LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday,
March 19, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): I beg to present the petition of E.V.
Schneiderat, L. Andree, Cameron Bonham and others requesting the Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon the Parliament of
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): I beg to present the petition of James
Forsman, Brenda Perry, Stephen McBride and others requesting that government
show a strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by considering restoring
the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign.
Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsland):
I beg to present the petition of Robert Rae,
John Duck, Stewart Cook and others requesting the government show its strong
commitment to aboriginal self‑government by considering reversing its
position on the AJI by supporting the recommendations within its jurisdiction
and implementing a separate and parallel justice system.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member, and 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?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT
child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of our society, but
nonetheless it exists in today's world; and
It
is the responsibility of the government to recognize and deal with this most
vicious of crimes; and
Programs
like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign raise public awareness and
necessary funds to deal with crime; and
The
decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper
the efforts of all good citizens to help abused children.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member, and 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?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT
child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of our society, but
nonetheless it exists in today's world; and
It
is the responsibility of the government to recognize and deal with this most
vicious of crimes; and
Programs
like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign raise public awareness and
necessary funds to deal with crime; and
The
decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper
the efforts of all good citizens to help abused children.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
* * *
I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member, and 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?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT
the bail review provisions in the Criminal Code of
The
problem of conjugal and family violence is a matter of grave concern for all
Canadians and requires a multifaceted approach to ensure that those at risk,
particularly women and children, be protected from further harm.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
*
(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
On
behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Tourism
Statistics
Decline
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, revenues in the last provincial
budget presented in this Chamber and being debated daily are basically flat
right throughout the government budget.
One of the issues dealing with revenue in
Mr.
Speaker, we have reviewed recent statistics and have been monitoring the
situation. The decline in tourism from
other countries in
I
would ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): Why
are we having this kind of decline in
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I should point out to the
honourable member that
I
should point out to the honourable member that in terms of our tourism trade,
approximately 80 percent of our visitations come from either Manitobans or
other Canadians, primarily from northwestern
The
80 percent, the solid core of our tourism industry, is in fact being maintained
and in fact growing somewhat. We will
address the situation in the
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicates that
There
is no other province that has suffered more of a decline than 5 percent from
all other countries.
I
would ask the government and the Premier (Mr. Filmon), as Chair of the Economic
Committee of Cabinet, as chair of the government committee responsible for this
issue: Why is
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I have already pointed out to
the honourable member that in part a major part of our focus was retaining and
building upon the 80 percent of our industry, and we have done just that. We fared probably better than many other
parts of
Another
statistic I would encourage him to look at is the whole issue of Canadians
going down to the
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, again to the First Minister (Mr.
Filmon): Why is Manitoba‑‑and
this is a point that was raised by the member for
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to further discussion
of this entire issue during our budget process in terms of the dollars being
allocated to tourism initiatives here in the province of Manitoba during 1992,
as well as the new tourism agreement that has just recently been signed with
the federal government, whereby some $5 million is going to be allocated to the
marketing of Manitoba and the Manitoba region.
So
what I point out to the honourable member is that we anticipate significant
growth in the tourism industry in 1992, and we will see improvement in that
area. I encourage further debate during
the budget process.
*
(1340)
Abinochi
Preschool
Program
Funding
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): My question is to the Minister responsible
for Native Affairs.
The
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry stated that maintaining aboriginal languages is
vital in rebuilding the culture lost through years of colonization. The Abinochi preschool language program seeks
to promote and strengthen this aboriginal language. The program has been praised by many groups,
and its curriculum is requested by groups right across
Is
the minister aware that this program will be forced to close its doors today to
30 children who are enrolled in this program?
Hon. James Downey
(Minister responsible for Native Affairs):
Mr. Speaker, there has been a series of meetings and considerable work
done as it related to this program. In
fact, this government, not the previous administration but this government, put
some additional funds in a year ago, some $64,000, to complete last year's
funding and complete last year's program. At the same time, there was a letter
sent in June of 1991 indicating the government would have no further funding
available to them and another one sent in October with the same message.
He
has to appreciate that it is very difficult to maintain the overall educational
programming for everyone. There are
tough choices that have to be made. We
have to maintain education in a broad sense of the word. There were no additional funds, and those
messages went to those individuals last June and last October.
Mr. Hickes: It is not a very tough choice when you fund‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Hickes: Will this minister reallocate the funds to
the Abinochi today or consider interim funding of $21,000 to the project so at
least it can continue until the end of June 1992 and look at long‑term
funding for this valuable project to preserve aboriginal languages in
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, I am not underestimating the
importance of the aboriginal language programming that I know is supported by
many people. The question is: Where would we take the resources from to
provide the funding which is being requested? That is the question. We have not heard that option coming forward.
As
I indicated a year ago, we did put some $64,000 to complete it. At the same time, we did indicate we could
not carry on with additional funding but would attempt to try and find
funding. Funding is not available. Rather than try to mislead or tell him that
it is, messages went out clearly in lots of time to indicate that other funding
would have to be found if it would in fact be carried on.
Minister
of Native Affairs
Public's
Confidence
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, how can the minister say that
his department has the confidence of the aboriginal people of
Hon. James Downey
(Minister responsible for Native Affairs):
Mr. Speaker, one has to, as I say, make tough decisions. Just two days ago, we signed an agreement
where some $117 million of federal‑provincial money will be taking the
people of the north‑central communities out of
Where
was the member for Rupertsland, where was the New Democratic Party, when they
were in office for so many years, leaving those people live in
*
(1345)
Funding
Decisions
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
My
question to the minister is: Who will be
evaluating the proposals and making the decisions on who will be receiving the
heritage grants?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, we have committed to a full
process of consultation with heritage organizations throughout the province so
that in fact the needs of the community can be determined and the funding will
proceed in a way that the community wishes.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the question is: Who is going to be making the decision as to
which organization is going to be receiving the money? All indications are is that it is going to be
the minister, and if that is the case, the minister is politicizing it. Does she not understand that?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are many
organizations out there within the heritage community who know and understand
the needs of the community. They will be
a part of the process in determining who in fact will be making the decisions
on the funding in the future.
