ORDERS OF THE DAY

Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer) that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government, standing in the name of the honourable Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer).

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, quite simply put, this is an election budget, and quite simply put, the people of Manitoba and we on this side cannot trust election budgets from this government. So this budget really is an issue of trust with the people of Manitoba and this Premier (Mr. Filmon), his Finance minister and, more particularly, his Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson) who was the former Finance minister and the head of Treasury Board. Along with Mr. Jules Benson, the three of them have crafted the fiscal promises of the past and the fiscal broken promises of the past, and we simply do not trust this Premier anymore. Therefore, we do not trust the numbers contained within this budget.

Madam Speaker, we must harken back to the promises made in 1995. The Minister of Health, the former Minister of Finance, the former supervisor of Mr. Jules Benson, along with the Premier–[interjection] Oh, he is denying it now. I know his former golfing partner, I guess they are handling that individual with asbestos gloves now, and I do not blame them. But when the Minister of Finance last tabled his pre-election budget in 1995, they made a major capital announcement just weeks before the election on March 16, 1995. At that time, Minister McCrae announced a health care spending budget of $678 million. They claimed, as the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) expressed in Question Period, that this was the greatest promise in health care spending ever in the history of this province for capital investment here in Manitoba. So, when we close our eyes and listen to the recorded announcements from the members opposite in 1999, it has a familiar ring to those of us on the other side to something we have heard, the ghosts of promises past from the Tory government that have evaporated regrettably after the election campaigns.

Madam Speaker, this is not just a matter of debate in this Chamber. Two days ago or three days ago, I was with my daughter at a soccer practice. Like most parents, you talk with other parents. You hope the coach does not bring you on for a practice game, because these kids can go a lot faster than you can, but like most parents you talk with other people. They are from all walks of life and they are from all political persuasions. One lady said to me at the time, that night, that she had voted Conservative in the last election campaign. She said: What do these people–she used more specific terms in terms of the Premier–what does this person take me for? Do they think they are going to play the same movie again in 1999 that they did in 1995 and I am going to forget what they told us before? Do they really believe that they can fool me a second time after I put my ballot and my trust and my faith in their commitments?

She obviously had come to the conclusion, as many Manitobans have, that this government cannot be trusted. This Premier (Mr. Filmon) cannot be trusted. His word means nothing. Just like the Mulroney-Campbell Conservatives of the past, they have lost the public trust. This Premier has lost the respect of people in this province, and people will vote accordingly, I believe, if the government has the nerve to call the election in the next short period of time, this being 50 months since the last election was called.

So I remind members opposite of their promises in 1995 and the comments from the lady at the soccer field, because next day in the Legislature Mr. McCrae crowed about his announcements: "we have a recipe for a sustainable health care . . . " No, that is not 1999; that is 1995. "even in the light"–and this is in Hansard. That is the great thing about Hansard; it is a record. "even in the light of massive, massive cuts at the federal level with respect to health care."

So, Madam Speaker, these people opposite said they would build personal care home beds and invest $600 million after the federal budget was tabled in February of 1995, and they said they would do it in spite of the federal cuts. So what did you do in June of 1995? You woke up and said we are going to put all the health care spending on freeze because of–why?–the federal budget cuts of $260 million.

You tried to fool the people in '95 on health care. You are not going to be able to do it again. You just are not going to be able to do it again. In commenting about the capital budget in 1995, the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) said: "There is an election coming." I guess he lowered his voice: "There is an election coming. I think the people are entitled to know what is going on in the capital budget which is very important to the budgetary process of the government of the day." He said that on March 17.

Madam Speaker, the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), I guess he is getting sensitive about the Liberal's questions on the Emerson health care facility, and I do not blame him for getting sensitive because it must bug him too. It must bug him too that his ministers of Finance and his ministers of Health and his Premiers make promises five and six times and break them. It is only a matter of time before you can go to the credibility well and keep drawing water and then you are going to have a dry hole because you have no credibility left at all.

