LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
April 19, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Brad Hastings, Sharon James, Cheryl A. James and others requesting the Family
Services minister (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider restoring funding for the
friendship centres in
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member (Mr. Santos). It complies with
the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules (by
leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as:
assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially
disadvantaged, families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural programming,
housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance, advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Leonard Evans).
It complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies
with the rules. Is it the will of the
House to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as:
assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially
disadvantaged, families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural
programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance,
advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member (Mr. Ashton). 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? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the provincial government has
without notice or legal approval allowed wide‑open Sunday shopping; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has not
consulted Manitobans before implementing wide‑open Sunday shopping; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has not
held public hearings on wide‑open Sunday shopping;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
BE IT FURTHER resolved that the
Legislative Assembly be pleased to request the Attorney General to uphold the
current law concerning Sunday shopping until public hearings are held and the
Legislature approves changes to the law.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Dewar). 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? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as:
assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially
disadvantaged, families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural
programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance,
advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Martindale). It
complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as:
assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially
disadvantaged, families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural
programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance,
advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Hickes). 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? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as: assistance
to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially disadvantaged,
families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural programming, housing
relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance, advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislative Assembly of
* (1335)
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon from the
Also this afternoon, from the Garden City
Collegiate we have fifty Grade 9 students under the direction of Ms. Roberta
Topping. This school is located in the
constituency of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Tourism
Marketing Strategy
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First
Minister (Mr. Filmon).
Tourism is close to a billion‑dollar
industry in this province, employing upwards to 25,000 to 26,000 people in our
province.
A couple of years ago we asked for reasons
why
Last year, after the government stated
that they would have a thorough and aggressive campaign on tourism, kind of a
recorded announcement to deal with
I would like to ask the Premier why this
aggressive campaign and aggressive strategy is not working in this very
important and vital industry in
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, the member is partly correct
in terms of the decline in visitors from the
Having said that, we do recognize that
about 10 to 12 percent of our tourism industry does come from the
I know the Leader of the Opposition could
not be there today for our tourism campaign announcement, but I believe
representatives on his behalf were there, and if he were to listen to leaders
from the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce, the
We continue to target the
Overall tourism still fared reasonably
well in 1992, but we do continue to promote in the
Federal
Brochure
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): The minister's own tourism book very clearly
states that tourism from
The percentage of money coming from
Mr. Speaker, my question is again to the
Premier (Mr. Filmon). Today, we are informed
that the federal government has put out a tourism promotion publication listing
nine great cities to visit.
Are any great cities or communities in
* (1340)
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, firstly, I want to, from my
perspective, correct the Leader of the Opposition. He talked about visitors from outside being
more important than visitors from inside.
I would suggest they are all important to
If he were to look at the statistics in
terms of the importance of Manitoba‑‑and we continually encourage
Manitobans to take their holidays at home and enjoy the many aspects of
He is referring to the federal publication
that did not refer to
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we are very disappointed on this
side to hear that the federal Conservative government, with the federal‑provincial
agreement, has chosen to exclude
Marketing
Strategy
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): A final question to the Premier: Tourism out of the country declined in
Why again is
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, again, I want to correct the
Leader of the Opposition when he generalizes and suggests that we are running
so far behind every other part of the country when he does his comparison. While we are not faring the best in
We continue to have a series of
initiatives in the
We are optimistic about the 1993 campaign
and anticipate it will meet the needs of attracting more visitors from the
Status
Report
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, all decisions with respect to
bed closures are made by the Minister of Health. I am sure that the Minister of Health will
welcome the opportunity today of quashing rumours and speculation and
reassuring the staff and patients of
Will he confirm that
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my
honourable friend is repeating some of the rumours that have been circulating
recently and I suppose in November, December, circa 1978, and circa 1975‑‑a
long history of rumours.
I can indicate to my honourable friend
that the rumours about an imminent closure of
At least the rumours are getting a little
more gentle, but they are still not accurate.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the
question fully, and that is one of the things that breeds rumours.
I will ask the minister simply again. The minister said that the imminent closing
will not occur.
Will he confirm that the hospital will not
be closed nor significantly downsized either imminently or in the next 18
months to two years?
A simple question‑‑he can put
the rumours to bed by answering it right now.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I have given my honourable friend
that answer as I have given that answer on previous days.
My honourable friend's party supports the
reform of the mental health system. Part
of that reform of the mental health system was the decision that was accepted
from the
Now, that clearly is a downsizing at the
My honourable friend's seeking of
assurance of no downsizing at Misericordia would go against what his own party
has agreed to in mental health reform.
* (1345)
Status
Report
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, one of the reasons why we have consistently called for a health
monitor on the reform initiative is so that these rumours that are in the
purview of the public do not continue to percolate on and on and on. As the minister has indicated, this one has been
in the realm now for some many, many months.
The minister has clearly said, there is no
imminent plan to close down
Can the minister tell the House today if
there are additional changes in function for
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, let me
first deal with rumours.
Back in, I think it was November or
December, when notice was given as per the MGEU contract in terms of a number
of layoffs which would be imminent, the president of that union indicated that
all public health nurses employed in the Ministry of Health would be laid
off. That was an unfounded statement by
the leadership of that union, and it caused untold concern amongst public
health nurses and the people they serve throughout the length and breadth of
I cannot stop people from making those
erroneous statements to do nothing but advance their personal cause at
leadership positions and to do so by really putting a significant amount of
fear in the very people they represent, namely, in this case, the public health
nurses.
I want to deal specifically with program
in terms of the shifts, the changes that we anticipate may well be recommended
to government across our urban hospitals.
There are a number of program studies, for instance, obstetrics,
orthopedics, urology and a number of other programs in which expert committees
are now investigating how those programs can be delivered more effectively for
the people of
To date, I have no recommendations other
than in psychiatric bed provision.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell the House
today if
Is that the direction in which this
hospital is moving?
Mr. Orchard: I think that is one of the rumours which is
not accurate, Mr. Speaker.
HIV
Testing
Blood
Transfusion Recipients
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, can the Minister of Health tell the House today if he is debating and
discussing with his officials to institute the same kind of HIV testing for
those who had blood transfusions during the period of 1980‑1985, which
has now been put in place in the
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health):
I am not sure what is happening in
Mr. Speaker, I thought my honourable
friend's question might be centred around a decision by the Children's Hospital
in
Upon seeking clarity around that, it has
been the advice given consistently by our institutions that individuals who
received blood transfusions in the mid‑'80s, as a generous precaution,
should avail themselves of the HIV testing.
That advice has been before those patients for approximately five or six
years now.
Legislation
Repeal
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Will the minister tell the House today, as
she did not stay on Saturday morning to discuss issues and questions with the
delegates there, if she will now re‑evaluate her decision to bring in
legislation revoking the MIC Act and follow the mandate of the biennial
conference?
* (1350)
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for Multiculturalism):
Mr. Speaker, just at the outset, I was at the opening of the biennial
assembly on Saturday morning, by invitation, to bring greetings and open the
assembly.
I would just like to table in the House,
if I might, my opening remarks, because a few of the NDP caucus were not there
to hear them personally. So I would like
them to have copies, and other members of the House, because it does indeed
indicate our commitment to multiculturalism.
Mr. Speaker, we commissioned the Don Blair
report, which was extensive consultation throughout the
I had very few comments and responses
back, but those who did respond did indicate that they were supportive of the
Blair report, and we intend to follow the recommendations.
Anti-Racism
Proposals
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): Mr. Speaker, we will not take a back seat to
anyone in initiatives regarding combatting racism in this province. We have many initiatives that are ongoing,
and we will continue to promote racial harmony as the government in
Legislation
Delay
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): I
would say, of the very most important biennial assembly that has ever taken
place in the history of the Manitoba Intercultural Council, I was somewhat
disappointed that of the 400 organizations that are represented, about 70
delegates were there. That is about 18
percent of the organizations that were represented there. I do know that I have indicated quite clearly
that I look forward to a very positive working relationship with the Manitoba
Intercultural Council as they establish their new role and mandate, completely
controlled by the community without government interference.
Canadian
Wheat Board
Barley
Marketing
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
The Carter report on barley sales to the
In light of the fact that five major farm
groups in
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the
member raises a question that is of pretty keen interest in the farm community
right now.
I would like to tell the member that over
the last four to five years since 1988, we have increased our barley sales to
the
I can assure the member that my department
is going to do a thorough analysis of the study to determine if the facts there
are right, if the allegations made against it are right. We are going to do a thorough analysis.
I want to be sure that we penetrate the
market to the best possible extent and get the highest return to the farm gate
for all farmers in
* (1355)
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, since it is the opinion of major
farm groups that these changes will be devastating and will dramatically change
agriculture patterns in
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last
number of years, farmers have always had choices how to market their barley‑‑nonboard
market or the Wheat Board. That choice
still exists. No vote was held on
whether that choice should be in place.
I have told the member, we will adequately
review the document. Maybe, just maybe,
the Wheat Board has not been using enough of the agents, the private sector
agents, in selling the market, in penetrating the market. We are going to do that analysis.
I will not make a knee‑jerk reaction
like that member there. Without even having looked at the report, she has
already made a conclusion.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that
we have looked at the report.
Will the minister agree that the federal
government, which is at the end of its term and very low in the polls, does not
have the mandate to make such dramatic changes to the Wheat Board, and will‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are having great difficulty in hearing the
question of the honourable member for
Ms. Wowchuk: I want to ask the minister if he will make representation
to the federal government on behalf of farmers opposing any changes to Wheat
Board sales before the next election.
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, I have always been adamant‑‑the
facts only, please. That member, in her
preamble, forgot to notice the facts in the polls right now. Her party has gone thunk, right to the
bottom, and the government has gone right to the top under the leadership of a
woman, or the potential leadership of a woman.
She refuses to accept those facts.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member, we
will assess the facts. She may not like
to address the facts, but we will.
Point of
Order
Ms. Wowchuk: I would like to ask the minister if he would
clarify the facts where he was talking about the leadership‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is definitely not a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
[interjection] What?
An Honourable Member: She wants me to clarify that?
Mr. Speaker: There was no point of order.
* (1400)
Sexual
Assaults on Youths
Conviction
Rate
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Justice.
Mr. Speaker, again today we have all been
reminded by a report prepared by Dr. Catherine Stark that the community
response to sexual violence towards children is woefully inadequate.
Assailants are charged in only half of the
cases of reported sexual assault of teenagers.
Less than 20 percent of reported assailants are convicted, despite the
fact that 60 percent of victims are raped by someone they know. Twenty percent of rapes are gang rapes or had
others watching. Finally and perhaps
most disturbing and, underlying all of this, is the estimate by experts that
only one in 10 cases of sexual violence towards children is even reported at
all.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister
of Justice is: What is this minister prepared to do, as the senior law
enforcement officer for this province, to get tough with the perpetrators of
sexual violence towards children in our communities and give some comfort and
support to victims of those crimes?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, as soon as my department
learned of the existence of this report, senior officials in the department got
in touch with the author of the report to discuss the findings.
Certainly, as we see them reported in the
newspaper, some of the numbers that we see there are disturbing indeed. However, there are some things happening that
the honourable member may wish to be reminded about.
Some of the things that are written in the
article are cause for concern in themselves when we hear that many victims, it
says here, also decide not to testify when they find out about the dismal
conviction rate. Well, that looks to me
like the beginning of a vicious circle.
If there is a belief that there is not going to be a conviction, then
there are going to be a lot of people not wanting to testify. Therefore, they are going to have to have
stays of proceedings in numbers which we all agree are unacceptable and should
not be happening.
There are some positive things happening,
however. When the Supreme Court struck
down the rape shield, the federal government, supported by provincial
governments across this land, supported speedy action to replace the rape
shield in such a way that the Supreme Court we hope will find acceptable.
We have our
Pedlar
Report
Recommendations
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting comments
in the report today was from a Crown attorney.
The Crown attorney was quoted as saying that a major problem in securing
convictions was that victims of teenage sexual abuse and assault could not get
adequate support in coming forward and testifying in court.
My question for the minister, flowing from
those comments, and that is a comment from someone in his department: Has the minister yet implemented, as he said
he would, the Pedlar report recommendations that medical staff receive training
and protocols to assist in securing convictions or that school curriculums
include discussions about relationship violence?
After 18 months of the Pedlar report, has
the minister implemented the things he said he would?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Many of the recommendations of the Pedlar
review have indeed been implemented, certainly in the area of domestic violence
and curriculum in the schools. There are
modules respecting violence in families that are made available to teaching
staff across the province and young people are learning about the dynamics of
domestic violence and how we can avoid it.
The comment that was made in one case I
suggest is not so helpful. One comment
was made that if her goal is to see the guy go to jail, we tell them that is
not likely. I frankly, Mr. Speaker, do
not think that is helpful to a victim seeking assistance, to be told that it is
not likely that your attacker is going to go to jail when everything we are
doing in the justice system is pointing in the other direction.
If you look at our
I with all due respect would take issue
with giving that kind of advice to a victim of sexual violence, you know, that,
do not come forward because it is not going to do you any good anyway.
If this is the attitude of the
professionals in the field, then I think that we still have some work to do,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Edwards: I am not wanting to provoke debate, Mr.
Speaker, but it was illustrated six weeks ago, the justice system sends people‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. James was quite
correct. He does not want to provoke
debate. Kindly put your question now,
please.
Women's
Advocacy Program Resources
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, finally, for the minister, the
minister said he was going to implement every recommendation of the Pedlar
report. You will remember he said that.
My question for the minister: Has the Women's Advocacy Program, which he
has just spoken of recently in his answer, been moved to the Department of
Justice now? Will its resources be
expanded as set out in the Pedlar report with the new monies from the federal
fine surcharge, which are not revenues raised in the normal taxation way, but
are raised through the court system?
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for St. James has put his question.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, when the honourable member
gets up, I put my earplug in, because I do not want to miss anything he says,
but when you stand up, his mike goes off, so I did not hear any of the
gibberish that came out at the beginning of the question, but I did hear‑‑
Mr. Speaker: I heard the question. Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, it seems to me entirely inappropriate that when we are dealing with
children who have been raped, sometimes gang raped, that we allow‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order. It is clearly a dispute over
the facts.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Justice, with his
answer.
Mr. McCrae: I think the honourable member for
The honourable member asked if the Women's
Advocacy Program has been moved to Justice.
The answer is yes.
The other question was: Have resources for these kinds of programs‑‑are
resources made available?
This program has been very carefully
monitored. Each time there has been a
need demonstrated through our independent advisory panel, funds have been made
available, staff has been increased.
The honourable member, really, I am glad
he raises the question, because it is important, but the answer on both counts
is yes, indeed, there is.
On the part of this government, this is a
No. 1 priority.
Budget
Property
Tax Credit
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness).
Over $53 million of the expenditures cut
in this last budget were related to reductions of the property tax credit of up
to $75 and a reduction in the Pensioners' School Tax Assistance Program. This was a very regressive fiscal move and is
definitely equivalent to an unfair tax increase, disproportionately hurting
people on modest and low incomes and especially senior citizens.
My question is: Given this minister's stated intention to cut
expenditures further next year, as he has shown in his budget, can Manitobans
expect additional cuts to property tax credits next year or the year after?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, that
question is bizarre. We have not even
voted on this year's budget.
We will begin the budgetary process for
1994‑95 usually in the month of September. At that time we will have a clearer
indication as to how the revenues are flowing in within the fiscal year '93‑94,
which will then give us the base of greater confidence as to forecasting
revenues for '94‑95.
It is much too soon to make any type of
comment with respect to the budget for '94‑95.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the
expenditure side, which you forecast as being cut next year and then level for
the next three years, so my reference is to expenditures.
My question then: Has the Minister of Finance taken into
account the fact that even with a modest amount of inflation, let us say 2
percent a year, the level of $4,760 million, which is in here and proposed to
be maintained over the next three years, will really mean a cut of about $140
million in constant l993 dollars by 1994, a cut of about $180 million by 1995,
and a cut of about $270 million by 1996?
My question is: What draconian measures does this minister
anticipate undertaking to achieve the cutback targets?
Mr. Manness: I hope the member opposite has an opportunity
to digest the
Let me say that we have made decisions in
this government over the course of our first six budgets so that we did not
have to take draconian measures, so we do not have to reduce expenditures in
the realm of 8, 10, 15 percent.
I tell him that when we were talking about
a reduction, and again, this is in a broad term, as I have laid out in the
budget, as indeed the members opposite have encouraged me to do over the last
three years, to forecast ahead three or four years, as I have done in this
budget. I would say a 1 percent
reduction is not draconian in any respect, and all the decisions that are going
to be made around that number will be made not in the course of the next week
or two. They will be made probably next
fall.
Mr. Leonard Evans: The minister seems to have forgotten about
the phenomenon of inflation as far more than 1 percent to try to maintain level
in 1993.
