
member and indeed the education community will be hearing much more about this
issue over the course of the next number of months. I say to the member, as I have said to school
divisions throughout the province, this government has embarked upon a
significant new approach to the provision of education services in rural
Manitoba, and it will be based significantly upon the advances within the area
of technology and education.
Staffing
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):
Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact‑‑I want to ask this minister‑‑that
he has dismissed long‑standing professionals and replaced them with
people hired under untendered political contracts, like Beth Cruickshank, at
$270 a day in an untendered contract? Is
that not a fact?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, the member may have
done his own calculations. I am not
certain as to what the per diem rate is, but I can tell the member one thing. I am certain‑‑
An Honourable Member:
Table her contract.
Mr. Manness:
I will. When you formally ask for
it, I will.
What
I can say? At least something is being
done. There is a co‑ordination in
place. We have a plan. We are working towards a plan, not like what
we inherited from the former government, where there was disorder and chaos.
* (1035)
Department of Education
Student Services Branch
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster):
Mr. Speaker, this government in its budget is talking about sharing the
pain.
I
would ask the Minister of Education to look at the Student Services branch,
where there was a cut of 22.5 percent.
The Student Services branch is there to provide programs for specialized
support through the services for consultants for hearing impaired and visually
impaired, to ensure students with special needs have access to specialized
equipment and materials, to facilitate interdepartmental co‑ordination of
services for students with special needs.
That is a 22.5 percent cut.
Do
we need less to co‑ordinate these services? Do we need less for equipment and
material? Do we need fewer consultants
for the hearing and the visually impaired?
Why did this government cut 22.5 percent from the people that need it
the most in the Department of Education?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, what I have noticed
over the course of many years being involved in Budget Debates, when you do not
have the intellectual capacity and an understanding of the larger picture, what
you do is you pick out a line in an Estimates book that is that thick, you try
and look for a reduction and then you make it the essence of a question during
Question Period. That is the approach.
I
say to the member, the approach for this government for a long period of time
is try to reduce administrative costs, try to reduce the inefficiencies and
provide the same level of service for fewer dollars. That is the approach that has been practised. That is why this party will stay in
government on this side of the House, and that is why the members that are over
there now will stay there.
Mr. Lamoureux:
Mr. Speaker, what balderdash.
This government is talking about sharing the pain. What is this government doing to the people
that need it the most in education?
I
will ask the question to the Minister of Education. How does he determine that this is fair, this
is sharing the pain when you are penalizing the individuals that need to have
the consultants, need to have the material?
Why do you penalize them by cutting 22.5 percent?
Mr. Manness:
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend the member for Inkster can scream and
holler as loudly as he wants. The path
that this government has followed in all its decisions is to try to reduce
overlap and duplication and inefficiency and maintain the levels of
services. That is what I am saying in
respect to this detailed question for the member opposite. That is the course we have been on.
Estimates
review, which will probably last six or seven weeks, will provide the member an
opportunity to ask all of the detailed questions. I dare say to him, the answer to almost all
of the questions posed will again talk about the way we have restructured
internally to save taxpayer dollars and yet to maintain the level of service to
the education community in our province.
Mr. Lamoureux:
Mr. Speaker, the minister says, maintain the level of service. How does the cut maintain what is
needed? Do we need to have less to co‑ordinate
the services? Do we need less for
equipment and material? Do we need fewer
consultants for the hearing and visually impaired? How do we maintain the services that the
Minister of Education just finished saying?
Mr. Manness:
Mr. Speaker, it could be a yes, no, yes and no. It is a combination of many of the
suggestions offered by the member for Inkster.
In some respects, we have found that we have to shift consultants from
one area to another. In other areas
there are some operational and supply needs that we do not need and measure
like we have needed in the past.
Mr.
Speaker, I cannot give a definitive response beyond that. So maybe the member is half correct in his
question.
Waste Reduction and Prevention Act
Regulations
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
Mr. Speaker, this government has not met any of its targets or deadlines
on waste reduction and recycling. We are
awaiting the regulations under the WRAP Act and the Canadian Industry Packaging
and Stewardship Program, and it is long overdue in this province.
My
question for the Minister of Environment is:
Under the new model, have the WRAP regulations been weakened to prohibit
deposits and penalties for industry not meeting its targets?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of
Environment): No.
Information Release
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
Mr. Speaker, the Recycling Council of Manitoba has prepared a paper
which is quite critical of this process, specifically stating that at this
point insufficient information, particularly regarding the levies and cost of
the initiative, has not been made available.
Can
the minister guarantee that there is going to be public information tabled, and
when will that be made public so there can be some feedback to this government
on these regulations in this program?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of
Environment): Mr. Speaker, that is a serious question in
regard to the intent and the direction we intend to take recycling in this
province. The principle that we are
trying to enshrine and will enshrine through our regulations is that industry
will provide the funds for the large part of the costs for paying for the
collection of recyclables out of the waste stream.
There
is a conference tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, at Winkler, a major recycling
conference, where representatives from across the country, from across Manitoba
and, of course, the city of Winnipeg will be significantly represented, where
there will be some significant discussion about this initiative. It is fair to say that the basic principle is
that this will be an industry‑funded initiative. Some of the costs obviously still need to be
decided, but it will happen.
* (1040)
Market Development
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
My question was: When are the
regulations going to be released, and will there be an opportunity for
community input and participation?
This
government claims to be an open government, but they continue to make
agreements behind closed doors.
I
would like to ask the minister: Has the
new program addressed market development?
The Recycling Council recommends that 10 percent of the levies would go
into market development. Will this be
followed into the new program?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of
Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the information
that the member is quoting from regarding the Recycling Council. I do not think they object in any way to
having industry or the producers of the waste support the collection, and part
of that is that industry also will be working with government to support the
development of the markets.
Governments
are not real good at marketing.
Industries know where the goods can be used; they know the best way to
handle them and the most efficient way so that our program does not become
another hidden tax on the consumer. It
will be a cost‑efficient, industry‑driven program.
Bill 22
Health Care System
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood):
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Premier has missed the point when it
comes to Bill 22 and the 2 percent reduction and the negative impact on
hospitals, particularly some of the smaller hospitals in rural Manitoba. What the hospitals are asking for, and I
quote from the Grandview District Hospital:
If given the opportunity, we feel the 2 percent can be saved without
implementing Bill 22.
My
question to the Premier: Will he direct
his Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to change the regulations regarding Bill 22
and allow the hospitals to come up with the cost savings if they say they can
without implementing Bill 22?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I think that the member opposite is missing the point with
respect to the approach that the Department of Health has taken. In fact, what they did was to write to the
hospitals asking them for proposals as to how they might implement Bill 22 and
achieve the savings that they were looking for.
The response, and I have since been able to peruse the response of the
Grandview District Hospital, was that they felt they could in fact achieve the
savings, and they would not do it in a manner that was necessarily confined to
Bill 22.
So
that is precisely achieving what we want and no imposition was going to take
place without a plan that was acceptable from the hospitals and the personal
care homes, so it is achieving exactly the purpose that we set out by this consultative
approach of writing them and asking them to respond and give a plan that was
acceptable to us.
The
letter in fact said that we did not want to impair patient care as part of the
process. So it is achieving the results
that we want to without impairing patient care.
I would think that the member would be supportive of that.
Ms. Gray:
The minister is saying something that is different from what the
Department of Health is saying to these hospitals.
Will
the Premier then, if in fact he is correct, direct his Minister of Health (Mr.
McCrae) to communicate to these district hospitals and say to them what they
are asking, yes, you are allowed to make some different choice in terms of how
you are going to implement the 2 percent reduction other than Bill 22? This obviously is not being communicated to
the hospitals, and that is very typical of the Department of Health. Communication is very, very poor. So will he direct the minister then to get
the message straight to these hospitals?
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Speaker, the point of the matter is that the savings should take
place within the labour element of their expenditures.
The
Grandview letter indicates that they are having, for instance, administration
take off six days unpaid leave. They are
finding ways in which to deal with the situation, and that is precisely the
approach that Manitoba Health wants to take, is to allow for some flexibility,
to allow for this consultation and not to impair patient service.
Ms. Gray:
Will the Premier tell this House then why, and in a response to a letter
from the Ste. Rose General Hospital, are the hospitals being directed that
their 2 percent reductions have to be involving salaries? Why can it not be through other means?
Mr. Filmon:
Because the essence of Bill 22 is that there should be some equality of
treatment to all of those who work throughout the public service, and that in
some way, just as members of this Legislature are taking a reduction in their
pay packet, just as civil servants throughout the province are taking a
reduction in their pay packet, there ought to be some equity, and that those
working within the health care system ought also to take a reduction of pay
packet.
So
the nurses, having recognized that, took a 2 percent reduction as part of the
agreement that they signed with Manitoba's health care institutions. As a result of that, we are wanting to ensure
that equity prevails throughout the system.
That is why it has to come from the labour or salary component that we
are looking for these savings.
