LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
MANITOBA
Tuesday, April 26, 1994
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
READING AND RECEIVING
PETITIONS
APM Incorporated
Remuneration and
Pharmacare and Home Care
Reinstatement
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Ms. Friesen). 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: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: The Clerk will read.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the province of Manitoba, humbly sheweth that:
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 Manitoba government has also cut
home care and implemented user fees; and
WHEREAS the Manitoba government paid an American health
care consultant over $4 million to implement further cuts in health care.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative
Assembly urge the Premier to personally step in and order the repayment of the
$4 million paid to Connie Curran and her firm APM Incorporated and consider
cancelling the recent cuts to the Pharmacare and Home Care programs.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual
Report 1992‑93 for the Manitoba Centennial Centre Corporation and the
Annual Report 1992‑1993 for the Manitoba Arts Council.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report 1992‑93 for Education
and Training, also the Annual Report for the year ended June 30, 1993, of The
Public Schools Finance Board, and on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mrs.
Vodrey), I would like to table the Annual Report 1991‑92 of the Public
Trustee.
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): I would like to
table the Quarterly Reports for Manitoba Telephone System for the Second
Quarter and Third Quarter of 1993.
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to table the Annual Report 1993 for the Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation and the Annual Report 1992‑93 for the Department of
Environment.
* (1335)
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 203‑‑The
Small Business Regulatory Relief Act
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): I would like to introduce The Small Business
Regulatory Relief Act, Mr. Speaker, as the first bill of this session.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Concordia (Mr.
Doer), that leave be given to introduce Bill 203, The Small Business Regulatory
Relief Act (Loi sur l'assouplissement de l'application des règlements aux
petites entreprises) and that the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion presented.
Mr. Storie: As is custom, I would like to introduce it
with a few brief remarks.
Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear from this Chamber and
outside of this Chamber of the importance of small business in the province of
Manitoba.
In 1986, a task force was established to review the impact
of business regulation on the success and viability of small businesses in the
province. Although there were
recommendations in that report, there have not been significant moves to
implement those recommendations, and in the intervening years, Mr. Speaker, the
complexity of regulations facing small business has increased.
Mr. Speaker, there is a need to make sure that business
regulations are imposed in a fair and a practical way on small business. Over the past few months, in discussion with
small business and in discussion more recently with the Winnipeg Chamber of
Commerce, which is supportive of these kinds of initiatives, it has been
determined that this particular legislation that requires the government to
predistribute regulations they have plans to introduce over the course of a
year, requires government to look at the practicality of business regulation,
particularly as it relates to the size of the business.
The larger businesses, Mr. Speaker, it is clear, can and
have the resources to assess impacts and to attempt to modify regulations in an
appropriate fashion, and small businesses cannot.
This is an important first step, and I hope that all
members opposite will support this legislation.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of
honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon Mr. Charlie Mayer, the former member of Parliament for Lisgar‑Marquette,
Mr. Terry Clifford, the former member of Parliament for London‑Middlesex,
and they are accompanied also by Mr. Kan Yuk Lam and Mr. Thomas Wong from the
Lamko Group.
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this afternoon.
Also with us this afternoon we have, from the John
Henderson Junior High School, fifty‑seven Grade 9 students under the
direction of Mrs. Manuella Vieira. This
school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr.
Maloway).
Also, from the Grant Park High School, we have thirty‑one
Grade 9 students under the direction of Mr. Norman Roseman. This school is located in the constituency of
the honourable member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray).
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this afternoon.
* (1340)
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Drug Patent Legislation
Government Action
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.
Drugs in Manitoba represent a very high cost in the budget
in terms of the cost of our health care system, both directly through the
Pharmacare program and also through our hospitals in the province of Manitoba.
In November of 1992, the former Minister of Health
indicated, Mr. Speaker, that nine provinces in Canada were opposed to C‑91,
the imposition of a drug patent law in this country that would have impact on
the cost of drugs to the consumer, the cost of drugs in our health care system
and also would be prohibitive, in fact contrary to the job investment interests
in the generic drug industry with their investment intentions in Manitoba. This is a very important issue for both
health and investment in our province and in Canada.
I would ask the Premier whether he raised this issue with
the Prime Minister when they met on March 2 to get an agreement to reverse C‑91,
reverse the former Mulroney government's drug patent law and get a program that
is appropriate for the people of Manitoba.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. This government vigorously opposed the former
federal government in its implementation of that bill. In fact, my recollection is that the former
Minister of Health and the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism
appeared at the committee hearings in Ottawa that looked into this bill.
We remain of the view that that bill did some unfair
things, particularly in its retroactive application to particular patents that
denied us the opportunity of an expansion of some of our generic drug producers
here in Manitoba.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Premier's
analysis. I was wondering whether he had
raised this with the Prime Minister at his March 2 meeting dealing with
Manitoba‑federal issues.
Mr. Speaker, the costs are projected to be over half a
billion dollars to the health care system in Canada. These are not my words. These are the words of Lloyd Axworthy during
the last federal election. The drug
patent companies‑‑and I think he is right; I think his numbers were
correct‑‑now are saying that the retroactive provisional loan will
cost the health care system some $2 billion.
I would like to know, given the fact that Manitoba was
opposed to the changes before, we remain opposed to the changes now, did we
raise this issue with the Prime Minister at his last visit with the
Premier? Did we raise this with the lead
federal minister for Manitoba, Mr. Axworthy, at any recent meetings we have
had? What action are we taking now to
reverse this law and get investment and good prices for our drugs here in
Manitoba?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite may want to
engage in cute gamesmanship. The member
opposite knows that the meeting with the Prime Minister was directed towards
pressing issues of the infrastructure agreement, which has since been signed,
of the Core Area renewal agreement, which is under discussion at the moment,
issues that involve some hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in the
province of Manitoba. The issue that he raises
is indeed an issue that we will be pursuing.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that we have remained consistent
on this issue, that we do not support the kinds of legislation that were
introduced and the negative effects that they have had, both on our Treasury in
terms of the escalating costs of drugs in this province but also on the
opportunity for some of our generic drug manufacturers to expand in this
province.
Mr. Doer: During the committee hearings in November and
December of 1992, all provinces opposed the imposition of Bill C‑91
except Quebec at that point. We are now
told, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government is very concerned about Quebec's
position on this matter and wants to tiptoe this issue past the next provincial
election in the province of Quebec.
Now, if it is going to cost us in health care costs and if
it is going to cost us in terms of jobs in the other nine provinces, I would
like to know what action the Premier will take, maybe at the western Premiers'
meeting scheduled a month from now or at other forums, to raise the issue on
behalf of the other nine provinces that want to change Bill C‑91 now and
not wait for some distant period of time after one provincial government's
election in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I would assure the member
opposite that our government will raise the issue with the Government of
Canada, and we will raise it as quickly and as effectively as possible. We can begin, I think, with appealing
directly to the federal government through our ministers involved with the
process.
I think it would be appropriate if perhaps we got the
support of the Liberal Party here in this Legislature provincially to urge
their federal colleagues to take some action on this issue.
* (1345)
Provincial Judges
Early Retirement Package
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.
Johns): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First
Minister.
In the face of historical backlogs in the Provincial Court that
the government now has apparently spurred on by the resignation of eight
Provincial Court judges with an attractive retirement package, it certainly
baffles Manitobans as to the government's motive in doing this at this time. Particularly disturbing is that this deal was
apparently done in secret without this Assembly's knowledge and approval as
required by law.
My question to the First Minister, Mr. Speaker, is: Would he now table any legal opinion that the
government has advising that it can conclude this retirement package without
the approval and knowledge of this Assembly?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should know
that matters of employment between employees of the government of Manitoba and
the government of Manitoba are matters that can be dealt with by any
administration in power.
If he doubts that, Mr. Speaker, I invite him to initiate a
legal action and show his legal expertise.
Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, as the First Minister should
well know, The Provincial Court Act of Manitoba requires that this Assembly
first approve any such packages that are offered to judges.
My question is: If
the minister will not table a legal opinion, will he now table the retirement
package and advise when the Judicial Compensation Committee last met?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I will take the latter part of
that question as notice, but I repeat, if the member opposite feels so strongly
about his legal position, let him initiate action, and we will be prepared to
demonstrate that the government acts within not only the letter of the act, but
the spirit of the act.
Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, this is not simply a matter of
legal positioning; it is a matter of broad social interest and economic
interest to Manitobans.
My final supplementary is:
Would the First Minister confirm that there are eight judges now
retiring, that they are to receive a one‑year salary at a cost of almost
$1 million? In other words, the judges
are being paid, Mr. Speaker, $1 million not to deal with the backlog.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the member, if he is concerned
about people accepting significant sums of money from the government, ought to
talk with his member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) about the money that he is
accepting from the government of Manitoba, from three different sources.
Workforce 2000
GWE Group Inc.
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Education and Training.
Last October, GWE Group Inc. was awarded a contract or was
given a grant by the government of $600,000, a forgivable loan, as part of
their $1.4‑million facility that they are building in Brandon.
In addition to that, under the Workforce 2000 program, we
have recently learned they were given at least another $130,000‑‑it
may be more‑‑for training.
Mr. Speaker, part of that money, $42,000 of it, is going to
a company from Tampa, Florida. The
company is named Decision Strategies, and that company has been given this
$42,000 contract to train the trainers at this centre.
My question for the minister: What are the criteria under Workforce 2000
for giving monies to companies not only outside of this province but outside of
this country to train people?
These are Manitoba taxpayers' dollars. What are the criteria for giving a contract
like this of $42,000 to a company from Tampa?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I regrettably cannot answer that question specifically with respect to
providing funds to organizations which provide training expertise which may be
housed outside of our province.
But I point out to the member that indeed the Provincial
Auditor has looked at these issues and has said as recently as the report that
as of May '93, the program objectives are clearly defined in consistence with
the program's mandate. Training
activities are appropriately organized and controlled, performance criteria in
place to monitor achievement of results, management decisions are timely and
based upon relevant information, and accountability reporting‑‑and
I think this is the essence of the member's question‑‑on financial
activities undertaken and results achieved is provided.
Mr. Speaker, that is the outside, third‑party
endorsement of the principles around this program and the general criteria that
are in place as having been judged by the Provincial Auditor.
I say to the member and indeed all Manitobans, who of
course are interested in this program, that the highest independent court in
the land, this being the Provincial Auditor, has looked at this program and
certainly has given it endorsement.
* (1350)
Mr. Edwards: Again for the minister‑‑and I will
look forward to the minister bringing forward the specific criteria as to
giving Manitoba taxpayers' dollars to outside individuals, indeed outside of
this country‑‑can the minister indicate what criteria were applied
to this specific contract, given that there was at least one other company with
an office already located in Winnipeg, the Phone Power company, which is a
division of Stentor?
Can the minister indicate with respect to this particular
grant to this company, which ended up having $42,000 leave the country, what
the criteria applied for this training decision were and why the company
already with an office in Winnipeg was not given the contract?
Mr. Manness: I can only again, at this time, and I will
take the question as notice, indicate that the introduction of this company to
Manitoba and the partnership between ACC and GWE allows for the development of
an education infrastructure in telecommunications in Manitoba at Assiniboine
Community College. This will result in
an ongoing provincial training capability that will be instrumental in
attracting other such businesses to Manitoba in the future.
What we attempted to do was put into place a synergy where
that type of training could be provided at the community college that is
located in Brandon.
So, through all of this and through gentle guidance and yet
recognizing that criteria of the program had to be met, we were trying to
establish within that training facility in Brandon that there would be an
opportunity, in spite of the protestations from the member for Brandon East
(Mr. Leonard Evans) who did not want to see this company‑‑we sensed
there was greater opportunity for the community of Brandon, but that would be,
of course, aided if indeed there were training capabilities at ACC.
Mr. Edwards: The minister uses the words "gentle
guidance" which is one thing, Mr. Speaker, but having significant amounts
of taxpayers' dollars leave this province and go to a company in Florida is a
serious concern, I think, for all Manitobans.
I will look forward to receiving more specifics, as the minister
indicates.
My final question for the minister: Given that the overall cost of establishing
this operation is $1.4 million, and with the Workforce 2000 money, the
government is paying, in effect, in excess of 50 percent of that, does this
represent the government's strategy which is essentially to look to outside
investors to come in and essentially cover in excess of 50 percent of their
start‑up costs? Is that going to
be the new policy of this government in the coming years as they try to attract
business, to pay in excess of 50 percent of the start‑up cost?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the question
is no.
This initiative, again, is consistent with the government's
focus on telecommunications as a priority sector for provincial economic growth
and renewal.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell the member opposite that
the telemarketing industry in Canada is about to provide upwards of 200,000 to
one million jobs by the end of this decade.
The member has to decide for his party whether or not he believes
Manitoba should have a place within this important sector.
Mr. Speaker, I say to him at this point in time, if we can
support to some extent the training within this industry, and if the member
chooses not to accept the thrust that we would like to see within this
industry, then all he has to do is stand and say so.
This government is firmly committed to trying to carve out
for itself, and indeed the people of this province, opportunities within this
sector.
* (1355)
Bill 22
Health Care System
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, in the health care field, this
government continues to act first and then, after they get into trouble, ask
questions. They did this in home
care. They have done it in
Pharmacare. They have done it in home
care equipment and supplies.
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).
By superimposing Bill 22 on all facilities, rural health
facilities, personal care homes, community clinics, they have imposed a very
unfair burden on many institutions. I am
wondering, in light of the letters we have received from Winnipegosis, from
Grandview, from Gilbert Plains and from other agencies, will the government now
withdraw its application of that bill‑‑as it has, in a strait‑jacket
fashion on all facilities, that it is affecting patients‑‑and
rethink its policy in an area, for example, of hospitals where they have
already cut out $58 million?
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Acting
Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of
Health, I will take that question as notice.
Bill 22
Health Care System
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also to the
Premier.
Will the Premier order his Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae)
to ask the department to withdraw its March 28 letter that was directed to all
facilities that said Bill 22 must be imposed, because even organizations like
the Manitoba Health Organization are not certain what the application is,
except they have maybe heard something from the Premier in an interview?
Will they immediately withdraw that letter and clarify the
situation for all those hospitals?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health is
already on record that he will not allow any of the measures that are taken to
impair patient care in the hospitals and personal care homes.
I further advise the member that the minister has a meeting
scheduled with MHO later this week and that the whole issue is going to be
resolved as a result of that meeting.
Health Care System
Layoffs
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary: Will the Premier now meet with the Minister of
Health (Mr. McCrae) and can he advise this House that the last round of Connie
Curran layoffs that we are awaiting from the Health Sciences Centre and St.
Boniface, will they put those on hold?‑‑because those layoffs are
sitting on the desk of the minister.
Will the Premier today announce to this House that he will
formally put those on hold?‑‑because the system can no longer
tolerate any more layoffs by this government.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I just caution the member
opposite not to try and create fear and anxiety in minds of people. Any of the changes and decisions that will be
made in the hospitals will be made by the administration in consultation with
their staff, their patient‑care people and so on. The decisions that are made will be made only
under the assurance that patient care will not be negatively impacted by any
decisions that are made within the hospital scheme.
Work and Social
Opportunities Inc.
Staffing
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, last year serious allegations
were made about very serious problems at Work and Social Opportunities
Inc. At that time I wrote to the
minister and asked her to investigate and make changes. The reply from the minister was that they had
investigated and everything was okay.
Given that there are still very serious concerns on the
part of parents and staff about inadequate levels of staffing, inadequate
levels of funding, inadequate staff training and no training at all for persons
in the sheltered workshop, what is this minister prepared to do to ensure that
there is qualified staff hired, adequate funding to do so and training for
staff and clients?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question. It does provide me with the opportunity to
put on the record that there are many people with mental disabilities
throughout our province of Manitoba that are served very well through over 60‑some
agencies that provide work experience and work day‑program opportunities
for over 1,700 mentally handicapped Manitobans.
Our commitment has been strong as a government and we will continue.
Through this year's budget process I have worked long and
hard to ensure that there would be increased funding for those with mental
disabilities so that we could provide more day programming and more opportunity
for those with a mental disability.
Mr. Speaker, we have been working with WASO, with the board
and with the staff as a result of the very serious allegation that came forward. As a result of our investigation, they will
be hiring more staff to deal with the issues around safety and security.
* (1400)
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer of the minister,
but I think that the report we heard today is really just symptomatic and what
we need is some stability in this organization since 50‑‑what is
the minister prepared to do to provide some stability to this organization
since they have had a 50 percent turnover in staff in the last year?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, we do contract with agencies to
provide services through my department on a regular basis. It is the board's responsibility to ensure
that appropriate staffing levels are in place. We do not get involved in a board/staff
issue. The area that we become involved
in as government is in the area of safety and security for those clients that
are served through the process.
When that issue was brought to our attention, we were
extremely concerned that appropriate levels of staffing were in place to meet
the needs of the clients that are served.
As a result of our working with WASO, they have indicated to us that
they will be hiring more staff to deal with the issue.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat the
question to the minister, because obviously there needs to be much more
accountability to the taxpayers of Manitoba.
What is this minister going to do to intervene to ensure
that the board carries out its mandate and is accountable to the taxpayers for
the large sums of money they get so that these problems do not recur?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I take some exception to the
comments from my honourable friend that we have no commitment or do not care
about the mentally disabled in the province of Manitoba, because actions speak
louder than words.
I have already indicated that there is a considerable
increase, some $4 million, in this year's budget in the Department of Family
Services to deal with issues surrounding the mentally disabled and their
ability to live in the community and to work in the community and to have day
programming opportunities in the community.
I have already indicated that a board/staff issue has to be
dealt with at the board level, and we do entrust community boards to make
decisions around appropriate levels of care.
When an issue of safety or security comes to our attention, as the
Department of Family Services we make every effort to ensure that there is that
safety and security in place. We have
already accomplished that by making recommendations that the board has accepted
to put more staff in place to ensure safety and security.
Fishing Industry
Restocking Program
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, the commercial fishing industry
in Manitoba has been in some tough times over the past few years‑‑lower
prices, higher costs and in most areas decline in pickerel and sauger stock in
our lakes. This has been due to poor
natural reproduction, some low water levels in the past few years, poor
spawning success and a limited supply of pickerel fry for restocking from this
province.
My question to the Minister of Natural Resources is: Can this minister tell this House and Manitoba
fishermen what action is his department taking to correct the situation, and
does he have a plan to restore and maintain the fishing stock in our lakes?
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to answer that question.
Everybody that is involved with commercial fishing, of course, realizes
that the prices have been dramatically low, not in Manitoba, not in Canada, but
on an international basis. As a result
of that, it has created a lot of pressure on our commercial fishing people as
well as the fact that the last number of years have not been good years for
catching fish. This is common knowledge.
I have had the occasion to meet with various groups of the
commercial fishermen, and we are looking at developing the possibility together
with communities to develop fish hatcheries.