Fairness
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): My last question to the minister: Will this minister guarantee that he will not
again focus feature expenditure cuts on the poor, the elderly and the disadvantaged,
as he has done in this budget? Will he
stop being unfair with the most vulnerable people in this province?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, it is
springtime. I just wish the member would
wake up and smell the roses.
The fact is, when he surveys the political
landscape, we are making decisions which are not an awful lot different than
are being made anywhere else in the country.
I think it is very important also that the
member realize that inflation is not manifesting any revenue increase to
governments across the land. It is a
sign of the times, and I would expect that the member would realize that the
difficult decisions that we made in this budget no doubt will be followed by
some degree of difficult decisions in terms of '94‑95.
The member can throw across all the
commentary he wants, but let us sit and wait and see how the
* (1410)
Furniture
Manufacturing Plants
Emission
Levels
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): For some three years, the residents of‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Reid: As soon as the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) is finished, Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to ask my questions.
For some three years, the residents of
Transcona have displayed symptoms of exposure to chemicals and wood dust
particulate as a result of a furniture operation in my community.
The American
My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Is it the position of the minister and the
Department of Environment to consider wood particulate from the furniture
manufacturing process a nontoxic substance?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, there are
a number of very important aspects to this question, not the least of which are
the concerns that are expressed by the residents in the area, but let me make
it very clear, this is not a situation that has been ignored, nor will it be
ignored by our department.
I am somewhat disappointed that the
article in the paper, which I am sure helped to precipitate this question, did
not also refer to the fact that the department has been doing a considerable
amount of stack testing, which goes far beyond opacity testing. Last year, I think this was probably one of
the most closely tested and monitored sites in
In that respect, there have been a number
of meetings that have been brought together in order to get an enhanced working
relationship between the community and the plant to make sure that the plant is
doing everything that the community believes is needed to respond to their
concerns.
We have offered on one occasion to mediate
this disagreement. We were unsuccessful
in having the community and the plant sit down together with the Department of
Environment at that time, but I believe they are today following up on that.
Mr. Reid: Can the Minister of Environment explain why
the Department of Labour sets an exposure level standard for wood particulate
from furniture manufacturing at one microgram per cubic metre of air for an
eight‑hour employee exposure level, Mr. Speaker, while the Department of
Environment has a standard of 120 micrograms per hour over a 24‑hour
exposure period?
How does this help the sick, the elderly
and the young people of my community who are exposed to this level of 120
micrograms‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, there are very often differences
between the standards that are set in workplace, because of the intensity of
the operation and the unremittance of the conditions in which the worker must
continue his occupation.
Mr. Speaker, in addressing these concerns,
we have now, in that community, a plant that has emission controls and
equipment in place that far exceed any other plant of that nature in North
Mr. Speaker, the corporation has been
monitored extensively. There have been occasions when they have, through
various clean‑up procedures and shut‑down procedures, exceeded their
emissions, but we have not been able to bring the compliance down to the level
where we cannot perceive any further complaints.
Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the
same minister.
I have asked this minister now for two years
to assist the residents and myself in having this plant clean up its
operation. This minister refuses to
help.
Can the Minister of Environment explain
why this furniture manufacturing plant in Transcona is allowed to exceed the
limit and emit a level over 1,800 micrograms per cubic metre of air, some 15
times above his own environmental standard, which is insufficient to protect
the health of the residents of Transcona?
Why is he not acting on this‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, the member continues to ignore the
fact that‑‑it was demonstrated I believe by a meeting that we
called for on December 17 when the department went to deal with the concerns of
the residents, but when we intended to bring the corporation into the meeting
and for discussion of what further compliance activities could be undertaken,
that member led the group out of the meeting, as I understand the situation.
Mr. Speaker, it is not helpful when we are
trying to exceed what are normal standards and we are not receiving the help of
the member opposite.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Committee
Changes
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
BUDGET
DEBATE
(Eighth
Day of Debate)
Mr. Speaker: On the adjourned debate, the eighth day of
debate, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) 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 (Mrs. Carstairs) in further amendment thereto,
standing in the name of the honourable member for
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
In particular, it is going to be the poor
and the middle class who are going to be paying the most, and this budget is
going to have extremely bad effects on the elderly and disadvantaged. This government seems to have taken a very
hard blow on those who can least afford it.
In particular, the minimum property tax,
the change in the property tax will be devastating for people on low
incomes. To have people pay a minimum of
$250 property tax is going to be devastating for many people. This will be a much different impact on low‑income
people, people living in rural communities, than it will be on people who are
living in Tuxedo‑‑just a tremendous increase.
When I look at some of the examples here
of seniors who will have their taxes increased from‑‑last year
their property taxes were $575. Once
they got their tax credit back, they were paying $75. Now with the changes implemented by this
government, they will be paying $250, an increase of over 230 percent. This goes on and on.
I believe that it is extremely unfair to
people, particularly in rural
I mentioned the dental program and for the
life of me, Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that a government could take out such
a valuable program for northern and rural
* (1420)
At the rate this government is going, we
will be paying much, much more in many ways.
With the removal of many of the assistances for students going to
school, the incentives to go to school, particularly the social allowance
program, by having that removed there is no incentive for people to get off the
social welfare roll. It appears that the
only economic development this government is committed to is increasing the
social allowances budget, and that is certainly not going to help people.
Mr. Speaker, this government broke several
election promises in this budget. During
the last election, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) promised that we would see no
increases in taxes, but we have seen tremendous increases in taxes‑‑property
tax, fuel tax, many increases.
The Premier's own briefing books equate
this budget to an increase of 5 percent in personal taxes, and people are well
aware of that. They are feeling the
consequences of that, and many people are worried about how they are going to
make ends meet with less revenue, particularly also because there are so many
people who are nervous about their jobs.
They do not know how long they are going to be working. There is absolutely no job creation in this
province, nothing to keep families going, but they are asked to pay more and
more and people cannot afford it. There
is a very distressed feeling out there right now.
The other promise, Mr. Speaker, that was
made was that we would not have a harmonization of the GST and the provincial
sales tax, but we are seeing the GST and the provincial sales tax
harmonized. We are also seeing an
expansion of the tax to many, many more goods.
Snack foods, school supplies, baby supplies, personal hygiene products,
restaurant meals for under $6 all will be added to the provincial sales tax.
This government may say as often as they
want that they have not raised the provincial sales tax, but by broadening it
to a much broader base, spreading it out, it is an extra cost to many people
and on many products that people cannot avoid buying. They are essential
products that are now being taxed. This
again is a broken promise by this government.
Mr. Speaker, finally, the other broken
promise that I would like to talk about is the VLT revenue. People in rural
I can think of a couple of prime examples
of people who could use, perhaps, video lottery money. I think, Mr. Speaker, of the alfalfa plant in
Dauphin which is at the risk of shutting down. When they ask the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) whether he can help them out, he says, there is no
money, there are no grants available.
Where is the economic development plan of
this province? It is just all hollow
promises. They talk about being
committed to rural
The minister said that he went to
Another example is the fishermen on
The fishermen's co‑ops no longer
have auditing services, Mr. Speaker.
Now, I cannot imagine what this government is thinking of by reducing
that service when there has‑‑where are people in the very remote
areas going to find auditors? What is
the cost going to be versus what the government has saved?
I believe when you look at it, Mr.
Speaker, there is going to be a tremendous loss of services to the people in
the fishing industry but, again, that does not seem to be a concern to this
government.
Mr. Speaker, this government is draining
money out of rural
Actually, what we are doing is we are
losing our people out of this province.
In the end, we will pay the price because many people who have a
tremendous amount of knowledge and understanding of this province are leaving,
not because they want to, but they have no choice but to leave this province
because there is no opportunity for them here.
I think of the
Mr. Speaker, I know that there are other
people who want to speak today, and we are getting into a shortness of time
here. However, I would like to talk briefly on the Agriculture budget.
The Agriculture budget was reduced by 14
percent. We are told that in large part,
this is a reduction due to GRIP, and that is a fact. I agree that there will be a reduction in
there, but there are other things that will be cut.
They have removed the hail spot loss in
insurance. In talking to people in the
farming community, they believe that in the long term, this is going to weaken
the crop insurance program. People will
be forced to go for private insurance which is in reality much more expensive
according to the people that I have spoken to as far as hail insurance. The hail insurance is going to cost
them. The removal of the spot loss
insurance will weaken crop insurance.
The other area that I am most concerned
about is the reduction in research by this government. I attended the Gate to Plate Conference which
the minister often refers to. We talk
about the different markets that are available and things that we have to
change. For things to change, government
has a responsibility to do research and provide farmers with information on
what should be happening, but we have had the budget in the Ag offices reduced
and the amount of research.
Now the minister may say it is a minimal
amount that has been reduced but, in reality, if we were really serious about
diversifying and providing opportunities and new products for farmers to grow,
we should see the research dollars increased. We should be taking every
opportunity we can to improve the opportunities for farmers to change. I believe that it is a mistake and not a
serious commitment to farmers by reducing the research budget.
* (1430)
The other area that deals with the
agriculture industry is the production of ethanol. Now I am sure the minister is quite aware
that there is a tremendous interest in the production of ethanol in
Perhaps when we get into the Detailed
Estimates we can discuss it more thoroughly.
But that causes me some concern, because I think that we have to think
very seriously about what we are‑‑We have to get away from using
fossil fuels but, in order to do that, a tremendous amount of work has to be
done. I guess that is another area where
I think we have to be putting more research dollars into. We have to be looking at the feasibility of whether
or not it is viable to convert grains into fuel. As I say, that is something that has to be
looked at very carefully. Perhaps we can get into a more detailed discussion on
it when we get into the Estimates which will be coming very soon.
The whole issue of barley sales, Mr.
Speaker, is causing great concern, and I think that if we see changes, if we
move away from the single‑desk selling there is going to be a tremendous
impact on the farming community. I am
very concerned about some of the information that is in this report that came
out today. I think it is
inaccurate. From what I can see out of
it, it appears that this is a move to open the door for Mr. Mayer to move along
the lines that he has always wanted and that is to remove barley from the Wheat
Board.
We have to look very seriously at the
impacts. Who is going to benefit from
that? Are farmers right across the
province going to benefit? Are farmers
right across Canada going to benefit or is it going to be those farmers along
the border who will gain the greatest benefit from this and the farmers in
other parts of the province be the ones who are going to suffer from this?
Mr. Speaker, that debate, I am sure, will
take place over the next few days as we get more information on it, but I can
assure you that we have a tremendous amount of concern about what is being
proposed in the Carter report. The Wheat
Board has served Canadian farmers well for many, many years. They have brought maximum return for farmers,
and I would hope that the minister will look at this very carefully.
I think that it is extremely important
that farmers have a vote on this. After
all, when we dealt with the Constitution, we were able to have a vote. This is an issue that could change the
pattern of agriculture. I think the
minister should pursue that and should immediately begin implementing meetings
on this and also implementing a vote, a plebiscite, on this so that farmers can
have an input on their future. They have
to have some say in this.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if we are
going to see growth in rural
Mr. Speaker, the member says that I am not
interested in health. I am tremendously
interested in health. I am interested in
the health of seniors, of young people and of all people. I think all people should have access to
proper health care, but what is happening under this budget is people are being
denied.
The removal of the dental program is denying
people access to health care. The
increase to Pharmacare costs is going to weigh more heavily on those on low
incomes and will, in reality, deny people.
The changes to the Home Care Program and the increased costs that people
are going to be asked to pay will, in fact, deny some people of proper health
care. So I am very interested in health
care. I believe in a fair health care
system that is open and equal to everybody.
I believe there should be the opportunity
for all sectors of this province to grow.
Particularly, as I said, I am concerned about the growth in rural
We are seeing very few new jobs. What we have from this government is added
taxes, increased costs and reduced services for Manitobans. It is disappointing that is the direction
this government is taking, and they are not prepared to invest in the future of
this province and give our young people the opportunity, give our young people
the hope that they will have an opportunity in this province.
Also, Mr. Speaker, they have to be
prepared to invest in education and give our young people the opportunity to
get an education. That also is being
reduced.
I am afraid that for the young people and
for most people of this province their reaction to this budget is not a
positive reaction. I spent the last
couple of days out talking to people. I
want to tell you that there are many people who are very concerned about
whether or not they are going to have a job.
They are also concerned about whether their children are going to find
summer employment this year and whether or not they are going to be able to
continue going to university in the fall.
Those are their real concerns.
This budget does nothing to stimulate
growth in our province or encourage people or give them much hope, and it is my
belief that this government could have done much more. They should have been prepared to invest in
our people.
* (1440)
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): I am pleased to be able to put some comments
and analysis on the record regarding this budget. I will do that, considering
the limited time, focusing on the area of environment, workplace safety and
health as well, and the status of youth.
I was just looking through some
correspondence I was opening, and I will start off by reading from the Manitoba
Medical Association newsletter, April '93.
On page 7, they have a headline which reads: Action speaks louder than environmentally
friendly words. They talk in the short
article there about how this government continues to use the rhetoric of
sustainability, and they continue to use the rhetoric of environmentally
friendly, and then they do things like eliminate the mere $50,000 that went to
the Manitoba Environment Council, the environment advisory council for the
Minister of Environment.
This little article in the newsletter for
the Medical Association says that here again we have the government talking
about sustainability and environmental friendliness and then cutting funding to
an organization that probably had more Ph.D.s in it, Mr. Speaker, than the entire
department. For nothing, those people
would volunteer and advise this government and the minister on environmental
matters. Well, I would suggest that this
government, we are seeing time and again, does not want to hear it. They do not want to hear expert advice on the
serious concerns related to environment and health.
The former member for the Manitoba
Environment Council, who was the Medical Association's representative, I am
going to quote what he says in the journal.
He said that the Minister of Environment recently wrote to the MMA to
advise that the council's operating budget would not be renewed. As of April 1, 1993, the council will cease
to be provided with funding from the
He ended his letter with a remark that is
an example of political doublespeak: In
the spirit of sustainable development, I am committed to breaking with the
past, which saw support for environmental issues dwindle in an uncertain
economy.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what is
happening, and this government is encouraging it by trying to silence
organizations and effectually silencing them with discontinuing their
funding. This government is contributing
to the detraction away from environmental issues by focusing on this, I would
say, rhetoric of recession and tough economic times.
There are a number of comments I want to
make about this on how this government is missing the boat in truly moving to
environmental sustainability. They are
trying to make it look like, Mr. Speaker, they are maintaining a strong
commitment because they have not decreased the funding to the Department of
Environment like they have so many other areas in the budget.
But I want, Mr. Speaker, to make the
point, think of it this way. We are in
the biggest debt we have in the debt of cleaning up and maintaining the natural
ecosystem. That is the biggest debt we
have because we cannot only maintain, as this government barely has its level
of funding to the department, we have to in leaps and bounds be increasing
funding to deal with environmental cleanup and programs and protection of our
natural environment.
I want to frame this too in the kind of
doublespeak that the government uses in talking about youth services and
education, because again the government will say that we are treating our
future generations unfairly by leaving them with this debt, the government
debt. Well, Mr. Speaker, the biggest
debt that we are going to leave future generations is the high cost of cleaning
up for the greed, extravagance and overconsumption of the previous generations,
and that is no exaggeration.
So it is important to look at a historical
context of the comment that I have just made and to look at the government
spending that went on post‑World War II.
There was in
But if it could work at that time, and
that money could go into military expenditure as it did in the '40s, then the
same kind of expenditure now into health care and education and environmental
restoration would not be sucking money out of the economy‑‑as we
are witnessing again with the Conservative Government federally where we are
spending billions of dollars on helicopters that are not necessary‑‑but
having an investment into health care, education and environmental restoration,
things like retrofitting for energy and water conservation.
That is the area where we should be
creating jobs because again it is investing money where we are going to see
some dividends. We are going to see some
money coming back from those future generations.
There is a difference from how this
government spends money as compared to what I am just saying, because there is
a lot of rhetoric that we hear about the problems with the deficit when the
government says that we cannot afford social programs, we cannot afford
programs like student social allowance which were getting people out of the
poverty cycle. Now that cut is symbolic,
just like the cut to the Environment Council, just like the cut to the Manitoba
Intercultural Council, all of these organizations that are trying to speak and
work on behalf of people who are the most vulnerable.
So when this government says that everyone
is tightening their belt equally, we all know that is not true. But when you put that beside the
overconsumption and the continuation of economic destruction, a model for an
economy that is destroying the environment; when you put it beside the
continuation of having grants and government handouts that are still going on
to oil and gas companies, to drug companies, to a number of other companies
that destroy the environment.
I think it is high time we do not just
look at the Department of Environment's budget as some signal about a
government's commitment to environmentalism and sustainability, but we also
look at to what kind of organizations they are funding, what kind of businesses
and corporations that they are funding, and to see how many of those
corporations that are benefiting from government grants, water diversion
schemes that are for irrigation that are still receiving millions of dollars,
and try to see the environmental impact of that economic development. We have to stop giving grants to organizations
and corporations that are not complying with environmental regulations. We have to make those links with our grants
and funding, because that is the road to true sustainability.