The
people of Grandview District Hospital have indicated that, as I say, senior
administration in Grandview in the past year have taken six unpaid leave days
and foregone other commitments in the spirit of co‑operation. That is precisely what we are looking for as
a spirit of equity and co‑operation.
Mr. Speaker:
The time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
Volunteer Service Award
Tracy Sumka
Mr. Speaker:
Does the honourable member for The Maples have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples):
Yesterday I attended a luncheon for the Volunteer Service Awards at the
Westin Hotel, and although all the volunteers received awards, as all
volunteers should receive congratulations, I would like to add a special
congratulations for a person from my constituency who received the Premier's
volunteer service award for youth leadership for 1994, Tracy Sumka.
I
first met Tracy when the two of us served on the North Winnipeg Youth Justice
Committee, and we spent many evenings together interviewing young people who
were in conflict with the law, along with their parents.
I
was impressed by Tracy's concern for the young people and her commitment. At the same time that Tracy was doing that
volunteer activity, she was volunteering with Winnserv Inc. She was spending two to three hours every
week visiting with a mentally handicapped person. In addition to that, she was attending
university, and she was also working part time.
Tracy went on, when I was forming the youth justice committee in The
Maples, and volunteered to help me with that‑‑as if her tasks were
not that numerous then. At the same
time, she went on to volunteer at Marymound school to perform a Big Sister
role. I think Tracy Sumka is an example
of some of the best of the youth we have in Manitoba, and I congratulate her.
Earth Day
Mr. Speaker:
Does the honourable Minister of Environment have leave to make a nonpolitical
statement? [agreed]
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of
Environment): I, too, would like to recognize volunteers
and particularly today recognize that this is international Earth Day, and that
we have an enormous group of volunteers working in this province to recognize
and to celebrate what has become known as Earth Week in this province.
The
theme this year is "Awareness into Action," and events are being
planned with a culmination on Sunday that will allow families to participate
and make sure that we are able as families, which is the focus of our society
and a unit in which we can work for the support of the environment, to be
accommodated in that respect.
This
event is seen as an affirmation of our commitment to the environment and to the
individual commitment that each of us makes alone or with our family. The hope is that this year those who were
attending will be able to gain new knowledge and share a family experience. I would like to point out, if I might, some
of the things that have occurred, and one event in particular, which is being
repeated this year.
As
always, recycling initiatives are part of Earth Day. I think it is particularly important to note
that last year committee members collected tools for Habitat for Humanity, and
this year sponsors will launch a community recycling drive for used eyeglasses
and books. So there are a lot of very
good spinoffs from the initiatives involved in Earth Day. I would encourage all of us to participate
with our families, and I want to, on behalf of everyone, extend congratulations
and appreciation to the organizers.
Mr. Speaker:
Does the honourable member for Radisson have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
* (1050)
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to recognize international Earth Day and
frame it in the context of it also being Volunteer Week, as the minister has
said, and recognize the many activities across this province that are being
supported and organized by volunteers.
I
think it is important that we recognize the hard work, the dedication, the
commitment and the intelligence with which so many people in Manitoba dedicate
towards environmental education, working to organize programs and working to
deal with environmental impacts assessments and various other activities
related to environment and development.
I
think that, in terms of environment, it is a time for ideas and it is a time
for environmental ideas. These ideas
have come at a time when they are necessary.
I
also want to say that it is important on Earth Day for us to recognize how we
all rely on the delicate balance of our ecosystem and biosphere.
The
aboriginal people speak of the water as the lifeblood of the earth. We can understand, then, that the trees are
the lungs of the earth and understand that energy connecting these with the
soil is what sustains life on the planet.
We
must realize that the debt we have to the earth must be repaid. We must all work together to ensure that
there is some legacy to leave future children, children who are not even born
yet. Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker:
Does the honourable member for Crescentwood have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood):
I, too, would like to join with our colleagues on the government side
and the opposition side in recognizing Earth Day. I think one of the best examples of Earth Day
is the activities that the young people in this province are involved in in
recognition of Earth Day.
Surely,
if our young people who are in our schools recognize the importance of our
environment and recognize the importance of sustainable development, then we
are off to a good start in ensuring that we do have a future here into the 21st
Century.
I
would like to particularly commend one of the high schools in my area, Kelvin
High School, whose students are very much taking Earth Day to heart and have a
recycling project going on. As one drove
to work today, you could see the rows and rows of boxes and bags of recyclables
which the students from Kelvin High School will be picking up. I congratulate them today for that, and I
think this gives us a good example of the meaning of Earth Day and what can be
done.
One
would hope that, although we celebrate it today, we will all think of Earth Day
and that Earth Day should be 365 days of the year. Thank you.
Provincial High School Hockey Championship
Mr. Speaker:
Does the honourable member for Rossmere have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Harry Schellenberg (Rossmere):
I would like to congratulate the River East Collegiate hockey team for
winning the provincial high school hockey championship this year.
This
was the first year that the River East Collegiate Kodiaks participated in the
growing sport of high school hockey.
Before winning the provincial championship, they won the city
championship. Congratulations to the
players, coaches, managers, for the fine play on the ice but also for the
sportsmanship off and on the ice.
Playing
this sport, like many other sports, builds character in youth. It teaches youth discipline, hard work and,
most of all, gives them a sense of belonging, which is often lacking in our
community.
(Mrs.
Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
I
would like to read the names of the players:
Allan Brownrigg, Tyler Mason, Orest Konowalchuk, Grant Stephen, Dustin
Funk, Kevin Graham, Blair Toonstra, Scott Chapman, Andrew McWilliams, Todd
Hopkinson, David Mann, Andy Kollar, Paul Fasio, David Millar, Jeremy Leroux,
Mark Dyck, Michael Bastl.
Principal
Bill Welsh, Vice‑Principals Henry Schroeder, Gerry Pankiewicz, Coaches
George Mann, Louis Mainella, Scott Wong; and the managers, Rudiger Hedrich and
Keith Weiner.
We
should encourage and support all forms of extracurricular activities in our
school system. It is these activities
that create a sense of belonging and a sense of community in our schools. Through extracurricular activities, students,
teachers, administrators and coaches interact, upon which relationships can be
built. Our youth can grow academically
and socially through participating in extracurricular activities. Thank you.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
BUDGET DEBATE
(Third Day of Debate)
Madam Deputy Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Stefanson) that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the
government and on the proposed motion of the honourable Leader of the official
opposition (Mr. Doer) in amendment thereto, standing in the name of the
honourable Leader of the Second Opposition.
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the
Second Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise
today to speak on this seventh budget of this government. I want to start at the outset by indicating the
premise upon which I believe this budget has been founded. I believe that those premises, let me say at
the outset, are fundamentally incorrect.
The
first premise that I see this budget having been based upon is a premise which
we have seen really throughout the western world in governments that have been
run on the neo‑Conservative idea of trickle‑down economics. It is the theory that if you allow businesses
and corporate elites and if you allow people with money to retain that money,
they will invest and thereby create jobs and thereby help the economy.
That
is not an entirely false theory. That is
a theory which in some respect does have some merit in that some of the money
is in fact spent in periods of expansion.
The problem is, Madam Deputy Speaker, in periods of recession, in
periods where corporations are in fact downsizing and are in fact pulling in,
putting more tax incentives and more grants into the hands of those
corporations does not result in investment.
It results, in effect, in a retention of capital rather than an
expenditure of capital.
Trickle‑down
economics does not work and it does not work most emphatically in a period of
recession and economic restraint. That
is what we are currently in. That is
what we have been in for six years. That
is why the seventh budget in a row of this government which premises itself on
the trickle‑down theory, has not worked and will not work. That is why every budget has promised glowing
results next year. This is the seventh
time that has happened. We have yet to
see those results. I know of the
statistics, the selective statistics which the minister puts forward, which the
Premier puts forward from time to time to justify and attempt to justify their
economic policies. I believe in the
political reality they believe that they have to do that. They have to look back and say, it has
worked, because if they do not, Madam Deputy Speaker, they have come six years
on the wrong road, and that, in their view, would be politically unacceptable.
It
is time, I think, to recognize though that this province has not kept up and
will not keep up with a slow teetering recovery which appears to be occurring
in this country and in the worldwide economy.
Not without exceptions, but we do appear to be coming slowly out of this
recession. My greatest fear is that we
will not even keep up let alone lead in that recovery.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, the trickle‑down economic approach has failed around the
world. It failed with Ronald Reagan in
the United States where he drove up the deficit in that country to
unprecedented levels and in fact created more millionaires in the space of his
tenure than in the entire previous history of the United States of America,
drove the inner cities of that country into abject poverty. It failed here in this country under Mr.
Mulroney. It failed in Saskatchewan
under Grant Devine. It failed in British
Columbia under Bill Vander Zalm. This is
not an economic theory that works.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, let me also indicate that I have, I believe, support for that
position that throwing grants and tax incentives at selected industries and
selected businesses does not work from the business community.
* (1100)
The
Canadian Federation of Independent Business, I was very interested to read in
their recent report‑‑and I have met with Mr. Botting and the senior
people on the national level of Canadian Federation of Independent Business
from time to time. Their message has
been consistent and constant and clear.