We are in the process of having those discussions right now and,
hopefully, we can bring something forward together with the communities to
address that concern.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Speaker, the commercial fishermen of
Fisher River, Waterhen and Lake St. Martin submitted such a program to this
minister just 10 days ago.
Has this minister had a chance to look at the
proposal? Will he support this
proposal? What is his department going
to do with this project?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I just answered the question to
some degree saying that we are talking with the various commercial fishing
groups, that one of the priorities that I like to establish is we will take and
do a lot more of the fish raising, fish hatcheries, together with the
communities.
The fact that an application was made 10 days ago and the
member is asking me what kind of action are we taking, Mr. Speaker, we are
talking about changing the whole concept of fish stocking and we are in the
process of doing that.
Northern Freight
Assistance Program
Reinstatement
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the
minister: Will this minister re‑establish
funding to the Northern Freight subsidy?
Since funds were cut in a previous budget that have caused financial
stress to our northern fishermen, will he at least bring the subsidy back to
the level it was before?
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, when my colleague the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) was Minister of
Natural Resources, I think the subsidy was in the area of $300,000 to
$400,000. My immediate predecessor the
member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns), when he was minister, that gradually escalated
up to $500,000.
Two years ago, the decision was made to limit it at
$250,000, and that program is still in effect there to try and assist the
northern people. It is prorated based on
distance, and it is still there to assist some of the commercial fishermen.
Literacy Programs
Funding
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Education.
The cost of illiteracy to the province is very high and at one
point in time we felt somewhat optimistic that the government was in fact going
to address the issue of illiteracy and try to do something about it. The reason why I felt that was false
expectations I guess more than anything else.
I want to quote from the government throne speech in
1991: "Our education system will
aim at increased levels of literacy and other basic skills . . . ." This is what this government said in the
throne speech of 1991. At the same time,
what did we see in the most recent budget?
My question is: How
does the government demonstrate its commitment to increasing levels of literacy
by cutting back on literacy programs and continuing education? That appears to be a bit of a conflict, Mr.
Speaker?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister
of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, the
question of literacy today is on the minds of most people involved in public
policy. I can indicate to the member
that the councils that have been put into place, literacy council that was put
into place by this government and which fostered the development of many
volunteer groups throughout our communities, has worked extremely well. It is a model that is being followed
throughout Canada because, indeed, this literacy question is not a government reserve. Indeed, it is not only the opposition parties
that are interested or any formal government group. It is a community issue.
In the province of Manitoba, we have had many fostering
groups throughout our communities which have taken the lead and who have
reached out to those who would want to have higher levels of learning. Mr. Speaker, that model has worked extremely
well in our province. It is on that
basis that we are able, through the volunteer efforts of so many Manitobans, to
do a much better job in outreaching.
As far as within the public school system, that is the
essence of the whole education reform that we are embarked upon at this time.
Access
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Mr. Speaker, the minister talks in terms of
what it is that he feels that he is doing in order to facilitate more access to
literacy.
I would ask the Minister of Education, can the minister
tell us today that this government will ensure that more people will be able to
gain access to literacy courses this year over last year? Will he make that commitment?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, in the sense that we have a stable level of funding for that, I
can. I can also, though‑‑the
question probably should be directed more so to all Manitobans, those of us who
have skills, and to the extent that we are prepared to share in a volunteer
effort with those who do not, the answer is quite obviously, yes.
Mr. Lamoureux: I hope that the Minister of Education will be
very receptive in terms of what it is that we will be proposing this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Private Sector
Involvement
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Will this minister acknowledge that in order
to increase literacy, we need to get the private sector and the local
communities involved?
New Brunswick, in fact, has a model in which they have seen
tremendous response, where we see approximately 2,900 people applying in one
year. That is almost triple the size of
the province of Manitoba, fairly close to it.
My question to the Minister of Education is: Will he make a commitment to adopting a model
similar to what is being accepted in the province of New Brunswick in order to
really do something‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, New Brunswick does not have the lead in this issue. The province of Manitoba has the lead and the
model.
The member's colleague was in attendance with us when we
opened the Winkler educational centre and jobs finding centre. That is the model. Indeed, it was one of the few openings of an
educational facility that I was at where there were more people from the
private sector there than there were bureaucrats.
So the issue is, as the member says, the business
community. But that is not provincial
dollars, that is the community itself rallying to the support.
The model is here.
The model is in Manitoba, and it is the one we will build upon.
* (1410)
VIA Rail
Railex Purchase
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): On Friday, the Acting Minister of
Transportation (Mr. Driedger) said that reports of an offer by U.S.‑based
Railex to purchase VIA Rail and lay off all its employees in western Canada were
rumour.
Given that the federal government has now admitted that it
has received an offer, can the Minister of Highways and Transportation tell the
House today what action he has taken to protect VIA Rail jobs in Manitoba and
the routes in Manitoba? If he has not
taken any action, why not?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Highways and Transportation):
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that Transport Canada has received
offers in the past for services of this nature.
I understand that they have received another offer. We will be communicating with the
minister. We have a council of ministers
meeting in July, and this is one of many issues that will be on the table for
discussion.
We have corresponded with the Minister of Transport's
office, attempting to get a meeting on a variety of issues‑‑clearly,
this is another one of the issues on the list‑‑and they will
respond as they deem necessary, according to the offer in front of them.
Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, if we wait until July, it could
be too late for the jobs and the services in Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, Railex made an offer to buy VIA Rail over a
month ago, and I would like to table press releases from Railex dated March 16
this year.
Railex believes that restructuring VIA Rail is
imminent. Is this government considering
subsidizing Railex for a Winnipeg‑to‑Calgary service, or any
passenger services in Manitoba, since Railex has indicated that is one of their
items of consideration?
Mr. Findlay: No.
Mr. Reid: Since Railex suggest in their proposal that
certain communities will suffer full curtailment of passenger services, Mr.
Speaker, is it the policy of this government to accept selling our vital
northern passenger services?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, the federal government held
hearings on VIA Rail in Manitoba. I
appeared there and made presentations that the services to those isolated
communities must be maintained.
Manitoba Hazardous Waste
Corporation
Financing Agreement
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Environment.
At the announcement of the preliminary agreement between
Industrial Ecology Incorporated and the Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management
Corporation on March 24, the minister stated that the financing had been
secured for the $15 million to $20 million private investment.
Can the minister confirm this today and tell the House what
the deadline is for this agreement to become a final agreement? Did we meet the 30‑day deadline, which
would have been this past Sunday, April 24?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, we are
expecting finalization next week.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House
what has to happen to turn this preliminary agreement into a final agreement so
that we can see the construction begin this summer that was committed at the
announcement of the project?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, the conditions of closure for
the first part of this agreement is that we receive a $250,000 deposit.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us where
the $15 million to $20 million invested from IEI is coming from?
Mr. Cummings: No, Mr. Speaker. We will wait for that confirmation when they
put their deposit down.
ACCESS Programs
Funding Reinstatement
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, there are continuing concerns
over this government's cuts in terms of education, particularly in terms of New
Careers and ACCESS. These cuts are
already having an impact. It is
impacting on the ability to recruit students, impacting on the ability of
northern aboriginal students to relocate, and particularly Metis students.
My question for the Minister of Education is: When will the minister recognize that when he
talks about equality, Mr. Speaker, not everybody has equal access to education
in this province? That is why we had the
ACCESS programs. When will he reinstate
the 20 percent cut to ACCESS programs in the province of Manitoba?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Well,
first of all, Mr. Speaker, a little history.
Since we have been in government, we have accepted offloading from the
federal government to the tune of, I believe, $4 million a year within the
ACCESS program, and we have acknowledged our responsibility with respect to
providing opportunities for those who are disadvantaged in our community.
When we looked in greater depth into the program, what
became obvious was that there were some students under this program who did
have means beyond what many other students within our province did. Consequently, to put everybody onto a fairer
level, particularly those who graduate from this and are almost guaranteed with
certainty a job, we sensed that it would be fairer if there was a call upon
those who were chosen to be part of this program to also borrow and have some
indebtedness with respect to the first tier of Canada Student Loans.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, when will the minister recognize
that we are talking about people from remote northern communities, not
Tuxedo? When will the minister recognize
that he cannot talk about true equality without having the type of ACCESS
funding that has been in place and that this government is now cutting?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, the member can try and make this
a class struggle all he wants, but he is going to lose.
An Honourable Member: Class?
Mr. Manness: An economic class struggle. He will lose, Mr. Speaker, because the
evaluations show that there were sizable numbers of people who had means, No.
1, and beyond that were guaranteed employment.
All we are saying, in being fair with all of the people who
will try and access Canada Student Loans, certainly there should be some
expectation that they might have a small part of student debt like indeed many,
many Manitobans.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, how can this minister talk about
a class struggle? They have increased
private school funding by 8 percent and cut ACCESS by 20 percent.
My final question is:
When will this minister understand that the criteria for ACCESS are
based on need and that he cannot talk about those students having the
means? Mr. Speaker, they do not. This government is strangling the ACCESS
programs by funding cuts of 11 percent last year and 20 percent this year.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. There will be no reduction in intakes. For those who do not have means, obviously
the status quo will be in place. The
reality is, there are those that do and they should be accessed and directed
into the same student aid financial support that everybody else has. That is the fairer policy. That is what is in place. That is equity.
Bill 22
Health Care System
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, Bill 22 will continue to impact on
patient care, particularly in the rural hospitals. We were told this morning that with the
Morden and Winkler hospitals, because government home care workers have to take
off Fridays, patients, rather than being discharged on a Friday, have to wait
until a Monday or a Tuesday.
Can the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for Bill
22, tell this House today, what are the real costs of Bill 22, given that there
are extra costs attached to this Bill 22, particularly in the case of hospitals
and home care?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite was
obviously not listening to my response or to the responses of the Minister of
Health (Mr. McCrae) when this issue was raised previously in the House.
First and foremost, we will not tolerate a situation in
which there is a diminution of patient care in our institutions.
Secondly, the minister will be meeting later this week with
MHO, which represents these various institutions, to seek a resolution to their
concerns regarding this issue, but any resolution will not impair patient care
in the hospital.
Obviously, we are not going to seek a solution that adds
costs to the system.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
BUDGET DEBATE
(Fifth Day of Debate)
Mr. 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 the proposed motion of the honourable Leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) in amendment thereto and the proposed motion of
the honourable Leader of the Second Opposition (Mr. Edwards) in further
amendment thereto, standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Energy
and Mines.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.
Speaker, this is a great day to be speaking on the seventh great budget that
this government has presented to the people of Manitoba because April 26 was
the first day of the election of this government‑‑a proud day for
Manitoba, Sir.
My honourable friends are anxious about the budget vote,
and I am anxious to see them stand up and vote, but the budget is the most
important document that is presented to a Legislature at any sitting. The budget presents our fiscal policy, it
presents our taxation policy, it presents our funding levels to the various
organizations and departments and, probably as important in today's
environment, Sir, budgets signal to outside observers the general direction
that a government is going to take. That
general direction is observed, Sir, by financial markets, the business
community and, more importantly, the investment community.
The Budget Debate in general, as I said earlier, is our
most important debate because it gives time for opposition parties and
individual members to lay out their concerns about the initiatives in the
budget, to concur where they believe initiatives in the budget are appropriate
and good for the Province of Manitoba and good for the people of Manitoba, but
more importantly, it gives members of the opposition parties an opportunity to
suggest alternative courses of action.
I must say that this Budget Debate is particularly
important in that latter regard because this may well be the last budget that
is presented to the House prior to the next provincial election.
It is certainly incumbent upon the opposition parties to
indicate to government what they would do differently. What they are against, we know, but it is
incumbent that opposition parties tell us in this Budget Debate what they stand
for in terms of taxation policy, fiscal policy, level of funding to different
organizations, institutions, as well as to what they would do about the
deficit.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to background my remarks by saying
that no one in this House would disagree with the statement that the province
of Manitoba, the nation of Canada, North America as a continent is facing a
globalized economy. More and more, our
economic activities are of relevance not just within the jurisdiction of
Manitoba or the country of Canada, but they are very relevant in terms of a
global market.
Canada has been a trading nation, and Manitoba as a
province has been a trading province. We
have created our wealth in terms of trading our resources to world markets, to
North American markets particularly.
When we sell and when we export from the province of Manitoba, we create
wealth that is used to invest in the economy, is used to create jobs for the employment
of our citizens and our youth. It is
used to tax that creation of wealth so that we can provide for social programs
and the amenities that we believe we have come to expect from government.
But, Mr. Speaker, government policy in terms of taxation
and budget, taxation and our budgetary approaches, is very much an important
factor in the cost of production of those goods that we wish to trade into a
globalized market. All of us must
recognize in this House, whether we are Liberals or whether we are New
Democrats, that taxation levels affect the cost of production of all of the
goods that we wish to trade into the world and globalized market, and that
regulation does the same.
That is why this budget, Sir, is terribly important because,
once again, we have a number of initiatives which are very, very important to
the taxation levels of our major businesses, designed specifically to lower
their costs of production, to make their goods more tradeable and more
competitive in a global market. Why do
we do that, Sir? We do that because
without that kind of competitive taxation environment, our industries, our
businesses cannot sell their goods into a very competitive global market.
So, again, we are sending a clear and unequivocal signal to
those observers in the investment community that Manitoba understands their
needs in terms of the global market and their ability to participate in it and
to compete in it from a production base in Manitoba. We understand, Sir, as no other party in
opposition understands, that businesses must earn a profit. If businesses do not earn a profit, they will
not be there creating the jobs and the investment in the future of this
province.
Now, as for my honourable friends in the New Democrats and
the Liberals, I have never heard once in the time that I have been here since
April 26 in any of the sessions, any of the members opposite acknowledge that
profit is a very important component of the business environment. It is simply not in their vocabulary.
Point of Order
Ms. Becky Barrett
(Wellington): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if the
minister responsible for whatever it is‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Energy and Mines.
Ms. Barrett: ‑‑the minister is responsible for
now would take a look at at least my speech on the Speech from the Throne, he
would realize I did in fact say that businesses had a legitimate role to play‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order. That is clearly a dispute over
the facts.
* * *
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my honourable
friend's immaculate conversion, but then that begs the question, why is she
voting against a budget which allows companies to profit in Manitoba? It again follows that my honourable friends
the New Democrats and the Liberals are rather inconsistent in what they say and
what they do.
Important to that business community is a consistent
climate where government does not do about‑faces, sharp turns in policy,
abrupt changes in taxation, abrupt changes in approach. That is the importance of this seventh
consecutive budget in which we have not raised, in fact we have lowered, a
number of taxes that affect our business community. I will deal with them later.
The important question I think, Sir, at this juncture is to
ask ourselves as MLAs in this House, is the signal that Manitoba is a good
place to invest, to create wealth, to employ Manitobans and to sell products
into the global market, is that message and that signal to the outside
investment community a good signal or a bad signal?
I think it is fair to say that without exception everyone
in the investment community, in the financial advisory community, in the
business community, even in the labour and academic communities acknowledge that
we are leading Canada in terms of ability to understand the necessary
ingredients of a growing economy, and they say that our record of budgeting in
the Province of Manitoba is the best in Canada.
That is said not by us as members of the current governing party, but
that is said by financial houses in Canada and in the United States. That is said by financial editorial writers
like Diane Francis and others. That is
somewhat confounding to my honourable friends in the opposition, but without
exception they endorse the goals that we are attempting to do through seven
consecutive budgets.
Who supports this approach?
Well, it is kind of interesting to look across the House. This is where my Liberal friends‑‑and
I know they will read my urgings in Hansard.
My honourable friends the Liberals have voted against every single
budget in the Province of Manitoba since we came to power, every single budget,
and they have announced their intention to vote against this budget.
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friends the New Democrats have a
somewhat different record in voting for budgets. There have been times when they have
supported our budgetary measures, to their credit. When they have supported our budgets in 1988
and 1989, guess what happened? They went
from the dirty dozen to the current 21, proof positive that if you support good
policies the people of Manitoba will support you.
* (1430)
The Liberals, in opposing every one of our budgets in '88
and '89, went from 22 seats down to the current seven. I urge my honourable friends, just with that
one piece of logic to vote for this budget.
It would be good for you to do that.
Mr. Speaker, a checkered record from the NDP, a consistent
record of being against every budgetary measure in the Liberal Party of
Manitoba, and then of course our public sector unions without equivocation have
always opposed our budgetary measures.
They are opposing these current ones with a new flurry of ads from the
nurses' union and from other public sector unions in anticipation of an
election at some point in time.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when we have the Liberals voting against
every single budget that this government has brought to the Legislature, which
has lowered taxes, which has lowered the deficit, which has created a business
environment and an investment environment that is good for the creation of
wealth and investment in jobs, we must conclude that when the Liberals vote
against those, they would, should they govern, spend more. They would tax more, they would borrow more,
and they would drive away our competitive advantage in the province of
Manitoba.
To give one brief example of that, Sir, since we have been
in office six years now‑‑we have enjoyed six months of federal
Liberal government. What have we got
with six months into their mandate? We
have a dollar that has dropped three cents.
We have interest rates that have gone up two percentage points. Now, I wonder how many home buyers and people
borrowing to sustain their businesses are thanking Mr. Chretien and Mr. Martin
for their wonderful economic policies that they are now governing this great
country of ours with.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
So I say to my honourable friends the Liberals, we do not
know exactly what Liberals in Manitoba stand for, because they sort of are on
all sides of the issues, and depending on what time of the day or day of the
week, you may or may not get a consistent position from Liberals. But one thing we do know is what provincial
Liberal governments do in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick,
Nova Scotia and the Province of Quebec.
They reduce spending. They
increase taxes. They increase
deficits. They take pay increases away
from civil servants. They take pay
increases away from teachers, nurses, doctors.
We know that Liberals in provincial governments do those sorts of
things. We do not know whether a Liberal
administration, Heaven forbid, in the Province of Manitoba would emulate that,
because they have never consistently laid out a position.
Madam Deputy Speaker, my honourable friends the New
Democrats say, what about Tories? I
openly admit that we have approached the government and budgeting from the
expenditure side, not the taxation and borrowing side. I openly admit that. We are emulated in that goal by provincial
Liberal governments and provincial New Democratic Party governments.
Now I want to deal just briefly with my honourable friend
the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), my dear friend the member for
Elmwood. My friend the member for
Elmwood periodically cautions that we have not done a very good job of
controlling the deficit. Madam Deputy
Speaker, I will acknowledge that the deficit is higher today than I would like
it to be, and, to every member on our side of the House, the deficit is higher
today than we would like it to be. But
let us consider the genesis of that deficit and let us understand what is
driving the deficit in the Province of Manitoba today.
I offer to my honourable friend the member for Elmwood, in
1981‑82, if he goes to the consolidated accounts of the Province of
Manitoba, he will find the annual interest payment that we paid after 110 years
of government was $79 million. When we
came into government in 1987‑88, when we came into government six years
ago, do you know what the debt had grown to under Howard Pawley and the
NDP? It was $552 million per year.