Today, the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid)
asked serious questions about the furniture manufacturer in Transcona that is
exceeding its environmental licence. We
know that plant had government funding.
A licence to pollute was also given out to that corporation. When we mention these issues, members on the
opposite side tell us, maybe we should shut it down. If that is the attitude that they have, that
it is either one or the other, that you cannot have industry as well as a
protected environment, then we are in big trouble. We are in big trouble, because I think that
is the attitude of a number of people. I
would suggest, it is probably the attitude of a number of people advising this
government which would explain the decisions they are making and would explain
why they have done things like cut the small amount of money that goes to
advise them through the Environment Council.
* (1450)
I want to spend a little bit of time as
well, talking about this government's attack on youth through this budget. I have never seen such an outright attack on
youth services. Whether it is health
programs, funding to public education, funding through the students' social
allowances‑type program, funding to student employment programs, all have
been cut back. There seems to be the
attitude that, if you invest in work experience paid for by the provincial
government, those are not real jobs, and that is not contributing to that young
person's education. All the while that
this happening, Mr. Speaker, tuition fees have more than doubled in the last 10
years, and there has not been a raise in the minimum wage in the last six
years.
So what is happening, Mr. Speaker, is
young people are becoming very discouraged.
Many of them can no longer afford to go to university. This province is horribly underrepresented in
spaces of post‑secondary education in colleges, and we have an incredible
problem with youth unemployment, drug abuse, violence as reported in the paper
day after day. It does not seem like
this government is capable of any kind of analysis that is going to link these
economic problems for youth with the social problems that they are
experiencing. We see cutbacks as well in
programs like Girl Guides and Boy Scouts, which are providing something
positive for young people to focus their energy on so that they have an
alternative to doing things that are more destructive.
(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
Mr. Acting Speaker, I have with me a small
chart which is from Manitoba Agriculture, and I think it is from the Financial
Post magazine‑‑yes, it is‑‑March 6, 1993, issue. It is the cost across
Somewhat tongue in cheek, Mr. Acting
Speaker, I refer to this budget as the "honey, we have to sell the
kids" budget, because that is what is happening with the trends that we
are seeing in the rising costs, the way that the taxation is being shifted more
and more to individuals. People are not
being able to afford to raise a family, whether it is because of the high cost
of education, food, clothing, personal care.
This chart shows that the cost for one
year for an infant is just over $9,000.
That drops somewhat to 18 years of $6,100, roughly. When you compare that, Mr. Acting Speaker, to
what the poverty level is in this province, it is quite frightening. It is quite frightening to think that we have
a number of families with an income in
It is very clear that the economic policy
of this government is saying that there are certain populations and certain
people in this province who are expected to sacrifice their quality of life and
their livelihood, in a lot of cases, to benefit the economy. Those people who are in that situation are
coming to the point where they cannot afford to feed, house and clothe their
families. [interjection]
It is interesting listening to the
comments that come across the floor, because it just shows that the government
is not looking at things in the larger context.
They will try to use the excuse that this is a recession, but this is a
much different situation because we are not coming out of this recession. A lot of the jobs that are leaving the
province and leaving the country are not coming back. The definition of a recession is something
that we will come out of.
I have a theory that the North American
Free Trade Agreement and the Free Trade Agreement that are responsible for the
destruction of particularly the manufacturing sector in
This government, especially when they make
the comments like they did today in Question Period, does not seem to
understand that we cannot try to buy jobs by sacrificing our quality of life,
our health and environment. We are
reaching the end of the line, and it is just not going to work anymore. The grandchildren and children of the members
opposite are going to be paying that, in some cases, I would say, with their
lives.
Already in this province we are seeing the
results. We see many areas in this
province. Particularly of concern to me
is the area of water and the number of areas in this province that are in
serious concern over the quality of water and the difficulties of drought.
I want to talk a little bit about the
subsidy from this government of the Assiniboine Diversion because, again, this
is an example of how this government does not get it at all. They are not changing their approach to
dealing with developments in this country, in dealing with agriculture. They are continuing down the same old path of
disregard. They might think that some
little environmental assessment that they are going to have because they have
to by law is going to satisfy people's concerns. Well, it is not.
They fail to look, it seems, at the
consumption side, the overconsumption.
There are many people that are suggesting that what the Assiniboine
Diversion is really about is a couple of things. It is an example of how they can guarantee a supply
of potatoes for large food manufacturers, and how they can also guarantee the
water supply for those potatoes.
There is a big dispute. They say that water is not going for
irrigation. Well, maybe it is not. Maybe the intention is that, subsidized by
both levels of government, the corporations benefiting from the irrigation will
be able to continue to deplete the aquifers in that region and that the shipped
water will be used for the domestic consumption in that area.
It does not really make any difference. The bottom line is that the permits have been
issued to expand the irrigation in that region of the province.
It would be interesting for those food
companies that are going to benefit from this proposal if their corporate
policy of having only irrigated potatoes would surpass or pass any kind of
sustainable development criteria, because the waste of the kind of agricultural
practices that are encouraged by this kind of economic development is quite
appalling.
So that is an example of how this
government is making choices of investing millions of dollars into the kind of
economic development that is depleting the environment, increasing the huge
debt we have to the environment, and at the same time, diverting funds away
from education and health care where our government should be investing its
money, especially when we frame this also in the context of all the kind of
corporate loopholes and tax breaks that are made available by Conservative
governments.
* (1500)
The kinds of corporate tax breaks that I
am referring to are never considered in the budget when we are looking at the
way that this government is dealing with its revenue.
I think just generally, to finish off, I
will not get into some other examples of this idea that we can continue having
governments invest into this dinosaur, Stone Age style of economic development
that destroys the environment and not invest into education and health and
environmental restoration.
I want to deal with the basic concept of
fairness because I was speaking recently to a group of students. When I asked them, is it fair to take $75
from someone who earns $10,000 a year and take that same $75 from someone who
earns $100,000 a year, they said no.
They understood that if you are trying to practise fairness and create
fairness in a society and an economy, that is not fair. They even understood that when you are trying
to create fairness you cannot take the same percentage of tax from‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Acting Speaker, there are a number of
conversations going on in the Chamber, making it very difficult for me to hear
my colleague. It is better to have‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Penner): Thank you very much. The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
Order. I would ask all members, if you want to carry
on conversations please do so but do so outside of this Chamber or in the loge
that is provided for that sort of conversation.
* * *
Ms. Cerilli: I am just going to finish on this point of
fairness because I think it is very important to talk about the unfairness of
the budget. I want to refer to something
that we studied when I was in university, and it is a theory of how people
learn their values and how they develop values like fairness. And I encourage the Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Findlay) to listen to this.
I will not get into a lot of the theory,
but quite generally there are six stages of values development. The final stage is where decisions are made based
on principles, and those principles have to do with human rights and equality
as defined by developing the potential of all.
Our party principles comply with
that. Our party principles talk about
how we want to create a society where people have what they need. We have an economy based on need, and people
give according to their ability to give.
That has been said over and over by a number of leaders internationally. Tommy Douglas, I remember hearing reference
to Tommy Douglas over and over again at a number of events.
But in getting to the point about this
government's budget and its unfairness, it would be at about a stage two or
three at level of values development of how you only give according to what
someone else is going to give you‑‑that, sort of, I scratch your
back, you scratch mine. That is the
level of this government's values analysis, I would think, it seems, by this
government and their definition of fairness.
It is about at a nine‑year‑old level. I did not make up this theory. This is something that everyone who goes
through the Faculty of Education learns.
The other thing about this budget is that
it does not deal with creating equity.
We cannot continue on the path that we are on because we are seeing over
and over again that there is a social cost to having the kind of budget that
creates poverty. This government will support the notion that some people have,
that there always will be poverty. But
the increase in poverty that we have seen in this country under this government
and their cousins in
So with that, I will thank you very much
for the opportunity.
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Acting Speaker,
I could not help but listen with a little bit of interest to the concluding
comments of the member for Radisson, and I just could not help but remember
what I heard the former Premier of the
She refers to the economy as economy of
need, that everybody should have what they want and if they need it and they
want it, they should have it. Let me
tell her what the former Premier of Saskatchewan said last night. There are not absolute rights to have what
you want. He went on to say, in fact,
there are the rights of those people who should not have to pay taxes just to
give somebody else something they want.
So the former Premier of Saskatchewan, NDP Premier, very clearly on the
opposite track to that member for Radisson.
I only use that reference right off the
top, Mr. Acting Speaker, because that is a dilemma we face. We have an opposition over there who is
constantly talking about want and need and spend and spend and spend. Their comments bear no reflection on ability
of the youth of the future to pay for the‑‑
Point of
Order
Ms. Cerilli: On a point of order, Mr. Acting Speaker, I
would hope that the Minister of Agriculture will distinguish between want and
need for me. Thank you.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Penner): The honourable member for Radisson does not
have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Speaker, there is no question that
the budget is a very significant piece of paper for the province of Manitoba,
as it is for every province across this country. I have become rather discouraged in listening
to the comments from the other side over the past couple of weeks, and I guess
I could maybe say over the last couple of years. There is a constant demand of want and want
and spend and spend and spend with no reflection on ability to pay.
Mr. Acting Speaker, every province is facing
the circumstances we face here today.
There is no question about it. If
we just look at what was printed in The Globe and Mail here back on March 15‑‑I
will just read out of The Globe and Mail because this kind of sets the record,
province by province, of what everybody is facing. I will just read from The Globe and Mail,
March 15, 1993: At this point, it is an
open wager as to which province will be the first to find it cannot sell its
bonds. Each may legitimately claim to
have the worst financial record.
* (1510)
It goes on to talk about the financial
record province by province:
Mr. Acting Speaker, another critical piece
of information that everybody must be aware of is the credit rating we have as
a province.
Over the course of time, we have certainly
expended our resources faster than we have been able to generate revenue in
this province. We all know that the
general purpose deficit of this province is now around $6 billion. When we came into government in 1988, it was
$5.1 billion. When the previous
government, the NDP government, came in, in 1980, it was at $1.3 billion. If we had it down to $1.3 billion today, we
would have a lot more money, probably about $300 million to $400 million more
money to spend on health, education and all these services that the members on
the other side claim are essential.
It is rather alarming, to put it mildly,
that the previous member who spoke, from Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), and all the
other speakers over there speak only in terms of wants and needs and
expenditures. The last member just
talked about attack on the youth. I am
sure what she meant, attack on the youth, there are maybe some expenditure
reductions in the education area where we spend over a billion dollars. The real attack on youth that has happened
from this generation is the overexpenditure that creates debts which are future
taxes on that generation.
I ask any member in this House, how do we
tell our children and our grandchildren, hey, by the way, we have left a bill
that we did not pay that you are going to have to pay for us? That is not a very nice thing to say. I have not heard anybody in this House really
address that issue or talk about it from the other side. We constantly talk about it from this side.
If you go to the Legislature to the west
of us, the opposite is said from the government side, from the NDP. They are talking about the realities of life
and the probability they will not be able to borrow in the future and the debt
that they have and the inability that they have to serve it from the existing
less than a million people. On the other
side over there they are saying the same thing we hear from the NDP here‑‑spend,
spend, spend. Do not reduce the expenditure.
Do not reduce it there.
The situation we are in, in the country
right now, I think, is very serious. It
is very disappointing that there is not an understanding across this country in
terms of the legislative opposition parties, because if there is not an
understanding, sooner or later, we will hit the circumstances
We are doing, in this budget, reductions
of 2 and 4 percent. In some cases grants reduced 10 percent, trying to keep the
level of expenditure about where it was last year, around $5.3 billion. I think that is very responsible. I think that is a lot more responsible than
just spend, spend, spend until the day comes when you have to reduce
expenditures on health or education or family services by 50 percent or 80
percent.
That is what happened in
I would ask any member on the opposite
side to tell me how they run their household, or their business, by constantly
spending more than they are taking in.
Sooner or later you face your banker, the person that is financing you
and he or she says, hold the line. The
buck stops here.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I would be very
surprised, I guess, to see any member in the House over there to understand
that message, although they should talk to their colleagues in
To listen to Alan Blakeney last night say
that there are no absolute rights to have what you want certainly demonstrated
that he understands. Over the course of
the time when he was in government, I think he was fairly responsible in his
spending, but when he got into the '80s, when he campaigned, he campaigned on
expenditures. He said last night he was
probably mistaken, he probably wished he had not said those things, but he also
said last night that the people that are working have a right not to be taxed
beyond their capacity to pay.
That is what we are trying to respect here
in this province by keeping taxes down on a continuous basis, trying to control
our expenditures so we can live more closely within our means.
The Minister of Finance's (Mr. Manness)
projections to have an annually balanced budget by the year '96‑97 is a
responsible way to go, probably should have started that four or five years ago
so that we would be in that position today.
But we cannot go on with this process of, spend and what everybody
wants, we should be able to deliver. It
is not affordable. I do not care what
political party you represent, you cannot afford it.
To think that you can go out and just tax
people constantly to get that money, you will find, like
Mr. Acting Speaker, the program that we
all saw, or many of us saw, on
I have been around the province and
talking about agriculture and about finances quite a bit over the last three to
four months, probably spoken 15 or 20 different times in different
locations. I tell the fiscal message and
I tell the present message that I see for agriculture. In some cases, it is not all that
encouraging.
When you ask people who saw the W5
program, they really nod their heads up and down and they really‑‑when
you start talking about it, the whole room goes quiet because people know those
are the facts. That is what happened.
They can see the parallel that we are
on. We are very close to it. I do not think we are being hit quite as hard
as
By popular demand, I understand, that
program is going to be re‑aired on, I think, the first Sunday in May,
which is good because I know a lot more people will watch it.
The job we have to do as politicians I
think, whether you are in government or in opposition, is to let people know
what the realities are, let them know why the decisions that are made have to
be made. They can very honestly say it
does not matter what political stripe across this country, budgetary decisions
are fairly similar. The same principle
is being represented, and that is that we must control our expenditures. We must not tax people any further than what
they are today, because we will not win in the competitive global market.
We in the country of
You see countries now like South Korea,
Taiwan growing rapidly, China coming on stream, rapidly growing, wanting to
achieve a better standard of living.
They are going to be very tough for us to compete with.
* (1520)
Our forefathers came here and said, I am
here, I am prepared to work hard to make this a better place for my
children. This generation, 20 years from
now, is probably going to look back and say, I made a mistake because I did not
think of that principle. I said, I want, I want, I want, and what I created was
future debt for my children so that their standard of living automatically went
down. We are at the peak of standard of
living in
I guess it is frustrating that although
more and more people do print those sorts of things, more and more people talk
about them every day in this House, we hear the exact opposite as if there is a
magic wand, there is some magic way that government can give you everything you
want, no questions asked. That is just
not the real world, Mr. Acting Speaker.
The industry of agriculture is going
through much the same kind of revolution of understanding. We have developed an industry that has been
very aggressive and done a very good job of selling, particularly cereal grains
around the world market now for over a hundred years. We started selling one commodity wheat, and
now we sell 60 all over the world. Many
other countries got into the game over the last number of decades and selling
in competition to us. It would probably
even be fair to say we still have the superior quality, but a lot of conditions
have changed out there. Trade wars have
occurred and created lower prices. That
makes it tough for us to compete. Then
the farm communities come to government for safety net programs, stabilization
programs, subsidies, if you like, to fill in the gaps that the marketplace did
not fill.
As we look at the circumstances we are in
today as an industry‑‑I have been out telling this to the farm
community, that we are in a safety net program called GRIP that expires at the
end of the '95 crop year. Beyond the '95
crop year, the ability of the government to stay in at the level of
stabilization they have been in the last few years is probably very doubtful,
given the overall fiscal circumstances that exist. It does not matter what political stripe you
are, around that federal‑provincial table, the discussion is pretty much
unanimous in terms of that particular principle.
As we look at the overall industry of
agriculture, there is no question that if we are going to continue to produce
at the level we are producing today, we are going to have to continue to export
and access export markets all over the world.
We are going to have to live more and more on the value of that
marketplace returning to the farm gate what it takes to cover our costs and
make a fair living.
As I look throughout the industry, there
is no question that in the oilseeds and the special crops, the outlook is
reasonably bright. In the livestock
sector, whether you are talking about cattle or horses‑‑PMU‑‑or
hogs, the outlook is reasonably bright.
We can get a pretty fair return from the marketplace. We have high
quality. We are expanding our production
in all of those sectors and doing a very, very good job of accessing that world
market.
Mr. Acting Speaker, when you get into the
cereal grain picture, it is a little more difficult, a little more clouded by a
very severe grain trade war that we have all wanted to see solved over the last
five years and that, it is probably fair to say, has not moved any closer to
resolution over that period of time.
There is a strong will on behalf of the
As we look ahead and as I look at our
fiscal capacity, I say our ability to continue to put the amount of money in in
the future that we have in the past is very much in doubt. I have been trying to convince the farm
community to adjust more in terms of producing what they can sell to the market
and get back a fair living from the marketplace.