What they say is‑‑let me read their recommendation on page
15. This is the Federation of
Independent Business: Grants and grant‑like
subsidies to businesses and associations should be eliminated. That is what the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business says. They go on to
say: The use of grants is of dubious
economic benefit; these forms of subsidies make unfair and unproductive use of
scarce tax revenues. I agree. The Liberal Party in Manitoba agrees.
Why
is this government continuing to go along the road of selective sectoral grants
and tax incentives often going, in particular, as specific companies receiving
grants? This is not the way to go. Businesses that are here that want to grow
and expand and invest and stay in this economy are here for the right reasons. They are here because there is a well‑trained
labour force. They are here because
there is a developed infrastructure, both educational and in terms of
services. They are here because there is
a fair‑‑they are not looking for an excessively generous tax
system. They are looking for a fair tax
system. They are looking for fiscal
stability so that they know if they make an investment in this economy five or
10 years down the road there is not going to be a cash call.
That
is what they are looking for. That is
what we have not produced in this province with successive deficits. We have not produced with our out‑migration,
with our cuts to post‑secondary education, followed through in this
budget. The fact is that the selective
sectoral investments in private business is not asked for by the business
community, is not good for the business community and is certainly not good for
the working people of this province.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, let me indicate‑‑
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Energy and Mines): The second NDP party.
Mr. Edwards:
Well, the member for Pembina, the Minister of Energy and Mines
says: the second NDP party. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Canadian Federation
of Independent Business, hardly members of the NDP party, the business
community in this country has said no to direct grants and subsidies to
businesses on a sectoral or individual basis.
They have said no every year, and this government continues to pander to
individual sectors and individual businesses in this economy. That is the wrong way.
An Honourable Member:
What do they say about tax cuts?
Mr. Edwards:
They say tax cuts across the board for everyone is fair. Of course they want less taxes. They say no to sectoral tax cuts, to saying
this particular industry, that particular industry, this small group of
companies, that small individual company, they say no to individual grants and
tax cuts, and they have said that every year.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, this government from 1988 to 1992 have given co‑called
incentive grants totalling $66 million, $66 million in direct grants in those
four years. Examples like the $3.75
million given to Arcor, examples of money thrown at individual companies, this
is not the way to grow.
There
are two things that happen. Firstly, it
does not flow down and create the promised jobs. They are not here. We have 16,000 fewer people working today
than we did when they got a majority government. Tell me where those jobs are. They are not here, and they will not be here
as long as this government keeps pandering to individual sectors and individual
companies.
The
second effect of this is that the local business community where those
individual investments are made in fact is sent a message that they are somehow
second class. Somebody else, from
anybody who shows a passing interest in Manitoba, gets hundreds of thousands or
millions of dollars thrown at them. What
is the message to the existing businesses, the people who have been here
sticking it out paying taxes, doing their best, making a commitment to this
province? The message to them is you are
second class. You do not count. No, we want to spend the big buck to lure
somebody from Boston or Chicago or somewhere else outside of this province.
We
are going to be saved, is the message, whether it is Repap or Conawapa or some
big megaproject, they are throwing money at this company or that company, there
is a message that somehow some outside saviour is going to come and do it for
us. That is the wagon to which this
government has hitched its economic agenda from Day One.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, there is no question that the individual industries that are
affected and given the largesse of government revenues are happy. The home building industry, the renovation
industry is happy out there, no question.
They have just got $10 million, a lot more than that; $10 million is
going to be put into direct grants to individuals to take advantage of that
program.
I
am sure they are happy, but think about it.
Those grants are going to a select group of people in our
community. I am sure those people will
be very pleased‑‑those people who have the $5,000 to put into a
home renovation program.
By
the way, I think a lot of projects that maybe were down around $2,000, $3,000
or $4,000 just became $5,000 projects.
But the truth is, those people, I am sure, are pleased about that.
What
about the people who do not own homes, who cannot afford to own homes? What about the people on welfare who are not
allowed to own homes? What about the
people who cannot even dream of having $5,000 to invest in anything, let alone
a home, Madam Deputy Speaker? What about
them?
There
was a better way to stimulate the economy.
There was a fairer way to stimulate the economy. There was a broader tax incentive to be made
which would have stimulated the economy because the idea is correct. We do need to prime the pump; we do need to
stimulate the economy.
The
broadest based, most direct, most specific impetus to the local economy is
through the sales tax, not through directed sectoral grants, but through the
sales tax.
In
fact, as a percentage of their income, the welfare recipients and the poor and
the unemployed in this province are the best and biggest taxpayers in the
province because they pay. They cannot
invest in home renovations. They cannot
invest in new homes. They cannot invest
in a $2 million capital grant tax exemption.
They
are spending the highest percentage of their income on taxable goods. They are the biggest taxpayers in the
province. The way to have primed the
pump, the way to have given impetus to this economy was on a much broader base,
would not have been elite or sectoral in its nature, but would have been across
the board and would have been a short‑term cut in sales tax. That would have primed the pump, and that
would not have cost the coffers of this province one dime.
Before
we leave the greenhouse grant program, I think that it is important to reflect
on the question that I asked today in Question Period. I notice that the president of the Home
Renovations Association is here today, supporting that call that there should
be some standards, there should be some regulation in this industry.
There
is going to be, obviously, an enormous growth in the home renovation
industry. It is important to protect the
vulnerable in our society and, in particular, seniors who do need at the very
least to have educational materials, the expertise of the Consumer and
Corporate Affairs Branch, not just in some video tape if they happen to make it
down to the office on Carlton Street or some pamphlet that they can pick up at
a couple of offices. They need to be educated. They need to be protected.
The
association itself, the responsible companies who are out there doing a
responsible business‑‑they are asking for this protection for their
customers, and it is long overdue.
What
I found very interesting as well about this $1,000 grant was that it comes on
the heels of a budget last year that cut the property tax credit, which cut the
seniors' property tax credit. So what is
the message? The message is, well, you
know, if you are a senior and you are poor, you are going to be hit
harder. And, if you happen to have
$5,000 in the bank account, we will kick $1,000 back so that you can fix your
home.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, that excludes those people who far from having $5,000‑‑a
lot of them do not have the extra $250 to pay in property taxes that they were
asked to pay last year. They are being
actively forced out of their homes, let alone having the revenue and the
capital to take advantage of this type of program, a further example of the
selectivity of this government in applying their view of tax incentives and tax
breaks on a very limited basis, on a very small scale and to certain parts of
the economy and certain sectors of residents.
* (1110)
An Honourable Member:
So what would you do, Paul? Tell
us what you would do.
Mr. Edwards:
Well, the minister indicates‑‑first of all, Madam Deputy
Speaker, it was wrong. It was wrong to
have cut back on seniors trying to pay their property taxes and stay in their
homes. Now they are giving back $10
million to a small fraction of the people out there who happen to be able to
afford it. That is wrong. The government in our view should have gone
to an across‑the‑board, short‑term impetus to the
economy. We put forward our ideas six
weeks ago. We maintain that was the
correct and the far fairer approach to have done this.
The
thing which I find, the balanced budget which is promised, is very conveniently
promised after the next election.
[interjection] Well, wait a minute.
Wait a minute. It appears to be
being revised on the fly by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.
Orchard). Apparently he believes that he
can do it before the next election.
I
am very pleased to hear that, and I am sure if he were the Premier he probably
could do it. He would cut virtually
everything. He has proven that. That is his approach. [interjection] I
suspect from that comment there is still quite a bit of incentive and quite a
bit of interest on his part, in effect, getting those reins of power. I know that it must ache and pain him greatly
to have to sit back and see that we are not going to balance the budget even
according to their statistics until '96, '97. [interjection] Well, that
prediction has been a moving target, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is now conveniently after the next
election. We have had seven
budgets. It has not happened. We are no further ahead. We are not going to be any further
ahead. We are further behind. We are further behind in employment. We are half a billion dollars per year behind
in overall capital investment in this province.
The programs and policies do not work.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, the basic message here is always the same: Elect us and it will happen. No, it has not happened yet, but it
will. It will happen. We promise.
Nice little canoe ride down the stream.
We promise it is going to get better next year. It has not.
It will not. I suspect that the
people of this province understand that.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, this government will never balance the budget until they
understand not just the social but the economic value of work. If people do not work, there are four direct
ways that this government loses revenues.
Firstly,
direct benefits are lost. Most people
who are unemployed or at least a fairly high percentage are on direct benefits of
unemployment insurance, social assistance or other direct benefits. Secondly, those who are unemployed do not
spend. They do not have any money to
spend, so spending goes down. Revenue
goes down by government in that way.