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): On a point of order, the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), in his reference to making and keeping commitments, the people of Vita will not soon forget that we built a brand-new hospital that they refused to build in Vita. The people of Altona will not soon forget that we built a brand-new hospital in Altona during the period of time that is being described here and we did meet the commitments. They will remember. The people in my constituency know what commitment means, and so do the people of Emerson know what commitment means when we do make that commitment.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I suggest that the member for Emerson does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts and in fact, the facts the member is disputing are the facts of his own Health minister who has let him down over and over again by promising him something that is not there, so it certainly is a dispute over the facts, but it is over the facts wrongly interpreted by the Conservative Party.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Emerson did not have a point of order. It clearly is a dispute over the facts.

* (1210)

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I know the member for Emerson is feeling hypersensitive lately with all the questions being asked. Perhaps he has developed a thin skin with those broken promises, and I am sorry that he is so vulnerable to these comparisons of promises versus reality. Yes, maybe I will go on and talk about the Manitoba Telephone System next.

How many times has this government promised capital investment in Brandon? I was told by nurses in Brandon that seven times the hedge cock crowed with the government promising promises in Brandon, and I know, with the greatest of respect to Macbeth, twice and once the hedge cock crowed. They always used numbers of three, I think. I am referring to my literary experts here. But seven times the hedge cock has crowed in the community of Brandon, and seven times, seven times I think the members opposite cancelled capital commitments.

Now you have to ask yourself: What are the people of Brandon going to think? Are they going to think that now, oh, the eighth time they really mean it? This time the Premier is going to go to Brandon and say, oh, we were just kidding the first time; the second time we were just joshing you; the third time we were just poking you around; the fourth time when we made the promise, we were teasing you; the fifth time; we were getting closer on the sixth time; on the seventh time we really did not have the money because the feds made us do it; and the eighth time, oh, we really mean it this time. Is that what their election campaign is going to be about? This time we really mean it. Honest, we really mean it. I think they will go from Manitoba Strong to "this time we really mean it," nudge, nudge, wink, wink. That will be the Pinocchio Premier's promise in this election campaign.

An Honourable Member: What did they promise?

Mr. Doer: Oh, nothing. If you promise and do not keep it, it is nothing.

An Honourable Member: The elevator that does not work–

Mr. Doer: The member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) is correct. The elevator that does not work, and the CAT scan equipment that was not even operating equipment.

Madam Speaker, when the government promised to build these capital commitments, it was a debate that went on between the government, the Premier and our health critic. Now I want to show–I think it is important to look at what people said in 1995 and what is the reality today.

The government said: Oh, there is an election coming, but I want the people to know that this Health department and this Health capital procedure is going to go through, includes the biggest single hospital project ever built, replacement of the Health Sciences Centre surgery, emergency and intensive care services, at the cost of $100 million.

Dave Chomiak, the member for Kildonan, said: "This is a shell game. They are trying to convince the public they intend to do something, but if they are elected, they will not proceed."

Now who was telling the truth? Who was telling the truth? The people who promised to build the $100-million health facility in 1995, or the member for Kildonan who said they are trying to get re-elected? I want to give the truth award to the member for Kildonan and the opposite award to the member from Tuxedo in terms of the last election campaign.

Madam Speaker, how many fruit flies were in the operating room since they made that promise? How many walls and roofs crumbled after the government made this commitment? What has been the long-term cost of broken promises from the Tory government? Every time this government breaks a promise on capital, it usually costs the people of Manitoba more money in the long run.

Let me refer to the broken promises on Swan River made in '92, remade again in '95. The promise to renovate a hospital, to do the needy capital that is necessary. The government could not find the money to make the repairs to the hospital in the early '90s. So now the hospital has mould. Now the hospital has been condemned. Now we have to replace the whole hospital. What we have been saying all along in health care is we want to fix the roof of a health-care facility first and spend the money in a capital investment as you would in your home or as you would in a business, not like the Tories who then have to fix the whole darn hospital because of some blind ideological decision.