That is the way we built our industry over
the first hundred years that the industry has been here in this country,
western
Just to give you a brief idea of the
health of the agriculture community, particularly for members opposite, you
hear a lot of gloom and doom about agriculture and a lot of the difficulties, I
think less so in the last year than in the previous years, but there is a lot
of economic health in rural
The Manitoba Mediation Board, which is
kind of a barometer of financial problems in the farm community, the number of
cases coming before it has continued to go down each of the last three
years. There is another bit of
encouraging news. Our ability to access
markets, particularly in North America, namely the
Every once in a while you read the press
about certain farm groups or senators in the United States saying, well, we
should not allow this amount or that amount of durum or pork or wheat or whatever
in the United States. I think everybody
should be aware that between the
Yes, we sell in western
Not only have we increased our sales of
raw products to them, as I mentioned, from $3 billion to $5 billion over the
last four to five years, the percentage of value‑added or processed food
products being sold to them has also grown by 63 percent. That is the highest rate of growth of
penetration into that country by any country in the world. The next highest rate of growth into the
So we have done a good job of accessing a
market that is very close to us in terms of transportation costs. It is easy for us to access it. In terms of the quality of product we have to
sell, it is the very best. We are
finding many American buyers who did not buy Canadian products five years ago
and have bought some over the past few years, have been very surprised with the
quality of our products and the constant quality shipment after shipment after
shipment that we can put into their marketplace.
The other fact that has been working to
our advantage in the United States is the fact that under the U.S. farm bill,
the Export Enhancement Program subsidizes the buyers of the various
agricultural products from the United States, particularly cereal grains, in
other words, subsidizes them to the buyer that pulls the grains out of the
United States, stimulates them to be exported and that leaves a vacuum in the
United States that we are selling into.
They are shorting themselves in many grain commodities, and we are
selling into there. The export price that
we have to compete with out in the world because of their subsidy is very low,
but the domestic price in the
Ladies and gentlemen, as we look towards
the vote on this budget, it is very obvious what the government is going to do
on our side. I would hope that some
members on the other side have reflected a little bit on the overall discussion
occurring in the country in terms of realities of financing government
expenditures, realities of debts that we have put upon our children and our
grandchildren by decisions made over the past number of years.
* (1530)
I cannot help but just pull out the
article of February 29, 1993, an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press. The headline sort of says it all. NDP needs to come to grips with the real
world. I can assure members across the way that the NDP in
Mr. Acting Speaker, in all the discussions
that I have had with individuals across rural Manitoba, although they ask for things
and they want things, they do understand that whatever they ask for has to come
out of some taxpayer's pocket. There is
a much greater understanding of the impact of deficits and the horrendous
impact of debt that hangs over this country.
One may say, well, you are fearmongering by constantly talking about it.
I think we do the entire public a disservice unless we do talk about it.
We all know that the money that was
borrowed over the last 20 years in this province, in this country, is owed to
somebody. It may be the teacher's
retirement fund next door. It may be the
neighbour next door. It may be a
relative 500 miles away. They loaned the
money to the various governments of this country. They want the money paid back
sooner or later. They want the interest
on the money. There is no way that the
debts and deficits that now are in front of us are going to vanish or
evaporate.
The big job now is just try to get towards
zero budgeting, zero budgets in terms of deficits on an annual basis. The overall debt accumulated over time in
this country of $650 billion federally and provincially, when is it going to be
paid back? How is it going to be paid
back? I would wonder if I stood in this
place five years or 10 years from now whether we would be looking at Canada
still being the No. 1 country in the world with the highest standard of living,
or whether we would look at Canada as decreasing in standard of living annually
over the course of time as opposed to the last 10 years of continually having a
better standard of living.
I do not like the prospects of going
backwards as a society. We have been given a country and a standard of living
by our forefathers that was because of the hard work on their behalf, the sweat
from their brows. The corns on their
hands created what we have. Through our
shortsightedness over the last 20 years as governments‑‑it does not
matter what political stripe‑‑we have put all of that in jeopardy
for our children and our grandchildren.
I will never forget‑‑I think I heard the same thing from my
grandfather‑‑I would say to the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.
Downey), what they did, what they wanted to put in place for their children and
grandchildren was a better standard of living, a little easier life, and we are
sitting here doing the opposite.
I would be very encouraged if some members
on the other side of the House were to recognize that today and vote in favour
of the budget for whatever reason they saw fit.
Their colleagues in
These decisions we have today are probably
made pale in comparison to the decisions that lie down the road unless we have
some improvement in the international economy.
I say international because we are not isolated from it. We have not, in my mind, been in a recession
the last two or three years, we have been in a global economic
readjustment. There is no question about
it.
I think I can see other countries that
have worked a little harder, have a better understanding of economic reality
recovering in terms of the international readjustment faster than us because we
still have not come to grips with understanding how we got to where we are and
how we are going to be able to pay our bills in the future. That is really what life is all about.
We have a global economic system. It is the only one that works. As I mentioned the last time I spoke, I had
the occasion to be in
An Honourable Member: They threw Communism out there.
Mr. Findlay: Yes, they threw it out. They said to me that there was only one
government in the world, and that was the international marketplace. All the rest were tinkering around the
edges. For 73 years, they tried to
tinker, but what they did was destroy the ability of their country to compete
in the world.
They very desperately want to get back on
the main track. The challenge they have in front of them to get there is rather
significant. They do not have the
economy, they do not have the training, they do not have the technology. They need it all from the western world, and
the western world, I think, 20 years ago could have jumped in and done a
job. Today the western world is all
strapped with debt, more difficult to jump in.
The recent meeting of G‑7 nations
clearly indicates a lot of money will be made available. In one way or another a lot of technology
will be made available. It is certainly
one of the most interesting experiments of my lifetime to see 250 million
people over there try to come out of the dark ages and jump into the 1990s in a
very short period of time.
It may take them 20 or 25 or 30 years, but
I hope that they are able to stay on the course that they are on now, which is
one they have chosen and want to get out into the world and compete with
us. Yes, that will make things more
challenging for us and make it more difficult for us to have the standard of
living we have had in the past, but I think it is only fair in the global
context that everybody have a chance to a fair and reasonable standard of
living.
A fair and reasonable standard of living
means the right to work, the right to produce, the right to contribute to the
best of your ability. That is what built
this province, that is what built this country, and I know that is what is
going to continue to make this province and this country strong.
I hope, as I have said before, that some
members on the other side will reflect and try to vote in favour of a budget
that is going in the direction that the budgets in all other 10 jurisdictions
in this country are going to go, the one federal and the nine other provincial.
So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I have enjoyed the
opportunity to make a few comments, and I would strongly recommend that all
members over there think seriously of voting against this budget because there
are a lot of things in there that they and their constituents probably feel are
okay.
Yes, they will probably see some
negatives. We all see negatives. Tough decisions are not without some
negatives but, by and large, this is trying to put us on the right path that
will make this a stronger province for our children and our grandchildren.
Thank you, very much.
Committee
Change
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): I move, seconded by the member for Osborne
(Mr. Alcock), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections
be amended as follows:
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): I think before I get into the depth of the
remarks I wish to make, I have two things that I would like to comment on. The first is just to pick up on something the
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) said, because I have heard it repeated in
this House many times, and I would like to try to put it in a different
context.
The argument I hear coming from the
government is that the only condition we have to respond to is the
international condition, is the global market and that this, as a result of the
fact that the global market sets prices in a variety of commodities, somehow
makes it impossible for us to exercise any independent decision making.
He also uses examples of countries like
The second thing is the countries that he
identifies and his colleagues identify as countries that have been successful
in the international marketplace are, by and large, countries that have mixed
and largely command economies. To
suggest that the Japanese economy is completely unbounded by any kind of
government involvement is simply wrong.
What they have done is considered carefully the role of government and
the role of finance, and they have made intelligent decisions about what their
industrial activity is going to be.
Now I have considerable sympathy for the
government when they talk about markets and the importance of markets and how
markets must be left alone to set prices, because they are an official
mechanism for doing that, but I think it is simply a very naive belief to
suggest that governments can stand back and do nothing or have no role to play
in the operations of markets or in the policy structures that surround them or
how a given country responds to them.
I wanted to lay that out because I am
going to come back to that theme in a minute.
I did have one item that I also wanted to mention, and it is left over,
frankly, from my budget and throne speeches for several years now. I just want to make an on‑the‑record
comment about the quality of research support that is given to this Chamber,
the government and the opposition, by the Legislative Library and the
Legislative Reading Room. I never fail
to be impressed by how hard the people who work in those two locations, how
hard they work to see that your interests and your needs are met. They are absolutely astounding.
I go to them all the time for assistance
when I am looking for economic information or legislative information,
information from other jurisdictions, and they have never failed me. I think too often we forget the people who
work in the background here and provide support to us, and for a long time I
have meant to mention just how indebted I feel to them. I do not want to leave this Chamber without
having put that remark on the record.
* (1540)
When I sat down to think about this
budget, the sixth budget of this government, the first thought that came to my
mind is that the government must be very frustrated. For five full years and six budgets now, the
Conservative government has had the ability to make all of the major economic
decisions in this province. They had an
analysis when they started, and it is the same analysis. We just heard the Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Findlay) give us exactly the same analysis that was given to us by the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) in his very first budget, and it has been the
analysis that they have provided this House with in every single budget.
It is fairly simple. It is that somehow Manitoba has gotten out of
whack with the rest of the country, with the rest of the world, if you would
allow some of them to define itself, that somehow our tax structure has gotten
so far out of line with what is happening in the rest of the western world, and
somehow our expenditure on programs has gotten so high that we are no longer a
competitive province, and that if we simply restrain taxes, change the mix of
taxes that we present to the community at large, restrain spending, that we
will win the approval of the international financial community and we will win
the approval of the business community and that will produce growth, that will
produce strength in this region of the country.
I hope I am not being overly simplistic
about that. I think, though, that is
essentially their argument, that government in many ways has no role to play in
the economy, that we should simply sit back, spend less, reduce the amount of
involvement we have with the economy, and by all means fight to reduce or to
alter our tax structure so that we provide a safe community.
They have done that for five years, done
it, not talked about it. They have had
five years of unrestricted ability to make those decisions, and they have
brought forward six budgets that purport to have followed that particular
plan. I would like to add one more
element to that. In 1988, when we
entered this Chamber‑‑in fact, I had the opportunity to look back
at my very first budget speech. I do not
pretend to be an economist by any means, but at that time what was being said
in this Chamber, what I was saying to the government, and what others were
saying to the government is, be careful, we have some serious times coming
up. We have a recession over the
horizon. You can see it. Get ready for it.
Now, I would like to ask the members of
the government, and I would like to ask you, Mr. Acting Speaker, just to
reflect on it. What has happened? What has been the result of five full years
of implementing the government's vision of the world, and of six successive
budgets? Has the wealth in this province
gone up? Is
Well, again, if you look at those
statistics, if you test that hypothesis, and that is very central‑‑and
I know the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) pays close attention to that‑‑but
it is very central to the hypothesis of this government that, if they cut back
and if they hold the line, this will provide an attractive environment and we
will see growth.
What is the test? Have we seen growth in employment in this
province over the five full years that this government has been in control of
this province? The answer is no. We have not seen it in real terms. We are not better today, and we certainly
have not seen it proportionally . If we
look at the portion of the labour force that we held prior to the being of this
government and today, we find that we have lost significant position.
But let us look at some other things. What about the percentage of Canadian
manufacturing, the percentage of retail sales in this country? Is there an indicator that shows that somehow
the government is turning the corner, that they are making an improvement, that
they are producing some growth or some positive change for the people who live
in this province? Is there a single one?
You know, we have been challenging the government for some two years now
to produce one, and they have been unable to do so.
I suspect, or I suppose in many ways I
hope, that the government is now, or the members who sit there in those
benches, who occupy those seats, are beginning to question internally what has
gone on. It must be terribly frustrating
to sit there year after year after year and watch your carefully‑held
beliefs, your most cherished political positions put forward, acted upon and
then come to such abject failure. It
must be exceptionally difficult to be a member of a government who has
struggled so hard and had so much ability to implement its vision of the world
only to find that vision come to ashes.
They simply have not succeeded.
By their own test, they have not succeeded in carrying forward a single
one, or meeting a single one, of the goals that they set out for themselves
when they first came to government.
I was thinking today, you know when you
sit back, this government is now six budgets old, and when you stop and ask
yourself, what have they achieved, it is hard to put your finger on it. What has occurred? What is different in
Actually, I was framing a question for the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) today. I thought it would be interesting just to
stand up in the House and ask him something along this line: Can the minister point to a single
accomplishment in his department in the last five years? Can he name one? Can he tell us how many new industries are
here in
Well, I hear now, I hear a voice from the
government. I hear the Deputy Premier
(Mr. Downey), as always, defending the activities of the government, and he has
told us now in no uncertain terms that lots has changed. I would challenge the Deputy Premier, in the
same way I would challenge any member of the government, to tell us what, to
demonstrate for us, in a substantive rather than a rhetorical way, a change.
[interjection]
Well, now the Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae) suggests the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) is always substantive, and I
certainly would suggest that he is always substantial. However, some of the debates he has entered
into in this House has been, shall we say, more entertaining than informative. I would sincerely hope that the government
would make an attempt to demonstrate for us in some tangible fashion some
positive result from their policies, because to date, Mr. Acting Speaker, we
have seen very little.
I want to talk about something else for a
moment. I want to talk a little bit
about a Republican by the name of Ruckelshaus who was the director of the
Environmental Protection Agency back in the early '80s. The reason I want to raise him is that there
is a case that involves him that is often used when one begins to think about
leadership and to teach about leadership.
The situation was a classic environmental
problem, where you had a company that was processing products and producing
significant pollution into an area, such that at times children were having difficulty
going to school. There was a definable
history of people having skin problems and eye problems and all sorts of
conditions that were caused by the output of this mill, and clearly there was a
need for the Environmental Protection Agency to act. There also was at the same time a problem in
that the majority of people who were the parents of, or the beneficiaries of,
the wealth‑producing capacity of this mill, were the ones living in the
town. Like many industries, it was
marginal enough that the immediate heavy investment in pollution controls, it
was believed, would put the mill into such a position where it would be
marginal as to whether or not it could continue to operate and would raise the
question as to whether or not it should close.
* (1550)
Now, Ruckelshaus as the director, the
newly appointed director of the Environmental Protection Agency, was faced with
the ability to make a decision. He could
go in and he could order the mill to meet certain pollution controls. He could cause that to happen. He also could provide some federal government
assistance to allow them to improve their environmental controls.
What is interesting and what was proved to
be noteworthy, or felt to be noteworthy, and what remains now in the leadership
literature, if you like, is the way he did approach the problem. He did not sit
in his office and make the decision on behalf of the communities or on behalf
of the company. What he did was create
an environment that forced all actors to work together. He created an
environment that meant that the people who owned the mill and the people who
lived in the town who suffered the effects of the mill and the people who
worked at the mill, or the people who represented them, were forced to come
together and to work together and to process this problem.
He refused to intervene when they could
not decide, but he insisted that they continue to work on it. What he did, that I think is felt to be so
noteworthy, is that rather than siding, rather than taking the easy way and
simply making a decision based on some political calculation of what was in his
own best interest, or his government's best interest, he dealt with the problem
seriously and he worked with the people to a conclusion that benefited all of
them. The mill stayed open, the
pollution got reduced, the jobs remained, the environment was protected.
I think about that because one of the
questions that comes to mind is this question of leadership. Is this government exercising any leadership
or are they simply‑‑and I do not in a sense fault the members of
the government for being politicians. All people in this House are politicians,
and all people in this House respond to political pressures.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
However, Mr. Speaker, I think that there is
a responsibility that goes beyond simply meeting the needs of your own side of
the equation. There is a responsibility
to the public at large in this province, and I think the government is failing
desperately (a) to provide any leadership at all in their decision making, and
(b) to do anything that provides any challenge to the community around how we
develop this community.
If I have anything that worries me about
the direction this government has embarked upon it is that it is an
exceptionally narrow political agenda that is driving the financial management
of this province. I think that is very
sad, because I think by making victims out of certain groupings of people‑‑the
government I am sure has sat down in a back room and I am sure has looked at their
polls and talked to their focus groups and decided that the people that they
are hurting with their budget are people that may not vote for them anyway, and
that they are not going to lose a substantial number of seats, and that they
have done all of that kind of decision making.
I think it is very sad.
I think it is sad when you see a
government making decisions and playing with them in such a way that
essentially is designed not to inform the community but to disinform the
community. I think the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) is inherently dishonest when he stands up and says he did
not raise the sales tax and, at the same time, he broadens the base of the
sales tax. I think it is a cute game to
play, and political scientists and political tacticians may find it
interesting, but it is wrong. It is
dishonest. It does not advance the
awareness of the community. It does not
force the kind of restraints that the minister wishes.
It is simply another way of expanding the
revenue base of the government while pretending that it will not, and it does
so in an exceptionally regressive fashion.