Thirdly, every social service we offer including health care is most
closely linked to unemployment. The
courts, the criminal system, the health care system, the social welfare system,
child care, the common thread through it all is unemployment. The use of our social welfare system, our
health system and our criminal justice system is increased most significantly
by unemployment, because unemployment results in the social decay and decline
in our society in a most poignant way.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, the fourth way that we lose is not just the fiscal cost of that
social degradation and that social decline through unemployment, but in fact
the direct social cost in terms of families that lose hope, in terms of the
decline of self‑esteem and self‑worth in our communities as people
do not work. Work is necessary in order
to balance the budget. The biggest
driver of the deficit is unemployment, and I do not think this government
realizes that. I think they believe that
you can somehow pay the rich and they are going to drive up, they are going to
save us and get rid of the deficit and do everything else and we can run this
place like Federal Express. It will not
work. People have to work in order for
us to balance the budget. That is the
legacy and the message of every failed trickle‑down jurisdiction in the
world.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, in the Liberal Party's view there are two fundamental things
that we are not doing that we should do in this province. The first is we must retain our own
investment dollars in this province. I spoke
of this in the Speech from the Throne response.
Mr. Orchard:
How do you like Grow Bonds?
Mr. Edwards:
The Minister of Energy and Mines mentions Grow Bonds. That is an example of an initiative which we
supported which has worked which has retained investment capital in this
province. There are some problems with
the Grow Bonds. To start with, they do
not even apply inside the Perimeter Highway in this province. They apply to essentially approximately one‑third
of the population of this province. It
is a great thing out there. Madam Deputy
Speaker, what about the entire province?
That program should be expanded.
An Honourable Member:
How about HydroBonds?
Mr. Edwards:
Secondly‑‑and the minister mentions HydroBonds and the new
Builder Bonds‑‑when Conawapa failed, HydroBonds became Builder
Bonds, as everybody understands.
Retaining
those dollars to finance our debt does not contribute directly to the growth of
our economy. It does retain the debt
domestically, and that is why our former Finance critic Mr. Alcock and our
party in fact supported doing that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this should be proof that when good ideas come
forth, they are rare, they are scarce, but when they do, we have supported them.
In
addition to those initiatives which just are not sufficient to retain the $640
million per year that is invested every year into pension and RRSP funds in
this province, these programs are not enough to retain even a fraction of that
investment income. We are still losing
the vast majority of those investment dollars, and that is the greatest lost
opportunity in this province, in my view.
That is venture capital which flees this province every single year.
It
is predicted that on March 1 of this year in one day, the last day of RRSP investments
for the 1993 taxation year, a hundred million bucks left the province, one
day. That will happen every year. We need mechanisms and vehicles that allow
people to invest in themselves and to keep their money in this province.
We
need what in fact the members of the business community‑‑again the
business community in this city, in this province have been calling for it, to
my knowledge, for three years. They are
looking for regional capital pools. They
are looking for a prairie stock exchange.
They are looking for ways to retain those capitals.
I
noticed three months ago‑‑[interjection] Well, the guru of this
minister's economic‑‑Lynn Raskin‑Levine, a very nice woman,
came to see me, and I talked to her about this.
She said, gee, that is a good idea; we are going to look at that. Two weeks later the committee was
announced. We are going to look at new
ways to find venture capital in this province.
Now the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) says: Oh, it is a bad idea; it does not work. He set up a committee to look at it and
actively look at implementing exactly those ideas.
In
fact, what was interesting to me was in the press release. What is there specifically? A prairie stock exchange. That is what they are considering right now‑‑year
six, seventh budget, they are finally taking a look at it. If they are going to look at it, better late
than never. I am all for it. If they have reached some conversion on this
and realized that it is time to start retaining those dollars, so be it. That is a good thing.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, the fact is that those types of regional initiatives to retain
the investment capital in this region and in particular in this province are
critical to our future. Let us learn the
lesson of retention of our own investment capital and people that Quebec
learned 10 years ago. They have
successfully done that. They have taught
the rest of this country what needs to be done to keep that money locally.
[interjection]
Well,
the minister is grasping. He has now drawn
no‑fault insurance into it. It is
beyond me. I did not hear that in the
budget, but I guess the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard) is grasping
on some frolic of his own here.
* (1120)
The
second thing that is required‑‑and the government I think has this
question right, they just do not have the answer. What needs to be done obviously, and I think
all parties agree, is to properly train the people who are here, the young
people coming into the job market, in order to take the jobs that are there.
There
is nothing more tragic than a job that goes wanting. We know we are going to have a problem where
it is going to be a major challenge to reach full employment, and that should
be our goal. The biggest tragedy is when
training dollars are spent, the $8 billion that is spent in this country every
year, and the training is either not properly directed to a job that is there
or, in fact, there is no training occurring.
It is not market driven and it is not responsive to the employment situation
and the employers that are there. I do
not think there is disagreement on that.
We need to find ways to direct our training dollars more effectively in
this country and in this province.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, the initiative which we put forward in the legislative agenda,
which we were hoping would be a part of this budget, was a scheme whereby the
corporations did not get untied grants and tax incentives and all kinds of
gifts and largesse but were called upon to commit at the time the training starts
to the individual trainee and before a dime changes hands to make a commitment
of a job.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, that is the way to go.
You do not go to the business community like some kind of sop and just
throw money at them and say, take care of it for us. You go to them, in our view and say, we want
your help, we need your help, but we also are not going to trade off tax
dollars for nothing; we are going to do it when we get a commitment that you
are going to employ. That ensures that
that company buying into the training initiative at the very beginning makes a
conscious decision before there are any tax incentives for training that flow,
makes a conscious decision that, yes, when this person is finished this
training program, we know that we can hire this person, we have a job for this
person, and they are called upon to make the commitment. If they fail that commitment the government
takes back the money that they have given.
That
has a number of repercussions. Firstly,
it ensures that the training is market driven; secondly, it gives the trainee
the knowledge, the incentive to successfully complete the program because they
know they are going to get a job. There
is employment at the end of it. Thirdly,
we get from that program an effective use of our tax dollars for training in
the private sector.
No
question, the private sector is and will continue to be and should be a primary
source of training, on the job training, we need more co‑operative
programs, we need more apprenticeship programs.
I was pleased to see the government say that again they are going to
hook on the coattails of the federal government on their apprenticeship
program. That is a good idea. At least they are not getting in the
way. Apprenticeship is an important route
to go, as is on‑the‑job training.
Having
said that they were going to be latching onto the apprenticeship program, I did
notice that the Labour Adjustment branch of the Department of Labour, and let
me just take a moment and refresh members as to what exactly the Labour
Adjustment branch does, the Labour Adjustment branch provides labour‑adjustment
programs to assist in the re‑employment and retraining of workers
affected by layoffs due to labour‑market adjustment and structural
change.
Sounds
pretty important. Sounds what about half
of the budget and the Speech from the Throne was about. Sounds like the key in the touchstone of this
economic agenda. We have heard it in
words; we have seen it on paper. Now we
turn to the bottom line‑‑down 12.5 percent. Twelve and a half percent less money for
retraining, redeployment of our existing workforce. There is not even a consistent commitment to
the workers that are currently there that are going to be laid off, let alone
the new workers coming into this workforce.
The
message here is: You do not have a job;
move somewhere else. It is no wonder
that in the last four years we have had a net 30,000 out‑migration of
this province. When you make that kind
of false commitment to people, that you are going to do anything to retain them
in this economy and in this marketplace, that is the result‑‑people
leave.
Maybe
that is what this government wants, but that is the death knell for this
province and for a dynamic economy in the future.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, in our view, the jobs that we need in this economy will not be
created by the invisible hand of the marketplace because it is indeed
invisible. It will not be created by the
corporate giveaways that have been reflected consistently in this government's
speeches, Budget Addresses, will not be created by making it harder to become
educated, will not be created by tolerating a 30,000 out‑migration in the
last four years from this province, will not be created by hokey programs
designed to serve small sectors of the economy in a very minor and a very
inefficient way, making the rich richer and the poor poorer.
That
is not the way that we will retain people in this province and grow. Jobs will not be created by pumping gambling as
if it was the last great hope of the western world. That is the final, the bottom line in all of
this: There is one great hope for this
government and that is gambling.
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order, please.
An Honourable Member:
Get your lottery tickets down at the Legislature from the Liberal
caucus.
Mr. Edwards:
I am not sure these members want to go on much longer, Madam Deputy
Speaker. I may start producing the flood
of letters from Conservative Party members saying, hey, I got all kinds of
phone calls from the Legislature saying, buy lottery tickets, buy dinner
tickets. They always come from the
Legislature. I have those letters. I have not used them.
Point of Order
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): On a point of order, I believe it is in our
rules that when you refer to any letters you are required to table them in this
Chamber. Thank you.
* * *
Mr. Edwards:
One of our MLAs is going to. I do
not want to interrupt my speech, but it will be tabled before the end of my
speech. It is a letter from Mr. Bruce
Beatson, who wrote specifically indicating that he had received calls from the
Legislature.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I am also going to table a nice little promo piece. Not about some $3,000 raffle‑‑obviously,
we are not doing things big‑time‑‑but about the $104,000
raffle run by the Conservative Party in Manitoba. So I think we should just all level here
before sanctimony and piety become the order of the day.