Role
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Mr. Speaker, one has to wonder in terms of
what role‑‑to the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship‑‑is
the Heritage federation and all the volunteers, those who are interested in
heritage and the preservation of heritage in the province of Manitoba both in
the city of Winnipeg and rural Manitoba‑‑do they have to play under
this minister's new vision of how she is going to be doling out the grants to
different organizations?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, you know, there are many people
throughout the heritage community who have the ability to make those kinds of
decisions, and those decisions will be made.
In
the first question that the member for
Home Care
Program
Service
Reduction
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health in this
House continues to say that there have been no home care cutbacks in his budget
and in
Yesterday
we met with home care workers Gwen Boychuk and Doreen Burdeny of Dauphin, who
have had their hours cut in half. Yesterday we met as well with seniors like
Helen Gingera and John Dmytruk who have been cut off completely. These are only a few of the many who have
been cut off from home care.
Can
this Minister of Health explain to this House how he can justify cutting these
clients from these services when he says he is increasing his budget? Will he come clean with Manitobans and
acknowledge a devious budgeting process and that he is directing the lapsing of
those funds?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend from
Dauphin is asking a very, very important question.
An Honourable Member: He is not from Dauphin anymore; he is for
Dauphin.
*
(1350)
Mr. Orchard: I stand corrected, my honourable friend the
member for Dauphin, not from Dauphin.
Mr.
Speaker, my honourable friend makes a great to‑do about budget in home
care. My honourable friend might know
that the home care budget is approaching $62 million in the current budget that
we are now debating, and we expect the demand for service will achieve that.
The
other thing I want to remind my honourable friend of is that when he was around
the cabinet table, the government of the day commissioned the Price Waterhouse
investigation into the Continuing Care Program, the home care program. One of the recommendations that was accepted
by this government from the study initiated by the New Democrats when in office
was a reassessment of services on a periodic basis, and that, Mr. Speaker, has
been done.
From
time to time, when service provision is reassessed and a new patient condition
is identified where the services are increased, they are increased. However, the same applies when services are
no longer needed. They are curtailed by
that reassessment process which was advocated by my honourable friend when he
was in government.
Employee
Conflict of Interest
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, the home care workers say they
are not even consulted in any re‑evaluation process that is taking place.
Why
is this minister, after cutting off the seniors like Mrs. Gingera, like John
Dmytruk, preventing the home care workers from continuing to provide care to
these seniors by forcing them to sign conflict‑of‑interest statements
that prevent them from maintaining this close relationship that these seniors
have come to depend on for a number of years with these workers?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend, in posing
the question, of course, did not give any elucidation around the fact that his
government did apply reassessment criteria, and from time to time, under their
delivery of program as happens today, under a reassessment, services are
increased if needed and decreased if not needed.
Even
in my honourable friend's time, the care deliverer, the home care worker whom
he refers to, did not do those assessments of need. That was done by the same group that assesses
the individual to bring them into the home care program to meet their needs in
their home. The reassessment process is
never done by the care worker; it is done by the staff who assess the program
and the needs of the program.
If
I could be so direct with my honourable friend, is he asking if the service provision
workers who are receiving salary payments for providing service should be the
ones who determine the level of service?
I think that some might call that a conflict of interest, Mr. Speaker,
and not even in government did the New Democrats even advocate that, let alone
do it.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, this minister is referring them
to the private sector so they can pay for these services.
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Service
Reduction
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): There is an epidemic of wholesale cutbacks in
the
Will
this minister apologize to 82‑year‑old Helen Gingera, who depends
on a lifeline, who has a pacemaker and who explained to us in tears yesterday
that today she is being cut off from the services that she has come to depend
on and can no longer have the services from that caring worker who has worked
with her?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend refers to a
referral to a private sector provider of services. My honourable friend might want to clarify
the language around his statement, because I think what he will find out is
that the service provider who is probably being recommended to these
individuals is through a grant of government, through the support services for
seniors program, wherein government establishes the salary payment to a
volunteer co‑ordinator who then arranges for volunteers and not‑for‑profit
services in the community to be accessed by seniors to enhance their
independent living, services which are not provided by government, by the
taxpayers.
Mr.
Speaker, that successful support services for seniors program was one of the
bright ideas of the New Democrats when in government. Is he now saying that those are not
appropriate?
Home Care
Program
Service
Reduction
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I
have a couple of letters here from workers who tell us that their hours have
been cut tremendously, and support has been taken away from them. We also have a letter from a Mr. Karpiak,
whose mother is 82 years old, and he has been told that she cannot have any more
support because there is a cut in budget. That is what is in the letter.
Can
the minister explain, when he says there are no cuts to home care, why his
staff is sending out letters to families saying that there are cutbacks?
*
(1355)
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the reason we are saying that
there are no cutbacks to the home care budget is because, every single year,
the budget has gone up. Every single year, more intense levels of service are
provided to Manitobans to aid them in their independent living, to forestall
their admission to personal care homes, to aid and assist in early discharge
from hospitals, just exactly the policy that my honourable friends from time to
time advocate as good health care policy.
That, Sir, is why we have significantly increased the home care budget
again this year, to meet more needs in the community.
Mr.
Speaker, as I have said time and time again, when these New Democrats come with
individual cases, every one of them is a result of a review of their needs and
of other family members. It is something indeed that has been part of the
program for 15 years, was strongly advocated by the NDP‑commissioned
Price Waterhouse report, and we are following‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Wowchuk: I guess review means cutbacks for people‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Staff
Intimidation
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): No, Mr. Speaker, I certainly cannot answer
that because I am certainly not aware of any alleged, real, perceived, accused
or whatever my honourable friend just says in terms of intimidation of
workers. What is happening is the same
process that has happened for the approximately 15 years that we have had the
Continuing Care Program. The only difference
in home care today is the difference that you have when you buy services with
$62 million of budget versus some $36 million of budget the last time the New
Democrats were in office.
The
same policy of review is in place. My
honourable friends do not know what they are talking about when they say
no. During the term that they were
government, they would review the care needs of individuals, and if their care
needs changed, so did the service provision.