It is not the constituents or the interest groups that this government
chooses to pander to that are going to be hurt by this decision. It is a much more narrow group, and it is a
group that‑‑I suppose can be argued by the government as, you know,
I am sure it does privately‑‑is not going to vote for the
government in any event. It is not
leadership. It is not trying to advance
the affairs of this province in a way that improve the conditions within this
province for all Manitobans. It is a
decision that advances the interests of a certain sector of this province, and
I think that is wrong.
I think it is wrong when you see a
government at times that are as tough as this making decisions in the interests
of a small segment of the community rather than in the interests of all of the
people in the community. I think it is
wrong when you see a government in times like this, when the times are as
desperate as these ones are for a lot of people, when there are as many people
out of work as there are, that makes the kind of extremely cynical decisions
that this government has made, and we have seen a lot of those very cynical
decisions made by this government.
I mean, one of the classic ones for me in
this last go around was the question with visa students. You know, the government felt, and I had
members of the government tell me, that nobody would advocate on behalf of the
visa students, that it was not anybody's political interest. They could not vote, and we knew, nudge,
nudge, wink, wink, that everybody really did not care what happened to those
people.
I think that is wrong. I think that kind of cynicism coming out of a
government is indefensible. I think that
the government is charged with the responsibility of governing on behalf of all
of the people who live within the boundaries of this province and defending the
people who live within this province.
If there is a test that you can hold up
for this government, it is that they failed that. They do not do it. This government is prepared to victimize and
to see victimized a considerable number of people in this province, and I think
that is very, very sad, because I do not think that that strengthens anybody in
this Chamber or anybody in this province.
There is a point at which we all go back onto the streets of this
province and we all try to live a life and raise our families and act as
citizens in this province, and it is unfortunate when we have a political
debate in this province that supports one element of the community over
another.
Frankly, I do not hold the government any
more responsible in this one than I do the New Democrats because I think they
would do exactly the same thing, on the obverse. They are the other side of the coin, and I
think it is sad when we see the members of this Chamber taking the amount of
time that they do simply exacerbating the class divisions that exist within
this community.
Mr. Speaker, I want to end on a different
note. I will support the government
largely in the cuts that it wishes to make.
I have no difficulty with the arguments they make around the fiscal
position of the province, and I applaud the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
in a couple of respects. I think he has
understood the message of the international financial community, and I think he
has worked diligently to get the books of this province back into a position
where we are indeed in perhaps a more enviable position than other provinces in
this country or some of the provinces in this country. I think that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay) was a bit misled when he read the article from The Globe and Mail
about the debt loads of
* (1600)
Where I fault the Minister of Finance and
where I fault the government is that expenditure control is only one part of
the solution. The example that often
gets used is the classic case of the buggy whip manufacturer at the turn of the
century who is faced with the advent of the automobile and needs to make a
decision. Does he continue to produce
buggy whips?
He can certainly do it; there is still a market
into the 1990s for buggy whips. It is a
smaller market, but he can be profitable if he gets his expenses under control
and he allows his organization to downsize and he continues to produce a decent
product. He can do that. He can just shrink down to whatever market
size exists for his product. Or he can
become more aggressive and he can invest heavily in research and development,
in retraining, re‑equipping and he can get his labour force and his
company into the position where they can produce another product, a product
that is more saleable in the new market.
I think the problem that I have when I
look at the decision making of this government over now six budgets, and five
full years of implementation, is that they have only beat one side of that
drum. All that they have done is the
reduction side. I think their own
information tells them it has produced nothing. It has not produced the results
that they wanted. They have not seen the
turnaround that they have hoped for, and again, I ask the Minister of Industry,
Trade and Technology, what have you accomplished? What business has come? What growth?
Where is the product? Where is
the end‑point of your rhetoric?
You stand up and say, well if we just do
this, if we get this tightened up, if we get this reduced, if we get ourselves
into a more competitive position relative to the rest of
I mean, it is possible to cut through any
pile of information and say, well, in this area we have seen the change and
that is true. It is also a fact. The Finance minister has said that we are not
in this House often going to put on the record good news, and I will put on a
piece of good news. Our unemployment
rate is the lowest in
You would have thought that if the Finance
minister's and the government's analysis was correct, if it was correct when
they first came to office, and at the end of five years of implementation of
that vision you would have thought that you would see some upturn. When you look at the macro indicators of
share of national wealth, share of national employment, job quality relative to
the rest of the country, we are shrinking. That is the problem. I mean, I have some sympathy with the Finance
minister. It must be terribly frustrating
to sit there and to have been able to have the government hold to this line for
five years and produce nothing, in fact, to produce a province that is worse
off today than we were five years ago. I
have great sympathy for him, but that is the fact. [interjection]
Now, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) says
that is not the fact, but I invite the Deputy Premier to sit down with the data
from Statistics Canada and work it out.
It is not a complex piece of math.
The fact is this province is worse off today than it was five years
ago. I only hope that the government
will wake up at some point and realize that there is a need for government to
act. You cannot be 25 percent of the
economic activity in this province and pretend that you do not have an impact
on the affairs of the province. You have
got to look at that other side. You have
got to look at that redesign, rebuilding, retraining, reinvesting side, if you
want to see any revenue development, or you are just going to see more of the
same.
You may become the buggy whip manufacturer
of 1990 that has a nice little business.
Now I understand, out of a desire to get
everybody in, I have been asked to cut short my remarks. Can you tell me how much time I have left? [interjection]
11 minutes if I actually understand the agreement here. I have one‑‑five on the
agreement? Okay.
I think I will then just go into one other
little area that I wanted to comment on, because I think it is worth thinking
about. I noticed with some interest that
the Innovations Council has put out a report from their workshop that they held
last fall. I noticed that once again we
have a document from an organization that is sort of close to the centre of
this government that talks very strongly about the need to improve research and
development and training in this province.
I am somewhat surprised when you look at
the policy decisions taken by this government.
If you believe that it is important to invest in training and education,
if you believe that, if that is one of the statements that you think is central
to a healthy province or a strong province or a growing province, then it is
very difficult to explain the activities of the government.
In fact, if you look at the percentage of
the provincial budget that has gone into post‑secondary education since
this government came to power, you will find that it has dropped every
year. You will find that this government
has abandoned the universities, and it has followed that policy since the day
it came to office. You will find that
this government has abandoned students.
Do you know the highest failure rate or
the highest noncompletion rate among university students is among university
students who have to work a significant amount of time in order to support
themselves? The only thing this
government has done in the Student Support line for post‑secondary
education students is allowed them to work more. That is the policy decision that this
government has made in support of students in this province. I think it is shameful.
I think it violates‑‑it is
such an oddity to me, as is unfortunately a lot of the decision making of this
particular government, that they say one thing, they proffer a particular
solution and then they do not act on it.
They do not do the kinds of things that would follow through and give
some strength to their policy. They do
not provide the kind of support that could be, at least theoretically, believed
to lead to the stronger province which they purport to promise us.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed, not
surprised though. There is nothing in
this budget that surprises me at all. It
is more of the same. It is the same
message that we have seen out of this government since 1988. It is the same message that has failed this
province year after year after year since 1988.
It is the same misguided view of how the economy works in this province
and in this country. It will produce the
same result‑‑fewer people, less growth, fewer jobs, less quality in
the jobs that are here in the province and a continued shrinkage to a point
which‑‑and this may be the hidden plan of the Finance
minister. This may be the plan that he
is afraid to talk about. They are just going to manage the decline in this
province until they get to a point where they feel it is producing the kind of
quality of life that they are prepared to live with.
I do not think it is the vision that
Manitobans want. I do not think it is
the vision that Manitobans believe this government is attempting to live up
to. I think it is a sham.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I rise in this debate on the
1993 budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) to support the decisions
that are contained in the budget documents tabled by the Minister of Finance on
budget day.
I do so not with any feeling of pleasure
at some of the decisions that are indicated in the budget documents because, as
has been stated and has been pointed out very clearly, the decisions have not
been easy decisions to make. But, Mr.
Speaker, we as politicians were not elected just to make the easy decisions all
the time; we were elected to do the right thing for the people of our province and
the people in our constituencies. What is reflected in this budget, after much
deliberation in its preparation, I can tell you, is the right thing for the
people of
* (1610)
In making my comments, I do not think I
should let the opportunity pass without paying tribute to the honourable
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) for the work that he has been doing for this
province we love for the last five years and through six budget cycles.
This government set out on a plan, a well‑thought‑out
plan, a plan that took a lot of energy and a lot of careful thought. We set out to carry out this plan in
1988. The plan is the right plan.
We listened to the honourable member for
Osborne (Mr. Alcock). I listened
carefully to what he had to say. I
thought his contribution was a thoughtful one, and the views he expressed he
honestly feels, but I believe his analysis is wrong because his analysis tends
to be saying, well, you know we are still making those hard decisions and we do
not see the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow yet. I think that is what he is saying, but that
philosophy reflects the we‑want‑it‑all‑now approach of
Liberals and New Democrats that goes back to the early '70s. That is what is
wrong with the honourable member's analysis of the budget of the honourable
Minister of Finance.
The thing I like about this budget is that
it is like the Holiday Inn where the best surprise is no surprise. The approach has been to follow that plan
that I made reference to a moment ago, and not to get sidetracked by arguments
raised by members of the opposition, by demands made by special interest
groups, and not to be thrown off the path of what is the right thing to do for
the people in this province.
That is the path the honourable Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness) and this government have been on. It is to try to pave the road to stability,
and the only way to pave that road is by using sound judgment and proper
principles and by sticking to the plan.
If the honourable Minister of Finance were
to yield to the demands of members opposite and others, it would be to say the
plan has been the wrong plan. It is no
surprise that honourable members opposite who perform a partisan role in this
place take the position they do. They
would like to be on this side of the House.
That is the way politics works in our parliamentary democratic
system. The point of it is that some of
the brighter and wiser people on the benches opposite know in their heart of
hearts that they are just glad they do not have to be on this side to make some
of the decisions that they will agree in their heart of hearts are necessary to
be made.
It gives us no pleasure, for example, it
gives me no pleasure as a representative of southwestern
Since we adopted that we‑want‑it‑all‑now
approach back in the '70s, from the day that we began that approach as a
country, we set out on a path that was only unfair to our children. The we‑want‑it‑all‑now
approach means that we get it all now and the kids pay for it later. Mr. Speaker, that approach is not sustainable.
Bankers from around the world are making
it very clear to us in all parts of this country that that approach no longer
is acceptable and, if you really think about it, it is totally unfair to future
generations. It is no secret that the
programs we have been enjoying but not fully paying for have to be fully paid
for. The bill will be sent, compliments
of us, to our children if we do not halt that particular spiral.
So the reason I spend a few moments
talking about the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and the sound
judgment that he brings to the task at hand is to make the point that we made a
plan, it was the right plan, it is the plan that people have supported both in
1988 and in 1990.
The people of this province know that is
the way we should be going, and they are saying to us, do not yield to members
of the New Democratic Party and some of their supporters who cry out that we
just carry on spending, spending, spending and taxing and taxing and taxing. It is such an easy message.
An Honourable Member: Do not forget the Liberals.
Mr. McCrae: And to some extent the Liberal Party as well.
It is such an easy message because it is a
promise of spending, it is a promise of programs, it is a promise of the kind
of growth in government that began essentially in the '70s and that brought
support to governments that embarked on that kind of program.
It was shortsighted. It had no eye to the future and had no care
for those who come after us. That is why
I got into politics. I assume that is
why honourable members opposite are in politics, but their view of looking out
for the future is remarkably different from my view of looking out for the
future. Their idea is, let us enjoy it all now and to heck with the future. That is what it comes down to. I know they do not say it that way or even
feel it that way, but that is the fact.
Look at the public accounts of this country, and look at the direction
we are going. That is the result of
their brand of thinking.
I hear the honourable member for Flin Flon
(Mr. Storie) speaking from his seat, talking about bankruptcies and talking
about other hardships that we are experiencing in this province and elsewhere
as a result of recessionary times, as a result of bad government planning of
the past and as a result of taxation policies that have led people and
companies to the brink of bankruptcy and indeed to bankruptcy itself. The same person who promotes those kinds of
policies is now sitting and complaining from his seat that we have indeed these
awful results of those kinds of policies.
I guess that is the nature of politics,
Mr. Speaker. You can just say anything
you want at any given time as long as it is convenient and is the right message
for the moment. The we‑want‑it‑all‑now
message is always popular, but it is not sustainable.
Honourable members opposite need to be
told and told and told again that their method of dealing with the public
finances stands for nothing else but taxes and spending and deficits and a
growing and massive public debt which we saddle our children with.
It was Mackenzie King, a Liberal, who said
that yesterday's promises are tomorrow's taxes.
Well, we have been living with those taxes because of those promises
that were made yesterday. We are still paying, and we are going to ask our
children to pay for programs that have long since disappeared, do not exist
anymore. Mr. Speaker, that is not fair
and our government does not stand for that.
We are making a concerted effort in the most competent way that is
possible, to prevent the people of tomorrow from having to pay for our mistakes
and our way of life that we have enjoyed.
Mr. Speaker, the budget attempts to
provide that the cost or the pain of dealing with the problems that have been
created for us by those who came before, that pain and that duty is shared as
fairly as we can make it. That is why I
support things like asking people who are paid by taxpayers to make a
contribution to the effort. I think that
the approach of asking public servants to work 10 fewer days in the course of a
year is an innovative approach.
Of course, it is not easy to ask people to
do that kind of a thing, but I guess we need to remind ourselves that the easy
approach has been tried. It has failed
and it has failed miserably, and it has not worked to the benefit of the
taxpayers of this province, many of whom are publicly paid people. We do not hear from Peter Olfert and we
certainly do not hear from honourable members opposite, but there are a lot of
people who work for us year in, year out, and do a good job and they are
pleased that many of them will be able to continue to do that because of this
particular policy.
* (1620)
I think it is a better policy, frankly,
than massive kinds of layoffs that would have been necessary if we followed the
pattern set out by the New Democratic Party, because they would have been
forced to the position of layoffs. They
would have checked with their friends in the union movement and said, would it
be all right for us to ask you to take 10 days off this year without pay? The answer, of course, well, no, we do not
want to accept that, and they would have been forced to take the simplistic
approach of just having massive layoffs.
They will sit from their seats and say, well, no, we would have just
raised the deficit higher and made the government into a massive employment
program; that would have been our approach.
And that would have put us right back to where we were in the first
place, Mr. Speaker, which is the wrong place to be in the '90s.
The world is changing, Mr. Speaker, and
some people in this world have noticed that the world is changing. Others have not. Those who have not sit on
the benches opposite. They think we are
still living 20 years, 30 years ago when we were in inflationary times and
could spend our way out of almost anything you could imagine. Those days are over and honourable members
opposite would do well to wake up and understand the world as it is today, not
as it was 30 years ago. Remember that
they represent people now, not the people of 30 years ago.
I am delighted that the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) has seen fit not to raise the sales tax which seems to be
the first thing that people like honourable members opposite would think
about. The Minister of Finance has seen
fit not to raise the income tax, which we know that honourable members opposite
thought about and did many, many, many times and to pay for what? To pay for programs that have long since disappeared
and never were paid for. I am very
pleased because the payroll tax has again been adjusted to remove some more
businesses from having to pay that tax on jobs.
We sometimes do tend to get into the
philosophical side of these debates, but the point of it is, small business is
the engine of this province. Small
business is the kind of enterprise that puts most of us to work, puts most of
our youngsters to work and gets them started in their working careers.
If we want to risk putting more businesses
into bankruptcy, as the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) refers to,
I do not think we should be taking that risk, because we have too many people
who need jobs. The honourable member
wants to put businesses out of business; I say that is not an approach that is
going to help either the business sector or the people who want to work in
them.
I am pleased that other corporate taxes
have not been increased too. I know that
the standard response of honourable members opposite is, well, similar to that
used in what used to be communist countries, make the rich pay. You know, the other refrain comes from George
Bernard Shaw, and that is governments that continue to rob Peter to pay Paul
can generally count on the support of Paul.
Well, the point is that Peter is broke, and all of those Pauls out there
are starting to wonder about governments who have supported them so much in the
past, because those have not been dollars that have been well spent. They have been dollars that have been flushed
down the sinkhole, so I think that everybody benefits when taxes are brought
under control.
I am pleased to be able to say that,
whereas a few years ago under a different government in this province, Manitoba
was the highest‑taxed province in this country, we have fallen back
considerably and taken our place in this country and made ourselves more
competitive. We are going to be ready to
embrace the future better than we would have been had we continued with the
policies of the previous government.
Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that‑‑[interjection]
The honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) suggests that the facts would
throw me off from time to time. I admit
that sometimes the honourable member for Flin Flon throws me off for this
continuous chattering from his seat, but I am not afraid of the facts. I think the honourable member for Flin Flon
has demonstrated on the Treasury benches that he has definite problems with
facts and not facing up to them.