I
have a lot of things to say, and I will table those things. I remember a phone call in a Crescentwood by‑election
from an office in the Legislature to Peter Warren saying, no, that was not a
political call. A specific planted call
pretending that a neutral caller had called in, from this Legislature in a very
partisan, political way. Now I think
those people are still working here.
That came from the government during my honourable friend the member for
Crescentwood's (Ms. Gray's) campaign.
This
government is certainly not above using every resource they have for partisan
purposes. They are the people who spent
$20,000 for a campaign ad saying when Gary Filmon went into the room he got
tough. He got a deal before he came
out. That tough guy image, big pictures,
nice promo materials.
Do
you know what? There was not even a
phone number on there in case you wanted to take advantage of some industry,
trade and tourism. There was not any
indication of some program that you might take advantage of. This had nothing to do with education. It had nothing to do with economic
growth. It had to do with aggrandizing
some false image that this was a deal maker, and $20,000 of taxpayers' money
went into that.
Now
we learn that there is a $548,000 advertising campaign by the Manitoba
Lotteries Corporation producing six television ads and a number of other things
educating the public apparently about the way that gambling resources are used.
I
feel it is important to point out that it is significantly more than they are
spending on doing anything about the thousands of gambling addicts that are out
there, the thousands that are being created by their promotional
activities. But they are going to spend
$548,000 promoting themselves as the good people in this economy.
Talk
about being partisan. Talk about
misusing taxpayers' dollars. That is it.
Do
you know what, Madam Deputy Speaker? If,
in those ads that the Premier sent out saying I am a tough guy, there had been
a questionnaire, if there had been any information, if there had been any
attempt to make contact with people in a meaningful way about government
programs or about seeking advice.
We
have never criticized the public hearings that this government has done around
this province. We welcome it. We want it.
We support it. But, no, they
spend their money on promotional materials for their partisan purposes, and we
will always criticize that. We have
never criticized seeking information from the public, and will not.
The
member from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) was awfully snitty in his Speech
from the Throne response. I do not know
what he is so sensitive about, but he is awfully sensitive these days. I hear him lobbing more things.
* (1130)
I
am sure he will get his chance to speak.
I know that he is not given enough chance to speak, and he desperately
wants that. I encourage the government
to give him that because he does tend to, I think, embarrass himself by
consistently trying to speak when others are.
He
did get the chance in his response to the Speech from the Throne to put all of
those partisan comments on the record.
He will get it again, and maybe he will explain why he changed his mind
on the Assiniboine River diversion. I
have never quite heard that story.
Point of Order
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage la
Prairie): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker,
the fact is I never changed my mind on the Portage diversion. The fact is, though, that the Leader of the
Second Opposition unfortunately did. In
speaking in rural Manitoba, he was, dependent on the location, against it or
for it, going whichever way the wind blew.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member for Portage does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Edwards:
Madam Deputy Speaker, the people of Portage la Prairie are not confused
about the member's position. They know
it has gone 180 degrees.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, the fact is that we need to have, not just a retention of
capital; we need to do more than do that.
We need to make our training programs cost‑effective, market‑driven
and ensure that those we are training, spending money to train, encouraging to
participate, giving hope to, we follow through on and that in fact there are
jobs at the end of that.
We
put forward our proposal. It has not
been accepted, nor have our proposals for the retention of capital, and those
are the two major defects in this budget, the major initiatives that needed to
be taken in this province and that have not been taken.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, the largest claim in this budget is that taxes have not been
increased and that is a myth which has been promoted consistently by this
government. I think it is important to
recognize that in fact that is false and that in fact there have been
substantial tax increases to Manitobans over the years of this government and
that in fact the pockets of Manitobans are consistently being picked to a
greater extent.
One
of the most offensive things about the Budget Address for me was the piety of
the condemnation of the federal government:
Stop offloading; it is terrible.
This was the message that came from the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Stefanson), whining again, saying, stop offloading. That is what this government has done every
budget since they came into power. That
is their agenda.
Whether
it is 2,000 kilometres of roads pushed down the municipalities in their tenure,
whether it is reducing the property tax credit for all Manitobans and in
particular for the seniors through the reduction of that property tax credit,
whether it is increasing the Pharmacare deductibles making sure that people get
less to pay for the essential things that they need, the fact is that this
government has increased taxes, directly 19 times, and indirectly through
offloading education cuts, Pharmacare cuts, personal care home cuts, another 15
times for a total of 34 tax increases.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, the estimated effect of that is $790 for a
family of four, two taxpayers.
Now,
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to just indicate some of the more‑‑[interjection]
Well, I find myself now in a position to refer back to my earlier comments and
table a letter dated April 19, 1994, and I will just read briefly the
comment. It was to my friend the former
Leader Madam Carstairs, and it indicates:
"Phone calls have been made to and from PC occupied offices in the
Legislature pertaining to the forthcoming fundraising activities. Suddenly, this common occurrence is a big
concern for Mr. Ernst and Mr. Ashton, in an attempt to discredit Mr. Edwards
regarding gambling in Manitoba."
That is from Mr. Bruce Beatson, whom, I believe, is a Conservative Party
member. I want to table that.
I
also want to table for everyone's edification‑‑I believe this
lottery is actually over, but in the Progressive Conservative provincial
lottery there is not $3,000, not $50,000, not $100,000, but $104,000. This is a big‑time ticket, $100 per
ticket. Wait, wait, it is not over
yet. Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a
nice brochure. I am not tabling the
colour‑coded version, but a photocopy of it. This is a new prize format. The prize value has been massively increased
to over $104,000. So I want to table
that as well for members' edification.
Now,
Madam Deputy Speaker, property tax credits have been cut. The sales tax has been broadened. Pensioners' school tax assistance was income
tested in 1993. The social allowance recipients
tax credits were cut in 1993. There was
a tax on Blue Cross. The gas tax went up
.015 a litre in 1991. The diesel fuel
went up .01 a litre in 1991. There was
an environmental protection tax. There
was a gas tax up again in 1989. Water
power rental rates went up in 1989. The
mining tax has been effected in both '89 and '88. There was a leaded fuel surcharge.
In
addition to that, there were cuts to Education 2.6 in 1994, 2 percent in 1993,
and a further 2 percent cut to universities in 1993 and 3.4 percent this
year. They have offloaded provincial
welfare to the city, which has meant an additional $5.6 million for them, an
average of $34 per family in the city of Winnipeg. They have offloaded student social assistance
to the city, which meant an extra $1 million, a further $6 per family in
Manitoba. The Highways budget has been
cut, and 2,000 kilometres of provincial roads have been turned over to
municipalities. They, in turn, have to
tax their ratepayers.
There
have been Pharmacare increases. The
personal care home fees, the maximum rate was taken from $26.50 to $46.04 in
1993, meaning up to an increase of $7,132 for recipients of personal care home
services. In general, overall the fees
charged for people who have to deal with government from birth to the grave,
who have to deal with government, the fees have been increased up from $324
million collected in 1988 to $354 million in '92, an increase of $30.12 million
in that period of time.
So,
Madam Deputy Speaker, let not this government suggest that they have not picked
the pockets of Manitobans every single year they have been in power. They are playing politics with this
issue. They have never been true to
their word on it. The truth is that they
are doing exactly what they very piously accused the federal government of two
days ago. They have offloaded massively,
and they have, in fact, targeted the sectors of our economy which can least
afford to pay.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, far from being neutral and not going up, the tax system has
become a more elitist way of raising the monies. It does not increasingly bear a relationship
to those who can afford to pay in the normal progressive way of taxation.
I
also want to just indicate, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) stood up
three days ago, and, when I confronted him with the fact that he had been wrong
on his growth predictions and his deficit predictions for a number of years, he
indicated, no, we are right on, we are on more than any other province in the
country. He said, it is all the federal
government's fault.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, on January 22, just a couple of months ago, I noted in the
Winnipeg Free Press that the Minister of Finance said a couple of things. He said he was thrilled with the new attitude
of the new Minister of Finance, Mr. Martin.
He specifically mentioned that Manitoba's entitlement would jump to $1.1
billion by 1999, up from $854 million it now receives. Finance minister Eric Stefanson said he was
relieved the Chretien government decided to raise annual funding levels by an
average of 5 percent a year rather than freezing them.
* (1140)
He
gets up and cries the blues because the federal government is apparently not
treating him fairly. Look at the budget;
look what they rely on. The national
infrastructure program, a new third Core Area Initiative. They are relying on the information
highway. They are relying on jumping
onto the apprenticeship program. The
hypocrisy of the position of this provincial government as it plays politics
again between the levels of government is stark.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, one other thing I found of note in the minister's comments in
this same article. He said he was
disappointed that Ottawa did not remove the funding ceiling. He said he was disappointed they did not
remove the ceiling which will cost Manitoba as much as $30 million next year‑‑disappointed
they did not remove the ceiling for us to get more. Why?
Because this province might do worse.
That is how we would need that ceiling to be removed, if we did worse.
He
said two days ago, we are going to do great, things are taking off. Three months ago he stood up and complained
because we might do really, really poorly, and then there would be a ceiling in
place on the amount of transfer payments.