That could be an increase in service or a decrease in service according
to the need of the client.
Decision-Making
Process
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Wowchuk: What is going on in his department? When is he going to find out? Who has control of his department? Who is making these decisions and why‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The question has been put.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): I sense that there was a question of who is
running the home care budget in the regions, and I will tell you who is running
it. It is the professionals who have
always run the program. They make
professional assessment, and they make professional judgment on the basis of
needs of the client.
They
are not directed to make political decisions under the influence of opposition
New Democratic MLAs, nor are they under the threat from this side of the House
of acceding to demands by government MLAs.
They make a professional assessment as to what the clients' needs are,
and those needs are met, Sir, with a $62‑million budget this year. The kinds of politics and rhetoric my
honourable friend has accused professional staff of is shameful.
Beverage
Containers
Deposit
System
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, for the last five years, we have been telling the government that the
soft‑drink‑recycling system should include legislation which makes
it compulsory. For the past three years,
we have been telling them that the system that they put into place is not
working, yet we know that with regard to deposits on beer containers, it is
working. It is working to the tune of 90
percent. Even their own WRAP strategy,
which they say they support, indicates this type of an initiative.
Can
the Premier (Mr. Filmon) tell the House now why his government will not
recognize that halfway measures do not work and implement a deposit system that
has proven to be successful in the brewing industry and was once part of the
life of the soft drink industry?
*
(1400)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): We have heard all sorts of recommendations
from the Liberal Party opposite with respect‑‑[interjection] Oh, well, Mr. Speaker, we will talk about them.
Maybe
in my response to the budget, I will have time to read the articles about the
absolute disaster of the blue‑box program that was developed by the
Liberal government of Ontario: How it is
wasting tens of millions of dollars, how it is resulting in them collecting, by
the blue box, things that they are then having to pay to export all over the
world for recycling purposes. They
cannot do it within their own jurisdiction.
They are having to spend tens of millions of dollars to ship it to the
Without
addressing the substance of the question, which I will leave for the
Environment minister (Mr. Cummings), Mr. Speaker, we will not accept the
Liberal approach to recycling.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, perhaps since the Premier does
not like looking at Liberal policies, he would look at the Tory policy in the
Why
is this government prepared to accept responsibility only for a portion when
their own WRAP committee has suggested that they should be prepared to put into
place legislation which requires full responsibility for containers?
Mr. Filmon: I invite the Leader of the Liberal Party
(Mrs. Carstairs) to refer to the Financial Times of February 3, 1992. The
article is called: Trashed hopes, blue
boxes are going to cost taxpayers big.
It
talks about the absolute disaster of the Liberal recycling policy in
They
talk about kick‑starting the program with a $20‑million set‑up
fund. Then they talk about the costs of
all of these things.
Mr.
Speaker, the fact of the matter is that I will leave the detail of the question
to a debate during the Estimates of the Department of Environment, where the
Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) will respond to the detail of that
question.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the question is with respect to
a policy of this government, a government I thought the Premier headed. Perhaps it is the Minister of Environment who
is really making decisions with respect to this government.
Can
the First Minister (Mr. Filmon), who has that title because he is supposed to
be the first among ministers, tell us why they are determined to reject a
deposit system, a deposit system that in the province of Alberta has led to a
90 percent return on bottles and cans?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, since the Leader of the Liberal
Party has now finally acknowledged that she understands that I am not the minister
responsible for the environment, that there are groups of ministers who sit at
the table and that there is a Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) who will
answer her questions in detail, I will just remind her that the blue boxes are
costing taxpayers in Ontario, because of the program that the Liberal
government brought in, tens of millions of dollars by way of subsidy to Pepsi‑Cola
and Coca‑Cola, to multinational firms who are fleecing the public of
Ontario because of the Liberal policy of collecting things for which there is
not an economic use at the end.
I
will not accept her knowledge on recycling any more than I accept the knowledge
of her Liberal counterparts in
Independent
Schools
Funding
Formula
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Education and Training.
One
of the reasons for the cancellation of programs like Abinochi and the layoff of
teachers is the tens of millions of additional dollars that this government is
sending to private schools.
Since,
for the first time, the provincial budget, under an expenditure item, mentions
private schools, will the minister indicate today in the House exactly what the
private schools grant is for this year?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, no, I am not prepared to do that today because we have not announced
yet to those schools exactly what their funding will be in this year. We do have a new funding formula, and those
details are being worked out.
Agreement
Tabling Request
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the same minister: Can the minister table in the House the
agreement between the province and separate schools which commits the
government this year to a massive increase to private schools? Can she table that document in the House
today?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister
of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, there
is in fact an agreement that was determined by this government. I do not have it with me in the House to
table it at this time.
Mr. Chomiak: I will table that document. I will table it for the first time publicly.
Funding
Formula
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Can the minister confirm that the private
schools this year will receive 9 percent increase, which is three times the
rate of public schools, this year?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I will be dealing with the issue of funding to independent schools
when the announcement is made. I am sure
the member will be extremely interested in the funds going to the school in his
own constituency.
*
(1410)
Alfred
Block
Selkirk
Inspection
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Housing.
Manitoba
Housing is the owner of the Alfred block in Selkirk, an apartment which
recently failed a fire inspection. Conditions
there are deplorable and have been compared to
Will
the minister now investigate this apartment and other housing units in Selkirk
and order an immediate upgrading?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the situation the
member has brought forward. It has been
inspected. It is scheduled for
upgrading, and the work will be proceeding as quickly as possible.
Mr. Dewar: I would like to thank the minister for that
answer. Thank you.
Regional
Housing Authority
Selkirk
Staffing
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): In view of the recent budget cuts with
closures in Selkirk, will the Minister of Housing guarantee that there will be
no jobs lost at the Selkirk Housing Authority under his reorganization?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Housing): Mr. Speaker, the question of staffing of
Manitoba Housing Authority offices throughout the length and breadth of this
province will be the subject of an agreement as either adjudicated by the
Labour Board of the Province of Manitoba or by way of a co‑operative
agreement amongst the collective bargaining agents for members of that
group. We are in that process at the
moment, and no final decisions have been taken.