I am pleased to see the ongoing support
that this government has provided to the agricultural community. Certainly, the business community and the
agricultural community and all of our communities survive and continue in even
these difficult times because of the work done and the support generated by the
agriculture community.
Farmers are the people who generate the
quality of life that we enjoy to a very large extent in this province. I think that it is not just because we like
farmers, which we do, of course, but because they do provide our communities
with a reason for continued existence.
You know, there would not be any
Obviously, agriculture is going to have to
change as is business. Politicians are
going to have to change too. We are gong
to have to recognize that global economy in which we all work is changing very
significantly, but farmers are among the best entrepreneurs around. They have demonstrated over the years that
they can adjust and be ahead sometimes of the evolution of the global economy,
so I think we have to continue to work in partnership with them to ensure that
we have a nation that we can continue to govern, and provide programs to people
through government and through the private sector as well.
Mr. Speaker, there have been changes in
taxation, changes in property taxation.
The sales tax has been spread out somewhat, and those are necessary
decisions to be made, so that we can continue to finance the health, social
services, education programs that we must have in order to have a viable
society. While we do not take pleasure in tax adjustments that are going to
cost anybody‑‑in fact, we have acknowledged in the budget that some
of our decisions will cause some hardships‑‑while we regret that,
we prefer that it not have to be that way, unfortunately those are decisions
that have to be made by responsible governments.
The only thing I can say about that is
that if we had not been following the careful stewardship of the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) over the past five budgets, I say to honourable members
opposite, things would have been much, much worse. I know that does not come as the kind of
comfort that some people would like to get as a result of some of the decisions
made in this budget. The fact is, it
would have been far, far worse for all of us, not only this year but in future
years, had we not stayed the course of responsible government, responsible
spending in the past.
The honourable member for Osborne (Mr.
Alcock) talked about spending, and seemed to imply that we have placed too much
emphasis on the spending side of our budget making, and I guess what he is
really saying is that we should have been spending more, indeed he and his
colleagues in both opposition parties have pressed for the reinstitution of
every single reduction that was made, it seems, in this budget and those
announced previously. Well, if we
followed that course, we would be right back to where we were, that "we
want it all now" approach that has been so unsuccessful and has led us to
so many problems as a country and as a province. We must stop that approach. I think we are doing just that and we are
preparing ourselves and our children for the future.
* (1630)
When you use a wrong analysis, as the
honourable member for Osborne did, you are very likely to, and absolutely you
are going to, arrive at the wrong conclusion.
The honourable member's conclusion is that woe is us, that nothing
works, that everything is bad and there is no silver lining and there is
nothing good about anything going on in this province.
I was in opposition once, and I know, Mr.
Speaker, how negative opposition members sometimes can be. Indeed I have to confess that once or twice,
I was negative myself in those days in my approach, but I am very glad to say
that I try very hard not to be negative anymore. But I think that is what is wrong with the
analysis and the conclusion of the honourable member for Osborne, because all
is not woe, there is lots for us to be hopeful about here in the
Economic indicators demonstrate that
That is the part that makes debate so
interesting and sometimes superfluous because the realities are still
there. We can ignore those realities if
we want and make the wrong decisions, and then we get into a worse condition
than we are already in which is where I suggest we would be if we were not
making the decisions that you see reflected in this budget which, as I have
said, I will be supporting.
Just for an example‑‑I talked
a little bit about taxation. The honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie)
spoke about deficits. I heard him use
the word "deficit" and how we are still showing a deficit. Indeed we are. But we are also showing a plan, a realistic
plan, that will see that deficit reduced to zero within a foreseeable number of
years, and that is not something you ever would have seen with honourable
members opposite, Mr. Speaker.
While we are talking about taxes, the
recent Conference Board report showed that there are many, many hundreds of
millions of dollars in the pockets of Manitobans as a result of the policies of
the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) for the
The honourable member for Osborne (Mr.
Alcock) referred to the fact that some 25 percent of economic activity is
generated by government and that, therefore, we should not take the approach
that the private sector has to do everything.
Well, he is right that governments have a lot to do with the economy
when we have the taxing and spending power that we have as government. We have been taking too much out of the
pockets of Manitobans for far too long, and this government is the only one in
recent years that has started to go in the other direction. Thank goodness this
government has. Think of the mess we
would be in if we had not made the choice we made in 1988 to get rid of those
honourable members opposite and replace them with a government that cares about
people.
So, Mr. Speaker, as I said, we have not in
the past been fair to the children of the future, the grownups of the
future. We have not been fair to the
farm economy, the agricultural producers.
We have not been fair to the business community. We have not been fair to the women, to the
men, the children, the older people, the new Canadians, the aboriginal
Canadians, the daycare operators, the foster parents. We have not been fair to health care
providers, to educators, to factory workers.
We have not been fair to anybody with the approach that we have been
following in the past, and I use the word "we" advisedly and refer to
the direction we were going prior to the election of the present government in
1988. Since that time the plan embarked
on in 1988 has been followed carefully, competently and faithfully by this
government, and it is not the wrong plan as suggested by the honourable member
for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) in his faulty analysis. [interjection]
I hear honourable members opposite talking
about all the favours they have done for us in the past, and I say, please, do
not do us any more favours. The people
of
Mr. Speaker, I invite honourable members
opposite, in both parties, to think really, really hard before they decide to
vote against this budgetary measure, because if they think really, really hard
and listen to their constituents instead of just whipping up whatever anger
they can find out there, if they would actually listen to people, they might
find that there is support out there and lots of it for the approach that is
being taken by this government.
There are some honourable members opposite
who, no matter what the issue, it is a philosophical issue. You know, no matter what the issue, whether
it is the environment, whether it is resources, whether it is fiscal or
economic, whether it is health care or education, it is always a philosophical
approach‑‑the Tories on the one side and the NDP on the other, or
the Liberals on the other. It is always
like that. Well, Mr. Speaker, issues do
not always just fit into neat little philosophical boxes. You see, the people out there are too smart
for that approach, this philosophical approach that the honourable members
opposite want to keep harping at.
It is that hidebound, 30‑year‑old
approach that has not been changed that is going to put NDs and Liberals under
for some time. They do not want to
recognize that the world is changing. We cannot just build a little fence
around our country and pretend the rest of the world does not exist, but if
they want to keep putting that message across, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the
people are smarter than honourable members opposite.
The people of this province and the people
of this country ought to be listened to by their politicians instead of just
hearing from honourable members opposite, and the likes of them, spouting their
left‑wing philosophy. It did not
work in the
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Prior to recognizing the honourable member
for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), I will recognize the honourable member for Gimli
with his committee changes.
Committee
Change
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Privileges and Elections be amended as follows:
the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) for the member for Roblin‑Russell
(Mr. Derkach).
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Well, we have had, Mr. Speaker, eight days of
debate on this budget, and if it was all of the same quality from the
government side as the last speaker's, then we know that they have been a
dismal failure in defending this budget‑‑dismal insofar as keeping
to the facts about the history of Manitoba and the previous records of
governments, not only of their own government, but of the governments that came
before them.
What we have seen here I think, Mr.
Speaker, is a budget that has attacked those who are the most vulnerable in society. Those who are least able to pay have been
foisted with a major tax increase.
* (1640)
This sixth budget of this government comes
as a result of five previous failures insofar as budgets are concerned in this
province, and what we see the results of are the poor economic planning by this
government insofar as the economy of the province, the failure to move the
province out of the recession that we have been wallowing in for the past
number of years during the Tory government, and additionally we have seen the
budget mismanagement of this government.
Those two major principles are what I want
to deal with in this budget speech in the time that I have, because clearly the
economic policies of this government have failed. They have failed over the last number of
years. As I mentioned earlier, through
six budgets we have seen the results.
As a matter of fact, we have just come off
what is, I am sure, the greatest shame for this Minister of Finance and these
ministers in trying to face themselves and their families, their constituents,
their neighbours, their communities, and that is the largest deficit in the
history of this province, $862 million deficit, as clarified by the member for
Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld).
They have attempted to portray it as $562
million. When you add on the rainy‑day
fund and you add on the fact that they have not allowed for $100 million in
money they owe to the federal government, we have a budget deficit this year of
$862 million. Even if we took the lower figure of $562 million we would still
be the highest in history, because the previous high was $559 million; $562
million, but we have to add on that other $300 million, as the member for
Rossmere, an accountant, has said in this House. That $862 million accurately reflects the
kind of ballooning deficit that this government has experienced.
And they want to talk about
management? They want to tell us how to
manage the economy and manage the spending of this province. It looks to me that we are dealing with Grant
Devine all over again here. We can only
look to
What bothers me when I look through these
speeches and I look through the information that has been coming out from
ministers of the government is that they are trying to misrepresent facts and
the history. Throughout the Minister of
Finance's budget speech you can see that.
As a matter of fact, for example‑‑and
I will just show you one example of how a piece of misinformation as far as the
total story is concerned is carried on by other ministers‑‑the
Minister of Finance said that 42 cents of each
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the
Chair)
Now, that debt that we are talking about
is our combined operating and capital debt that we have in the history of this
province, $6 billion dealing with paying for all of our highways, with all of
our hospitals, with all of our schools, with all of our government buildings,
all of the capital that has been spent and the operating cumulative $6 billion. It is not 42 cents of each income tax
dollar. That is the relevant point
here. It is 10 percent of the total
budget, which is the second lowest in the country‑‑in
What are they trying to do here? Fearmonger, to leave the public with the
impression that the deficit is going to drag, at this point in time, this
province into oblivion, and that it is totally unmanageable, that it is the
worst in the country. Yes, we have a
serious deficit brought on by this government's policy. Look at the fact, $862 million this last year
alone. It is more than double of most
other deficits in the highest years of the Pawley government‑‑for
two years. So what we have, they say 42 cents
of each income tax dollar goes for servicing the debt. As I have mentioned, it is irrelevant in
terms of the total revenue. It is only
10 percent of the total revenue that goes to servicing the debt, but they
talked 42 percent.
Then the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey) picks up this little tidbit and puts it in a letter that she sends out
to 12,000 teachers and, gosh knows, how many other staff throughout this
province, costing about $8,000 or $10,000 to mail this letter out to every
teacher in the province and staff in the province. She uses the same irrelevant figure, a
misleading figure designed to fearmonger on the deficit, designed to fearmonger
to get people upset to think that they have been living beyond their means.
that there is no other alternative. This government has not taken the
appropriate economic policies to lead this province forward, to eliminate the
deficit, to create jobs and stimulate the economy.
Let us look at the past. We can look at the past. We can look at the future. We can make comparisons. The deficit has never been as high in the
history of this province. It is these
mismanagers, this government here that has mismanaged the economy of this
province.
Now I think we have to look at the
ideology, Madam Deputy Speaker. I heard
the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) talk about tax‑and‑spend
of the previous government. Well, if we
have ever seen spending, we have seen it from this government at $862 million
in all the wrong ways‑‑mismanagement of spending, clearly, $862
million. It is mismanagement when we see
the largest deficit. But in terms of
taxing, when the Minister of Justice, the member for Brandon West, became part
of government, he inherited a tax regime; at $40,000 for a family of four, that
was the second lowest in the country, not the myth that they tried to
perpetrate on the‑‑[interjection]
The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.
Downey) is saying, not true, the highest.
He is still believing this rhetoric that has been handed to him in the
back‑rooms in the briefing sheets of misinformation that have been handed
to him time after time. So, naturally,
he continues to believe that it was the highest tax regime. At $40,000 it was the second lowest in the
country. Remember that our debt‑servicing costs are the second lowest in
the country right now. Keep that in mind
when you go out and try to tell the people of
Where they are just short of bankruptcy is
in
That is what we saw with Conservatives,
not in Manitoba to this point, but if we give these Conservatives a few more
years we might be at that stage because of their failed economic policies at
the same time that they are tearing apart the fabric of society and the
fairness and equity that has been built into the society in Manitoba through
the work of such New Democratic governments of Ed Schreyer and Howard Pawley,
and the efforts of the CCF and New Democrats at that the national level that
have made us a more caring society in this province, in this country, than we
have seen in the United States.
Through the efforts of these Conservatives
to Americanize our country, to do away with those social services, those
support services that provide equity and fairness in society that have made
Canada a caring nation, that have made Canada unique in the world today, to
tear apart those special programs and the fabric of Canadian society is the
mission that these Conservatives are on, pushed by Brian Mulroney, supported by
Gary Filmon and his Conservative bunch here in the province of Manitoba.
So they are tearing up the fabric of
society through unfair measures that they have put in, and let us look at a few
of those.
Over the last number of years they said,
we are not going to provide adequate funding for the public education
system. They only provided about 13
percent increase over the last five years, including this year's budget. To the private schools, during the same time,
it has been about a 150‑percent increase in funding.
* (1650)
They have underfunded the public school
system over those years, and they said, we are going to let the local taxpayers
pay for it if you want to put in additional dollars. We called that the GFT, the Gary Filmon tax
which was offloading onto municipalities and school divisions.
Now the GFT has a nice ring to it because
it sounds a lot like the GST which is also an unfair tax, but this one was
foisted on the taxpayers, on the property owners by this Conservative
Government here, this PC Government right here, this government in
What they have done over the last number
of years is offloaded their responsibilities onto the municipalities and the
school divisions. So they got criticized
for this, and finally they said, oh, well gee, this criticism is getting a
little heavy, we are going to have to put a stop to it. So they brought in a measure to cap the
special requirement at 2 percent because they are going to tell the school
divisions, you cannot increase your local property taxes. The reason that they did that is because they
were getting criticism on this GFT.
But what do they do? Oh, yes, they put a cap on it. They said to school divisions, you cannot
make those kinds of decisions, but here is the hypocrisy. It is precisely the property taxes that they
have chosen for their major tax increases contrary to what the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) said. He said,
there have been no major tax increases for the fifth, sixth year in a row‑‑no
major tax. [interjection]
Now, there is the Minister of Northern
Affairs (Mr. Downey) saying there has not been.
What do we have this year? Is it
a minor tax if it is over $400 a year for a family of four in this
province? Is that a minor tax
increase? What are you talking
about? What do you think people
are? Do you think people are stupid,
they are going to believe that? We are
not going to believe that kind of nonsense.
They are not going to stand for that unfairness.
We have seen a major‑‑let us
use the word now, all together‑‑major tax increase in this
In addition to that, the Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae) of Brandon West was proudly saying he is pleased to see
the payroll tax reduced even more for companies with a payroll of $750,000. Is
that not nice to see the pride in their voices, see their pride in cutting
those taxes? Is that not helping the
families in this province, the people on the bottom end of the income ladder,
the people who are out there consuming every dollar they have to just continue
their daily lives?
That is going to help them, this trickle‑down
theory. They are going to cut this
payroll tax. That is going to help the
average family in this province. No
way. The trickle‑down theories
have not worked. The trickle‑down
approach by this government has not worked.
You can give everything away you want to
the corporations, they are not going to pass it on to the average person. They are not going to create jobs, and they
are not going to stimulate the economy.
They are going to walk away and laugh at you. They are laughing at you. They will give you some in your coffers for
your election, of course, because they want more, but they are not going to
create jobs so do not try and fool the people with that. You have to take a different approach. You have failed. Your $862‑million
deficit last year proves you have failed.
You failed miserably over the last five years‑‑$862 million‑‑
An Honourable Member: Why are you sitting over there?
Mr. Plohman: Well, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) is
saying, why are we sitting here? Now,
let us just take a look at this. Is he going to call an election this fall, or is
he going to wait and screw up his courage in a year or two? We are going to see about failure. Let us talk while you can talk, because you
will not have much of a chance to do it after the next election.
Let us look at the $250 minimum tax. This Thatcherite poll tax that they put in
place this year is ensuring that many of the poorest people, many senior
citizens with small modest homes in small rural communities throughout this
province are going to have a $250 minimum property tax by this government who
said they are going to cap property taxes and the local levy for school
divisions because they could not manage it right, because the municipalities
could not be trusted with that right.
They cut that right off with Bill 16 and said they no longer can
increase their taxation locally on property taxes. Then they put in place a $250 poll tax in the
Many of those property owners did not pay
property taxes before, and they were unable to.
Where did this government look for its sources of revenue? It attacked those senior citizens. They did
not even relate this to income. The $250
minimum applies to everyone.
In addition to that, many of those same
people are going to be hit with another $75 increase, because the property tax
credit is going to reduce by $75. So in
addition to the $250, they are going to have another $75. Now that is $325.
If their income is over $23,800, they are
going to be hit with another $175 loss, the Pensioners' School Tax Assistance
Program. There will be some seniors in
this province and some poorer people in this province who are going to be hit,
because $23,800 is not above the poverty line.
At $23,800 some of those people are going to be hit with a $500 tax
increase‑‑the lowest in this province in terms of their ability to
pay, a $500 tax increase.
They think that is not a major tax
increase. I would dare them to go door
to door in their constituencies to some of those homeowners and ask them if
they think $500 is a fair tax increase.
Is that a fair one? I do not
believe any one of those people would say that is a fair tax increase, when you
get a $500 tax increase.