What is it, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Are we going to have growth or not?
Why is he complaining about a ceiling?
If
he believed his own statistics he would not have to worry about a ceiling. We would be growing. We would be moving on our own to a have
province. He knows full well he needs
that ceiling in place because we are not going to do as well as he predicted,
far from it. We are going to be far, far
below the national average and sinking.
That is why he needs to complain about a ceiling.
An Honourable Member:
Doom and gloom.
Mr. Edwards:
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme)
says, doom and gloom. I am asking the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) to reconcile a glowing picture for next
year with a comment that in fact he is disturbed that there is a ceiling in
place on transfer payments, because we might do really badly and then we would
not be able to collect enough money.
What is it? Are we growing or are
we sinking? I suspect the latter. The Minister of Finance knows full well that
he may, in all likelihood, need that ceiling to be removed because we are going
to increasingly become a have‑not province.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, the overall message that the Minister of Finance sent out was
that spending is down 1 percent; in fact, spending is down about 0.75 or a
percentage point. What I found
interesting was, you take that 1 percent across the overall government
operations spending cut, look at the departments that get hit more than 1
percent. That tells you something about
the priorities of this government.
There
is a 1 percent spending cut, but Agriculture, apparently a primary concern of
this government, is cut 4.5 percent; Community Support Programs, 2.2 percent;
Education and Training, 3.5 percent.
That tells you something about the priorities and the trustworthiness of
this government as it cuts 1 percentage point across the board and cuts 3.5
percent in Training, 11.4 in the Environment, 4.7 percent in Housing, 1.2
percent in Industry, Trade and Tourism, 2.3 percent in Natural Resources, 6.3
percent in Northern Affairs‑‑in addition to Agriculture, 3.4
percent in Rural Development. The two
major rural departments that deal with the rural economy and rural areas are
cut well in excess of the 1 percent across the board. Where is the coming through on the commitment
to these areas? Read the numbers, it
does not bear out. Status of Women, down
7.5 percent.
The
fact is this government‑‑and apparently has not changed its ways‑‑is
never prepared to walk like they talk.
They talk about these things being priorities. The fact is, when they have choices to make,
let us leave aside the question of the 1 percent reduction. Let us leave that aside. Let us assume that is a given, a 1 percent reduction. These are the ones that get hit hardest. These are the ones that they stand up and say
they believe in and they want to focus on, and these are the ones that get cut‑‑
An Honourable Member:
Do you want them to cut Health and Education?
Mr. Edwards:
Education? Education was cut 3.5
percent, Madam Deputy Speaker, 1 percent overall. They are three and a half times the average
rate of cuts from government. I am not
talking about the cut itself, I am talking about the priorities. They never ever come through on their stated
commitments. It is not there.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
Mr.
Speaker, I am asking this government on its own terms, having as a given that
they are doing a 1 percent cut, to come through on their stated
priorities. They do not do it. One percent across the board and the ones
that get hit the hardest are the ones they claim are important to our future
and our economic growth as a province.
Mr.
Speaker, in addition to the taxation statements which were made in the budget,
which we believe were patently false and misleading to the public, I think it
is important to recognize that in the past five years the Minister of Finance
has underestimated by $473 million, almost a hundred million dollars a year,
the deficit. It is important to
recognize that the long‑range forecasting which has been done since 1989
has never been right and has been out by a total accumulated amount of $920
million. It is important to recognize
that their growth predictions have never been right.
Mr.
Speaker, I can see saying, well, it is hard to judge the deficit because we do
not know what is happening with transfer payments. Under the old government, the Mulroney
government, that was true. There was a
lot of unpredictability. That has now
been cured.
But
what is interesting to me is not just that you are out on the deficit
predictions, which is one you could legitimately have some error on if in fact
there was unpredictability in transfer payments, but they are out on the growth
statistic.
That
is a statistic which they choose some company‑‑it is either the
Conference Board this year, it is another, Dominion Bond Rating or some other
company‑‑every year it is a new company that comes out with
something, selectively choosing that statistic and saying, that is our growth
rate. That is what they do, Mr.
Speaker. They selectively pick a growth
rate.
But
you know, it is a fool's paradise because the record is clear. Five years‑‑five years
wrong. And it is not just that they are
wrong; they are always wrong by overestimating.
I mean, that is a little curious, do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that it
is not just that you are out, but every year you overestimate?
You
paint the picture, you build hopes. It
is getting better; it is taking off. And
it does not happen. It is not just
error. It is calculated, directed,
misinformation about what the real growth rate in this province is and what is
really going to happen.
The
clearest indication of that is in fact the record of prediction which has never
ever been right.
The
government isolates the fact that manufacturing investment was up in 1993. It is important to note that overall capital
investment this year, in the last calendar year 1993, is down 11 percent from
when this government took office, approximately $500 million a year less in
overall capital investment in this province than when they took office.
So,
Mr. Speaker, there is in fact a real credibility gap at this point with this
government. I want to just point out one
other curious statistic from the revenue book.
This
government initiated a committee to streamline business, get rid of red
tape. Six years in office, talking about
it every day, but they have now come up with a committee. Better late than never. There has been a conversion on this. They are actually going to do it.
Do
you know what was interesting to me getting rid of red tape for companies and
corporations? Corporate and business
fees. Not tax based on profit‑‑fees. Fees for dealing with government and red
tape, up from $2,687,000 to $3,092,500.
Fees are up.
What
happened to the attempt to get rid of the red tape, to get rid of the
bureaucracy, to get rid of the expense of dealing with government? Another indication, in our view, of the
hypocrisy of the government.
In
conclusion, this budget, in our view, could have been a turning point for this
province, could have been an opportunity to latch on to the creative and
innovative thinking that is happening in this country, the thinking which is dedicated
not to tolerating 9 or 10 or 12 percent unemployment but moving towards full
employment because the biggest challenge for this government, for this country,
is work and jobs.
The
First Minister has often said the best social program is a job. We agree.
Why does he not do it? Why is
everything that this government has done make the rich richer, the poor poorer
and tolerate the level of unemployment in this province which means we have the
highest child poverty rate in the country, which means we have the highest drop‑out
rate and yet we are continuing to cut education, which means we have 30,000
people leaving in the last four years, a lot of them young people, the
unemployed leaving this province.
* (1150)
This
government felt politically they had to reflect on the last six years and try
to make it look good and try to say it is going to be great next year. It will not work. It should not work, Mr. Speaker. This was an opportunity to have recognized
that what had been done in the past had not worked and changed that focus and
changed that direction. It is a shame
that this government did not have the courage to recognize some of the things
that they have fundamentally misconstrued and gotten wrong.
An Honourable Member:
Come on, Paul. Where are your new
ideas?
Mr. Edwards:
Mr. Speaker, the members ask what are the solutions. That was put forward in a legislative agenda
in early March, I believe. March 6 of this
year, this was put forward in a legislative agenda. What I have talked about today, what I talked
about in the Speech from the Throne debate was that legislative agenda. Fine, attack it. That is their right. No doubt, they will, but we put forward that
agenda and it has been on the record for in excess of six weeks at this point.
Mr.
Speaker, therefore, I move, seconded by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux),
THAT
the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following words:
And
further regrets that
(a)
this government has failed to put in place programs that will get Manitobans
back to work and stop the chronic outflow of people from this province; and
(b)
this government has failed to ensure equal opportunity for Manitobans seeking
higher education by cutting student financial assistance and the ACCESS program;
and
(c)
this government has failed to meet its own health reform agenda by cutting long‑term
care, Women's Health, Healthy Child Development and other essential health
services for Manitobans; and
(d)
this government has made a mockery of the United Nations Year of the Family by
failing to strengthen the Maintenance Enforcement Program, and by cutting child
daycare and income maintenance and supplement programs; and
(e)
this government continues to provide inaccurate and misleading statistical data
to the people of Manitoba about our province's real economic performance.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker:
The honourable member's amendment is in order.
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson):
Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to rise today to speak on the
seventh budget that our government has presented in the last six years. I want to congratulate the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Stefanson) for probably crafting one of the finest documents that
I have seen in a long time.
I
want to also congratulate the Minister of Finance for consulting, probably for
the first time, with the general public on issues concerning the budget and the
financing of programs and the continuing initiatives of this government.
I
also want to congratulate the minister for listening to what the people have
said and including the suggestions that Manitobans made to the ministers during
that consultation process, including them in some of the priorities in his
budget.
I
have listened with some great interest to some of the things that the members
opposite, specifically the Leaders of the opposition parties, have said in this
House concerning the budget.
It
clearly demonstrates to me that they obviously have not been discussing with
Manitobans the needs for Manitobans. If
they had, they would have heard people say that they wanted stimulation for the
small business sector, and that, of course, is included in our budget.
They
would have heard people say that we wanted Manitobans to maintain their
competitive advantage as far as taxation is concerned. That, of course, has been addressed in this
budget.
They
wanted Manitobans and the Province of Manitoba to work to develop Manitoba as a
North American transportation hub and, clearly, our direction is evident in the
reduction of fuel taxes for the transportation industry in this budget.