Mr. Dewar: Mr. Speaker, will the minister at least
ensure that the Housing Authority's office remains in Selkirk and not be moved
under this government's backsliding decentralization policies?
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, I reject categorically the
assertions of the member for Selkirk. If
he had been paying attention, about two months ago, we announced that the
office would be in Selkirk.
Soils and
Crops Branch
Budget
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker, the budget increases to
Agriculture are a welcome sight from this government which, over the past four
years, has failed to live up to its budgetary commitments to farmers during
some of the most difficult years farmers have faced since the Depression. While the budget implements the income
stabilization programs introduced by the federal government, we see very little
attention paid to the long‑term development of agricultural products and
markets and no commitment to sustainable agriculture.
My
question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture is: Can the minister tell
the House how a 12 percent cut in the program expenditures of the Soils and
Crops Branch demonstrates a commitment to sustainable agriculture when soil
degradation has been identified as one of the biggest environment challenges in
the world?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister
of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, starting in 1990, Manitoba got
into a joint federal‑provincial program called Farming for Tomorrow,
under the Soil Accord, set up 44 soil and water associations all across
Manitoba. That continues to be funded on
an escalating basis. That program
promotes conservation of soil. It
actually has resulted in a stimulus of the reduction of summer fallow acreage
in
Until
now, we are down to 7 percent of our acreage in summer fallow projected for
1992. It was 8 percent last year, far in
excess of the degree of activity in
Agricultural
Research
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): My supplementary question is to the same
minister, Mr. Speaker.
Why
did the minister cut his support for research at the University of Manitoba,
research aimed at developing new products, new farming methods and better soil
conservation which are designed to help farmers diversify and become more
efficient and compete in the global market?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the
level of support to the university directly in the budget has gone from
$875,000 to $800,000. It is regrettable
that we cannot fund more, but we have had to put an emphasis on the risk
reduction programs for farmers, like GRIP and NISA and tripartite, where we
increased expenditure in our budget from 36 percent about five years ago to 74
percent of our budget today to risk protection programs. That is our first priority.
Also,
I want to remind the member, there is an awful lot of research done at the farm
level, a lot of the research done by the private sector, which is not included
in my budget, and I dare say the level of research dollar expenditure in
Mr. Gaudry: No, it was not Laurie Evans who wrote the
questions. I wrote them myself, Mr.
Premier.
Agricultural
Industry
Diversification
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the
minister, if the Premier (Mr. Filmon) would leave us alone.
With
markets improving and income stabilization programs in place, why did this government
ignore investing in the long‑term challenges to the system, like
diversification and soil fertility, which will enable
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, two
months ago, I released a Visions for the 1990s document on the Department of
Agriculture, where we continued to emphasize diversification. We continue to work with the industry through
various initiatives to promote diversification, more value added, and
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENTS
Mr. Edward Connery (
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Mr. Connery: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to
congratulate the Manitoba Developmental Centre management and staff in
This
is not a new occurrence for the centre, I might add. It is the extension of the accreditation it
first received in 1989. This extension was based on an extensive process
involving an in‑depth survey of the centre, a centre that provides high‑quality
care and training for some 570 residents with mental disabilities.
This
accreditation recognizes the dedication of the administration and staff of the
centre. In order to attain
accreditation, the Manitoba Developmental Centre's governing body, medical,
nursing and support services had to meet the demanding standards of the
Canadian Council on Health Facilities. [interjection]
It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) is not
interested in good news for the handicapped.
Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured to congratulate the Manitoba Developmental Centre for
receiving their accreditation and join with all of the residents of
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): I would like leave for a nonpolitical
statement, please.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Leader have leave to make
a nonpolitical statement? Leave? It is agreed.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to, for the third
time in two days, join with the member for Portage on this statement that he
has made in the House, and applaud the staff, volunteers and community of
Portage la Prairie for the accreditation.
I
have often said and I have often felt that it is one of the most difficult and
challenging places to work. It is a
very, very difficult environment to work in and to be part of. As a person who is a volunteer with the mentally
handicapped, working with Special Olympics over the years, I have a tremendous
admiration for people all across Manitoba who work with the mentally
handicapped, whether it is at the development school or at St. Amant or in the
community or part of the Welcome Home or part of working with people back in
their own communities.
I
think
* * *
Mrs. Louise Dacquay (
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed.
Mrs. Dacquay: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the
House today to congratulate Dr. Robert McLeod of the
Dr.
McLeod received his Bachelor of Science in 1981 and his Ph.D. in 1985 through
the
The
faculty is extremely fortunate to have such a young academic who is as gifted,
enthusiastic and hardworking as Dr. McLeod.
He has made extraordinary contributions to the department in his six
years on staff.
Mr.
Speaker, I am honoured to extend my congratulations today to Dr. McLeod and the
other winners of the Rh Award.
*
(1420)
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
BUDGET
DEBATE
Mr. Speaker: On the adjourned debate, seventh 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 St. Norbert, who has 20
minutes remaining.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, after perusing Hansard just now,
I would like to apologize to the House and withdraw some statements that I made
in the heat of the moment yesterday and withdraw them unconditionally.
Mr.
Speaker, I think that this government has established a bench mark with this
budget, a bench mark for all governments throughout this country to
follow. I think we have to congratulate
our minister and our Treasury Board for working very hard to establish a more
than fair budget. They are working in
hard times to establish what is fair for this province. I think they have done one of the best jobs
that any government in this country will do to date. If the other provinces will follow this bench
mark, I think that this country will be led into the future and be further
ahead in the global economy today.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to, at this time, thank the constituency of St. Norbert
for their undivided support over the past two years. I have attempted to be their voice here in
the Legislature, and I have tried to see that my voice has been heard. I have seen that they are being listened to,
and I am working diligently with tenacity to see that this government makes the
right choices. To date, this government
has made the right choices.
Mr.