There will be people in this province who
are going to have a $500 tax increase just on their properties alone by this
government, a punitive government, preying on those most vulnerable in society,
and they talk about fairness.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) talked
about fairness in his speech. He should
be ashamed of himself. He has been
reading the rhetoric of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and believing it. That is what makes it even worse, because he
actually believes it. He believes what
he reads from that Minister of Finance who is misleading the people of
Now, in addition to that $500 increase,
they decided to prey on the poor some more.
They went with a sales tax increase that preyed on those who least can
afford to pay it and to ensure that it is the most regressive sales tax in the
province. They moved to harmonize it
with the federal government to a large extent.
By doing so, they said, oh, yes, we did
not raise the sales tax, but in fact they are collecting another $40 million by
hitting families who have to buy personal hygiene items, baby supplies, safety
equipment, school supplies, hamburgers.
This is the kind of thing that this minister taxes. He can go out for a meal. Sure, he can say, I have to pay sales tax,
but those people who cannot afford those meals, maybe they could afford a
hamburger. Now he is even going to tax
them in addition to the personal hygiene items that he is taxing in school
supplies. [interjection]
I want to know how this is going to
stimulate the economy. That is a good point that my colleague brings up. They are talking about stimulating the
economy through the payroll tax deduction or reduction for some businesses in this
province. All we are going to see is a
further decline in the economy and a greater recession in this province because
of those tax increases. [interjection] Well, we have to tell the truth in this
House. It is nice to talk positive, but,
you know, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is saying, oh, you are so
negative.
* (1700)
What has he been doing for the last five
years, and his Premier (Mr. Filmon)?
Talking in glowing terms about how great things were going to go and how
the changes‑‑he now says, in this budget, there is going to be an
explosion of jobs as a result of his budget.
How ridiculous. How
misleading. If we could use stronger
terms in this Legislature, if we could use terms that accurately describe it, I
would use those terms in this House. It is, mildly put, misleading the people
of
So the sales tax increase, another
regressive measure, and he calls it a minor tax increase. Let us get a definition from this
minister. What is a major tax increase? We have already established some homeowners a
$500 increase. We are going to have
sales tax increases. We have a sales tax
increase, and this is minor. These are
minor little increases, incidentals.
What about the fees that they have put in
place, the punitive fees to go along with their unfair tax increases? Look at them‑‑five‑hundred‑dollar
increase because people may have some income besides their basic pension. Oh, a $600 increase‑‑twenty
dollars a day times 30.
Now we are talking about nursing
homes. Madam Deputy Speaker, in addition
to the poll tax on property that they have put on, they have endeavoured now to
pull every dollar out of every senior citizen who has to be in a nursing home
that has any income at all besides the basic pension. They are going to bleed that money out of
them.
In addition to that, they are going to
charge user fees for crutches, colostomy bags, walkers, bandages for home care
patients‑‑another priority.
Meanwhile, you contrast that to what they have done‑‑there
is the Minister of Finance rubbing his hands as if he is proud of what he has
done. He should be ashamed. He should hang his head in shame after what
he has done. He picks the larger
corporations for tax breaks and charges those most vulnerable and least able to
pay in society. Ability to pay, what is he talking about? What is he talking about, Madam Deputy
Speaker?
While he is giving $100 million in tax
breaks, $100 million of tax breaks to corporations for each of the last five
years, $500 million over the last five years, he says, we do not have any money
left. The cupboard is bare. We are broke.
So what does he do, Madam Deputy Speaker? He cuts the dental program out of the
The dental program cut is counterproductive. Prevention that is inherent in that program
will lead to much lower costs in the future.
Now they have cut that program, and, indeed, the overall cost to society
will be much higher over the next number of years. They have cut child care. They have cut human resource centres in this
province. I tried, Madam Deputy Speaker,
to bring to the attention of these ministers the absolute futility and
negativeness of a cut to the human resource centres where they are servicing
people who can turn their lives around.
I have met with people who have had their
lives turned around through their involvement with the Human Resource
Opportunity Centre. They have even been
referred from probationary services.
They have received support, and they were able to get out of the life of
crime and the cycle of crime that they have been involved with, perhaps,
substance abuse, poverty, and they were able to begin a productive life and
eventually gain a meaningful job and to work and to contribute to society and
to contribute taxes to the government of Manitoba and to the Government of
Canada instead of drawing on welfare and other social programs and, indeed,
prisons at a cost of $50,000 a year.
This government is cutting a basic program
that has served the
The Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey)
now has inherited those programs. She
has a big job to do, to turn that around. If she does care, she can show. She is going to have to make some strong
representation to turn around those punitive, negative decisions on very
vulnerable people. We saw that in the
friendship centre cuts. We saw that in
the public school system, the 2 percent cut across the board which manifested
itself in terms of 3, 4, 5, 6 percent for its school divisions. We saw that in the cap that they placed on
the ability of school divisions to raise money locally. We see it in the university social assistance
reduction of 1,200 people who could be attending university while on social
assistance to, again, get out of this vicious cycle of poverty, become
productive citizens.
These people in this government have
withdrawn that program, that source of hope, that support to those people. They have done it in Pharmacare with the
increases in the deductibles. They have done it in foster care. They have done it in the health care system
with the user fees that have been put in place.
They have cut back on youth employment programs. They cut the clinicians who were servicing
rural
Even then, the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey) has the gall to stand in this House and say they are going to be
getting better service and she is doing more, when in fact the budget line
shows that the cuts in those services of clinicians, the fact that many school
divisions in rural and remote areas will not be able to afford to hire those
professionals to provide the services.
Even if they want to, they may not get them there because they will not
travel to those areas, in some remote areas of the province.
This kind of unfeeling decision making,
uncaring, unfairness is typical of this government. Throughout this budget we see it
interwoven. It is unfair. [interjection]
You know, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) after a quarter of a
century in here surely would have a conscience, surely would stand up, not go
to his right‑wing roots, but to stand up for fairness after 25 years of
hearing the fairness that has been provided in speeches in this province,
advocated in this Legislature. Surely
some of it would have rubbed off on the Minister of Natural Resources, and he
would have made strong representation to his newer right‑wing colleagues
in cabinet who are pressing this agenda, this Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), the Minister of Northern
Affairs (Mr. Downey), with their right‑wing agenda, and all of the rest
of them, dragging them into it.
I want to say that the results of these kinds
of decision making are not going to be as positive as the Minister of Finance's
polls might have indicated. He might
have thought, after his extensive polling and millions of dollars‑‑who
knows, because they have hidden it in various departments and
appropriations? We will not know exactly
how much they spent on polling, but we know they have spent hundreds of
thousands of dollars, perhaps millions of dollars, on polls, and they have
determined‑‑[interjection] I believe it is millions, yes, but I do
not want to overstate it, so I said hundreds of thousands. As a result, they think that they can get
away with attacking the most vulnerable in society, whether it be foster
parents, foster children, whether it be homeowners, seniors with a minimum tax
and so on.
All of these things they believe they can
do and get away with, but this is percolating now within the people of the
province. They now see the true colours
of this government after five years.
They have been able to kind of skirt around the issues. In minority government they did not want to
implement their true right‑wing agenda, so they stayed away from it for a
number of years. They inherited‑‑and
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has never admitted this in this House
that I recall. I think it would do him
justice in terms of his integrity if he would stand up and tell us about the
surplus he inherited in 1988 and the tremendous, the positive fiscal situation
that he inherited as a result of tax measures taken by the former Minister of
Finance, Eugene Kostyra, at that time.
* (1710)
He has never admitted this in this House,
and he would do a great deal for his integrity if he would in fact start
admitting the facts, Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑[interjection] Yes, I
know. I have about 10 seconds, and I
could take a little more.
I want to say to the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) that we have seen the truth in this budget. They have not been able to fool the
opposition. I do not believe they are
going to be able to fool the people of
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise and defend one of
Madam Deputy Speaker, when I am talking
about using the word "credit," I would like to share an awful lot of
the commentary, some of the good commentaries that are coming from this side
with members of the Treasury Board, because it is only proper that those other
members of the Treasury bench, who sit on that committee of cabinet‑‑in
this case, I refer to the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), the Minister
of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson), also the Minister of
Environment (Mr. Cummings), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson),
and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh). I would like to personally extend my thank
you to them for the many, many hours they devoted.
Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is
rightful and proper, and I must say that I wish to thank Mr. Julian Benson,
Secretary to Treasury Board, plus all of the staff at the Treasury Board
Secretariat, because without their efforts we certainly would not have reached
the goal.
What was the goal, Madam Deputy
Speaker? Well, the goal was to
acknowledge the fact that revenues were not increasing, to acknowledge the fact
that revenues were going to remain flat, no doubt, for a few more years to
come. The goal was not to increase
taxes, the major tax areas. The goal was
to try and impact on expenditures on the marginal rate of 1 or 2 percent so
that a government, whoever they would be, a few years from now, sitting on this
side, does not have to cut them back at the rate of 8, 10, 12 or 15 percent.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the members across
the way‑‑the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) said that we must
have done a lot of polling, because it looked like it was a deliberate attempt
to attack those who maybe did not support us.
First of all, he is wrong. No
polling was done. Secondly, if members
want to attribute a motive to me as to how I took into account not only the
difficulties we have on the revenue side but also the expenditures, if they
want to say, were you building some politics into it, I will say, yes, I built
politics into it to this extent. I
remember the budget of 1987. I remember
the NDP's last budget that was accepted in this House.
An Honourable Member: What was it?
Tell us about it.
Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not have the time, but
the members opposite, those who were here in 1987 are sitting across the way
because there was a taxpayer revolt in 1987. [interjection]
Yes, we were playing politics. We focused the attention to line 236, because
at that time‑‑the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) talks about a
poll tax. The poll tax of all poll taxes
was the 2 percent tax on net income. A
little later on I will show you the impact on those earning $10,000 and less of
that particular tax.
Nobody has to tell me the quickest way to
go from this side of the House to that side of the House is to say to the
taxpayers, you are going to pay‑‑we are going to make the rich pay;
we are going to build in this progressive tax system. But the reality of it is, Madam Deputy
Speaker, it is just like the NDP found out in 1988, and like they are finding
out in
So, ultimately, when an NDP Finance
minister goes to an NDP cabinet and says, I need money, ultimately all the
people pay, and ultimately that is what happens. You are relegated to the opposition side not
for one term, two terms, but I dare say three, because the people never forget. So if the members opposite are going to try
and force us as a government to forget what happened in 1987, Madam Deputy
Speaker, so that we are going to levy taxes on our people who they would like
to say are the rich, but ultimately and accurately are everybody at $10,000
income and more, I say to them, no, we will practise prudent expenditure‑side
discipline and that is what we have done again in this budget.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to lay
to rest this myth that they left us with a surplus. I have brought down representing this government‑‑and
it is an honour to do so as the Minister of Finance‑‑six
budgets. If one wants to count
backwards, if somebody wants to count backwards from '93‑94‑‑and
I think even the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), if he put up six fingers
could count backwards‑‑that if he wanted to do it, he would
recognize that the first budget that this government brought down was in 1988‑1989.
Now, what was the lead‑up to that
budget? Well, Mr. Kostyra brought down
the 1988 budget in February, I believe late February in 1988. That budget called for deficit financing, a
deficit of $330 million. There was a
certain gentleman who sat, and I forget, I think right where the member for St.
Vital (Mrs. Render) sits, and that member said he could not tolerate a $330‑million
deficit and voted against that and the government fell. We came to government after the election on
May‑‑I think we were sworn in May 8‑‑[interjection] May
9, pardon me, and the budget for the 1988‑89 year was brought down in
August.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will tell you what
happened. In between the defeated budget
of $330 million and, indeed, the one that ultimately came down and the one that
I called‑‑by the way, at the time I said was going to come in at
$150 million deficit. [interjection] $187, thank you‑‑several
things happened, and reference is made to the revenue side and, yes, there was
then the recognition that there were some improvements on the revenue side.
What I realized, once the news started to
come in on the federal equalization side, I said to myself, if the federal
government can miss it going up, as sure as I am standing and the Lord made
little green apples, they can miss it on the side going down.
The government of the day deliberately
took that money and said, things like this just do not happen, they just do not
fall out of the sky. There is going to
be a day of reckoning. And what we did
was we set up the stabilization account, and, yes, we had the support from the
NDP to do so. [interjection] Okay, so let us get back to that.
And what else we did with it, yes, we did
reduce taxes by about $60 million made up of two parts. We took the basic tax of federal 54, and we
dropped it to 52. Then we took another
$30 million roughly‑‑and I do not have the numbers quite right‑‑and
we built up the support on the tax credit side.
We took those with children from $50 to $250. That is what we did.
So let not anybody from the other side say
that we were out to attack the poor because our first budgetary measure, the
first taxation measure, was to help the so‑called poor by way of the tax
credit.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is the revenue
side, and I am not going to talk about the mining tax increase because that is
part of the record, but I want to talk about the expenditure side. Do you know how much money we took and
changed around from the NDP defeated budget and our own?‑‑$140
million. That is how much we took
out. Secondly, do you know how much was
not even accounted for in that defeated budget?‑‑$60‑some
million.
* (1720)
Now, I cannot blame the NDP, the fact that
they had not budgeted in election expenses.
That is not their fault. But,
Madam Deputy Speaker, the volumes associated with the growth and some of the
social programming, No. 1, were missed out.
Number two, the forest fire account had no
money in it, no money, and we go into the year of the greatest drought of all
time and there was no money put in. Yet
we put all that money in, we put the proper volumes in, and we still said that
there would be a forecasted deficit of $167 million.
Now, throughout the year there was some
additional good news that continued to come in, and I did not even need to draw
from the stabilization account the first year because that news kept coming in.
[interjection] Shell game, well‑‑but the reality is, do not let
anybody, and certainly not at least the NDP, say that they turned over a
surplus budget to us because they did not do the budget for '88. This government put into place the budget for
'88‑89.
So when I look at the reviews, and it said
there was a $59 million‑‑these are the year‑end audited
amounts‑‑so‑called surplus, yes, before taking that surplus
in part and putting it into the stabilization account, whose budget was
it? What government brought it
down? This government.
So I hope once and for all we can put away
that myth. I know the NDP feel happy
about it, that they have convinced the media that they indeed had some
surplus. I am here to tell you, nothing
is further from the truth‑‑nothing is further from the truth.
Madam Deputy Speaker, then let us move to
1993‑94. We remain on the course
as the most prudent of spenders and certainly no apology for that. We are near the bottom of the lowest per
capita spenders in
An Honourable Member: Lowest spending?
Mr. Manness: No, per capita over the last six years. That is right. Yet, I tell you, I think this government is
incredibly proud of its achievement, because we have not had to resort to
significant tax increases. I will argue
with anybody.
I know the members are trying to make the
issue and, indeed, I even saw where Ms. Billinkoff in her article on this
weekend accepted the NDP logic that in essence it was a 1.4 percent increase,
that if you took the tax measures in broadening the taxes and some other
measures that that translated to a 1.4 percent increase.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I say to you, okay,
if that is the logic you are going to use, then acknowledge that the price of
fuel has not gone up, acknowledge that others have still gone down, acknowledge
the fact.
An Honourable Member: The price of fuel has not gone up?
Mr. Manness: No, if you are going to factor all the tax
increases into the provincial sales tax, you can have it one way, you cannot
have it the other way. You cannot have
it both ways. Even in opposition, you cannot have it both ways.
The member does not understand what I am
saying. I am saying if you are going to
factor all the tax increases, the nominal into the smaller areas and you are
going to somehow make that a 1.4 percent increase in the sales tax, then
acknowledge that you have not had an increase in the fuel tax.
Likewise, if you are going to use that
logic, then why are you not so honest as to say that the base is not 7 percent,
that the base basically is 6.7 percent because, over a number of budgets, when
I took away the cascading, $30 million in addition was put into the pockets of
all Manitobans. So in essence then, the
7 percent rate is not in existence, it is 6.7 or 6.6 percent.
If you take into account the fact that we have
taken off a provincial sales tax on a number of the reserve costs, and I am
thinking of telephone charges and I am thinking also of the 1‑800 numbers
off on all of the province, then acknowledge that we do not have a 7 percent
sales tax in this province, that we have a 6.5 percent. Let us let consistency be a rule. The NDP are saying basically it is a 1.4
percent increase in sales tax, so they are wrong.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have listened to
the criticism that budget has taken and, again, I must say I take no
satisfaction in some of the specific things we had to do. The problem is that all easy choices have
already been made. Only difficult
choices remain. I defy anybody in this
House to say that any of the choices that were made were not easy, and I do not
think anybody will say that but, likewise, I would like to hear the members
opposite say that there are still easy decisions that could be made.
I listened to the Leader of the NDP (Mr.
Doer), and I listened to him on soapbox after soapbox talk about this $15
million that we put away, gave to the Vision Fund. Madam Deputy Speaker, all of that is
loan. The Leader of the Opposition knows
that. That has not been granted. That is all a loan of which there is interest
accruing.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the first was
between spending cuts and tax increases.