An Honourable Member: Interest.
Mr. Orchard: That was interest alone, but it was interest that
was cleverly hidden by the New Democrats because in 1987‑88, of course,
we paid $62 million in rental to Manitoba Properties Inc. to whom the NDP sold
our public buildings and then rented them back to hide their borrowing
requirements of almost $600 million.
Madam Deputy Speaker, today the interest bill in this
budget that we are asking concurrence on has grown to $567 million. That is $15 million more than the last year
the NDP governed in Manitoba, $15 million more.
The point I make is every single dollar of increased debt load in the
Province of Manitoba since we have come into government is interest on Howard
Pawley's debt. Only that and nothing
more, to the tune of $473 million in seven consecutive budgets of additional
interest costs of Howard Pawley and the NDP.
The interesting thing is‑‑I want to draw to my
honourable friends that I am going to table these two pages from the Estimates
book. In the fiscal year ending 1989, it
was estimated that we would pay just about $62 million of rent to Manitoba
Properties Inc. in that ill‑fated scheme to sell our public assets to
private corporations, to private investors to hide our deficit and our
debt. Today that same rental is now $34
million. Why is that? It is because this government under Premier
Filmon and the Progressive Conservatives have bought back our buildings that
the NDP sold. I table these for
honourable friends.
Madam Deputy Speaker, let us deal with a couple of other
issues while we are at it. Let us deal
with some of the statements made by the Liberal Leader in his address to this
budget. My honourable friend the Liberal
Leader, when in doubt about what to do with this budget, I think it is fair to
say that he fudges and, indeed, my honourable friend the Liberal Leader even stretched
the truth slightly.
My honourable friend the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards)
said on page 527 of Hansard‑‑this is what he said about the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Mr. Botting. Mr. Edwards, and I will quote, said: "They say"‑‑they being
the Canadian Federation of Independent Business‑‑"they say tax
cuts across the board for everybody 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." That is what the
Liberal Leader said about the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
Let me quote from the Winnipeg Sun. Dale Botting, executive director of the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business said: I guess you could call this a birthday cake
budget. We are celebrating those things
which help small business.
He furthermore goes on to say‑‑this is Mr.
Botting‑‑there are a lot of things that are not big‑ticket
items: phasing out the sales tax on
electricity in mining and manufacturing, reducing the railway fuel tax and
continuing to cut the small business corporation income tax which will help
stimulate small business, said Botting.
Home builders and renovators will also be happy because of rebates and
grants to homeowners and first‑time buyers.
I would suggest that the Liberal Leader did not exactly
tell the House honestly what Dale Botting and the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business thought of this budget.
And I understand that because the Liberals do not know how to handle
this budget and to be consistent in their approach. They want to hide from the real issues. They want to duck what they would stand for
and what they believe in, because I do not think they know for certain what
they believe in yet.
The Liberal Leader goes on to say in his remarks that we
need a regional capital formation, that we need to have this Lloyd Axworthy
idea of a western capital market as one of the original ideas.
Now I asked the Liberal Leader in the course of his
remarks, well, if you want local capital empowerment, then how do you like Grow
Bonds that you voted against? Well, he
said he kind of liked Grow Bonds which help small business form capital.
I asked him, how did you like HydroBonds and Builder
Bonds? He said, well, I kind of like
those even though we voted against them.
Then I asked him later on, well, how do you like the Vision Fund which
provides entrepreneurial risk capital to new ventures? Well, he had not thought about that one.
* (1440)
I asked him, how do you like the Crocus Fund which allows
employees to invest in their future? Well,
he had not really thought about that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I use that because the Liberal Leader
says, we need to have capital market formation.
I name you five programs brought in by this government, all helping
business to formulate capital, to borrow money to invest in the future of
Manitoba. Where has the Liberal Leader
been?
He goes on to say that we need to learn a lesson. This is what the member for St. James (Mr.
Edwards) says. He says, and I quote the
member for St. James: Let us learn the
lesson of retention of our own investment capital in people that Quebec learned
10 years ago. They have successfully
done that.
This is the Liberal Leader who is supporting the Quebec
policy of their auto insurance company with no‑fault insurance putting
significant capital for reinvestment in the Quebec economy. The Liberal Leader is a lawyer voting against
no‑fault insurance for the people of Manitoba.
This individual does not have any consistency, Madam Deputy
Speaker, because when you do not know where you are going, any road will do.
[interjection] That is the problem with my honourable friends, the windsock
Liberals, and I want to thank my honourable friend for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
Madam Deputy Speaker, let us talk about the member for Flin
Flon (Mr. Storie). I have to be fair in
this debate. I cannot just pick on the
Liberals.
My honourable friend the member for Flin Flon, and bear in
mind he represents a constituency that has Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, that
has Granduc mining gold in Lynn Lake. It
has High River Gold, the TVX Gold joint venture to produce gold in Snow
Lake. He says, and I will quote the
member for Flin Flon: We will take the
mining tax breaks, for example. They
have some superficial appeal, but the bottom line is, and I would invite the
member for Portage (Mr. Pallister) to check out the facts, 1994‑95, what
is the net impact on the revenue of the provincial government of the tax
changes in mining? He does not
know. The answer is zero. It is a gimmick. It is a joke, like the budget. I rest my case.
The member for Flin Flon, representing a mining community,
says our mining tax breaks are a joke.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to point to the Winnipeg Free Press,
Friday, April 22, a Mr. Dale Powell, who is vice‑president of Hudson Bay
Mining and Smelting in Flin Flon. He
says that because the Filmon government delivered plums instead of bombs as far
as the provincial mining industry is concerned, his worrying about the provincial
budget was all for naught.
Plums and not bombs, says the vice‑president of
Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, and he goes on further to say, Mr. Powell
says: Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting has
had several expansion projects under consideration for some time, but has not
undertaken anything yet because of the costs involved. This is what Mr. Powell, Hudson Bay Mining
and Smelting says.
He goes on to say:
"But he said that on a $50‑million capital works project, the
tax deduction under this new provision would be $3.5 million."
That is the 7 percent capital investment tax on new mining
projects.
Quote from Mr. Powell, "When you've got those kinds of
things coming into play, these projects start to look very interesting,"
Powell said. "If it was dicey
before, it may not be so dicey anymore."
Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie)
says these mining tax initiatives are not good for his constituency, his people
and his community, but people who invest in it, who work in the industry, say
they are. Who represents Flin Flon, the
current MLA, who ought to leave because he does not understand his
constituency, or members of Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting? I suggest members of Hudson Bay Mining and
Smelting.
I want to get down to some specifics in this budget. Everybody in this House will agree that jobs
and the creation of jobs is the No. 1 issue.
I do not think anyone will disagree.
We all agree, maybe for different reasons.
I agree jobs are the important initiative because I want
our youth to have an opportunity in this province. I want them to be able to create wealth that
will make this province a better place to be, and all of us agree, I think,
that small business is one of the best vehicles to create that new investment,
that new wealth, those new jobs.
Owners of small business are probably people who make less
than $60,000 or thereabouts in terms of their annual income. I want to refer my honourable friend to a
provincial income tax comparison which has shown how those small‑business
owners with the benefits of our budget since 1987, if they are a family of
four, with a $40,000 income, pay $413 less income tax because of our budgetary
measures. If they are a family of four,
with $60,000 income, they pay $376 less provincial income tax. Now, of course, the Liberal Party has voted
against that every time. They do not
want those small‑business owners to have those kinds of personal benefits
so they make the choices as to how they spend their hard‑earned dollars.
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, this goes even further. Let us talk about this budget and the
specifics for the small‑business community. There are a number of measures. First of all, small business corporate
capital tax rate will decline as a result of this budget from 10 percent to 9.5
percent this year, and to 9 percent in 1995, a reduction in the corporate small
business tax rate. My honourable friends
the Liberals will vote against that. The
corporation capital tax exemption is expanded from $1 million of capitalization
to $2 million of capitalization, tax relief for the small business community.
Madam Deputy Speaker, Business Start program is extended
for one more year, helpful again to the small business community. Manufacturing investment tax credit is
extended, helpful to small business community.
Sales tax relief on electricity used in manufacturing, a benefit to our
small manufacturing community.
Now, these measures are built on top of relief of the
payroll tax that we brought in place through a number of budgets, our Grow Bonds
and all of our other instruments for small business to formulate capital to
make investments. My honourable friends
in the Liberal Party and my honourable friends in the New Democratic Party
consistently vote against those measures.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, when they say they believe in
jobs, why would they want to vote against measures which will help the small‑business
community create those jobs?
I want to deal with four members from the New Democratic
Party: the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie),
the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) and
the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson).
Those four MLAs have in their constituencies the wealth creators of
Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, Grandduc mining, High River Gold, Inco in
Thompson.
In the constituency of The Pas, we have the potential of
significant mining investment at Cross Lake in the titanium vanadium
deposit. We have Falconbridge exploring
a major discovery of nickel. In
Rupertsland, we have Rea Gold refurbishing, recommissioning, the old San
Antonio Gold Mine. The member for
Rupertsland wanted that mine to go ahead.
He is interested in mining according to the letter he wrote me shortly
after his election last fall.
Yet the member for Rupertsland is going to stand up and
vote against a budget which helps that mining industry employ his
constituents. How can my honourable
friend the member for Rupertsland in his new role in this ouse, stand up and
vote against jobs in his constituency? I
can understand the Liberals voting against mining incentives. I can understand that, because they have no
hope of ever holding a constituency in which there is mining taking place.
For the members of the New Democratic Party to vote against
sales tax relief on electricity used in mining and smelting, to vote against
the new tax credit of 7 percent on new investment in mining, new mines and new
mining process, to vote against, as the New Democrats are going to do, the
doubling of the processing allowance from 10 to 20 percent of new processing
equipment used in the mining industry, to vote against the reduction of the
special tax in The Mining Tax Act from 1.5 percent to 0.5 percent, how can my
honourable friends the New Democrats vote against these when they employ their
constituents?
I guess what even further boggles my mind is, those are
unionized jobs. Those are hard‑working
union members in Flin Flon, in Thompson and in other communities that
supposedly are represented by the New Democrats in this House. Their jobs are going to be made more secure,
and more of them, with this government and our mining policies, and New
Democrats are going to vote against those measures. Some representation that my honourable
friends the New Democrats are doing for their constituents, voting against this
budget.
* (1450)
The member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) has as a major employer
in his constituency, Selkirk Rolling Mills.
They are going to benefit significantly from the sales tax relief on the
electricity they use. He will stand in
his place and vote against those steel worker jobs in Selkirk. Who is he representing? He is representing the ideologues in the New
Democratic Party, because common sense would tell you that the member for
Selkirk would use his ability to think and vote for his constituency and vote
for jobs at the Selkirk Rolling Mills.
Well, he kind of waves his hand saying I am not sure. I know how he is going to vote. He is going to vote with the herd. He is going to vote against that benefit for
his constituents.
The member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), well, we
know that he does not like jobs. He has
been against GWE jobs since they were announced. He is going to vote against sales tax relief
on electricity used at Simplot chemical. He is going to vote against the sales tax
relief for electricity in Canadian OXY, a major employer in his
constituency. He is going to vote
against that same sales tax relief for Ayerst Organics.
I want to tell my honourable friend from Brandon East to
read the Winnipeg Sun, Thursday, April 21.
Jim Schultz is chair of the Manitoba Industrial Power Users Group. Mr. Schultz is the plant manager for Canadian
OXY in Brandon. He describes this budget
initiative of relieving sales tax on electricity used in his plant and by
similar industries that he represents in Canada; he is tickled pink by those
initiatives, rather excited, rather supporting.
Guess what the member for Brandon East is going to do to
those employees at Canadian OXY, those employees at Simplot, those employees at
Ayerst Organics, those employees at GWE.
He is going to vote against budgetary tax measures to save their jobs
and to add more jobs in this community.
I say that is shameful.
Madam Deputy Speaker, let us deal with the member for
Transcona (Mr. Reid). The member for
Transcona is the railroader in the House.
We used to have the member for The Pas as our railroader, but now our
resident railroader is the member for Transcona. He supports the rail industry. He is going to stand up in this budget and
vote against reduction of the railway diesel tax payable to the province. He is going to vote against jobs in the
railroad industry.
What is even more confounding to me is that the rail
industry is very important to support the grain farmers in the member for
Dauphin's (Mr. Plohman) area. It is very
important to, for instance, Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting because they rail
concentrate down to Flin Flon, and a reduction in the cost of operating in the
railways through a reduction in railway fuel tax, paid to the Province of
Manitoba, is going to significantly help keep them competitive.
But the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), he is going to
vote against the union jobs in the railway shops of Transcona. He is going to vote against those jobs as
represented by tax relief to diesel fuel.
Now my honourable friends, both the Liberals and the New
Democrats, are going to vote against jobs in the construction industry because
they have all stood up and said, we do not want first‑time home buyers in
Manitoba to have up to $2,500 of sales tax relief on the purchase of their
first home.
My honourable friends the New Democrats probably want to go
into those tenement houses like the British government just sold. They do not want people to own anything. They do not want first‑time homeowners
to buy their first home because they are voting against that measure in the
budget. They are also voting against
achieving up to $1,000 of support for major structural changes in their homes
through the construction industry, through the second program brought in this
budget.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I find that baffling. New Democrats and Liberals used to support
young families trying to buy their first homes, but they are going to vote
against the measure that is going to help them do that in this budget. That is bad enough, but what is even more
confounding is, how could they vote against the jobs in the construction
industry? And how can they vote against
that program because, if you think about it and you do your macro‑economic
modelling, you will find that stimulation of the construction industry does
more for the Manitoba economy than most other forms of stimulation because more
people are involved in supply, in jobs.
It is a good industry to stimulate. My honourable friends the Liberals are going
to vote against that industry and vote against young families buying their
first home. I cannot believe that.
Now, what is the alternative? I will be fair. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going to be
absolutely fair to the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), the Liberal
Leader. He did offer a suggestion. He said that we should eliminate the sales
tax for a period of time, and that would stimulate buying.
Do you know, he is right?
That would stimulate buying. It
would stimulate people to buy cars quite likely, stimulate them to buy major
appliances, possibly electronic stereos, VCRs, et cetera. And think of the number of jobs that would be
created in Manitoba manufacturing those cars, those fridges and stoves and
those stereos. Of course I jest, because
we do not manufacture any of those in Manitoba. [interjection]
The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) said, why did we do
it? Because we thought it was a good
thing to do when we did it in 1978.
If we had to do it over again, we would do exactly what we
are doing today, providing tax relief to first‑time home buyers to focus
your sales tax relief on the greatest job creation in the province of Manitoba,
not some silly giveaway that you suggested without too much thought.
Does that answer my honourable friend the member for
Inkster's question? The idea as advanced
by your Leader will not work. It will
not provide the kind of employment stimulus that all of us want to see, but you
are going to vote against a measure that will.
I find that, Madam Deputy Speaker, quite shameful.
Madam Deputy Speaker, where does this lead us all to? I mean, we know that members opposite are
going to vote against new investment in the mining industry, development of new
mines in Manitoba and the jobs that are associated with them. We know they are going to vote against
those. We know that New Democrats and
Liberals are going to vote against increased production at Canadian OXY in
Brandon and the wealth that stems and flows from that, increased production at
Selkirk Rolling Mills, expansion opportunities with Dow‑Corning, for
instance, at Selkirk. The member for
Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) is going to vote against that. We know that all members in the opposition
party are going to vote against first‑time couples buying their first new
home. We know they are going to vote
against that. We know they are going to
vote against $5,000 worth of renovations, major structural renovations to homes
across the length and breadth of Manitoba employing workmen, carpenters,
Manitoba industries supplying those construction industries. We know they are going to vote against that.
What we do think from time to time is that maybe our
honourable friends from the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party might
tell us what they stand for. You know,
it is almost as if they do not stand for anything because we do not know of a
single alternative that they have offered that works. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been more
attentive than most in trying to hear these alternatives and these new
suggestions. I listened for five and a
half years as Minister of Health and heard none.
I have to conclude after listening intently to speakers on
both sides of the House in both opposition parties, and I regret to have to say
this, but my honourable friends in opposition engage in duplicity. I regret to say that. My honourable friends in opposition, they say
they want jobs and then they will vote against measures in this budget to
create jobs. My honourable friends in
opposition complain about deficit, but yet every question in Question Period
they want more spending. My honourable
friends say they represent Manitobans, and they bring every vested‑interest
narrow group issue to this House. They
demand vision from government, yet they wear blinders. My honourable friends, they cry tax breaks to
small business yet say they are their friends.
My honourable friends claim to have ideas but fail to produce them. My honourable friends claim compassion for
the disadvantaged but would founder the only system of support for those
disadvantaged, namely the private sector.
I want to caution my honourable friends that no longer can
today's compassion be tomorrow's taxes.
We have for 20 years mortgaged the future of our children. This we must stop, and regrettably, I must
conclude that both opposition parties are living in the past and they are
afraid of the future. They demonstrate
this by voting against a progressive budget for the people of Manitoba, for the
creation of wealth, for new jobs, for investment, for stability, for a future
for our children. They have voted
against such budgets for the seventh year in a row. Madam Deputy Speaker, all I can say is
shame. Thank you.
* (1500)
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Madam Deputy Speaker, there was a couple who
visited an exotic restaurant. The
husband was looking at the menu and asked the wife, what is this escargot, my
dear? Well, that is the slow‑moving
snail, said the wife. Oh, I will not
recognize that, said the husband, I always eat fast food.
As slow as the snails, our economy in Canada is slowly
recovering from the deepest recession we have ever gone through, the longest
one so far within my knowledge. We are
coming out of it slowly, but we still have lots of problems. Our economic development is very negligible
compared to the rate of economic growth in Asia and particularly in China where
economic growth can be as high as 10 percent‑‑15. In general, in southeast Asia the rate of
economic growth now is 7.5 percent.
According to a survey of the United Nations, globally, the rest of the
world, including the industrialized nations, have an economic growth only of
1.8.
An Honourable Member: Why the difference? Explain to me the difference, Conrad.
Mr. Santos: Because we have saturated our potential as
part of the industrialized world.
We have still high‑rising unemployment in this
country. It is very critical to many of the
young families that the members have been talking about that should acquire a
home. How can you acquire a home if you
are unemployed and laid off? How can you
undertake home renovations if the minimum amount that you have to spend is
$5,000 before you can get a grant of $1,000?
You do not even have that money.
You cannot participate in a program that is directed to a segment of the
population that is relatively wealthy and affluent. It is simple logic. Their program is directed to the privileged and
wealthy class in our society.
The thing that bothered me the most when I look at the
statistics is the mounting national debt in this country. This is mentioned by the honourable member
for Pembina (Mr. Orchard), but he failed to cite what the figures are. The total debt in Canada is approximately
$700 billion. Madam Deputy Speaker, I
cannot imagine a billion. A billion is
how much? Is it a thousand million? That is just one billion. It is $700 billion, and how much of that is
owed by Canada from outside of the country?