Madam Speaker, these are the promises made in '95. You just have to close your eyes and you hear the recorded announcements. The government saying shortly after the election, they say on March 16: we will do this in spite of the Liberal budget, even in spite of the massive–not "massive" once–massive, massive cuts at the federal level. We are still going to go ahead.

Now that is one point on which we agree with the government opposite about the massive, massive cuts of the Liberal government. That is why when the potential member for River Heights, the candidate for River Heights, talks about health care–and he is going to put a stethoscope on and talk about health care–we will remind him that he voted to cut $260 million out of health care. He had a chance to vote for health care, and he voted against health care. That is the only point on which we will agree with members opposite, I am sure.

However, massive, massive cuts. Okay, what happened shortly thereafter? The government said and issued a press release months after the election–not years, months after the election: With the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal government transfer payments, essentially we have no choice, Minister McCrae said. We are suspending all our health care capital projects.

This is less than one year after the election campaign, and this decision to break your promise, this decision of the Premier to say one thing in an election campaign and do something completely opposite is why the people of Manitoba do not trust the government anymore.

Now one of the symbols of this broken promise is the Oakbank-Springfield personal care home. Now I have been to that site for the last four years, before that in fact, and they were happy to have the announcement made in 1995. In fact, they were happy to have the announcement made in 1994; they were happy to have the announcement made in 1993; and they were really happy when it was first made in 1992. But it is 1999. It is seven years after the campaign. The only activity we see in that community on health care is chiropractors writing letters with patients' lists. Just shows your dirty tricks will not win you a campaign.

So, Madam Speaker, we have the Tory pamphlet. Just so that they do not think this is an NDP speech, we have the Tory pamphlet. I thank the party opposite, the Manitoba Progressive Conservatives, and they have a commitment, a picture. They are all lined up like a class picture at the future site of the Oakbank-Springfield personal care home: Glen Findlay, MLA; Jim McCrae, Minister of Health; Gary Filmon, Premier. This sign has gone through some even more, the sign in front of the personal care home has been tortured by weather year after year after year. It has gone through–how many winters has that sign gone through? That poor, lonely sign has been battered by four Manitoba winters, and what did they do–take down the sign and build a personal care home? The sign faded from the sunshine and from the hail and from the snow and the wind. It faded so much it is like a comparison of the Tory health care promises in 1995. There is no more ink left on the sign. It is like the invisible ink of this budget. That is why we cannot trust the Premier opposite. The invisible ink government when it comes to health care and education.

* (1220)

Here it is four years after the government campaigned on building the personal care home. Is this false advertising? It is certainly not true advertising, so if it is not true advertising, is it false advertising? What shall I call this, the truth? No.

Madam Speaker, this is a symbol of this government's arrogance, their cynicism, their absolute disconnect from the people of Manitoba. When I go to Oakbank on Tuesday night, I will remind people of this broken promise, but you know what? They do not have to be reminded. They know, they saw the sign. They go by the sign for three and a half years, and you know what they have done? They have taken the sign down. It is a pre-election period. You know what is there instead of a sign? An empty field. An empty field. The personal care home is not there.

Now does the government use the issue of these newfangled community contributions? I believe it was the Kiwanis–or the Kinsmen, I better make sure, I will check my facts over the weekend. Well, the member for LaVerendrye (Mr. Sveinson) chatters in his seat. I wonder if he stood up in the caucus–he is not far away from that community. I wonder if he stood up in his caucus for the personal care home, or did he just sit there like a trained seal doing whatever the government wanted?

Madam Speaker, we know how the member for La Verendrye stands up for the flood victims in his community. We know how he failed to stand up for them. Sometimes silence is nice, but sometimes silence when people are drowning is not very helpful, and the member for La Verendrye has a record that people know about in his own constituency. He need not heckle in this Chamber. He can continue to read speeches that the Premier's staff writes for him and regurgitate them in this Chamber.