These are the choices I am talking about. We successfully avoided tax increases through
five budgets, but the magnitude of the deficit problem this year required that
we move on both fronts. I acknowledge
that we have moved on both fronts. There
is no good tax increase. We chose the
least offensive. Broadening the sales
tax base was required in order to have the sales tax collected at the border by
the federal government. This measure will
help level the playing field for
Leaving the rate unchanged at the second
lowest rate in the country helped to keep retail products as affordable as
possible at a time when retail sales have not been growing strongly. In short, this seemed the least bad revenue
choice. The second choice was among all
the possible spending cuts. The easy
cuts, the trimming of fat, the elimination of unnecessary programs had already
been made. What remained was to decide
between categories of spending that are all worthy or necessary in some
way. Inevitably the choices made will
each have a negative impact on some group of Manitobans. We have tried to be as fair as possible in
making these choices. Thus, we opted to
reduce the pay of all civil servants slightly and compensate them with time
off, rather than laying off more staff.
We are taking action to apply this model throughout the provincial
public sector.
Our tax credit program was one of the most
generous in the country. A relatively
modest reduction combined with protection for low‑income citizens still
leaves our low‑ and middle‑income earners paying less total tax
than they would in several other provinces.
Since there were no easy spending or
taxation choices left, all our decisions were difficult. Therefore, all our decisions, taken
individually, are easy to criticize, and I acknowledge it. What responsible
critics must keep in mind is the context in which these choices were made,
Madam Deputy Speaker, two decades of nonstop deficits, debt service costs that
now exceed the combined spending of 14 departments.
All I have to refer members to is the
article today in The Globe and Mail titled:
"No Rae of sunlight in
I do not lay all the blame on Premier
Rae. That would be foolhardy to do
that. We have tried to make this comment
over and over again, so I know the members opposite will not listen to it
coming from me or probably other members of our government, but maybe they will
if they read it: "First, its
fastest‑growing spending program now consists of payments not to the
needy, whom the New Democrats have always vowed to help most, but to investors
wealthy enough to have bought all the new provincial bonds the government has
issued to finance its deficits."
That is who now is receiving the greatest spending increase.
"Second, the province's welfare rolls
probably won't shrink over the next few years‑‑even in the face of
a solid economic expansion."
That is the reality of the time. There is not an NDP government, there is not
an NDP Leader in the country who is going to be able to run from that
fact. It is a reality.
* (1730)
Madam Deputy Speaker, it talks about the
three factors as to why we have problems.
Revenues are growing more slowly. Interest payments on the debt are
rising rapidly. If the government cannot
produce a credible plan to cut the deficit, then the province's credit rating
would drop. The formula is the
same. I do not care. This refers to
This is the salient point that I want to
share, those three factors. The
government must fall back on its biggest spending programs, health, education
and welfare. Madam Deputy Speaker, that
is not ideology. Again, I state, that is
pure arithmetic, nothing more but pure arithmetic.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is where we
find ourselves. Going on, why have the
choices been so difficult? A lingering
national and international recession which makes fiscal stimulus by a small
provincial government futile; 4 percent of the national economic pie of the
economic wealth, futile; a $94‑million cut in federal transfers, that is
what we have experienced.
I know we could set up the coalitions,
like the NDP government before us, and try and bash the dickens out of
Madam Deputy Speaker, if your wealthiest
provinces,
Madam Deputy Speaker, yet, across the way‑‑I
particularly look at the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). He wrote me a letter asking what we can do
for taxes, what are we going to do in taxes to help the railways? I know why, because the unions are scared to
death with taxes being applied to the railways.
Yet when we try and reduce the locomotive
fuel tax by 25 percent in this province and doing what we can to try and
maintain jobs‑‑not that the saving of a few million dollars of
taxes is going to significantly help the bottom line of the railway industry,
but a signal to let them know that the elected representatives, the people's
representatives understand that taxation, per se, is going to kill jobs. Yet the member for Transcona is going to vote
against this budget, No. 1. Secondly, he
brings an attitude to this House that says that we were wrong in reducing it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Leaders of both
opposition parties would do well, I say, to talk to their compatriots who
govern in other provinces. Talk to Roy
Romanow or Bob Rae, talk to Clyde Wells or Frank McKenna. Get a first‑hand account from someone
you like. Obviously, you do not like
us. Get a first‑hand account from
somebody you like and trust and ask them what fiscal options are available to
provincial governments in
Saskatchewan‑‑and I tell you I
am very supportive of what
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not have time
to dwell on it, but the members opposite have seen the press release of last
week from
Madam Deputy Speaker,
The '93‑94 deficit in that province
is still $1.5 billion‑‑$1.5 billion‑‑and that province
has taken some of their capital. They
have set up a capital authority outside of the budget, outside of the balance sheet,
which will put them over $2 billion.
An Honourable Member: What is their per‑capita deficit?
Mr. Manness: Per‑capita deficit‑‑$2
billion and you divide it by three million people, and they are almost double
the per‑capita deficit as the
An Honourable Member: Talking about this year's budget, the one you
are debating.
Mr. Manness: No, no.
We are debating '93‑94.
B.C. is now where
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Doer) likes to claim that his government left us a surplus, and
I have talked about that. I will not
belabour the point other than to say we brought down the '88‑89
budget. We changed it radically from
what we inherited. Thank goodness we
took some of that additional revenue and put it into a savings account.
I would just like to spend the last two or
three minutes talking about the impact, the so‑called rich. I do so because I listened carefully to the
member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). I
listened to her speech on the monitor this afternoon, and she says that we
attacked the youth and the education.
She says the young families are not afforded the ability to raise a family
and that we do not care about them.
* (1740)
I can tell that member that almost every
budgetary decision that has been made, certainly on the revenue side over the
last five years, has been in support of the young family because I agree with
her. The greatest threat to society as
we know it right now is the ability of the young family with young children to
aspire, first of all, to own their own home if that is what they want, but
secondly, to maintain some standard level of living in support of those children.
So when I hear that member say that we
attack that group, I am offended because everything that we have done over the
last five years is to try to save harmless, to the extent we could, that
particular family.
I would end, Madam Deputy Speaker, to talk
about the impact on some of our tax measures, and I would point out that
whereas the 2 percent tax on that income that the NDP brought in, 6.8 percent
of the revenue came from those earning $10,000 and less, and whereas roughly 40
percent of all the tax raised came from those earning $20,000 and less.
We are trying, as we did, to make a fair
recognition as between those who are what we call the working poor and those
who are receiving their day‑to‑day sustenance from the taxpayer,
from the state. What we did in this was
to try within the very narrow restrictions of the tax form to provide the
maximum relief for those who are working, continue to work and continue to
raise a family so that the impact was the least.
Now members would say, why did you not
relate? Maybe you should have taken the
property tax credit, if you are going to do it, off the people who have the
most ability to pay. Within the tax form
we could not do that.
I would point out that on the income tax
side there is not a tax schedule that is more progressive anywhere in
Yet they would also find out, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that if you factor in our 2 percent tax on net income and you add it
to our basic 52 for anybody earning $45,000, $50,000 or more, we still have about
the third highest tax, if not the second, in Canada. So all the progressivity that the members
talk about is in the formula.
My last comment: The members say, we have sort of applied it
evenly. No, we have reached out and
adopted the ability‑to‑pay model.
That is what we used with respect to the personal care homes. If you have the ability to pay, you will pay.
Governments across the land, and I do not care what political stripe they are,
will be using the same slogan, the same model the members opposite have been
encouraging us to use for several years‑‑ability to pay.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very proud of
this budget because I believe what we have done, not only this year but over
the years to come, what this government has done, it will allow the government
in the future, the government of Manitoba, to not have to do the draconian
moves, the 5, 8, 10 percent significant reductions on the expenditure line that
governments elsewhere will have to do, because today we have got our act
together and we have got government in line.
I honestly believe most Manitobans today realize that. Thank you.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): This is probably the most important debate of
this or any other session. What I want
to deal with in my comments first this afternoon and then later on this evening
are what I believe are the bottom lines with this particular budget. I think it was indicated very much by the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), some of the lines, some of the communication
spins, some of the types of arguments that this government is using to defend
this particular budget.
In my comments today I want to point to
the fact that what we are seeing from this government and this budget is what
we see from Tories whenever they bring in budgets. It is the same type of statement. In fact, some of the wording could have been
taken word for word from other speeches of this government, speeches of the
government of Sterling Lyon, of many other Conservative governments in other
jurisdictions.
I want to point to the fact that there are
clear differences between what Conservatives say in budgets and do in budgets
and reality, so I want to compare the comments to that reality. I also want to expose what we are seeing, I
think, to a greater extent than we have seen for any time since the 1930s, and
that is the propagating of Tory myths.
I want to deal with them today. I want to deal with them from the perspective
of the people that I represent and the many people I have had the opportunity
to speak to recently‑‑myths such as, and you will find them in the
budget, you will find them in the documents put up by the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness), that these were tough decisions.
To quote the Minister of Finance: The most difficult and trying exercise of my
political career‑‑myth 1.
Myth 2: we are all sharing the
pain. I believe the Minister of Finance
says that this is a government that has brought in a budget that is based on
the ability to pay. That is myth 2. Myth 3‑‑and it relates to both
these other two myths‑‑is that this is not an ideological budget,
that all governments are facing the same problems, that all governments are
bringing in the same kind of decisions, and we therefore have no choice in this
province but to follow the blueprint of the Minister of Finance. Those are the Tory myths, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
Well, I can tell you that I have not just
sat in this building the last couple of weeks and gone through the documents
put out by the Minister of Finance. I
have taken the opportunity to talk to many of my constituents. I went and visited people in their homes last
week for three days. I was at the plant
gate at Inco. I have taken the
opportunity to talk to many people in this city directly about the impact of
this budget and budget decisions.
You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to
just begin by saying that the common‑sense analysis of people out there
is something that no government should ever underestimate, and particularly
this government, because what I am finding is that a lot of people are not
buying the Tory words, they are not buying the Tory myths. In fact, when I went around in Thompson
talking to people, as I always do, I was struck by the fact that people
remember what previous Conservative governments have done. People know what the
Conservative government federally has been doing. A lot of people do not even bother listening
to the kind of communication spin that we get from the Minister of Finance and
the communications specialists within government, and from those who would spin
it to the media. They do not buy that.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
You know what they are saying, Mr. Acting
Speaker? They are saying this budget
hurts them. They are saying it hurts
their neighbours and their friends, and they are saying, and this is the key
word I want to deal with throughout my remarks today, they are saying it is not
fair.
Well, let us start by looking at what this
budget is not. It is not what the
Conservatives promised in 1988. Mr.
Acting Speaker, in 1988 and 1990, when they ran an election, what did they have
to say about taxes? Well, I took the
opportunity to go through the Leaders' debate, 1990, and I can read many other
quotes from before then and 1991.
* (1750)
I just want to be very clear, because
sometimes we can in this House perhaps misinterpret words. We can perhaps not quite catch the meaning,
the nuances, and I went back to the Leaders' debate to figure out whether what
I had heard the Premier say in 1990 was actually what I thought I heard him
say. Did the Premier in 1990 say that
there would be no tax increases? That
was my sense. Or did he fudge the words
and suggest it was only certain types of tax increases? I went back and looked at the Leaders' debate
from August 30, 1990. There is no
doubt. The Premier said at that time his
government would not increase taxes.
An Honourable Member: Read my lips.
Mr. Ashton: Well, it might as well just have been read my
lips. Not only that, he was criticizing the Liberal Leader for suggesting the
Liberal Leader was going to increase taxes.
The context is just as clear as the actual words‑‑no
increase in taxes.
Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, some of us
remember the Autopac debates in 1988. In
fact, members opposite remember it well when they said at that time there would
be no big increases in Autopac rates and no political interference in Autopac,
and indeed there were a whole series of promises.
Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, are there tax
increases in this budget? There indeed
are tax increases. One can only come to
the conclusion that broadening the sales tax, that impacting on the tax credit
system is a tax increase. It has become
the "t" word. You know, we had
a government that would not use the "r" word for a considerable
period of time of recession. They
finally recognized we are in a recession, but now when they bring in a tax
increase, it is not a tax increase.
You know, I remember there was a comedy
show in
We are into a brave new world of
technospeak. We had the Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey) get up in this House and say that when she eliminated
the Human Resource Centre in Dauphin that was providing a continuum of service. I think the word she was looking for was
"oblivion," because that is what has happened to that service in
Dauphin. It has gone into oblivion. There is no continuum. Dauphin is in the
I could go through extensively the
comments made by members opposite, but you know what is interesting is that
there is no accident to what is happening.
Not just the policies, even the words that members opposite use give
away a lot of what this budget is all about.
I want to deal with that. Let us first of all deal with‑‑which
myth should we deal with first?
These were tough decisions. Tough in what way? Tough in the sense that people might not
agree with cutting aboriginal friendship centres or foster families or cutting
back on daycare spaces and funding or people having to pay for crutches and
bandages on home care or people having to pay dramatically increased rates for
personal care homes?
If one was to accept the fact that those
are not popular decisions with the people that have been targeted for those
kinds of actions, indeed one can accept to a certain degree that those
decisions might be difficult, the government might be unpopular. That is
difficult at the best of times, but I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), and I have known the Minister of Finance since I was elected. I have seen him speak in this House many
times, I have heard his comments. I ask
people in this House who know the Minister of Finance and Manitobans who know
the Minister of Finance: Is there
anything in this budget that does not fit in with the Minister of Finance's
Conservative political ideology and philosophy?
Take the Premier (Mr. Filmon). Is there anything in this budget that anyone
would suggest is unusual for this government or any Conservative
government? Does anyone really believe
that those cuts were that difficult to make from a party that has consistently
argued in this House as it has federally that it wants to ratchet down the size
of government? It has used expressions
like that. It wants to cut out
programs. It wants to eliminate what it
considers to be waste in terms of social spending, that has targeted people on
welfare.
Does this surprise anyone that the
Conservative Party might bring in a budget like this? Well, no, Mr. Acting Speaker.
The bottom line is, this is not a
difficult choice at all for Conservatives.
I would say the more difficult budget for this Minister of Finance and
this government was when they did not have the convenient excuse that they are
trying to use now of saying that we are in tough times so we have to cut. The difficult thing for Conservatives is when
they cannot use that argument. So let us
clear away that particular myth.
The next thing I would like to deal with
is the myth that this is a budget where we are all sharing the pain. All sharing the pain? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is looking
at the ability to pay? It is very
convenient, the type of terminology that the minister applies. He was talking from his seat and saying that
the Conservatives now were suggesting that the rich pay. Well, let us recognize that a budget deals
with two sides of the ledger. It deals
with taxation, the revenue side, and it deals with expenditures.
Now who does this budget target? Does it target the homeowner in Tuxedo who is
paying $4,000 a year in property taxes and still is going to get a rebate
through the tax credit system? Reduced
by $75, pardon me. Does it target
them? Does it target the diner at
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
It hits people that‑‑
An Honourable Member: McDonald's.
Mr. Ashton: The Mcdonald's, indeed. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I take you one
step further than that because it is obvious to anyone. Anybody I have talked to has said that this
sales tax is going to hit us hard. It
was the same debate with the GST. The
difference between the PST and the GST, one of them, was the exemptions that
were there because they are very clearly expenditures that are impacted upon
greatly by low‑income people. Did
the Conservative government in bringing in the sales tax increase provide what
the GST has, and input tax credit to prevent cascading? No.
Did it provide any offsets in the way of tax credits which even the GST
did? Even the federal Tories brought in
a offsetting GST credit for low‑income Manitobans. No.
So what they have done is they have taken revenue
out of the hands of low‑ and modest‑income Manitobans with no
offset whatsoever. What have they done
on the tax credit side, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Well, they have brought in a minimum tax now. Who does that hit? Does that hit the person in Tuxedo or in
areas of the Lindenwoods, in Charleswood?
Does that hit people who are in that category? No.
Ironically, it hits many of the people in
small rural communities the hardest, many modest income people who have been
paying taxes but have had that offset by the tax credit. So the two main revenue measures in this
budget target low‑ and modest‑income Manitobans. There are no offsets. They are increases and expansions, in the
case of the sales tax that hit the kind of expenditures that low‑income
Manitobans are faced with, and in the case of the tax credit system, the most
significant change is to bring in this minimum tax which hits people on the low
end of the scale.
If the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) thinks
that it is a bunch of millionaires who are going to be impacted‑‑he
raised that comment from his seat, Madam Deputy Speaker, suggesting that these
are the ones, wealthy individuals staying in these houses‑‑then he
has serious problems. So that is the
second particular myth.
But, you know, there is a more important
myth which I wish to deal with when I complete my remarks tonight, and that is
that this is not an ideological budget.
I will point out, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is Conservative
philosophy, Conservative ideology, through and through and should be exposed as
such in this Legislature.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
When this matter is next before the House, the honourable member will
have 25 minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., I am leaving the
Chair and will return at 8 p.m. this evening.