It is about 40 percent of that amount.
What does it mean when we owe somebody else other than our own
citizens? It means that the interest
payment to those outside creditors leaves the country. What is the interest payment that we are
paying to this outside creditor every year on a national accumulated debt of
$700 billion? It is approximately $25
billion. I cannot figure out how big
those amounts are.
How much of this debt is provincial? It is approximately $200 billion, out of
which Manitoba owes as a national provincial debt, $14 billion, 25 percent of
which is owed also to outside creditors.
Manitoba's latest addition to this accumulated provincial debt is the
deficit of $460 million in the fiscal year 1993‑1994 contributed by the
present government.
What is the political significance of a mounting national
debt? What does it mean other than
paying a huge amount of interest charges on those debts? If our creditors are outside the country,
they can tremendously influence our internal priorities. These creditors will dictate how we shall do
things, because power resides now in the creditor, and therefore the debtors
will have to do what the creditor bids them to do. That is the political significance of having
debts, particularly if a significant portion of that debt is owed to outsiders.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, with all these tremendous
problems in our midst, not to mention the escalating violence in our society,
the lack of discipline in our youth, the inequalities in educational
opportunities, notwithstanding all of this, what are we to suggest that the
government should be doing? I would like
to elaborate on at least three basic propositions.
First, in the budgetary process, a good government‑‑and
if this government wants to be called a good government, they must do this‑‑must
consider human needs first before human wants; second, the government must
apply justice and equity and mercy in promoting the interests, not of the
selected privileged few, nor the boisterous many, but the interests of everyone
equally. The third proposition is that
the government must promote mutual concern and beneficial co‑operation,
not cutthroat competition, as a basis for human interaction in a just and
morally directed society.
* (1510)
Let me go to the first proposition, Madam Deputy
Speaker. How does a government perform
its role in the economy of any society including our own through the budgetary
process? What do we mean by the economy
of the society? The economy of any
society is simply the sum total of all the human activities in making choices
about scarce human resources like managerial talents and skills and knowledge
and labour, as well as the capital productive resources like land, machinery,
mines, to produce commodities like wheat and beets and sugar and corn, or
manufactured goods like cars which are nonconsumable or manufactured
consumables like pizzas, as well as services like haircuts, by efficient ways,
distributing such services and commodities equally among the citizens.
The means of production, the output of the economy, the
manufactured goods and services are then exchanged among all the participants
in the economic system through the use of money or equivalent, like credit
cards or electronic transfer of funds, in order to obtain maximum satisfaction
and utility, in order to satisfy human needs and wants in our society.
But my first proposition, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that the
human needs should take precedence over human wants, that the government should
first look after the basic needs of people before they look after the ones who
are motivated by man's natural tendency for accumulating things they really do
not need.
On the production side, economists will look at the problem
in our society since our productive human capital as well as natural capital
means of production are by definition limited and because choices have to be
made as to which commodities or goods or services the society may want to
produce and forego other kinds of goods and services.
They usually depict this through the use of what they call
the production possibilities curve. It
is the economists' way of portraying and describing to us how they make choices
in the production of goods, commodities and services.
The production possibilities curve is simply a vertical
scale with a range of values or quantities of some typical capital goods on
that side of the scale and a horizontal scale with a range of values or
quantities of consumable goods. Then
they will draw a line between the two scales which they call the frontier of
possible production. Anything within the
capacity of society as justified by the resources it has in its possession will
be within the possibilities curve and those outside will be outside and
unachievable.
An Honourable Member: How does that interface with demand?
Mr. Santos: I am describing the possibility curve, not
the scale of supply and demand.
Also, on the consumption side, society will determine how much
of these resources they will consume today and how much of this they will leave
for tomorrow, for the future, for next year.
This is still part of the budgeting process.
An Honourable Member: How do we decide how much?
Mr. Santos: How is this decided? According to the best priorities they set up
for themselves, the decision makers, the long‑range priorities of the
government in the case of the public budget.
Since budgeting is basically a choice of alternative ways
of producing and alternative ways of distributing public and private benefits
as well as advantages and also allocating burdens and disadvantages, it follows
that the government as the decision maker in public budgetary process must know
what revenue or money is coming in, what revenue or money is going out and what
kind of program priorities they will have to put on all the things that they
want to do. They shall order this scale
of activities like a good steward and guardian of the public interest for the
present as well as the future well‑being of its being.
The Douglas government, when it started the CCF government
in Saskatchewan, never incurred any deficit.
They always balanced their budget.
That is a good example for any government to follow.
The first proposition I put forward, Madam Deputy Speaker,
is that the government as the chief decision maker in the budgetary process
must first consider human needs before human wants. Why?
How do I distinguish between the two?
What do we mean by human needs as distinguished from human wants? Human needs are the things that are necessary
in life. What are the things that are
necessary in life? They are called necessities. That is why they are called necessities‑‑necessary,
hence the derivative word "necessities"‑‑bread for example. Wants, those are convenient, good,
satisfying, but you can get by without them, because they are simply additions
to your basic needs. While your needs
are determinable in terms of a particular culture, in terms of your physical
requirements, wants are unlimited. There
is no limit to what one can want or desire, virtually unlimited. That is why they go beyond control. Some people are so wanting‑‑[interjection]
The economists would say that the demand for necessities
would be inelastic. That is economic
terminology. What do we mean by
inelastic? Inelastic means that if there
is a change in the price, the outcome will be a change in the total revenue in
the same direction as the change in the price.
So if you increase the price, you increase total revenue. If you decrease the price, you decrease total
revenue. That is what it means by having
an inelastic demand or inelastic relationship.
Why is that? Because the quantity
demanded changes by a smaller percentage compared to the change in the price.
The wants that we have in life are beyond what we really
need. They are simply for personal
convenience or maybe for achieving some status in any kind of particular
culture. People want sirloin steaks, for
example. That is a status symbol. It sure is good, but it is expensive, and you
do not really need it. Besides, it has
some disadvantages.
If we are deprived of our needs, we risk our health, and we
risk our life ultimately. If we are
deprived of our wants, we feel unhappy, but it does not threaten our physical
health, nor does it risk our loss of life.
* (1520)
Demand for luxuries are described by economists as
elastic. Again, we have to understand
what they are talking about. It means
that a change in the price will result in a change in total revenue in a
direction opposite to the change in the price, which is the opposite
direction. If the price is decreased,
the total revenue will increase. Why is
that?
An Honourable Member: Because they sell more.
Mr. Santos: That is right, because if the lesser price
per unit is sold, a greater amount will be demanded, more units will be sold,
and ultimately you will increase your total profit.
Even humans needs are many different kinds and many
different kinds of levels. I talk about
basic economic needs like food and shelter and health care. Yet we still as human beings at the
individual level also have some other needs.
An Honourable Member: Just like man cannot live by bread alone?
Mr. Santos: The basic needs. That is right. Man does not live, and by man I mean men and
women, human beings, they do not live by bread alone. We also have some social needs as human
beings, the ego needs, for example. You
want to be recognized in your work. You
want to work to be appreciated by other people.
There are also other needs in relation to other people. You have a need for companionship, you have a
need for friendship. These are essential
needs.
In addition, you have some moral needs as well. You have a need to have some freedom of
choice in the things that you do in life.
Too often we get caught up in a slot in the economic system we cannot
get out of. We are so unhappy about the
environmental condition of the workplace.
We cannot do anything about it.
We are unhappy. That is a
difficult situation that does not satisfy the basic moral needs of human
beings.
Even at the individual level there is another level of
human needs. This is at the group level,
the collective need, the societal need of human beings living together in
communities with one another. For
example, we have a need for safety in our community. That is why the government provides law and
order. They institute police to maintain
enforcement of our laws, our rules and regulations, so there will be security
of persons as well as security of property in our society. These are basic needs.
It is on this kind of need that the government must first
focus its attention when they are allocating the resources of society, the
human resources as well as the material resources. They must first look into the basic needs of
human beings.
Would a government, in order to save money, without mercy
fire people and nurses? Would you call
that government a just one? Would you
call that a government satisfying the basic human needs? No, it is a cruel one, in order to save some
money or achieve some efficiency.
It is written, no one can serve two masters. Either you hate the one or love the other, or
else you hold onto the one and despise the other. If we so love the material savings of money
and funds and neglect our concern for fellow human beings, we are serving
Mammon, we are serving money, we are idolaters worshipping material things and
forgetting the finer things in life.
No government should be so insensitive as to oppress the
poor and the helpless and the disadvantaged people in our society. The moment you cut those patients of their
basic needs, particularly those who are hopeless, and they can no longer pay
what they need in order to achieve a sense of healthy living, you are
oppressing them and you have departed from the true mission of a good
government.
The second proposition is that, in addition to looking
after the needs of human beings, before their wants, the government must also
apply certain standards in their choice of alternatives in their decision
making, in how they allocate the human and material resources in order to
produce the basic goods, commodities and services that we need in our
society. These are the basic standards
of justice and equity especially in our materialistic economy which is
described by many as a mixed economy. It
is a mixed economy.
A mixed economy consists of a private sector segment as
well as another sector called the public sector. The private sector economy is that segment of
our economy where the participants individually own their property, and they
are motivated by nothing else but self‑interest. They exchange values with one another through
what they call the market mechanism, the private market. The doctrine the private market operates they
call laissez‑faire which is the French term for let it be.
This is simply the law of the jungle, the survival of the
fittest. It is social Darwinism. The stronger you are in the economy‑‑and
they want the government out as the umpire.
They want to get the most of what they can get under that system. So the rule is that the best form of
government is the least form of government.
If they can only get rid of the government, they would; but, if they get
rid of the government, you know what will happen: society will break down. You can no longer protect your property. There will be no police department to protect
you. So you cannot push it to the limit.
* (1530)
The moment we start privatizing what is essentially basic
social services we are getting worse in our social system, because that is the
only area, the public sector, where those who have less power and less
resources will have almost equal access from all those benefits and services
offered by the government.
Now, let us look at the public sector. The public sector is that segment of the
economy which is supposed to be for the public, all of the people. The public are all of the people. Not just a few. All of them, opting to the government which
virtually own the properties and make collective decisions through a
centralized planning in which the business firms are either government owned‑‑and
we have those, like the Crown corporations, whether they are provincial or
federal‑‑or government‑controlled corporations owned by the
state. The workers are assigned, in a
certain extreme version, occupational roles.
The products of capital goods used to produce other goods are allocated
by central, decision‑making, planning bodies that specify the long‑term
priorities, and whatever goods and services are produced are distributed to all
of the citizens.
Our Canadian economy is best described as a mixed economy,
but it is leaning more toward the private sector economy, although we have a
very active government role in the public sector economy, producing goods that
either will not be produced by the private sector or, if produced, will be
underproduced. The public sector
basically operates under a doctrine of economic socialism, which means that,
although the bulk of business activity remains in private hands, the government
is deeply involved in achieving economic stability and in redistributing income
in Canada here in a lesser degree compared to other socialist countries like
Sweden.
Remember, property ownership is still in private hands, but
the benefits are distributed and redistributed evenly as much as possible,
equally accessible almost to everyone in a truly democratic socialist society
or economy. This is according to the principle
of social and economic justice. Social
and economic justice is a basic principle, a good one to follow because it
states basically that the existing resources, benefits and advantages must be
so rearranged so that the greatest benefit should inure as much as possible to
the least advantaged.
In other words, the less benefits you presently enjoy,
morally you are entitled to a little bit more.
Why? Because those who already
have the most have a moral obligation as part of humankind to uplift those who
are deprived and destitute and in poverty and in need so that they may be
lifted up a little to a level of living which is consistent with decency and
human dignity. That is the
rationalization and justification for this doctrine of economic and social
justice. Why is that? Because this is the implementation of a still
higher moral and divine law which says, thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself. If you do not want yourself to
get hungry, you should not do things that make your fellow human beings
hungry. If you do not want yourself to
be deprived, you should not do things that shall make your fellow human being
deprived, particularly of those basic necessities in life.
Why do some governments do such things that cannot be
justified under this moral principle when they cut, for example, publicly
assisted programs, when they cut help and assistance to single mothers, when
they cut dental programs to children?
How can this be justified on the basis of human needs?
Now let us analyze the private sector and the public sector
in a layman's view, not the economic terminology which is so confusing. Private sector economy is primarily a
competitive market. As we have analyzed,
it operates under laissez‑faire‑‑do what you want to do,
there should be no government regulation, no government control, very little if
at all possible. On the other hand, what
good do private companies then do?
Although the nature of the market in the private sector is basically
competitive, the corporations, the private corporations, the business firms,
they try as best as they can to be monopolistic. They may not succeed because of existing
legislation against anticombination and antimonopolies law. They at least become oligopolistic. Again, I am talking economic terminology
which is difficult to understand.
A competitive market is simply a system of exchange of
values, where there are so many numbers of sellers and buyers, suppliers, and
consumers, where any individual participant cannot exercise any significant control
in the setting of the product prices because its firm, its business
participant, produces a very minute, small percentage of the total output.
It is basically governed by what they call the natural law
of supply and demand. Therefore business
firms must adjust to what the market price was decided by that law called
supply and demand. They must adjust to
the market price, and they are called price takers. Because there are so many firms and so many
participants, consumers and producers, buyers and sellers, it is easy to get
into any industry or any line of activity and easy to get out if it becomes
unprofitable.
There is, therefore, a tendency for products to be sold in
such a competitive market to be similar, homogenous or standardized products,
and hence there is no reason for nonprice competition on the basis of quality
or on the basis of sales promotion or advertising.
Contrast that with another kind of market called the
oligopolistic market. There are very few
firms, ranging from two to seven, could be homogenous kind of product like the
big steel industries, big in the automobile industry, or it could be in
depreciated kinds of products like automobiles.
They are mutually interdependent; they collude with one another to set
the price. A great deal of nonprice
competition takes place there in that kind of market. They will describe one automobile as having
these extras and the other automobile having that extra and all kinds of
nonprice competition.
Then there is the monopolistic market with only one
firm. There is a unique product. There is no close substitute. There is impossible entry by any new firm
where the one existing there is the price maker. Whoever that monopolist is, he sets the
price.
Why is the public sector economy primarily
monopolistic? Why cannot the government
allow any kind of competitor? Because
the government as the decision maker in the public sector economy is dealing
mostly with what they call public good and services as well.
* (1540)
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Madam
Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again and speak to the budget. It is a different feeling, though, this time
around. Let me say, though, that before
I move to my formal remarks, I, too, would like to congratulate those new
members who have accepted the incredible high calling of being a representative
of the people. May they sense through
their years to follow that they are contributing at a high level. May they always stay in close contact, if not
direct, certainly in thought process, with their constituents. May they enjoy
their period in this Legislature.
I would also, Madam Deputy Speaker, like to acknowledge the
leadership provided by our Speaker. From
time to time I question how difficult that role must be. Obviously, it takes one with a great asset of
balanced views and reading, if not words, certainly types of expression and
mood swings and all of the other factors that an umpire must do. I say to my colleague and friend, the member
for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan), well done over the years, and, hopefully, this
session will be of that nature.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on the
budget and not have to rebut some of the opposition members who, of course,
have to attack it. Our government has
brought down now seven budgets in six years, and having been the author basically
of six of those and listening to the representations made by members opposite
during the course of budget debates, I always felt obliged to stand in my place
and try to explain why it is we took certain actions or why it is we made the
changes that we did. It is not that I am
going to do an awful lot different this time, but I think at least I am going
to allow myself the leeway to share certain insights with members opposite,
because in listening to their contributions to date, particularly coming from
the opposition benches, what has struck me is that some things have not
changed. Some views have not changed,
and the members can say, well, your budget has not changed, and I will explain
why.
I will explain why our budget has not changed and why I
stand here today as proud as I have ever been, Madam Deputy Speaker, with
respect to any of the budgets that have come down, because we are on the right
course. We are in the proper place, and
I would welcome, of course, a reaction to, as I have over the course of budgets
before this, those members who would try to put into place their view of the
world. It is so easy, it is so simple,
to pull out that expenditure booklet; and, when you cannot talk about the
parameters around the fiscal reality or the assumptions or, indeed, have any
vision of where the world is going, it is so easy and comfortable to pick up
the expenditure booklet and see where there has been a reduction of 5 percent
in one year over the other. My goodness,
a six‑year‑old could do that.
Indeed, listen to the tenor of the remarks that come from
the opposition benches, the focuses of the questions every day, they do not
deal with the substance of the budget.
They do not deal with the underlying assumptions. They do not deal with the vision of where the
world is going and where Canada and Manitoba fit. What do they deal with? Simple arithmetic, line over line, the old
political way, the old political way, Madam Deputy Speaker, because if there is
more to spend on the people, the people want more to have to be spent on
them. Of course, people are happier, and
they are going to tend to vote for you‑‑the old way.
So, what have we done?
I review only very, very quickly, but as I reiterate, I am as convinced
as I ever was that we are on the right path, more so today than I was maybe
even four years ago, with a certainty, with respect to decisions that have been
made in developing the budget. Madam
Deputy Speaker, let us try and recall from where we started. No revisionist history can alter the fact
that we did not inherit a surplus. All
the commentary coming from the NDP benches, all the writings by my friend
Frances Russell in the Free Press cannot change the fact that Jim Walding voted
against the budget that had a $300‑million deficit. Nothing can change that fact. [interjection]
Oh, of course not, but you know the truth.
If you are truthful people, you know it, and that is the truth.
Now, some can say, well, you lucked in. Well, now, that is a different issue.
[interjection] Well, ha, ha, ha is the call that comes from the member for
Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). [interjection] That is right, and some can say, well,
there was a 2 percent net income tax put into place by Gene Kostyra in the 1987
budget. That is the truth. Yes, we had the full benefit of an annualized
level of income, and it was there. Yes,
mining revenue happened to be pretty good in '88. As a matter of fact, I would pray for the
time when it would be half that good again in the '90s. Thirdly, we had this so‑called windfall
revenue coming from Ottawa by way of transfers.
What was the essence of that windfall?
Members know it, if they understand transfers at all, we were not doing
as relatively well as the average in the nation, so there was an expectation, a
forecast, that Manitoba would receive so many hundreds of millions of
dollars. In a relative sense, our
economy did not produce as well, so we got more. Exactly the reverse of what is happening
today‑‑exactly. We had those
three areas, and some would say, well, you lucked in, you had this windfall.
We came into office because the people of Manitoba wanted
us to be in office. We opened the books,
and on the revenue side, we found this.
I could spend 20 hours standing here and telling you what we found on
the expenditure side and the horrors that we had there, but let us not‑‑[interjection]
Now the member says, you could have had a surplus budget. He is right, but we chose not to because, if
you are a good practitioner of finances, you tend to have set aside some
savings.