They
also said that they wanted lower energy costs for many of our rural
communities. Members opposite will
certainly reflect on the budget, the initiatives that have been taken to
include lower energy costs through the implementation of our natural gas
program for rural Manitoba.
They
also said very clearly, and those of us who attended those hearings, and I was
in Altona, heard my community say very clearly that we want this government to
maintain its direction in ensuring that deficits will be brought down and
lowered.
They
said clearly to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), Manitobans want you to
live within your means, and that is, of course, what is happening. This budget clearly demonstrates our desire
to bring our deficit down to a zero position by 1996‑97. Clearly, the Manitobans said all across this
province: no increase in taxes. This government prides itself and can pride
itself, and I am proud to stand in my place today clearly indicating that it is
the seventh budget in a row where we have not increased the major taxes. That is an accomplishment that no other government
across this country has achieved, and we certainly pride ourselves upon having
had the ability to do it.
Our
previous Minister of Finance, Mr. Manness, clearly set the stage and the agenda
over the last five years for our government bringing us to the position where
we are today.
* (1200)
Clearly,
the duplication of services, whether it is provided by federal governments, by
provincial governments and/or municipal governments, is something that has been
a concern to all Manitobans for a long, long time, and we are working to remedy
those areas and work with all three levels of government to bring into being a
process that will allow governments to work more closely together and provide
services through one agency whereby we now very often provide those services
through three or four different agencies and three different levels of
government.
Our
social programs, it was clearly indicated through the process of consultation,
need to be retooled and a new initiative needed to be developed to ensure that
those social programs would provide some initiatives to get those people off
the social programs and into the workforce.
This budget clearly indicates that it is our desire as a government to
encourage social recipients to get back into the workforce, and actions taken
by this government in the future will clearly indicate that is our desire.
But
I hear the honourable member opposite yammering in his place, and I do not know
what he is talking about. Nobody can
understand him. It is apparently in
opposition to what I was saying.
Let
us just take a look at what the NDP government did from 1981 till 1988 under
the Pawley administration. In 1981, the
NDP Pawley administration took office, and the percentage of total revenue
going towards the provincial debt was 5 percent. Five percent of the total revenue of this
province at that time went for debt reduction and debt servicing. When they were kicked out of office in 1988,
nearly 13 percent of our total revenue was going towards provincial debt
reduction and debt servicing.
If
members opposite want to stand in their place and expound the wisdom of those
kinds of initiatives, simply borrowing and borrowing and borrowing to continue
a direction that they clearly did not know they were heading for, is something
that‑‑if they want to take pride in that, well, let them. The provincial debt between 1982 and 1988
tripled. We needed more deficits. We need more deficits, proclaimed the member
for Thompson. We need a greater
deficit. After placing Manitoba in its
worst debt situation ever, our opposition still insists on running a debt. They tell us to borrow more money to get the
job done. That is of course in exact
opposite to what the people in the province of Manitoba have been telling
us. They tell us to reduce the
debt. They tell government to live
within their own means.
Let
us listen to what the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) said. The member for Brandon East said: The problem we have with deficit is not with
spending; the problem we are having is on the revenue side. In other words, higher taxation. That is what the honourable member for
Brandon East wants.
In
1985‑86, the NDP realized a deficit of $310 million. In 1989 our public debt costs were $545
million, 12 percent of our total expenditures.
If that is a record that the members opposite want to be proud of, then
so be it. It is certainly something that
we do not take pride in. We, of course,
spend now some $550 million every year servicing the debt that has been
accumulated under the Pawley administration.
Ed
Schreyer must certainly sit there and cringe some days when he looks at his
term in office. That is what the people
still think of when they talk about NDPs today in this province, they talk
about Ed Schreyer and his administration.
When he started out he certainly ran a government that did not have to
borrow because of the huge increases in revenues that they were experiencing
every year. Then, when the revenues
started going down, what did they do?
They kept on borrowing money.
That of course has to stop.
The
1982 all‑purpose debt in this province was $1.4 billion‑‑
Point of Order
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood):
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would suggest that the member read
his own financial records and he would find that in the seven years that this
government has been in power they have increased‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member does not have a point of order.
That is clearly a dispute over the facts. The honourable member for Emerson to carry on
with his remarks.
* * *
Mr. Penner:
Well, it is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the honourable member for
Elmwood, when he rises in his seat, does not know what he is talking about,
never has and never will, as far as I am concerned. He simply blabbers about things that he knows
nothing about. I would suggest that he
study his own material before he gets up in the House. It is very evident that every time he rises
in the House he presents a bunch of incorrect statistics or information. Certainly we will not enter into that sort of
political rhetoric on this side.
In
1985‑86, the NDP realized a deficit of $310 million. In 1982, the all‑purpose debt of this
province was $1.4 billion, and interest costs were $114 million. In 1988, only six years later, the all‑purpose
debt was $5.3 billion. Interest costs
were five and a half million dollars.
What do the NDP say about that? [interjection]
Jerry
Storie? The member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie) said in 1992 we are all concerned about the deficit‑‑total
change of heart he had in those last three years from 1989 to 1992, a total
change of heart. Now he is concerned
about the deficit. Somebody must have
been talking to him.
The
member for Brandon East, Mr. Evans, we balance the budget over a business
cycle, he said. When did the deficit
increase proportionately over the 1980s?
When?
In
1993, Mr. Evans, the member for Brandon East, wanted to sell provincial bonds
to the Bank of Canada. To do what? So he could spend more money, make it easier
for governments to maintain services, he said.
If
that is fiscal responsibility, then may the good Lord help us, because all the
NDP know is borrow, borrow, borrow. It
appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that they just do not understand.
What
would happen if we follow the guidance of the NDP? Well, let us look at the Ontario situation
for a short while. In 1991, Floyd
Laughren, the Minister of Finance‑‑I think we should call him Pink
Floyd‑‑brought down a $10‑billion deficit in his budget. He insisted, we have one choice, either (a)
fight the recession, or (b) fight the deficit.
So he chose to borrow $10 billion more money to fight the deficit. Right?
Or was it to fight the recession?
In fact, what Mr. Laughren did was increase the deficit to such an
extent that Wall Street actually laughed Pink Floyd off the streets. Floyd's debt bulged to an all‑time
high.
What
did it cause in this country? It caused
interest rates to rise. It has caused
banking institutions to withdraw lending to small businesses, not only in
Ontario but all of Canada, and it caused all governments right across this
province a great deal of concern, including the federal government. Unemployment skyrocketed. Their exports decreased, and all I can say,
Mr. Speaker, is, thank goodness we do not have to take the advice of Mr. Evans
or Mr. Storie or Mr. Laughren or any of the NDP administrations across this
country.
Where
do we stand presently? Where are we
today? Remember the numbers. Thirteen percent when we took office went
towards debt financing‑‑13 percent.
We are down to 10 now. This
number is decreasing. The Dominion Bond
Rating Service states that we are one of two fiscally responsible provinces in
the country‑‑one of two. We
have the third lowest marginal tax rate in the country, and members opposite
want to borrow more money and increase taxation to what? As the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard
Evans) says, to increase government spending, to make it easier for government
to spend on programs.
* (1210)
We
have the lowest deficit in relation to the GDP anywhere in the country. We have secured‑‑and members
opposite should listen to this‑‑an $18‑million operating
surplus. Had we not the debt that the
NDP foisted on us today, this budget would show an $18‑million surplus,
operating surplus, total surplus. Well,
ladies and gentlemen, members of the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, it appears that
we are in the right direction.
Last
year, the Globe and Mail cited Winnipeg as one of the best lowest cost cities
in Canada for doing business. That was
the Globe and Mail. The most diversified
manufacturing sector in western Canada is in Manitoba, it said. A vast dependable supply of clean hydro and
electric power is available in Manitoba.
A highly diversified agricultural sector is available and operating in
Manitoba.
The
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) can certainly take pride in encouraging that
sector by programs that he has put in place, such as the GRIP, NISA and other programs
that we have supported continually to make sure that there is stability in the
agricultural sector. What did we get
from the opposition parties? They
opposed it every time we voted on budgets in this House.
I
am not going to have to go out to the public and defend what the honourable
members opposite have done in this House.
They are going to have to during the next election, which I suspect will
come within a year, year and a half, but they are going to have to go out there
and defend their actions. I wonder
whether they are going to have the will to stand in their place and support the
budget that has just been tabled in this House, because it is deemed, by most
Manitobans that I have talked to, to be one of the best budgets that they have
seen so far.
When
I listened to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, I actually almost felt
sorry for members in the NDP benches.
When I listened today to the Leader of the Liberal Party, I felt equally
sorry for the members in the Liberal benches, because it is apparent that they
have no clear direction to follow. They
are floundering like fish out of water.
It appears to me that Manitobans are clearly identifying that the
opposition parties, either one of them, are certainly not fit to govern and that
will be shown in my view during the next election when we go back to the
people.