Speaker, my constituents would like, at this time, to thank the Hazardous Waste
Management Corporation and this government for the decision on the
establishment of a hazardous waste facility in Montcalm. We believe it is a win‑win situation
for this province. There was a lot of
psychological effect within my community with this topic, and I am glad that
the decision was finally made and the people's voices of my constituency were
heard.
I
do not believe that the philosophy of the NDP will come back to life in this
government for many years to come. I
believe that the people of this province have seen a new era, they have seen
what an NDP government can do to a province.
I think they see now, today, what a Conservative government can do for
this province. They are happy with what
they see, Mr. Speaker, because all they ever hear from the voices of the NDP
and their special interests groups are tax increases.
Again,
today in the paper I read that their special interest group, Choices, went to
the city and said it should be a minimum of 2.9 percent increase‑‑a
minimum. This is their special interest
group, the NDP's special interest group, claiming it should be a 2.9 percent
minimum.
Mr.
Speaker, the citizens of
On
that note, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank this House for listening and
thank you very much.
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to
participate in the 1992‑1993 Budget Debate. I wish to focus on three topic areas: first, the political relationship between
economic performance perceived to be under the management of the incumbent party
in government and their fortunes in the ensuing electoral contest; second, on
the economic relationship between the transforming economic structure and the
changing microeconomic policies and industrialist strategies needed by a
transformed economy; and, thirdly, on some positive ideas about what to do in
order that we may survive economically in the face of a globalized economic
competition going on for the preservation of our standard of living, and the
continuation of our economic growth compatible with environmental necessities.
On
the first point, there is a link between economic conditions and the political
outcome of electoral contests. Rightly or wrongly, the voters, the electorate,
hold the party incumbent in government responsible for the economic performance
regardless of whether or not there are some objective forces at work which are
beyond the control of the governing party.
We
have seen that economic conditions in the community, in the society, in the
province, alter and influence the perspective and outlook of the voters. They reward the party incumbent in government
for a good economic performance, and they punish the incumbent party in
government for bad economic times.
Naturally enough, the politicians and political parties in control of
the machinery of government will do the best they can in order to influence, by
resorting to some economic controls, the workings of the economy, in order that
they can alter the perspective of the voters and secure the support and
persuade them to re-elect them for the ensuing electoral cycle.
This
is true not only in
In
the post‑Keynesian era, more than one government has been tempted to seek
favourable context for an election by expanding the economy although
dissolutions are more easily timed with expansion rather than the other way
around. In other words, the party which
is in control of the government seeks to manipulate the economic variables
within their control in order to improve the economic conditions of the people,
especially during pre‑election and election years.
If
there is an increase in the disposable income of the people‑‑and we
will notice this with the coming federal election‑‑there will
probably be a greater frequency of cheques going to the hands of recipients of
some programs in government so that they will have more money in their hands
and they feel they have prosperity in their hands in order that they may be
persuaded to re‑elect the party government in power.
*
(1430)
In
the United States, for example, it has been shown that there is a direct
correlation between the increase in the growth of real disposable income per
capita and the nature of the year involved, whether it is an election year or not. Over the entire period from 1946 to 1976,
including the Eisenhower years, in a period of 31 years, the median rate of
growth in real disposable income per capita was 3.3 percent during the years
when the incumbent president was seeking re‑election, compared to only
1.7 percent in all other years which is not a presidential election year, 3.3
as against 1.7 increase in the real per capita income in the United States
economy.
It
is clear therefore that the government has been doing its best to improve the
economic condition, at least the perspective of the people: how the economy is doing during electoral
years, during election years, than compared to years where there are no
elections. The regular governmental
agencies are just too eager to help out in this regard, partly because they
want to stay out of trouble from politicians who, because of advantages of
incumbency, may likely be returned to power; so they co‑operate.
They
are all too willing to improve the economic conditions of the people, and if an
election year would help, they are willing to do that hoping that this will be
a more or less permanent development.
Therefore, real income tends to increase in all industrialized societies‑‑in
This
is due to the advice of economists who are in advisory councils, advising
politicians and leaders of countries.
For example, it has been noted that Paul Samuelson, a well‑known
economist, had written to President Kennedy and the council of economic
advisors the following: I have been
telling them at the office what this country needs is an across‑the‑board
rise in disposable income to lower the level of unemployment, speed up the
recovery and the return to healthy growth, promote capital formation and the
general welfare, ensure domestic tranquility and ensure the triumph of the
Democratic Party. That is Paul Samuelson
in relation to President Kennedy and the performance of the economy in order to
assure the election of the Democratic Party.
It
is very clear that there are certain instruments of monetary and fiscal control
available to the party in government.
They can put larger cheques in the mail during the months before the
election, and we probably will see this with the Mulroney government. There may be budget deficits, but they will
not mind it. They can go contrary to
that if they can win the next election.
Manipulation
of the control of the economy by the ruling party is therefore a natural
phenomenon that we can expect during election year. There is, therefore, a natural
synchronization of economic fluctuations in the economy and the nature of the
year that we are in, whether it is an election year or an off‑election
year. Electoral candidates will seek the
timing of the election so that they can increase the probability of their re‑election.
Mulroney, for example, the present Prime Minister, will probably postpone the
traditional four‑year electoral cycle and go for the fifth year if that
means that they can win the next federal election.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
While
the electoral calendar helps the timing of economic policy, the ideology of
political parties and the ideology of political leaders will shape the
substance of that policy. Parties of the right will favour low rates of
taxation, and we have seen that in this government. They say, no taxes this year. They will try to control inflationary pressures. They will oppose income equalization. They would rather go for a higher rate of
unemployment but less inflation.
This
is true of the federal government. The
central Bank of
On
the other hand, parties of the left will favour income equalization. They will try to lower the rate of
unemployment through larger governmental budgets, and they would not hesitate
to allow a little bit of inflation in order to reduce the rate of
unemployment. This holds true in all
countries, industrialized, that are based on a capitalistic economic system.
In
The
voting public, the electorate, when they exercise their right of choice, will
choose between parties who have differing economic priorities and will hold the
party incumbent in government, rightly or wrongly, responsible and accountable
for bad economic times, and reward them for good economic times. Therefore,
there is an artificial pre‑election prosperity, but this is only in the
short run.