What we promised the people was we would not buy votes with
it, and we were in a minority government at the time. If there was ever a compunction to want to
buy votes with this surplus, it would be during the time that you were in a
minority government. We chose not
to. As a matter of fact, for five
budgets, we drew from that, and just this budget, our present Minister of
Finance (Mr. Stefanson) indicated it was now all gone. It was exhausted.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we set up the budget
stabilization. The NDP supported it. They saw the wisdom, and I give them credit,
to their credit. The Liberals have been
against it from Day One because they do not believe in saving. They never do, never have. As a matter of fact, if you want to look at
the root problem in the nation, you can draw it right back almost to the
Liberal years, not Atlantic Canada Liberals, but certainly federal Liberals.
Nobody should be spared from this attack. I know there are Conservative administrations
across this land that have been proliferate spenders to the same degree as
federal Liberals. I understand that, but
the reality is, when we took over government, we knew we had to set a different
course because, in spite of what might have looked like a few dollars then, we
knew‑‑it has become abundantly obvious to myself, who has been
leading Treasury Board decisions and discussions over many, many budgets. What became obvious is, when you rank our
social programming as a province, in all the fields, whether you want to look
in the Justice areas, Health areas, or you wanted to look into Education areas‑‑and
I could be specific.
* (1550)
I could talk about the area of daycare. I could talk about Pharmacare. I could talk about medicare. I could talk about municipal support procedures
on fee schedules, equity training. If
you wanted to rank Manitoba as‑‑the program they have and the
resources needed to support it vis‑à‑vis the other provinces, we
invariably ranked in the top two or third place. In very few were we the top, but in none of
them were we fifth or lower. I dare say,
if you could do a weighting of all the social programs, you would come to the
undeniable conclusion that there is no province in Canada that had a greater
social safety net than the province of Manitoba, without reference to our
standard of living, without reference to our ability to create wealth, without
reference to our income. That is an
undeniable, indisputable fact‑‑nothing wrong with it, I suppose, if
we were able to afford it, when you rank all of our programs and you give them
weight.
So what did we find?
What do we know? We know, Madam
Deputy Speaker, that without hesitation, we had probably the most, the greatest
social‑welfare‑oriented province in Canada. It is part of our history. It is part of our political reality. I am just pointing that out as a fact. Yet we knew business was leaving,
entrepreneurship drive was eroding, and people's ambition was growingly
becoming to draw their livelihood from the public purse. That is the reality‑‑[interjection]
No, this speech has never been given.
The member can say this is the same speech, but this speech has never
been given, not by me; maybe it has been given, but not by me, because it will
be a much different speech.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we were going to support
this. We knew we could not allow this
drift, this drift of wealth potential outside of this province. So what did we do? Well, we knew we had, obviously, to take
control of the taxation side. We knew
that we had to do something to try and convince people that within our means
once again we would try to put into place a taxation regime that was friendly,
friendly to people taking risks, friendly to people turning a profit, friendly
to people trying to create jobs.
And another thing we had to do, of course, was look at the
expenditure side. We had to know very
quickly, we had to decide very quickly whether or not we could begin to reduce
some of the levels of expenditure, bearing in mind obviously that some people
were going to be impacted, obviously that some people would no longer be able
to draw their livelihood from the public purse, and, all in all, trying to
bring some balance as between expenditure and spending, and taxes and revenues.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we began to reduce taxes where we
could, 54 points to 52; that has been well documented. We provided increased tax relief to low‑income
families of parents who were working, and I do not expect to get credit from
people here, but the first budget we brought down, we know that we had to
provide some type of additional relief to those people who were only earning
income in the area of $20,000, $25,000, that we had to do what we could. If they looked and saw the alternative of not
working and still doing relatively well, we knew that the incentive would
disappear. In the budget so far in the
taxation area, we took a taxation system which was skewed in support‑‑this
was the NDP's doing, no problem with that‑‑and we enhanced it to
the extent that we could. I am talking
about the child tax exemption credit.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is what we tried to do to bring
forward a balance. We provided tax
relief to business. Of course, that has
made the opposition benches irate, and for those sectors that would respond by
increasing production and employment and ultimately wealth, and, more
importantly, give them some sense of confidence that this is a government that
would be stable minded in the sense of not changing rules around
radically. More importantly, it would
not attack them for their endeavours of trying to create wealth.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we did this during a recession. Some would say a depression. The word is never used in this House. I do not think I would use it, but many
have. We have done that during a period
of recession. We did this with a small
majority, but we did it consistently within the bounds of principle. We tried to be as fair as we could across all
sectors, and we tried to share whatever pain there was as broadly as possible
so that the pain would be minimal.
The result, I say to you and I believe in an honest way, is
that we have gone from the highest tax regime to basically the second lowest;
some would say the third. We have
established Manitoba as a place to invest and to be considered as a place for
future investment. Yet we have
maintained intact the social safety net.
Some may argue that, but we have.
It is in place. Some would say,
well, it is kind of cracked, but I dare say, Madam Deputy Speaker, the
difference between socialists and ourselves basically is that where they will‑‑and
this is the irony of it, the most ultraconservative people in this Chamber are
the people sitting to the left of the Speaker‑‑the most
ultraconservative spelled with a small "c".
Who wants to protect all of the programming that has been
in place for 20 years? Who wants to
protect all of the jobs that have been in place for 20 years? Who wants to protect all of the existing
programs from any of the winds of change?
The members who sit to the left of the Speaker. Why is that?
An Honourable Member: Not all of them.
Mr. Manness: Not all of them, fair enough, but the reality
is when I hear the questions coming from the Liberal benches in most cases, not
all, but in most cases, I dare say, most of them are critical of the changes.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we, in many cases, have done
evaluations of the programs that have been in place for the last 20, 25 years,
and some of them are wanting. Some of
them are calling for change. If you
believe in priorities at all, and I hear comments coming from the other benches
with respect to priorities, you are always told why you should put your money
here instead of there. Well, we have
been doing some of that, and every time we have done it, we have been
criticized. So be it; that is politics,
but I dare say that is old‑fashioned politics and it is not being
practised any longer by democratic parties in other parts of the world. It still is in Manitoba, unfortunately.
Madam Deputy Speaker, so just to tell you the result of the
many budgets, in my view, we have established our province as a place to
invest. Yet I find it strange that the
member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) stands and says: Look at the unemployment rate. Look at the fact that the budget is not
balanced as yet. Your plan has
failed. Instant gratification. That is what the members, of course, are
expecting. Instant results. Old think.
Old politics. Of course, buy
jobs. Old politics. Create false hope. Old politics.
Do not tell the people the truth.
Old politics. The way the members
would have it, the members across the way.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Yet I think it is important that all of us draw upon our
other understandings as to where the world is going, what is the 21st Century
going to look like, how are we going to position Manitoba and our nation to be
part of that.
I had the great fortune of being with the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. It was almost the highlight of my calling to
public life. I sat with futurists,
philosophers, visionaries from around the world. Everybody thinks it is the business people
who come there and wax eloquently as to where they see the world going. It is not.
No, no, it is the deep thinkers who sit there and try and share their
views. The business community sits down
below and tries to take it all in, because, obviously, they have to go back to
their corporate boardrooms in most cases and try and make better decisions.
What did I learn?
Well, I guess if one does a lot of reading today, a lot of it is
printed, but the reality is, Mr. Speaker, the winds of change that are sweeping
us and that we know we have been part of for basically the last 10 years are
going to continue in a significant fashion.
People ask me, well, what do you mean by that? I heard the Premier the other day, he
expressed it in part. I guess we have
different ways of trying to capture the essence of what we learned, but I
captured it this way. Basically now, for
200 or 300 years, the world in the western context and, in a sense, the wealth
has been sort of a ping‑pong game between Europe and North America, but,
of course, Japan has taught us that the world is a lot bigger than that, and
what we are learning now is that the Pacific Rim is going to have a significant
share of the world wealth.
What we have also learned is that the world's ability to
create wealth, although not capped, is certainly not going to increase at the
rate in which all of the developing countries and indeed this smaller
globalized world wants to share. What we
also realize is that the birthplace of our economic structure, socialist
Europe, is the part of the world that fears the change the most.
* (1600)
Members opposite may not want to buy into my argument, but
there is a real fear in Europe, and it is genuine because they realize, the
world leaders there‑‑and do not take my word for it, and I would
say to the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) who says do not take Carl Bildt's
word for it either‑‑[interjection] Well, I do not care what he
is. Call me a socialist. A lot of people call me a socialist. I happen to be part of the Conservative Party
in the Province of Manitoba, but it is all relative. Listen to somebody from Indonesia, talk to an
Indonesian, talk to somebody from China and compare systems, and he will say,
well, you are a raving socialist.
Absolutely. Speak to the former
Finance minister from Russia and he will say I am a raving socialist. Yes, I do belong to the Progressive
Conservative Party in Manitoba, but in the view of many of those in the
developing world who say we will have a share of the world economic wealth,
they will say you are a raving socialist, you are a lot closer to what the NDP
stands for.
An Honourable Member: If you are a socialist, what does that make
Steve?
Mr. Manness: Well, I will let the member for Thompson
speak for himself.
Mr. Speaker, the facts still cannot be lost. The reality is our system, whether it is in
Europe or I would say in Canada, which of course is an offshoot of the European
model, is not in a position really to deal with a lot of these problems. You can listen‑‑you do not have
to take my word for it, but you can take the word of many of the people who
looked at Europe, and they will say this attack on jobs, the payroll tax that
is associated with jobs no longer can continue.
I am not talking about the Manitoba payroll tax as we have
called it. I am talking about
unemployment insurance. I am talking
about pension benefits. I am talking
about workers compensation charges.
Those are the payroll taxes, and Europe is going to have to come to grip
with it and I dare say so are we. [interjection] It is going to‑‑no,
well, you should because you see the only solution the members have across the
way is to spend more, buy jobs, buy your economic numbers, buy your economic
growth numbers. Yet the very same people
who do it, for the most part, are the people who take their livelihood from the
public purse. Why is it that way? Did anybody ever ask?
Ladies and gentlemen, I say to you I am troubled because I
do not see where the new solutions are.
I do not see where the new solutions are in the Canadian context like I
do not see where they are in the European context. Today as I dialogue at federal‑provincial
meetings with the federal member, who is treated as a shrine here in Manitoba
and indeed by the Liberal Party, Mr. Axworthy, who by the way, I will lend as
much support as I can to with respect to social reform, with respect to
training initiatives; the reality is all I see now is trying to reshuffle the
deck. The reality is that still any of
us, when we talk about training and providing hope, still nobody is telling me
where the jobs are going to be at the end of the day. When the taxes are as high as they are in
this country, I question where they are.
Mr. Speaker, what else did I learn? I learned that the U.S., which the members
opposite despise in such a high order‑‑and that is a general
statement, I know many of you probably have relatives there like I do‑‑but
I hear the anti‑Americanism just sort of drool out of every
question. I mean there was a question
yesterday that came from the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman). He wanted to know what we are doing in
distance ed. He wanted to know if we are
protecting the monopoly of the Manitoba Telephone System, but he really wanted
to know whether or not we had a contract with AT&T. That is what he wanted to know about. I mean, you could just sense this anti‑Americanism
just because, I mean, that is real interesting. [interjection] Yes, was I
leading him on. I probably was, but the
reality is despise the Americans. It
sells. It is political. [interjection]
That is right, and you do not have to be a mental giant to do it.
I would not want to live in the American states, but the
reality is how is it a system today which commands upwards of 30 percent of the
world wealth can put to work another 10 million people in the space of three
years, four years? How does that
happen? European leaders of all
political stripes are asking how does that happen. How does it happen? [interjection] No,
because nobody really has the answer, other than realizing that the American
dollar is strong. [interjection] Yes, obviously artificially.
There is only one nation in the world that can get away
with printing money, and that is the nation that is at the top of the heap,
because once the world loses confidence in your dollar or your currency, it
crashes like a rock, a little bit something like is happening with ours.
People say what is the value of currency. Why do we not have it here? I heard the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie)
say, well, let the Canadian dollar hit the natural level. What in the devil is the natural level?
[interjection] The market level. Good,
thank you. The natural level now is the
market level, and what is the market level?
The market level is not what the governor of the Bank of Canada says
because he deals in short‑term money.
He deals in treasury bills.
You know, when I went to borrow hundreds of millions of
dollars, and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, when I went to borrow hundreds of
millions of dollars in New York and Japan which we converted and swapped into
the U.S., you know what? The governor of
the Bank of Canada, his views on it did not come up once. He did not care. They did not care. Salomon Brothers representing the teachers'
pension fund of Texas and the civil service pension fund of California and
First Boston and Merrill Lynch. They did
not give that much of a hoot as to what John Crow wanted to do with Treasury
bill rates. They wanted to know, how are
you going to pay the thing back 10 years from now? They wanted to know what the interest rate
would be over that time. They wanted to
know what the Canadian dollar would be worth.
* (1610)
Do you know what?
When the members say, what is the value of the Canadian dollar? It is what the market dictates. The Teachers' Pension Fund in Texas and the
civil servants of California who buy our bonds, it is what they dictate. Right today, they are passing judgment, and
they say, we do not have a lot of confidence in that country. That is why the dollar is worth 72.
When the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) says, well, let
it hit its natural level. I will say, 50
cents? He says, if that is the natural
level, yes. You will never ever be able
to go to prosperity by debasing your currency, because the world reflects on
you through the value they give your currency.
The argument here is, I am saying to the members opposite,
if we are seen as a country that is risky and cannot come to grips with our own
problems, I say your dollar will reflect it.
I could speak on and on, but I want to maybe capture it a
little bit better. There was an article
the other day in The Globe and Mail, and I really think it was the best piece,
best commentary. I do not know this
person. The name is Kimon Valaskakis, a
professor of economics at the University of Montreal and president of the Gamma
Institute. He talked about the world
economy. He talked about it as being hit
by a crisis of unparalleled proportions, massive unemployment‑‑the
world economy, massive unemployment, 35 million people unemployed. He goes through the reasons why, and he talks
about, and I quote: Some politicians in
advanced countries who have been elected on job‑creation platforms offer
cliché solutions that have not worked and will not work for the simple reason
that the whole unemployment question is misunderstood. Rather than being the result of bad economic
conditions, unemployment is paradoxically a sign of success of the world
economy.
All I had to do to gain the greater insight of that was to look
at my own industry, look at agriculture over the course of the last 20
years. Never has productivity been
greater. Never have we embraced
technology at a higher rate. Never has
unemployment within that industry been greater, the number of people employed,
I should say, been reduced, and never has the contribution to the tax coffers
of the nation, through agriculture, been lower.
Now the economic activity that spurs from there
contributes, but at the primary production level, never have we employed fewer
people, never have we produced more output, never have we provided fewer taxes
in net terms to the government. The
reality of the advent and the embracing of technology happening everywhere, and
yet members across the way say that we are to be held accountable for the fact
that the unemployment rate is high.
When we ask them, well, how do you do that in this time of
technology, they will say, that is your problem. That is what is not only happening in
Manitoba, it is happening throughout the western civilized world.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I do not have time to go
into this in depth. I will another
presentation. But the issue is, as I
have said many times, whether you work within a world economy that is global,
whether you want to be part of the world in an open economy or whether you want
to close your boundaries, some communities have tried to close their boundaries
and probably Europe will. Europe will in
its combined way. It will try to close
its boundaries.
Ultimately, the fear, of course, is the last great empire,
regardless of the philosophy‑‑and I know my colleague the member
for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) would argue with me, because philosophy is important,
but the last great empire that tried to close its boundary was of course the
Soviet Union and it collapsed. That is
the ultimate lesson for any great civilization that wants to close its
boundaries to maintain employment numbers.
It will collapse. Yet the reality
is when you open your borders, you have to play by the global rules. The best way to caption that is closing the
window which means closing the boundaries to protect jobs. It means some form of protectionism which is
not a realistic option for smaller economies but is plausible for larger ones
for awhile.
It says trying to help the lot of the worker in an open
system is like trying to heat a house in the middle of winter with all the
windows open. That is the reality of
where we find ourselves. Well, Mr.
Speaker, what is the instructive lesson, to me at least? We cannot leave Manitoba. We cannot divorce ourselves from the reality
that there still is unemployment in our province, that there still is a large
number of our people who do not have the power of literacy to help them cope in
a world where they are going to have to call upon their own ambition in a
greater fashion and their own talents.
We cannot leave that. We are here
to represent those individuals in our society, all of us.
Yet I say to you I cannot divorce myself from the reality
of Manitoba. I cannot divorce myself
from my economic training that says that if you do not pay your bills, you go
broke. I cannot divorce myself from the
reality of the global change which is encompassing us all. So the answer then, Mr. Speaker, is one of
what do we do.
Well, we come back to balance. We come back to balance which is reflected in
this budget. We come back to a budget
which tries to hold the taxes down so that the next generation, indeed those
today who still have the drive to go out and create some wealth, still have
that opportunity to do so.
We try and maintain a balance on the social side, realizing
that a radical change, a reduction in the realm of 20 percent today is not
on. It is not on politically in this
province, if somebody wanted to do it, because there are still those who will
play old politics. But the reality is,
Mr. Speaker, that we are going to have to reform.
I have not spoken today about education reform. I will at other times because it is so
important to this whole approach, because the hope to all of this, when you do
your reading and do the reading during this time of moving into the
informational age, is innovation. Of
course, innovation requires our good minds to become our best minds, and
requires our good minds to become our best, and requires a whole upgrading of
the mindset that we, as a people, as a nation, direct towards our future.
That has to be done within the public school system, but to
do that, the public school system has to be reformed. The members opposite can chastise me. I mean, I am a veteran. My skin is that thick towards their political
digs, but the reality is the job has to be done and the partners within the
education community know it has to be done.
They might not like, ultimately, where it breaks out, and there will be
some unavoidable changes that members opposite will take issue with. I accept that, but somebody is going to have
to lead that, and I dare say this government was put in place to lead.
Mr. Speaker, with the minute I have left, I want to
certainly, again, acknowledge your role.
I want to particularly, at this time, though, thank the new
Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) for having gone through an incredible
effort of making decisions that are never easy, putting into place a balanced
budget, maintaining the course, because I dare say to you that is what
Manitobans are looking for.
It is my strong view that this party will be re‑elected
in the government, in spite of the fact that we have come through some very difficult
recessionary times, because it showed balance, it showed fairness, it showed
equity to all. Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand up
here today to put a few words on the record concerning this government's
budget. I did not have the opportunity
to speak on the Speech from the Throne so I would like to take this chance now,
of course, to welcome you back, Sir, to your job. I have always appreciated your commitment,
your contribution to the Chamber and your fair approach to the dealings within.
Of course, I would like to, as well, welcome the new Pages
to the Chamber. I know that you will be
quite impressed at times, and a little bit concerned probably as well with some
of the debate and some of the antics that go on in this particular place, but I
do welcome you. I know that, overall,
you will find it a very remarkable experience in your lives.