Our
government will continue to move, as we have said in our budget, to health care
reform and the former Minister of Health needs to be congratulated for the
direction that he has given in Manitoba and the actions that he has taken to
ensure that health care will be maintained in this province for our future
generations.
People
all over the province‑‑and I have travelled this province a lot‑‑when
I talk to people about health care reform, they are beginning to realize what
health care reform means. It does not
mean what the NDP has done in Saskatchewan.
It does not mean closing 57 hospitals.
It does not mean what the NDP are currently doing in Ontario, closing
hospital beds after hospital beds, removing services in their budgeting
finance. We are clearly, when you talk
to hospital administrators, when you talk to nurses, when you talk to doctors,
they are telling me that it is clear and evident that we want to put in place a
system that will be maintained and that is going to be affordable over the next
couple of generations. That is where we
are heading with our health care reform.
We
have assured Manitobans that we will protect our vital services, but it is
interesting. Gary Doer states that there
is a mentality to throw money at problems rather than trying to reform spending
habits, and that is, of course, what the NDP are traditional for. The member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard
Evans) said, you know, let us sell bonds to the Bank of Canada so that we have
more money to throw at problems. That is
the NDP answer.
We
are working with the health care providers, be they administrators, doctors,
nurses and/or the general public. We are
working with them to discuss with them ways and means of ensuring that a system
will be maintained.
Mr.
Doer also states that there will be no bed cuts without a community‑based
health care system. That is exactly
where we are heading. Our budget clearly
states that $1.85 billion we are directing towards health care. How much more is that than what the previous
administration was directing towards health care? We have increased our spending very, very
dramatically.
We
are redirecting our resources towards community‑based care. I know the opposition members do not like
that because they would have liked to have done it had they had the ability to
think about it. We are directing our
changes towards efficient services and preventative health care. That is what everybody is telling us that
they want us to do. They want
preventative health care.
And
yet when members opposite, when we talk about our home care system, which will
receive an additional $2.6 million in this budget, the Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Doer) introduces a resolution in the House to oppose it.
I
cannot understand this. I cannot
understand and neither can the people in rural and urban Manitoba. Housing has been identified by opposition
members time and time again as needing to be a priority. We agree with that. There should be greater emphasis put on the
housing needs of this province. That is
why this budget will help to assist families and create more jobs in the economy.
We
will, through the Home Renovation Program, deliver approximately $10 million
worth in assistance to create 450 additional jobs and provide better housing
for Manitobans.
This
budget will also provide incentives for the creation of new homes in
Manitoba. Those of us who have young
families within our families realize the need for proper housing and for the
new home construction simply to provide good shelter for those young families
and secondly, to provide jobs in those communities where these homes will be
built.
A
tax rebate of $2,500 to a young family is a lot of money. Taxes are a significant burden when we
construct new homes. Therefore, our
Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) has taken compassion on these young
families and said that we will rebate to you $2,500 worth of tax if and when
you start building a new home.
We
are moving towards an area that I believe, in this government, will be seen in
the future as the main initiative that any government has taken. That, of course, is education reform. We have talked a lot, and people talk a lot
about the need for greater disciplinary action.
I
heard the member for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg) the other day talk about the
need for greater discipline within our schools.
I agree with much of what the honourable member for Rossmere said. He, being a former educator coming to this
forum, has a good knowledge of what the requirements in the education system
are. What he said was very similar to
what many of the educators‑‑parents tell me at home.
* (1220)
My
good friend Mr. Manness, the Minister of Education now, is certainly heading in
that direction. He knows what is needed
in education. He knows that we are going
to have to change the way education is provided in this province. He knows we are going to have to have better
curricula and develop better disciplinary processes within our education system
to allow us to teach our children what it means to be disciplined.
Discipline
does not mean beating people around the head.
Discipline, in my view, starts in the home. Disciplinary education starts in the home,
but it needs to be continued in our educational schools, in our
institutions. The people, the education
providers need to be assisted by governments and administrations to allow them
to teach discipline in school. It is my
view that discipline should not be enforced; it should be taught. If we pay enough attention to that, it can
begin. It will take a long time to turn
the wheel around. We all realize that,
but we have to begin somewhere.
People
from the university administration have told me time and time again that they
need better facilities. This budget
increases their ability to provide those facilities, upgrade those facilities
and build new facilities at the universities.
We
support a good, strong education system.
There are four tiers of education that I think can be applied. One is the primary one. One is the secondary one, the high school
education one. The third one is the
universities. The fourth one is, of
course, the community college concept.
It is my view that we are going to have to make some very significant
changes to adapt our educational system to allow us to provide the tools that
those educators are going to require in the future to be able to ensure that
our children have the ability to be placed in the workforce and become good
productive citizens.
I
noted from time to time that the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) stands in
her place and talks about transportation, specifically to the North. I appreciate that. Having had the ability and the opportunity to
travel this province virtually from end to end in my previous life before I
came to this building, it is very evident that people in northern Manitoba,
specifically the grain‑growing areas in Saskatchewan and in Manitoba,
need and require a transportation system to Hudson Bay. We support that. We have always supported that. We believe that those facilities should be
enhanced by the federal government and that we can ship significant amounts of
material. Not only grain but
manufactured goods as well as many other goods could be shipped out of those
northern ports. I have always been a
strong supporter of the Churchill port, specifically in the maintenance of that
railway to Churchill.
It
is our intention to ensure that we will be in a competitive position and,
therefore, we have for the third straight year now, Mr. Speaker, lowered taxes
to the transportation system to ensure that the transportation system,
including the railways, the airlines and the trucking industry, can operate
efficiently out of this province and thereby remain competitive. I think that history will show that this
administration has probably paid more attention and has provided better
initiatives to ensure that will happen.
That,
of course, leads me to the next item and that is, of course,
manufacturing. Manufacturing in this
province needs good, efficient transportation to get its goods to market. Manufacturing in this province can grow
tremendously if we pay proper attention to it.
It needs innovation and it needs competitiveness. I think we are providing, from a government
standpoint, both. We have initiated a task
force to look at ways of reducing the red tape, to ensure that we will get
government out of business's hair to allow them to operate more efficiently.
We
will provide an investment tax credit.
Those of us who are in the farm industry know what investment tax credit
means and what it does for the manufacturing sector. Only three years ago, four years ago when the
federal investment tax credits were put in place and then two years ago
discontinued, we saw a sharp decline in the purchases of farm equipment which,
of course, presented a real impediment to the likes of the Versatile farm
equipment manufacturing‑‑Ford of Canada now in Manitoba‑‑and
it decreased jobs and employment very substantially. A year ago when the federal government
reimplemented it, machinery sales started going straight up again.
We
need an incentive to encourage people to buy things, and that is why investment
tax credits are so important to manufacturers, to businesses and/or individuals
to encourage the buying of products and therefore enhancing our ability to
remain competitive and strong in our manufacturing industry and provide in an efficient
manner products that we can export and provide jobs within this province.
Small
business is the mainstay and has been the mainstay of the employment sector in
this province for many, many years. We
are encouraging the expansion of that small‑business industry by the
exemption of the capital tax, which will be doubled to $2 million this
year. As a result, this tax will be cut
from 600 small businesses, and, as already mentioned, we will cut the corporate
income tax rate from 10 percent to 9 percent and again providing an incentive
to encourage industries to expand and to build.
There
are many other things that I could be saying.
I want to say to you that I was cut short on my Throne Speech Debate by 10
minutes and again I am not receiving my full 40 minutes. I understand that I probably might be able to
continue, but I will conclude my remarks by saying that I think we have proven
to the opposition that we can create jobs and we can fight the deficit at the
same time.
This
path is not an easy one, nor has it been an easy one. Understanding that small business provides
jobs, and manufacturing creates products that we can export, therefore earning
foreign currency which we need to pay down debt. Our capital infrastructure works. The program will create some 2,300 jobs that
we have agreed to, and we were the first province to indicate to the federal
government that this kind of program needed to be implemented. Our renovation program is expected to provide
some 600 jobs, and jobs are what we said we would create and jobs are what you
will get.
We
will continue to boost our agricultural processing and export opportunities for
Manitoba farmers, and we will also continue to combat unfair trade harassment
with the international partners.
If
I had more time, I would like to expand on that a little more, but maybe what I
will do is continue my remarks on Monday when we come back to the House. I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving
me this additional time to talk about some of the initiatives that we have put
in place in this government, but also at the same time reflecting what the
previous administration had done before we were elected to government. That is why I believe that Manitobans will again
support this government and will continue to support this government for the
future.
I
want to encourage members opposite that when the time comes to vote on this
budget, think very clearly on what you are denying by voting against it. Think very clearly about what you are denying
when you are voting against it. You are
denying job creation. You are denying a
reduction in taxation to small young families.
You are denying housing to those starting young couples. You are denying educational opportunities
that we are providing. You are denying,
above all, the maintenance of a health care system that our people want,
deserve and our children of the future require.
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
I
am interrupting the honourable member according to the rules. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) will have five minutes
remaining.
The
hour being 12:30, this House now adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m.
Monday. Have a great weekend.