After
the electoral year is over, that dispensation of public money will have somehow
to be paid for by increasing rates of taxation to make up for the cost of such
economic extravagances during election year.
As goes politics, so goes economics.
As is stated by Edward Tufte of
*
(1440)
Let
me now go to the second point, Mr. Acting Speaker, how the globalization of our
economies, the transformation of economic structure has been changing,
macroeconomic policies, industrialist strategies of government, and this is
best indicated by what is going on in the most progressive and advanced country
in the industrial world today, namely, that of Japan.
It
is worth looking, therefore, a little bit closer into what is going on, what is
happening in the Japanese economy.
Contrary to what the popular belief and myth that Japanese firms are
huge corporations like we know‑‑like Mitsubishi,
On
the other hand, the organization of the large firm is not the same as our
corporate giants in our continent. They
organize themselves like a community.
The company not only gives fringe benefits, they also have group
programs for hobby classes, for vacations, and they are assured, more or less,
lifetime employment until they are retired.
Retirement in
In
Unlike
our corporations in this part of the world, which are mostly financed by
selling shares of the stocks and portions of ownership of the firm, the
Japanese firms do not finance their activities by selling shares in stocks. They would rather borrow money in the form of
loans from their favourite banks, and so they have no worry about making
dividend declarations or announcements every quarter or every year, because
these are loans‑‑that does not have to pay dividends.
True,
indeed, they have to pay interest, but in terms of economic prosperity and in
terms of industrial success, they can even buy out the loan. So they generate their own internal funds,
and because they do not worry about expansion, because they have their own
funding through internal funds, they can focus their goals and objectives
through a greater share of the market rather than immediate profits. The greater share of the market, therefore,
is a much higher objective for Japanese managers than immediate short‑run
profit.
One
more thing. They do not worry about
hostile corporate takeover, because in
The
stability of the economic system is also attributed to the political stability
in the sense that since 1955 there has only been one national party that has
always been re‑elected to power in
Because
of the fact that they have a stable ruling party, that ruling party throughout
all its years had succeeded in 14 coalitions among major interest groups to
help and support them in every electoral contest except with organized labour.
They have gathered the support of all the other major groups in Japanese
society. That is why the political
struggle tends to take place within the structure of the party rather than
outside in the general election.
The
bureaucracy in
The
civil service you can see is a status symbol.
The most likely thing any family would be proud of is one of their
children being able to succeed in entering the Japanese civil service. The Japanese civil service therefore is
highly elitist, like the French civil service is an elite kind of army of civil
servants with tremendous influence in the formulation of policy.
The
most influential of this is the ministry of international trade and
industry. They have jurisdiction over
trade policy through control of resources, manufacturing, commercial
technology, small businesses‑‑except macroeconomic policy which
falls under the ministry of finance.
During
all these years, the Japanese headed up a strategy of anticipating the future
and reorganizing their industry accordingly.
They do not seek to change or alter the impersonal economic forces. They have resorted to certain policies like
even controlling foreign exchange, and they have indirect influence over the
disposal of capital through the control of the banks. In all these years they have accepted the
legitimacy of governmental intervention in the formulation of this national
macroeconomic policy and industrialist strategy. However, all these policies have been
developed not through imposition by the national government, it has been
developed through consultation and co‑operation from industry.
They
talk about it, they negotiate about it until they come to a consensus. Once they have come to a consensus, they
would implement that policy accordingly.
Even among those sectors of the industry which are diminishing, they
have a very rational policy. Unlike our
economy where we weed out the inefficient firm through the market forces, and
they just disappear or they wind up and become bankrupt, in
*
(1450)
What
they do is they will organize a legal cartel among all the declining
industries, so that they can have an agreement to reduce their capacity
gradually until they bring supply closely going to them with demand, according
to the rate of decline of the industry.
They allow the producer to allow orderly decline. They do not grant them
subsidies, they just have the policy of helping them all adjust by diminishing
their industrial capacity slowly. As
they modernize their equipment or they diversify, there is no monetary subsidy,
it is only purely policy and technical help.
The
reason is that they are trying to avoid the political manipulation of
macroeconomic and industrial policy by people in politics. So they do not give too much money; so they do
not generate that kind of pressures among their constituents, among the major
groups in the Japanese society. By not
dispensing a great deal of money and relying greatly on co‑operation
among the major firms themselves, how they could rationalize any decline in any
sector of the industry, they keep the industrial policy pure from being
distorted by political controversy.
Now,
what positive ideas can we pick up from all this experience? What ideas can we consider useful in order
that we may restructure our system and be able to compete with the advanced
economies on an equal footing, and thus avoid our economic decline and erosion
in our standard of living? How do we do
that?
In
order to better compete with
We
have been following the old classical model.
The thinking belongs to the manager and doing belongs to the hard
hat. This is the old philosophy of
Frederick Taylor. We have been accustomed
to that. In modern, advanced,
progressive economies, they require that thinking should take place all across
the productive process from the top to the bottom.
We
need a work force who can think their way through unfamiliar problems, not only
waiting for instructions all the time, but they can make decisions. We need a work force who can handle complex
tools in the workplace and can make rational decisions.
How
do we do that? It is related, of course,
to our educational system. Right here in
our society, even at the higher post‑secondary level, the students are
generally doing school work that they do not see any relevance with what they
do in school and what they will later do when they are out in the work
force. The jobs generally bear no
resemblance whatsoever to the student's school work. Of course, many of our students are employed
part time, but what they do outside is generally alien to what they study.
Students
in other industrial societies have a rational transition system program. For example, in
If
our society is to compete successfully with the trained, skillful work force of
these developing nations, then we must likewise develop a work force not only
capable of their academic enhancement, but also possessed with practical
knowledge and skills that they can apply immediately to the work environment
when they go out of the educational institution.
We
cannot do so, or compete with them, by simply having better machinery because
many of these low‑wage countries can use the same machine and, of course,
they can sell their product more cheaply than we can.