I just want again to comment on the Speech from the Throne,
if I might, for just a moment. It was
brought forward by His Honour Yvon Dumont, a member of the Metis nation, like
myself. It is quite a privilege to stand
in here to speak on this, representing those people in the Chamber here,
especially after the thing was read by‑‑[interjection] Thank you
very much.
Again, I would just like to, if I may, congratulate and
welcome the new members to the Chamber, the member for Rupertsland (Mr.
Robinson) who is a member of the Cree First Nation. I thank him and welcome him for his thoughtful
contributions to the debate on behalf of his constituents. I had the opportunity to travel with the
member to some northern areas a few months ago.
We travelled to Island Lake, to St. Theresa Point, to Red Sucker Lake,
to Bloodvein.
* (1620)
I witnessed the poverty of the First Nations. Often, they will have 90 percent unemployment
in some of the areas up there, Third World conditions within our own country,
Mr. Speaker. I am always impressed with
the courage of the individuals there to deal with some of these very serious
problems, very serious challenges that they face. We had the opportunity to visit the St.
Theresa Youth Court and to talk with the elders and others involved in that
program there. They bring a unique
perspective to the issue of dealing with youth and the crimes often committed
by youth.
I would like to welcome as well the new member for St.
Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). I am impressed
with his efforts to get answers from the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) if
they relate to Justice issues, whether it is healthy severance packages for
judges or the government's feeble attempt to deal with youth crime by bringing
in boot camps.
I would especially like to welcome the new member for
Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg). I know all
my colleagues on this side welcome him.
It is very appropriate that the Rossmere seat is once again held by New
Democrats, Mr. Speaker. He has raised
the issue of education. He has raised
the issue of the government's commitment to the handicapped individuals in our
community, and I know that he will continue to do so.
I welcome all the new members. As well, I would like to welcome the new
member for Osborne (Ms. McCormick) and the new member for The Maples (Mr.
Kowalski).
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my constituents of Selkirk and
Lockport, St. Andrews and West St. Paul for their contributions, their
suggestions and their ideas, their criticisms, over the past number of years.
As I canvass the community, I meet with either steelworkers
or small‑business owners, nurses, public sector employees. All of them are concerned about a number of
issues, issues that I do not think were properly addressed in the budget that
was brought down by the government. They
are concerned about jobs. They are
concerned about health care. They are
concerned about education, issues that this budget did not address.
Let us deal with the issue of education for a moment where
the government cut 2.6 percent out of the Education budget and, in particular,
this has brought particular difficulty to the Lord Selkirk School Division No.
11. I just want to read into the record
today a paragraph from a letter written by Bruce McPhail who is the chairman of
the board of trustees. He has written
this letter to Clayton Manness.
As you are aware, this division was severely affected by
the increase in assessment. These
changes coupled with the average funding reduction has reduced the provincial
government contribution by 5.88 percent.
This letter was also copied to D. Praznik, MLA, and E.
Helwer, MLA.
Again, as you can see, this government's actions have once
again hurt our community with the layoff by the school division of
approximately 50 staff teachers and other support staff which will severely
impact upon the delivery of education within our community. As well, two employees were laid off at the
Northern Affairs branch in Selkirk, so this is not exactly an effort to promote
job creation when this government is once again laying off the public sector
employees within my community.
Mr. Speaker, there is always the anxiety within the
community regarding the issue of health care.
While there was a general reduction in the health care budget, again,
something of great concern for the community of Selkirk, there was some good
news, and I will be forthright in my comments concerning that, that the
forensic unit was finally funded at the Selkirk Mental Health Centre, something
that we have been calling for on this side for a number of years now. It is apparent to us and apparent to the
individuals who work in this field that the current services provided for
individuals with these types of problems are ill‑treated.
I am pleased that the government went ahead with the
development of a forensic unit within the Selkirk Mental Health Centre,
especially after the closure of the School of Nursing. We do agree and we do appreciate the
enhancement of the services provided at the Selkirk Mental Health Centre.
Mr. Speaker, we are a little bit concerned in terms of jobs
about the lack of announcement in terms of infrastructure in the Selkirk
community. There have been a number of
announcements made concerning the Canada‑Manitoba infrastructure program,
and as of yet the community of Selkirk has been left out in any announcements
in terms of funding. They made a worthy
application to the project in March, and there was nothing announced in the
first round of announcements. Again,
there were some announcements made last Friday, and once again the community of
Selkirk was left out.
I have written a letter to the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Stefanson), and I have spoken with the M.P. for Selkirk‑Red River, Mr.
Ron Fewchuk, expressing our concerns, first of all, expressing our
disappointment and then expressing our support for the project and asking that
the projects be considered in further rounds.
The main project that the community of Selkirk is
interested in funding is the Selkirk storm‑water sewer separation program
which is much needed. Last summer, our
community, like many others in the province, suffered greatly because of the
increase in rain which, unfortunately, caused significant damage to a number of
homes in my constituency. This storm
sewage upgrade program would go a long way to alleviate some of this cause for
concern.
Mr. Speaker, we find the home improvement programs offered
in the budget. We welcome those
announcements. We have on this side
raised issues in terms of the level of contribution, and I have raised this
with my constituents and received calls in my constituency office from
constituents. For the most part, they
will not be able to meet the $5,000 minimum contribution. So even though we do agree with the concept,
we wish the government would have perhaps lowered that somewhat to allow
seniors or other low‑income individuals access to this particular
program.
The other problem of course is why did the Minister of
Housing (Mrs. McIntosh) not spend some money upgrading housing stocks within
the province? I know in my own
constituency we have a number of different housing apartments, housing
complexes owned by the government which they have allowed to decay, allowed to
deteriorate over the last number of years.
The Alfred apartments is a three‑story apartment
structure which is just sitting vacant.
I have written to the minister and asked the minister, and she said, oh
yes, well, it is coming, it is coming.
Meanwhile it is an eyesore in the neighbourhood, and it really is
useless space. They could be developing
that space to fulfill the need of providing some social housing for some of the
constituents in Selkirk.
* (1630)
The other one is the Outhwaite Sveinson avenue
project. Approximately $100,000 was to
be spent last fall upgrading the complex, but again nothing happened, Mr.
Speaker. Again, I plead to the Minister
of Housing to put forward some money to deal with some of these important
issues, some current housing stocks they have now that are owned by the
province. It would restore pride in the
occupants. They would be more inclined‑‑they
would appreciate their premises more.
They would work at maintaining their places more if they could develop a
sense of pride.
Mr. Speaker, in terms of the health care issues and the
health care cuts, I have presented some petitions. I will be presenting more as the session
continues. We have over 1,400 names on
petitions rolling in calling for the firing of Connie Curran and restoring
money to health care, restoring money to Home Care and to Pharmacare.
We know that the government has put layoffs on hold at the
Selkirk hospital until after the next election.
There is a great deal of anxiety with the staff at the hospital at the
moment as they wait for any further announcements by the Minister of Health
(Mr. McCrae). We realize that the true
reason why these cuts were put on hold was the by‑elections and the zero‑for‑five
record of the government in these particular by‑elections.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
It was kind of curious, the Minister of Labour (Mr.
Praznik) was saying in an article in the Selkirk paper, well, you know, we only
lost one seat. I would assume they were
there to try to win all five seats, but they ended up getting nothing, and they
ended up having a zero‑for‑five record.
I want to talk a bit about that in the budget, once again,
there is the attack on the public sector.
I will have to vote against any measure that attacks the public
sector. Again, what they have done is
apply a specific tax of $1,400 imposed on the public sector employees in this
province. It is clear that this
government does not respect the collective rights, Mr. Acting Speaker, of its
employees.
One other issue that had been brought forward by
constituents is the issue of the Red River and the cleanup of the Red
River. I have raised issues in the
Chamber before and will continue this session to raise issues concerning the
City of Winnipeg dumping raw sewage into the Red River. I would ask again that the government work
with the City of Winnipeg to require the City of Winnipeg to disinfect any raw
sewage dumped into the Red River. The
member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) really raised a concern about the fish
stocks in the lake, and part of his concern, I would suggest, is that there is
a high pollution level in the lake at the moment. Part of it is because of the City of
Winnipeg's dumping of raw sewage and other untreated waste into the river,
which, of course, ends up in Lake Winnipeg.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the government has talked about the
need, and always talks about the need, to deal with the issue of violence in
our community. My constituents as well
raise the issue. It is not a large
concern; nevertheless, it is a concern.
One of the programs that was really working well in Selkirk was the program
offered by the Selkirk Friendship Centre.
Last year, in the government's budget, they cut funding to the Selkirk
Friendship Centre, an organization that provided youth programming, youth drop‑in
centres.
As I recall, when I was an employee there, we used to
provide a youth camp for underprivileged members of the community, a summer
camp, as it were, but this government stopped that. They stopped that program when they cut the
provincial government grants to the friendship centre, resulting in a layoff of
two individuals and the end of such programs that were dealing with the root
cause of crime, which is youth alienation and poverty. It also taught aboriginal and Metis self‑awareness.
The government, when they removed the programming, when
they withdrew the programming from the friendship centre, basically killed
these very valuable programs. Now they
are talking about that it is important to bring in boot camps as the only
answer. Well, the friendship centre
movement used to provide a wilderness camp setting for troubled youth in the
Selkirk community and other communities across the province. So here they are cutting out, on one hand,
Mr. Acting Speaker, the same program that now they seem to be desiring to
restore.
I raised an issue earlier on in the session in Question
Period concerning the government moving highway jobs from one community to
another, in this case, highways jobs from Selkirk, Mr. Acting Speaker, to
Beausejour, an issue that we raised many times in this Chamber and an issue that
keeps flaring. I wish that the
government would once and for all categorically state one way or the other
whether or not they are going to be moving these jobs out of the community. It is simply, as the Minister of Highways and
Transportation (Mr. Findlay) stated, that he does not believe he should get
involved in the political involvement in the transferring of jobs, yet we know
that the Minister of Labour is actively seeking these jobs from my community to
be placed into a public building within his own community.
Mr. Acting Speaker, we do now have within the Selkirk
community available office space, because the government in the '92 budget
closed the Human Resources Opportunity in Selkirk, which would have provided
much needed office space. As a matter of
fact, if they are looking at transferring jobs, they should be transferring
jobs within the community.
Decentralization was not set up to transfer jobs from one
community to another. It was set up to
transfer jobs from the city of Winnipeg out to rural Manitoba. Again, I want to raise that point, and I want
to speak against that point. I want to
speak against the government's attempts to politically manipulate jobs in rural
Manitoba. I asked them not to move those
highway jobs from Selkirk to Beausejour.
There is only one reason for them to do it and that is it is politically
motivated. We have witnessed that often
with the administration opposite, where they have moved I believe it was
housing jobs from Swan River and they moved them to Roblin. Again, they did it simply to appease their
political friends.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to again raise to the attention
of the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay) the deplorable condition of the No. 9
highway between Selkirk and Winnipeg.
Again, I would just ask the government if they would proceed with the
rebuilding of this particular highway.
It is an issue that has been raised by constituents, so I just want to,
once again, put it on the record and ask the government to proceed along with
that. It is a route that is well
travelled and is in serious need of rebuilding.
I know that there was a plan put forward, I believe, a few
years ago. I know that I attended some
meetings in the West St. Paul area. At the
time, the officials from the Highways department had stated that it would not
be until well after the turn of the century that the project would be
completed, so once again I would ask the government if they could possibly
speed that project up.
Mr. Acting Speaker, one of the major revenue announcements
in this past budget was that of gambling.
Some on this side were calling it the bingo budget, because it is clear
that the only growth industry this government has in terms of revenue is its
love of gambling and gaming devices.
No other province in this country can boast the gaming
initiative that we see, that we are all confronted with in this province. While all provinces across this country, and
I will admit that, are increasing their gaming activity, it is clear they all
lag behind this particular government when it comes to providing Manitobans
with gaming initiatives.
We on this side would be calling for a public inquiry into
the whole issue of gaming, and part of that inquiry would deal with the
economic benefits, economic costs, Mr. Acting Speaker. On the economic benefits, we know, when the
government introduced video lottery terminals into rural Manitoba, they stated
that the VLTs would stay in rural Manitoba, and all of the money from the VLTs
would be put back into economic development within rural Manitoba. Well, they quickly flip‑flopped on
that, and they put back a portion of the money into rural Manitoba.
* (1640)
Look at a community like mine, for example, that has around
a hundred VLTs, and a simple calculation would tell you that each machine
brings in roughly $20,000 in profit for the government. So that would mean about $2 million would
leave the community each year in revenues, and we have had the machines in
Selkirk since 1991. It is going to be
close to three years now that we have had the machines. We probably lost close to $5 million in
revenues. The government has put some
money back. They have given the direct
grant to the town, and they have provided some assistance to some of the
businesses‑‑a particular business to set up in Selkirk. I do recognize that and do appreciate that,
Mr. Acting Speaker, but we have seen this throughout Manitoba, throughout rural
Manitoba and throughout northern Manitoba, where literally millions of dollars
have left those communities with little economic benefit going back into these
communities.
Again I call for our public inquiry to study the economic
benefits and economic costs to nonprofit groups. I know, again, in our community, we have a
foundation that was set up to seek funding for the Selkirk Recreation Complex,
which is an arena, a baseball stadium complex, Mr. Acting Speaker, and the
foundation was very successful at raising funds. All of a sudden, they hit this wall, just
last year, hit this wall in terms of fund raising, where they had no ability to
raise any more revenue, either through their own bingos which they ran or
contributions from any of the other nonprofit groups in the community which
used to make contributions to help them retire this debt. So we are left with about a $500,000 deficit.
Now the town is contemplating taking over the outstanding
debt of the Selkirk Recreation Complex and perhaps placing a special levy on
our property taxes to help pay off the outstanding balance. The director, the president of the Selkirk
Recreation Foundation, who incidentally was the Conservative candidate in the
past election, he blamed this clearly on the gaming policies, the gambling
policies, of the government, Mr. Acting Speaker. He said, because of their policies, because
of their lust for lottery revenues, they have grabbed millions of dollars from
the Selkirk community, from communities throughout the province and put very
little back into these communities.
There are just so many gaming dollars out there, and this government,
this administration, again, has just siphoned millions of dollars from rural
Manitoba and put very little back in.
So we would have this inquiry look at economic benefits,
economic costs, as well, of course, the social costs. It has been mentioned in this Chamber by my
Leader and others that really there has not been any in‑depth analysis of
the social costs of gambling upon the general population of the province.
It has been recognized that there could be upwards of
10,000 individuals in this province who display or who could possibly display
pathological gambling behaviour, and so the government's answer is to treat
2,500 over the next five years. So they
are committing $2.5 million‑‑$500,000 per year‑‑to
treat 500 individuals per year, yet they acknowledge that there are 10,000 out
there at the minimum who could possibly become very, very addicted to video
lottery terminals and other gaming initiatives in this province.
Not only that, because of their policies we now have the
fact that they have created a whole new generation, a whole new breed of
gamblers, a whole new pool of gamblers willing to leave Manitoba to seek gaming
thrills in other jurisdictions and other countries. Now apparently the number of individuals who
have left Manitoba to seek these gaming thrills has increased by 300 percent
over the last number of years.
Again this government has no clear policy when it comes to
gaming. It is just a matter of flip‑flops
and they go along and they expand here and they make an announcement here and
they flip‑flop on that announcement.
There was a so‑called moratorium announced on gaming expansion
last fall and then in January it was quickly broken and the government added
more VLTs.
By our own estimation, we estimated that the government
would be bringing in approximately $220 million in revenues. We estimated that there would be about $150
million in revenues based upon what little information and sketchy information
the government offered us.
In fact, when the information was released last week, it is
clear that they will be reaching well over the $200‑million mark in
revenue, $200 million in revenue siphoned out of the economy of this province, Mr.
Acting Speaker, again without any clear direction as to where they are
going. We know that when a new minister
came in he announced a moratorium and we had hoped he would honour that, but it
was soon obvious to all of us that he quickly broke that.
It is kind of an interesting quote made by an individual in
March of 1987 where this individual asked the question of the‑‑at
this time the individual was on this side of the Chamber, and he asked the
minister, will she hold public hearings after the experiment to reveal all
aspects of the potential operation of casinos five days a week so that all
these public groups will be heard before any permanent decision is made on the
matter? Here we have an individual
calling for public hearings on the issue of gaming in this province, and he
goes on to say: I regret that the
minister will not commit to public hearings on this matter given that many of
these groups are expressing the concern that lotteries, casinos and gambling in
their revenues to the province are in fact a tax on the poor.
Mr. Acting Speaker, these quotes are made by the current
member for Tuxedo, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province. He asked this question of the government in
1987, he asked that they would hold public hearings into the issue of
gaming. It was the member for Tuxedo who
asked these questions back in 1987. Now
while he is the Premier of the province, now while he is on the other side, he
completely ignores all of his former requests.
Again, another flip‑flop from the members opposite when it comes
to gaming in this province.
We have the fact that the government was willing to spend
last year, in 1993, $1.2 million on advertising in promoting gambling in this
province, Mr. Acting Speaker, and they are only willing to commit .55 million
dollars on treatment. So they are
willing to spend well over double the amount on advertising, on promotion. You see it everywhere. You watch a Jets game and it is right behind
the players' box. It is on the
buses. It is on TV. Now they are spending millions of dollars
realizing the folly of their ways in terms of that, and they know that
Manitobans are really beginning to see through this government's feeble attempt
to deal with this issue, so now they are forced to advertise the so‑called
benefits of the lotteries. We see the
ads, and again they are spending close to over half a million dollars on TV
ads. There is an ad in my paper this
week, again, extolling the virtues of gambling and what the government will be
doing with the money, the millions, literally millions of dollars that it has
taken from rural gamblers and urban gamblers in this province.
Mr. Acting Speaker, this is a great concern to us on this
side. We raised it before and will
continue to raise it. We again would
like the government to look at the issue of aboriginal gaming, and we know that
members opposite were raising this concern in terms of casinos in, I believe it
was, The Pas. Well, the reality is that
this is an issue of self‑government, an issue of aboriginal people
controlling the affairs of their lands.
If they see the gambling and gaming activities as a solution to some of
their problems that they are confronted with, I think it is worthy of
inspection and analysis.
We do not on this side of the House accept 90 percent
unemployment rates on northern and southern reserves, for that matter. We do not accept the despair and the poverty,
the third‑world conditions that often individuals of these First Nations
are forced to live under, Mr. Acting Speaker.
So we are prepared to look at aboriginal gaming. We are not afraid to show some respect to our
First Nations and Metis people in this province and actually negotiate with them
in terms of this very important issue, an issue that could bring some economic
benefit to their communities.
* (1650)
The government opposite, of course, seems to be willing to
accept the high unemployment rates, the atrocious conditions that are found in
some reserves in this province, but we on this side are not.
Mr. Acting Speaker, there are many other issues I would
like to raise concerning the Selkirk community.
I again would like to talk briefly about the housing issue. I know the Minister of Housing (Mrs.