Madam Speaker, I digress. I apologize. I had to deal with the heckle from the member opposite.

So this Oakbank personal care home, well, is it built in 1995?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Mr. Doer: Is it built in 1996?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Mr. Doer: Is it built in 1997?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Mr. Doer: What did the Minister of Health say about it in 1998? Now, I do not know whether Jules Benson wrote this in your budget speech or whether the minister did. Did Jules Benson write your budget speech? [interjection] Oh, you do not like Jules Benson, do you? How many times did you golf with him last summer? I know you did. [interjection] As many as I did? I know you and the Premier went out golfing with him.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I remind all honourable members there is one person who is debating.

Mr. Doer: I suppose Jules is now saying, et tu, Eric, after he is now distancing himself from writing his promises and being involved in all his budgets. Et tu, Eric, along with the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and his comments: Oh, they did not tell me the truth; that is why I knew nothing; I knew nothing when my best friends were involved in this campaign; nobody told me anything,

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to the 1998 election promise. This is on the Oakbank centre. [interjection] Oh, we can find it. In fact, it is on pages 25 and 26 of Volume 136-S4, Volume 112, 98/06, March '98, and it is the Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson), the former Minister of Finance, saying: Our government is moving to address the infrastructure requirements of our evolving health–it is evolving every year, this health care system–I am pleased to announce a total of $63 million. This program provides for 26 priority projects, including the construction of a 40-bed personal care home in Oakbank.

That is what you said in this Chamber. Those are your words and, like the Premier's, they are written with invisible ink because there is no Oakbank personal care home in the community of Oakbank after seven long years of deceit from members opposite. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the volunteers of that community who have raised the money, the only way they are going to get the personal care home is by changing the people who broke their word and bring in people who will keep their word in the next campaign.

Madam Speaker, let me also talk about the minister–now the Minister of Health was going to recreate a new image, like the former, former Minister of Health, on health care. He had his opportunity. He had his chance. We wanted a new regime in health and a new regime for Manitobans. The first challenge we put out to the Minister of Health, the former Minister of Finance, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Stefanson), the person who is now a heartbeat away from the seat of premiership beside the Premier of Tuxedo the first chance he had, the first challenge we made was we said: cancel the ads. Cancel the Tory propaganda ads. Take that $500,000 and show you are different than the Premier and you are different than the former Minister of Health and the former, former Minister of Health, and the former, former, former Minister of Health. We gave you a golden opportunity. The member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) said: I am going to give him a chance. I am going to give the new Minister of Health a chance, because Manitobans need a new face and a new honesty in health care. So he had a choice. He could have put more nurses back in the hospitals, or he could put more propaganda out for the Tories.

He said in 1993 that he would bring down guidelines on political ads for partisan purposes. You know, how could a person who sounds so sincere act so insincerely? It is a contradiction. It is the conservative in the Progressive Conservative. Madam Speaker, we gave him a chance for a new dawn, for a new tomorrow, in health, for a new opening up of the priorities of Manitobans. He could have repeated the old cynical ways of the member for Tuxedo (Mr. Filmon), the old cynical ways of using taxpayers' money for the political gain of the Conservative Party. He had a choice. There were two forks in the road, the old fork going backwards on cynical patronage ads, and the new road to cancel the ads. If the ads are going to be taken, let the Conservative Party pay for it. Let not the taxpayers pay for ads for the health of the Tory party.

What fork in the road did he choose? What path did he take? He took the well-worn path of the member for Tuxedo. He took the old path of the minister from Lac du Bonnet. He took the old-fashioned Mulroney way and he went back to the old ways of cynicism, of patronage, of taxpayers paying for ads. The only people who are willing to take a new path and go into the new century with cancelling ads being paid for by the taxpayers and rehiring nurses is this party, this group of men and women, who will say no to the old ways, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The motion will remain standing in the name of the honourable Leader of the official opposition. The hour being 12:30 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday next.