We
need to develop our front‑line workers such that they are capable of
accepting more responsibility. We need
to educate them well. We have to train
them to develop relevant skills while they are in the process of
education. I think there is some merit
to the idea that learning and doing should be integrated together in all our
educational institutions. You learn in
the morning, whatever it is, algebra or geometry, and then you apply it in the
afternoon. Then you do not forget what
you learn. For example, employers here
are not interested just because a student is good in mathematics. They are interested if they can audit their
receipts in a small business. The
application is the real test of true utility of knowledge.
We
must also set a new kind of educational standard. The standard should more or less be uniform
across the nation. It must be a standard
that is performance‑based, based on performance, not the opinion of the
evaluators. We need to establish
national committees of people from business, from labour, from education, from
public bodies, that can define this performance‑based standard for the
professional preparation of our students and the work force of the future. We must be able to combine general education
with a specific occupational skill in order to make them competent and then be
able to accept responsibility and make decisions in the work site.
We
need, therefore, a new form of educational system as well as a new form of work
organization. The firms in our society
have not consciously invested at least 1 percent of their total payroll in the
training and education of the worker.
Why? Because they are afraid after the worker has been trained, money
has been spent for their education and for their training, this worker may move
to the
*
(1500)
In
We
need students, even at our high school level, who are trained in basic
competence in reading, mathematics, science, but also in problem solving and
application of all this knowledge. I
believe that the economic performance of any country, of any nation, of any
community depends upon the human resource factor as input, better than any
capital investment.
If
it is the work force that you invest your money in and you train them
competently, efficiently so they have all the necessary knowledge and skills to
make decisions at any level in the productive process, then you will almost
always, without doubt, increase the level of productivity. Without a trained work force we cannot hope
to compete with the other advancing economies of the world.
They
must have a mastery so they can apply what they learned. It is the constant interplay between learning
and between applying that makes up for good economic performance in any firm,
in any industry.
We
therefore need a work force with basic skills in reading, writing, mathematics,
speaking, listening. We also need to
develop in them thinking skills, creativity, decision making, problem solving
as well as personal qualities like responsibility, self‑discipline and
integrity.
In
addition, we must be able to develop in them the ability in several areas of
competence in allocating time, money and other resources, competence in working
with teams, in negotiating and in serving customers, in their skills in
manipulating and collecting and processing information and data, selecting and
using important technology and understanding the social, economic and technical
system in our institutions in our society.
If we have all this training in our work force then we can surely
successfully compete with the other developing nations.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I have shown that we need a changed work force and a changed
work environment if we are to succeed in competing with the other industrial
economies of the world.
Thank
you.
Mrs. Louise Dacquay (
I
would like to offer my congratulations to the Finance minister (Mr. Manness)
for bringing forth such a positive, responsible budget, a budget aimed at
helping speed Manitoba's recovery from the recession affecting all of
Canada. We know that our recovery will
not be a simple or a quick one, but we know that if we all work together we
will indeed emerge victorious.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, Manitobans have demonstrated on numerous occasions throughout
our province's 122‑year history that by working together we can and will
triumph over adversities. I encourage
all Manitobans to join in that spirit of positive thinking and optimism as we
work our way out of this recession.
Already
I note that we are beginning to see some positive signs and indicators that we
are slowly emerging. The inflation rate
is down significantly. Interest rates
remain vastly lower than their peak of two years ago, and news of recovery
among our trading partners continues to mount.
These facts help to create the type of optimism we need more of, a
thought right in keeping with an important point the Finance minister raised in
his Budget Address. Just as enthusiasm
is contagious, so is optimism.
I
recently read an article that quoted commerce secretary Barbara Franklin, who
cited a survey showing that small businesses expect improvement in 1992 in
their sales, employment, capital spending and profitability. She stated that this news is spreading across
the economy. These again are thoughts
that are definitely in keeping with an important point our Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) raised in his Budget Address.
I,
too, believe that our key lies in our attitude.
I have already begun to see the signs of optimism within our own small
business community. They continually
reject the constant negativity of the opposition members who seem to revel in
any scrap of news that can be interpreted as poor or bad. Instead of offering Manitobans encouragement
when jobs are at a premium, they strike fear in the hearts of the
unemployed. If you listen to the
opposition's view of the world‑‑and it seems they have no
difficulty in spreading their message‑‑you would think the best
solution would be just to wither up and blow away. Mr. Acting Speaker, I reject that line of
thinking, and I am proud to say that most Manitobans also reject that line of
thinking.
This
budget, I believe, will help to encourage more Manitobans to join in and work
together in building a stronger
This
budget also features no increase in sales tax, no increase in business tax,
and, I am proud to note, no increase in the provincial deficit. This budget also demonstrates that you can
deliver positive initiatives and increase commitments to vital human services.
Our
government increased its financial commitment to Health by 5.7 percent, an
impressive $101‑million increase.
I also note an impressive 8.7 percent increase in Family Services. That is an additional $51 million. Education and Training also saw a healthy
increase of 5.5 percent, or some $52 million.
Our government believes that these increases, totalling $204 million for
priority social programs, are both necessary and appropriate at this time.
*
(1510)
During
delivery of the budget, the Finance minister (Mr. Manness) called on all
Manitobans to draw on their instinctive feeling of pride and determination to
bring about a renewed sense of optimism toward
As
a government, we indeed have taken concrete steps to encourage and promote this
economic recovery. By saying no to
personal tax increases, no to business tax increase, and no to an increase in
sales tax, our government is demonstrating that we are prepared to live within
our means. I will repeat that. We are prepared to live within our means,
maintaining priority program spending and freezing personal income taxes,
unlike another level of government that seems to have difficulty in that area.
The
City of
In
today's Free Press, Richard Orlandini advocated a doubling of the city's
proposed 1.5 percent tax increase, typical NDP response. Jack up the taxes. That is the solution to all the
problems. Then to talk about hypocrisy,
the Choices spokesman says the city's lower income earners are continually
being subjected to unavoidable increases, and what does he do? He proposes that the proposed tax increase
for the city be doubled. Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, we say no to that assertion
and we encourage all other levels of government to do the same. Live within your means. The taxpayer is paying all of the tax that
they can afford.