McIntosh) had an opportunity to hear the comments, but I was just stating that
perhaps some of the money could be spent on upgrading the current housing
stocks in Manitoba.
One of the No. 1 problems that I face as the member for
Selkirk is the government's lack of commitment to housing. We are seeing now the decay of housing
stocks, the fact that individuals there are paying often unusually high amounts
for their heat because the windows need to be repaired, the insulation and so
on need to be upgraded.
We do recognize the value of the Home Improvement Program
that was announced in the past budget but, again, I would like to see the
government spend some of that money that they have allocated to upgrade the
housing stocks. We have the Alfred
Apartments in Selkirk that is sitting empty, the Outhwaite Sveinson complex
that needs to be upgraded. Individuals
are anxiously waiting for the government to improve their living
conditions. The government, after all,
is their landlord. Now, they would not
let a private landlord, I do not think, get away with what they are doing,
especially when it comes to the housing stocks in this province.
I hope the government opposite again will recognize our
concerns as far as the infrastructure.
There was some money announced for areas in the St. Andrews area and
then the St. Clements area, but Selkirk made a very worthy application to
upgrade its sewer and storm water system, and I know that all members will
appreciate their concerns, and I bring forward their concerns here today, again
to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), asking him to work with the
officials and the representatives of the federal government and the
representatives of the municipalities to make sure that Selkirk is considered
in the next round of infrastructure announcements. The community needs those resources.
Again, I would like to raise the attention of the House to
the plea by the Lord Selkirk School Division No 11, which was severely affected
by the government's reduction. They, in
fact, have experienced a reduction of 5.88 percent in their funding, which will
result in the layoff of 50 teachers and other associated staff, again placing
in jeopardy the quality of the education of those within that school division.
Thank you very much.
Again, I do not want to be completely negative here. I do recognize the government's efforts in
terms of providing forensic services at the Selkirk Mental Health Centre. The closing of the school of nursing, the
only post‑secondary educational facility that we have in our community,
was quite a blow to the community. I do
recognize the efforts of the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to put the
forensic unit in there.
The former minister did nothing but hack and slash his way
through the health care system. The new
guy is doing it not quite as vigorously, but I think it has something to do
with the fact that the by‑election result was quite not in their
favour. There is general concern there
within the hospital that there would be the layoff of some nurses and other
support staff, but that was put on hold.
There is a high level of anxiety by the nurses and other support
staff. They also realize that these
layoffs are put on hold until after the next election, and believe me, they are
going to be expressing those concerns, they tell us, when they go to the polls
next time around.
Again, we will not support a budget, I will not support a
budget that attacks the public sector as this one has. Once again, the government talks about not
raising taxes, but I have talked to many constituents and many of them recognize
when they look at their property taxes there has been a significant increase in
the amount of money that they have provided to the government opposite. They know that their taxes have gone up, so
there is not a tax freeze as the government so often tries to argue in this
particular Chamber.
If you work for the public sector you also realize that you
have paid a tax of around $1,400 last year and again this year, so they have
targeted, they have made specific tax burdens on specific groups.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I just want reiterate our concerns from
the past budget with the dealing with the cuts to the friendship centre, a
program, a service that was provided there that dealt with the issue of youth
and youth crime, youth alienation, self‑awareness, that used to provide
services for native and non‑native individuals within the community. They used to offer at one time a youth camp
very similar to what the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) is now offering as
an alternative to some of the problems that our youth in this province are
confronted with daily.
Mr. Acting Speaker, if I may just conclude by saying that
though we do recognize there are some good points to this budget, in general we
on this side cannot in good conscience support it. This is why I will be voting against this
budget.
Mr. Ben Sveinson (La
Verendrye): Mr. Acting Speaker, I am extremely pleased to
speak today about this government's courageous budget.
I commend Finance minister Mr. Eric Stefanson for his
excellent work. There is no question
that my colleague from Kirkfield Park faced a number of difficult challenges in
his first budget as the Minister of Finance.
I mentioned the word "courage" a moment ago because I believe
the minister showed a great deal of courage by facing the issues straight on.
The Minister of Finance is tackling the problems we are
facing in Manitoba and has offered solid solutions in guiding our province back
into the prosperous economic times. I am
thankful that there are no quick‑fix gimmicks in this budget. Instead, there are well‑thought‑out
ideas and plans of action that will continue to create a climate for growth and
economic development in Manitoba.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the first area of the budget that I
wish to discuss, and for the most part I will stay on this topic, is the area
of jobs and job creation. It is the
topic that is on most people's minds today, and it connects with all other
areas of the economy. In order to build
a strong economy, you have to base your plans on a solid foundation. That is exactly what this government has done
for the past six years.
* (1700)
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
We have come out of the NDP wilderness, where there was
little or no planning for the future.
Under the NDP, there certainly were no major policies that fostered a
healthy climate for business or long‑term jobs. Instead we saw regressive taxes like the
payroll tax. That tax only managed to
make it more difficult for companies to expand and hire additional employees. It was appropriately named because it kept
businesses from having more Manitobans on their payroll.
Watching the NDP in power was like watching the first two
of the three little pigs. You remember
that story. Now, I can assure you that this
is completely parliamentary to compare my honourable friends opposite to
characters in a children's bedtime story.
The reason is that even the most horrible tales from our childhood had a
happy ending. The first two little pigs
built their homes of straw and sticks, and of course, the wolf made short work
of them. That is the way the NDP
worked. They built their foundations
poorly, caused chaos and were subsequently tossed out by the voters of
Manitoba. I suppose the members opposite
thought I was going to say they were eaten by the big, bad wolf. Mr. Speaker, even the big bad wolf would not
have been able to swallow what the NDP had to offer.
It was after those houses of straw and sticks that our
government was elected and started to slowly build with brick. The process may have been slow through some
very difficult years, but I am happy to say we have built a strong foundation
for the future of this province.
Building that foundation includes working to improve the
very basic components in our communities.
Several years ago this provincial government began lobbying hard for a
national infrastructure program. I am
pleased to say the new federal government was able to work with us to deliver a
program that will benefit all of Manitoba.
The Infrastructure Works Program is already underway, and we will see a
total of $205 million invested in our province.
I use the term "investment" because that is exactly the right
word to describe this plan.
Common sense will tell you that every good investment will
have a return. The return from this
Infrastructure Works Program is that it will give our communities the
opportunity to grow. Some of the items
in the program may not sound all that glamorous to some people, but they are
exciting to those communities involved.
The reason is that those projects will inject new life blood into areas
that need assistance: sewers, water,
gas, lagoons, roads, et cetera. Some
smaller communities would not have been able to reach their growth potential
without these initiatives.
I certainly can point to communities in my own region, the
communities of Landmark, Lorette, Ste. Anne, Whitemouth. These are all wonderful places to live with
hard‑working, friendly people in them, but they desperately needed
infrastructure improvements to allow them to grow. Without proper water and sewer lines and
lagoons, how can a small community attract new residences and indeed new
businesses? These initiatives will have
long‑term benefits and will help small communities create a better
climate for growth. By investing in
Manitoba's infrastructure, we are helping our small communities remain viable,
and by making communities stronger, we will all benefit. When a community is strong, that strength is
shared to increase business opportunities.
There are also spin‑off benefits for the residents. When the community prospers, so do the
residents by jobs created in that community.
It seems that I am repeating some of these things, and I
feel that I have to. A number of
projects have already been announced with this infrastructure program, and we
will see more of those projects approved in the coming weeks. I have mentioned the long‑term benefits
from these projects across Manitoba, but there are also benefits in the
immediate future through the creation of more jobs.
Some 2,300 jobs will be created during the construction
phase of the Infrastructure Works Program.
That is 2,300 Manitobans who will see immediate benefit from the
program. Those 2,300 newly employed
Manitobans will be contributing to our economy by helping build the
infrastructure, but they will also be spending the money they earn right here
in Manitoba. These people also then make
an investment in the future of our province.
I mentioned sewage lagoons and other parts of the
infrastructure program, but now I would like to turn my attention to the
expansion of the natural gas service.
The recent announcement of the expansion to more than 20
communities will have benefits for our entire province. There are some obvious benefits from the
natural gas expansion. The communities
will benefit from having a cheaper fuel source, but I believe that the most
important component of the expansion is the potential it gives smaller communities
to grow. The community becomes more
attractive to residential and to business people. By having a cheaper source of fuel, the cost
of living and of doing business will go down.
Mr. Speaker, rural Manitoba already has a great deal to
offer, but this program will now help communities attract new businesses to set
up in rural Manitoba. When those
businesses set up shop, remember, they bring with them jobs for our
people. When you talk about job creation
in Manitoba, you have to applaud those people who have the courage to run small
businesses. The Minister of Finance (Mr.
Stefanson) referred to small businesses in his budget speech as the backbone of
our economy. Those small businesses
create the jobs. That is why this
government is doing everything possible to make it easier for Manitobans to set
up their own companies and then stand out of the way to allow those businesses
to grow and prosper.
This government has already removed some of the impediments
to small businesses put there by a previous government, such as the reduction
in the payroll tax. Currently 90 percent
of all Manitoba businesses are exempt from that tax, the NDP tax on jobs. Mr. Speaker, the next step in removing
roadblocks is the reduction in the corporation income tax for small
businesses. That is being reduced in
stages, down this year to 9.5 percent and a further reduction to 9 percent in
1995. A doubling of the small business
capital tax exemption will mean 600 businesses will no longer pay that tax. What this will accomplish is allowing small
businesses to return most of their income into the business and, yes, again,
more jobs. Again, this is part of the
overall plan to help Manitoba grow.
I am also pleased to see the Advisory Panel on Business
Regulations is hard at work. They are
looking to reduce red tape and make it easier for businesses to do their
work. We do not need unnecessary
regulations and roadblocks for business, because ultimately those regulations
would also affect the number of jobs that we have to offer in Manitoba. This panel, chaired by my honourable
colleague from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister), is seeking input from across
the province from a cross section of businesses and other interested people.
Mr. Speaker, there are also programs in this budget that
will directly result in jobs for Manitobans.
The extension of the Business Start Program for two years will offer a
total of $1 million in loan guarantees.
We should see more than 100 new businesses take advantage of that
program each year. That will mean about
300 new jobs in each year of the program.
* (1710)
The Manitoba Home Renovation Program will benefit both
Manitoba homeowners and the construction and renovation industries. I am certain we will see an upward swing in the
number of people who are employed in this area.
I know my phones have hardly quit ringing since the budget was
announced.
An Honourable Member: What are they saying, Ben?
Mr. Sveinson: They are wanting to know the parameters of
the program.
An Honourable Member: Do they support the budget?
Mr. Sveinson: Absolutely.
They support the budget.
An Honourable Member: What is the biggest plus about this budget?
Mr. Sveinson: Jobs.
The sales tax rebate for first‑time buyers will also
result in more jobs. It seems that
almost every second word about this budget comes out jobs. This program does not just benefit home
buyers. It also will create jobs. We will see an increase in new home starts in
Manitoba, and we will see more and more construction workers employed.
Other programs, while not created specifically as job
creation plans, will have the spin‑off benefit of additional employment,
yes, more jobs. The Community Places
Program will be investing another $4.5 million in Manitoba, more jobs. This government will also develop a pilot
program to provide expansion capital for small businesses in the service and
manufacturing sectors, again more jobs.
Mr. Speaker, all of these initiatives I have mentioned here
will create jobs, real jobs, lasting jobs.
The benefits for all Manitobans will be tremendous.
Capital programs in the public sector will top $1 billion
this year. Those projects will require
not only construction workers but planners and others who will see employment
as a direct result, more jobs. We will
also pilot projects to help those on welfare get back into the workforce and on
their way to meaningful rewarding jobs.
Everything I pointed out earlier will reduce the
unemployment and social assistance lines.
Mr. Speaker, there is another area that deserves
recognition in terms of job creation and a strategy for the future, and that is
the area of mining. I heard a number of
members from across the way laughing and jeering and saying that in fact these
fingerprints that the mining industry sees in the southeast and so on are just
that; there is not much chance of finding diamonds or gold or any other thing;
there is not much chance. That is the
opposition.
The budget outlines an agenda that will pave the way for
future prosperity in the mining industry, which will have tangible results for
Manitobans. When mines are prosperous,
they contribute to the revenues of this province, and we need those revenues to
finance our vital social programs like health care, education, training and
family services. The announcement of the
new mining investment tax credit will spur more investment in Manitoba. The doubling of the processing allowance to
20 percent for either new facilities or major expansions will also create
growth and, yes, again, more jobs.
We in government also want to see exploration enhanced in
Manitoba, and we are seeing that with the removal of barriers that had
prevented development in the past. In my
area of the province we are excited with the recent announcement of the largest
mining claim in the province's history.
The Rhonda Mining Corporation of Calgary, of which I have spoken before,
has filed 4,284 claims to search for diamonds, gold and other base metals. The claim covers almost the whole
southeastern section of the province, from Winnipeg down to the U.S. border and
all the way east to Ontario. We will see
this company invest several millions of dollars on the exploration side in the
next few years. Remember that every
dollar spent in Manitoba will benefit our economy, whether it is work in
restaurants or hotels or whatever the case may be, but it will be in the
communities and more jobs again created.
We will see increased spending in our region with benefits to existing
companies as well as prospects for future development.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague the honourable
Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard) has expressed an interest in working
with companies to help them invest in this province. This government's incentives for exploration
are working. We are attracting companies
to Manitoba because it is a great place to do business. The positive aspect here that I want to
emphasize is that we attract businesses in a way that will be mutually
beneficial to the company involved and to the people of Manitoba.
Listening to the members of the opposition speaking to the
budget it seems that they are standing on the edge of a field back in the bush
and making a lot of noise. They really
want to come out and say that this is a super budget, but the Leaders just will
not let them. The second day following
the budget they would not have produced any questions on the budget, but the
Minister of Energy and Mines pointed it out and some members of the opposition
jumped to their feet saying, my question was kind of related. When I close my eyes, I kind of see the
opposition parties and it seems to me that they are kind of drooling a little
bit at the remote hope of forming the government in the next election. They know now, as the media and the people of
Manitoba know, that we are on the right path.
We are on our way up‑‑[interjection] The truth does hurt,
does it not?
Mr. Speaker, I submit that this budget continues the sound
fiscal policies that came into play in 1988. It is a realistic view of expected revenues,
and there is a good plan in place for keeping the reins on government
spending. I am pleased, as all
Manitobans, that this government was in office during these past difficult
years because I can only imagine what carnage would have occurred under the
NDP, or the Liberals, because any story that starts in the NDP ranks is
continued by the Liberals, and vice versa.
It is a short story, with devastating, lasting effects. It goes spend, spend, debt and more spending‑‑spending
literally our children's future and our hopes for good jobs.
Let me compare our six years in government to those under
the reign of terror of the members opposite.
The NDP raised taxes 19 times in the period they were in power. Our record fares far better under any type of
scrutiny. This government has frozen
major taxes since 1988. I am pleased to
see that trend will continue through the next fiscal year‑‑[interjection]
I cannot hear you; you are not talking loud enough.
The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that most Manitobans are
better off today than they were in 1988.
We should not always have to look at what others have as a measure of
our own success, but because of the global changes in the way we do business
today, it is important that we remain competitive with all other jurisdictions.
Manitoba constantly ranks among the leaders in North
America when it comes to the cost of living, and now, also, you can add the
cost of doing business to that list. The
cities of Winnipeg and Brandon have been mentioned quite frequently in articles
about the best places to do business.
Other Manitoba cities also fare among the best. We can look at the new jobs created in
Portage la Prairie, Steinbach, and in southeastern Manitoba during the past few
years as an example of that.
There are so many advantages in Manitoba that we need to
mention: low‑cost electricity; the
excellent quality and competitively priced agricultural products; the cost of
land and office space is low; and the list goes on, Mr. Speaker.
What price tag can we put on the quality of life in
Manitoba? We have a great deal to be
thankful for here in Manitoba and, indeed, in Canada. If we just watch the TV or the news in the
evening sometimes, we will realize just how lucky we are. When we see the countries that are at war
right now, and see bodies strewn all over, devastation from war, we realize
just how lucky we are. In a number of
those countries they do not have health care.
They do not have Family Services or Child and Family Services people to
look after those who are less fortunate in our communities.
* (1720)
Mr. Speaker, we also understand that we have a great deal
of potential yet to be realized. Our
sound policies have enhanced our way of life here while protecting our vital
social safety net. It would have been
relatively easy to raise taxes to create new revenue, but just raising taxes
does not solve all problems. If spending
is getting out of hand, you cannot artificially create new revenues to pay the
bills. I am glad our government has had
the strength to stand up and make the difficult decisions that have been
required to get our financial house in order.
Mr. Speaker, the cost of paying for borrowed money makes up
a significant part of our government's spending. About 10 percent of our annual spending goes
to service the debt. This government is
on a path that will lead us to a balanced budget in 1996‑97. It is a realistic goal and now it is well
within our grasp. To get there we must
stay the course we have set and work to achieve that goal. Our children are depending on us to do that
and to reduce the legacy of debt left to us and left to our children by the
official opposition.
But make no mistake, listening to the Liberals is like
listening to a bad echo from the NDP.
Building a stronger province takes a methodical approach to
government. There is an old saying: there is a stairway to success but everybody
wants to ride the elevator. Mr. Speaker,
we are succeeding in our plans to create growth in Manitoba. Surely, one step at a time we are achieving
our goals.
I have spoken totally on jobs created throughout this
budget and the previous five budgets. I
know the people of La Verendrye can see, and I am sure that all Manitobans can
see now, the light at the end of the tunnel.
To Manitobans, we know now we will make it, but there are no quick fixes
and there never will be. Beware of
opposition members with gleaming eyes that would like to take the reins of a
province on the right track. That I say
truly to all Manitobans, beware of those bearing gifts. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be
able to stand up to articulate on a budget.
Now this will be, I believe, my seventh budget. I believe I have commented on all of the
previous budgets. In fact, today would
be, for a number of us, an anniversary date, being first elected on April 26
six years ago. I can virtually say 99.9
percent of that time has been sheer enjoyment and a very challenging lifestyle
to be an elected official. [interjection] Well, I said 99.9, and that .1, that
was the not now. That did make me feel a
bit uncomfortable. I will admit that.
I was listening to the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.
Orchard) as he articulated on why and how can the Liberal Party and members‑‑and
he pointed to myself on numerous occasions‑‑vote against this, vote
against that, talking in terms of the personal income tax. How can we vote against maintaining the
personal income tax? How can we vote
against this and that, and he went through a list of‑‑a meagre list
I must admit, but he did have a list of things in which he felt that as an
opposition party, we could not justify voting against.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I look at it, and I would be curious in
terms of, when the Minister of Energy and Mines was in fact in the opposition
bench, if he would have made that very same argument, because no doubt that in
any given budget, there are going to be some good things, there are going to be
some bad things. I guess the bottom line
for myself is the fact that I look at the budget overall and pass
judgment. If I believe that this
government's budget was better than what a Liberal administration would be able
to do in the Province of Manitoba, if I believed that it was better, then I
would be inclined to vote in favour of the budget.
Mr. Speaker, overall, I look at this budget, and I believe
a Liberal administration could have done a better job in establishing
priorities. That is why I am going to
vote against this budget. Coincidence
has it that that has been the case since my tenure over at the Manitoba
Legislature. I must say, you have had
worse budgets. I recall the first
budget, and I want to talk a bit about the first budget. I remember the first budget, and even on that
budget, I voted against it.
The New Democrats, of course, at that time did not vote
against it. They supported that budget,
but I would argue that that budget was in fact worse than the current budget
that we have right now. The reason why I
want to make that comment is because of the former Minister of Finance, the
manner in which he started off his speech.
He started to talk about how well, how wonderful this government has
been doing in the last seven budgets. He
talked in terms of the deficit and how good of a job this government has done
in terms of saying to Manitobans we are doing a good job. Well, the former Minister of Finance had an
opportunity to introduce into this Legislature a surplus budget.
Mr. Speaker, I did not have to do any research for this
because I remember very well when the then‑Minister of Finance introduced
his first budget. What he did in the
first budget was he borrowed money in order to establish a Fiscal Stabilization
Fund. Had he decided not to borrow the
money to establish a Fiscal Stabilization Fund we would have in fact had a
surplus budget. That would have been
something noteworthy. He would have been
able to be somewhat boastful about it in the sense that no other province in
Canada that year had a surplus budget.
I know that in the last number of years the government has
received some criticism in terms of saying, well, look it was a surplus budget
and you did not do what Manitobans wanted in terms of the services and so
forth. I reflect on that particular
budget and I see a minister who had some good fortune, as he alluded to in his
speech, when he talked about the mining tax, when he talked about the transfer
payments and the net personal income tax that were all because of the then‑NDP
administration. That is what provided
the government the opportunity to come out as well as they did in that first
budget, in particular in putting together the Fiscal Stabilization Fund.
* (1730)
Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Conservatives should get
that much applause. You have to look at
the administration which they were following.
It is not that tough to be able to follow a New Democratic
administration and the mess they inherited.
I had to make those comments with respect to the then‑Minister
of Finance. I hope‑‑to the
member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett)‑‑that you are right, I will
never know how it is to follow an NDP administration because hopefully we will
never get another one in the Province of Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, if we take a look in terms of what is being
said in this budget, what are the selling points, what does this government
want to say to Manitobans in the next election?
They want to say that we have never increased personal income tax, nor
did we increase the provincial sales tax.
In seven budgets they have never increased it. They want to take that to Manitobans.
What they are not saying is all the other taxations, both
direct and indirect, that Manitobans have had to pay as a result of the
government's policy, in particular, the personal income tax, which is a much
more progressive tax than many of the other forms.
We compiled a bit of a list, Mr. Speaker, in terms of some
of those direct tax increases, which include:
the gas tax; gasohol tax preference reduced; sales tax was broadened;
property tax credits were cut; pensioners school tax assistance, income tested;
social allowance recipients' tax credits were cut; tax on the Blue Cross;
tobacco tax up; gas tax up in 1991, also in 1993; the diesel fuel in fact did
go up at one point; water power rental rates.
These are some of the direct tax increases.
One could talk in terms of some of the offloading of taxes
that this particular administration talked or criticizes their federal
counterparts about: Offloading, how
nasty our national government has been in terms of passing on their problems to
Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, this provincial government has also been somewhat
irresponsible, to a certain degree, of doing some offloading. We look in terms of some of the education
cuts that have taken place. Where is
that going to be picked up upon? The
Highways budget. Remember the Highways
budget cut? Many provincial roads turned
over to the municipalities. Personal
care home fees, max rate up from $26.50 to $46.04 in the 1993 budget. There are a number of areas in which this
provincial government has in fact been offloading some of their
responsibilities in order to be able to maintain, if you like, some of the
things that they are going to be going to Manitobans and saying, look, we did
not increase the personal income tax.
An Honourable Member: Get to the point, Kevin.
Mr. Lamoureux: For the Minister of Rural Development‑‑I
know him best as the former Minister of Highways and Transportation.
An Honourable Member: He is Minister of Natural Resources now.
Mr. Lamoureux: Now he is playing the shell game. I guess he is not too sure in terms of what
he wants, but that is right, Mr. Speaker, it is Natural Resources, because he
did stand up yesterday, and he was good enough to actually provide some
information on his department.
Well, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger)
says, you know, what is the point? The
point is that it is not fair for this government to go and tell Manitobans that
they are not increasing taxes when in fact‑‑[interjection] And he
says, major taxes. Well, you have to ask
the question, why has this government been able to not increase major
taxes? Is it because of offloading? Is it because of the other taxes that they
are increasing? The other taxes that
they are increasing, are they as progressive as some of the taxes that they are
not increasing, Mr. Speaker?
Well, that is the point.
So it is not quite as easy to say, well, we are not increasing our major
taxes without telling Manitobans as to the reasons why they have been able not
to do that. I noticed, as members of the
government stand up to speak on this budget, we hear a lot about jobs and job
creation, and I am glad.
The member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), when I asked
him the question in terms of what he feels is the most important aspect of this
budget is, he said jobs. I think that
the government is finally in tune with what Manitobans have been talking about
for the last number of years. Manitobans
have been talking about jobs. They have
been talking about job creation. In
particular, they have been looking to this government and wondering what this
government is doing to provide a better economic climate to ensure that jobs
were going to be created.
Mr. Speaker, prior to this budget, the philosophy of this
government, the foundation that it was setting up the province on, was one of
the trickle‑down theory, the invisible hand, as the Leader of the Liberal
Party (Mr. Edwards) often refers to it, the trickle‑down theory of let
the businesses create. Government does
not have any role, if you like. Let
business create the jobs. The government
does not have a role in trying to stimulate the economy.
In this budget we have seen a dramatic change, a dramatic
reversal. We see it in a number of the
different programs that they are putting into place, first and foremost, the
infrastructure program. The infrastructure
program is a very progressive piece of government policy, if you like. I believe that it will do wonders for
Manitoba and its infrastructure.
I would have argued that there might have even been a
better time to put this particular program into place. I cannot blame the federal counterparts
because they were not necessarily in government at that time. The time I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, was
a year, two years ago when in fact we were in a very deep recession.
[interjection]
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) says: Well, some members have used the word
"depression" on this side. I
am one of those individuals who have used the word "depression,"
because for those individuals who did not have work, did not have steady income
coming in, that is what it was. It was a
depression.
The people back then were asking for government to get more
involved, to provide an opportunity, to give them some hope, to at least
demonstrate that they care, that they want to see the economy on the move in
the province of Manitoba. There were a
number of things that the government of day could have done to try to give that
element of hope to many Manitobans scattered throughout the province, but they
chose not to.
Mr. Speaker, after six budgets, we now have a budget that
does incorporate some form of job creation.
I applaud the government for acknowledging the worthiness of having job
creation now as a part of the provincial government policy. I look forward to seeing what other
additional initiatives, if any, the government does have. I note in the budget it makes reference to a
few others.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
I wanted to go over to at least two other programs which I
am responsible for as the Housing critic.
In my response to the throne speech, I did not get the opportunity to
talk about housing. I am going to talk
about housing now, because it is part of my critic portfolio and time will
allow for it.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I look‑‑and I used to be
the Housing critic. There was a period
of time in which I was not the Housing critic for our party, but I went back to
the '88‑89 budget in which Housing in the year ending March 31, 1988, was
a total of $47,855,900. Well, this
particular budget, we saw a budget of estimated expenditure for '94‑95 of
$47,995,000. It is, in fact, a very
modest and marginal increase from six years ago or from seven budgets.
But, Mr. Acting Speaker, I do not want to necessarily focus
on the figures, because I know the government wants to say, well, gee, he is
saying, throw more money at it. I do not
want to say that you have to throw more money at it. In fact, I like to think that there are some
things that the government can do to ensure that there are very positive things
coming out of the Department of Housing.
I want to comment on a couple of those.
* (1740)
First, Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to congratulate the
current Minister of Housing (Mrs. McIntosh) on something that she has been
working on very closely with myself. I
very much appreciate her sincerity in terms of trying to work with me in the
Gilbert Park area. Over the last number
of years, we have been trying to put together a good healthy organization, an
apolitical organization in the Gilbert Park area, which is the largest
nonprofit housing complex.
We have been working on getting a strong tenant
association. I believe that we have been
very successful at doing that. The
current president is an individual by the name of Amie Chartrand, who has been
working very closely with the current Minister of Housing and prior to this
minister with the Department of Housing, in particular Saul Schubert and a
couple of other individuals within the department.
The reason why I bring it up, Mr. Acting Speaker, is that I
believe that there is an alternative to the traditional nonprofit housing where
government is in fact the landlord and the tenants are nothing more than just
that‑‑tenants. I am hopeful
that eventually what we will see is the government taking an approach of designating,
and I have suggested to the Minister of Housing that Gilbert Park could
possibly even be considered that, a pilot project to look at how we can manage
those nonprofit housing units in a better way.
I strongly believe that if we get tenants more involved in the everyday
operations of these nonprofit housing complexes that you will see a substantial
and, in particular, long‑term but also short‑term cost savings to
it, Mr. Acting Speaker. So I am somewhat
excited and hope that we will be able to continue that forward momentum towards
a tenant management and, ultimately, even over into a conversion of a housing
co‑op of sorts.
Having made reference to that, I want to move on to another
program, the co‑op housing start program, which was a program that was
cut, Mr. Acting Speaker. I believe a
program of that nature did wonders for providing alternatives to nonprofit
housing. I will have ample time to go
into detail during the Estimates of Housing and to find out in terms of where
the government is going on programs and some discussions on the type of
information that I just finished expressing to the colleagues in the Chamber
here.
I wanted to talk about the two housing programs that have
been mentioned in the budget, Mr. Acting Speaker. The first one is with reference to the $1,000
grant that is now going to be available to anyone that wants to be able to
conduct renovations. There are some
criteria that have been established.
Overall, the concept is not that bad a one, but there are some very
strong reservations that we do have about the manner in which this program is
being implemented, and it is not just coming from an opposition party.
I received, for example, from the Manitoba Renovation Contractors
Association, which is headed by Kevin Sanders, and in the letter that I was
sent or faxed over, it expresses some of the concern that we have, and I am
going to quote from the letter, Mr. Acting Speaker, and I will table the
letter. The only thing I would ask is
for one of the Pages to photocopy it, so I could keep one on my personal file.
In making reference to the program and how it is being
administered, it reads, we feel there should be a qualifying process or
criterion in place before any program of this sort is launched, both for
protection of the consumer as well as for the government. The possibility for creating more problems
than solutions is enormous. A licence
requirement would be the cleanest answer to the situation, ensuring that the
person involved has some knowledge of the inner workings of what he is dealing
with, an awareness of the cause‑and‑effect relationship which takes
place within a building envelope, has adequate insurance to cover potential
complications and did not just blow into town to take advantage of the program
and the homeowner.
Underline what he has quoted, Mr. Acting Speaker, is the
just‑blow‑into‑town individuals that will come in, take
advantage of a program and then the quality or the workmanship might not necessarily
be there. This comes from the Manitoba
Renovation Contractors Association, a representative thereof.
We have raised this particular issue inside the Chamber in
a question and had asked the government, in particular the Minister of Housing
(Mrs. McIntosh), to address this particular problem. The minister has indicated, well, she is not
as concerned for the simple reason that we are asking for two estimates, and
she feels that that in fact will resolve any problems of seniors or others
being taken advantage of by fly‑by‑nighters, if you will‑‑[interjection]
Well, I previously, as Housing critic, can recall discussions that I have had
with individuals where they expressed dissatisfaction about contractors, or
some contractors.
I have got to emphasize, a vast majority of the contractors
are all wonderful, hard‑working, and do good quality workmanship and so
forth. This is not what we are
targetting. This is not what the letter
that I just finished tabling, this interest group, is targetting. What we are talking about is individuals that
will see an opportunity to be able to take advantage of a particular program
and then not necessarily do what is in fact expected of them by the consumer
and by the government, Mr. Acting Speaker.
So, hopefully, the government will look at that aspect of this
particular program and reconsider.
There is a whole issue in terms of certification which has
been brought up into this Chamber before.
The government has not necessarily responded to that particular issue,
but I trust that in fact the government will be looking at that.
The other aspect of this program that I want to express is,
the concern has been brought to my attention that those individuals are not
going to be able to access this particular program that could benefit by a
program of this nature. This is targeted
mostly at fixed‑income individuals that might live in some of the rural
communities or the Shaughnessy Parks, the Westons, the Brooklands, the
Transconas. There are numerous areas
throughout the province where we see individuals that are on a fixed income
that are not necessarily going to meet that $5,000 because they do not have the
$4,000 to be able to invest in.
Mr. Acting Speaker, that is somewhat unfortunate in the
sense that nothing is being taken into account for those individuals, and those
individuals we want also to be able to participate in programs of this nature
because, after all, in essence what we should be trying to get is the
improvement of the quality of Manitoba's housing stock. How do you improve that housing stock?
* (1750)
Well, if you are putting up fences, patios, things of this
nature, it might do some benefit in terms of increasing the market value of
that home, but if you start fixing foundations and more of the structural
concerns that are out there in our housing stock, it would go a lot farther in
terms of being able to ensure that we are going to have good quality housing
stock into the future.
Having studied somewhat at the University of Winnipeg in Urban
Studies, we talked a lot about the revitalization of neighbourhoods. One of the most important aspects is in terms
of getting permanent homeowners that want to invest, in the community, into
their homes.
Well, those are the individuals that we have to ensure are
going to be the individuals that are going to be able to get access to this
particular program so that what will happen is that the housing stock in those
areas, in the areas where the fixed‑income earners and low‑income,
the working poor, if you like, have access to dollars to ensure that they can.
Mr. Acting Speaker, fortunately we have a federal
government that has reinstituted or reinstated the federal RRAP program which
will alleviate a lot of that concern in the sense that they will be able to at
least apply for some of the loans to hopefully bring them up to the $5,000
rate.
Those are the concerns that I have with that particular
program, and only time will tell whether or not the areas of the older housing
stocks are in fact being able to take advantage of this particular program.
[interjection] The former Minister of Housing says that there is no doubt that
will occur.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I hope that does in fact occur because
it is absolutely essential that these housing stocks, that those neighbourhoods
have access to a program of this nature, that it is not going to be going just
into neighbourhoods where homes might be 14 or 10 years old, that it is more
that an effort has to be put on those inner city or the older rural communities
and so forth. It will be interesting to
see, in fact, where that goes.
Mr. Acting Speaker, again, because of time, I do want to
move onto another area of concern about this particular budget, and that is in
the whole area of health care. The
government in the past has talked about health care reform. I do not believe that this government has
handled health care reform as well as it could have, and we see that in terms
of the budget decisions that it has made.
If you invested in personal care home beds and enhancing in‑home
services‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Sveinson): Order, please.
Mr. Lamoureux: ‑‑providing additional services
for our seniors in our homes to try to de‑institutionalize that. The best way you can demonstrate your efforts
at doing that is through the budget, is to increase in the area of the budget
where we will see that seniors will be able to remain in their homes. We do not see the sorts of shifting in that
area that are necessary in order to say that the government is taking a
proactive approach to resolving health care.
What we do see, Mr. Acting Speaker, is one more of crisis
management control, if you like, trying to minimize any sort of real change,
any real de‑institutionalizing. We
are not necessarily hearing about the other aspect of health care reform in
terms of the roles of the LPNs and the R.N.s, our nurses' aides, our doctors,
our pharmacists, the health care providers, the backbone of our health care
system.
So there are many other things which the government could
be talking about to demonstrate that it is in fact serious about coming to
grips with the health care issue, and again, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would
emphasize that I am not necessarily saying that you have to throw more money
into it.
Education is something which, unfortunately, I am only
going to have about five minutes to talk on, but I will have a few more minutes
after Question Period tomorrow. I did
want to make reference to a question I raised earlier in the week, and that was
with respect to the Student Services. I
had asked the minister in terms of why it is, if he believes this is such a
fair budget, he is penalizing the most vulnerable in the school system, and the
minister was unable to answer that question.
There was a cut to Student Services by 22.5 percent.
If you look at what it is that Student Services provide‑‑and
I ask specifically the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness). Again I am going to read it to members of
this Chamber, and that is: Student
Services branch is to administer the Manitoba School for the Deaf, to provide
program and specialized support through services of consultants for hearing
impaired and visually impaired, to ensure students with special needs have
access to special equipment and materials, to facilitate interdepartmental co‑ordination
of services for students with special needs, to administer educational service
agreements with institutions outside the regular school system offering
educational programs.
Mr. Acting Speaker, what has changed that has justified
having a 22.5 percent cut? That is not
fair. That is not sharing the pain, as
the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) was talking about in the answers to the
questions that I was posing to him last week.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister of Education has to say
during the Estimates when I can ask him in more detail, and I look forward to
hearing that because I cannot see‑‑and the Minister of Education
was unable to defend himself on Friday.
I believe it was Friday that I had asked him that question.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
He admitted it himself in the sense that he said, well, the
member for Inkster is half right. He did
not tell me which half, of course, but I think that the Minister of Education
realizes that in fact it is very difficult to justify, and I am interested in
knowing how he is going to justify it.
Is he saying that they do not need, these most vulnerable in our
education do not need the material that they had in the previous years, that
the demand is no longer there? Is he
saying that they do not need the same sort of consultation that was there
previously?
You know, I hope maybe the minister will come forward and
say, well, the Department of Family Services is now going to be providing this
aspect of the budget. I hope that the
Minister of Education is going to be looking for those areas in which he can
say, look, when it comes to that particular issue, we have now got the Department
of Family Services that is going to pick up this particular
responsibility. That is one of the
reasons why we made the cut.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that is in fact the sort of indication
the Minister of Education will be telling me when we do go into the Estimates
process.
The overall budget of Education, Mr. Speaker, has been cut,
and it has been cut by 2.7 percent.
Again, I have to wonder why it is and on what basis the government came
to decide that we have got to cut the Department of Education by 2.7 percent.
The government never had any plan. They did not have any idea in terms of what
it is they are going to be doing to change Education to ensure that even though
there is a 2.7 percent cut, the quality of education is not going to deteriorate
in the province of Manitoba.
Every time I hear the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness),
he is not going out there reinforcing the positives about the public
educational system. I need to be
convinced that this Minister of Education is in fact trying to reform education
to improve the quality of education. You
do not make those changes, and you are not convincing me by going and telling
the MTS, Manitoba Teachers' Society, the superintendents, MAST and some parents
that, look, we want to go back to the basics.
That, Mr. Speaker, is not assurance that the 2.7 percent cut is‑‑
* (1800)
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for Inkster will have three minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is now adjourned and
stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).