This
budget also provided additional funding for the City of
The
1992 funding to the city includes $20,910,000 for an unconditional current
programs grant, which may be applied toward the delivery of any program based
on the city's priorities; $17,450,000 for the urban transit operating grant to
contribute up to 50 percent of the 1992 transit operating deficit; $8,262,000
for a general support grant as unconditional financial assistance to the city;
$27,200,000 in provincial‑municipal tax sharing payments‑‑and
this, coincidentally is just an initial estimate, the final announcement will
be made in July‑‑$16,233,500 for capital grants under the renewed
urban capital projects allocation announced last fall; and an additional
capital grant commitment of $154,000 for a transportation study proposed for
1993. As well, we put in an additional
$5 million for the public works job creation program that will be used for
infrastructure projects in the city of
I
would also like to quickly take a look at some of the other initiatives
contained in our budget, some of the initiatives that indeed will, in my
opinion, help to assist restore our economic outlook and also help create jobs,
help small business and other medium‑sized businesses, indeed, inject
some of their revenue and give them some renewed optimism toward moving into
the next decade. The temporary 10
percent income tax credit should encourage businesses for new investment in
both manufacturing and processing.
Additionally: a new 15 percent
nonrefundable Manitoba research and development tax credit, an extension of the
payroll training tax credit; $20 million over four years for the Manitoba
industrial recruitment initiative to help create new business and stimulate
expansion of Manitoba‑based industries; and $2.5 million for the new
expanded training at Manitoba's three community colleges; $1.4 million for
Partners with Youth, a program to help create jobs for young Manitobans.
There
were additionally other initiatives indicated in the budget, Mr. Acting
Speaker, designed to stimulate further the economic growth in certain key
industry sectors: the mining exploration
cost, the elimination of the corporation capital tax, a mining tax holiday that
should permit companies to recover their full investment in new mines, a one
cent a litre reduction in railway locomotive fuel and a 0.8 percent a litre
reduction on aviation fuel.
To
achieve tax fairness, Mr. Acting Speaker, the minister also announced plans to
tighten tax enforcement rules by introducing anti‑avoidance
legislation. These tax initiatives will
not only stimulate economic growth but will do so without placing an increased
burden on the backs of
Additionally,
this budget supports several programs that are already helping to get the
economy growing again. Some of these
initiatives include Grow Bonds, the Rural Economic Development Initiative, the
Crocus Investment Fund, the Vision Capital Fund, the Mineral Exploration Incentive
Program, and the Economic Innovation and Technology Fund. These initiatives will allow us to form
working partnerships between government, labour and the private sector.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, in closing, my constituents are extremely pleased with our
government's budget. All of my calls
have been extremely positive. More
importantly, they are impressed with our government's carefully prioritized
spending record. They have indicated to
me that they are prepared to work toward the important economic recovery that
is so vital to all Manitobans, and our government is working with them every
step of the way.
Thank
you, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Acting Speaker, last year in reply to the
throne speech I praised the government for three things. Two of those things were used against me in
Question Period: one by the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer); one by the Minister of Housing (Mr.
Ernst). The third item, the government
betrayed itself. They made a promise and
then they broke it. So I think I struck
out three out of three.
This
year I have learned from my previous experience, and I am not going to praise
the government for anything. However, I
would have been hard pressed to find something in the Finance minister's speech
to praise in any case, but I will try to find something positive, if I can.
*
(1520)
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I think there are only two ways for this government to get re‑elected: one would be if they could balance the
budget; the other would be if they could significantly reduce the rate of
unemployment. As for reducing the
deficit to zero, the operating deficit in one year, I do not think it can
happen. We would have to either significantly increase revenue by either
raising taxes or getting substantial increases in federal transfer payments or
significantly cutting expenses. I do not
think that this government is going to do any of those things or be able to do
any of those things. Unless the
recession in
We
know that it is very, very difficult for a government, regardless of what
political party is in office, to make deep, deep cuts in government programs
and expenditures, especially if we are talking in the area of $300 million to
$500 million. Even if ideologically or
philosophically the government wanted to do that, I think it would be
impossible. As for significantly
increasing revenue‑‑
An Honourable Member: Is it all right if they make those cuts in
Mr. Martindale: The honourable member from Pembina asked if
it would be possible to do that in
An Honourable Member: You are going to tell us how you would govern,
are you? Like, your Leader . . . but you
would, right?
Mr. Martindale: Well, I have some suggestions if the
honourable member will listen. I do not
think that this government can significantly increase revenues unless of course
the economy were to completely turn around and revenue from taxes were to go up
on its own simply because the economy had recovered. The other way of doing it would be to
increase taxes, and we know that this government abhors doing that.
The
other way that I suggested that this government could get re‑elected
would be to significantly reduce the rate of unemployment. Well, how could they do that? Possibly by doing nothing, but by waiting for
the economy to recover. It is possible
that the economy might recover on its own and, certainly, I think this is the
hands‑off approach of this government, that they are hoping that when the
economy recovers in the world‑wide recession and in the United States and
in the rest of Canada that that will have certain spin‑offs and benefits
to the province of Manitoba and that the economy will turn around here as well.
The
other alternative to reduce unemployment is to improve the economy of
The
third way that this government could significantly reduce the rate of
unemployment would be if they spent large amounts of money on job
creation. Now that is something that
they could do, but I think philosophically and politically they are not
interested in doing and probably will not do.
Next,
I would like to look at where spending is up in the Finance minister's budget
and look particularly at three departments:
Agriculture, Energy and Mines and Family Services. We see in Agriculture
that the budget is up from $112 million to $135 million, which is indeed a very
significant increase. If you look at the
budget, you can see that there are reasons for that and they are to be found in
two main areas. One is a substantial
increase in the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation budget and in the Income
Insurance and Support Program.
Can
those increases be justified? Yes, I
think they can. We know that people in
rural
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
I
would like to quote from the Sentinel Courier, which is the paper that serves
the communities of Pilot Mound,
This
is what she said: "Farmers of every
age and every economic background have come forth and said the hurt is on my
farm and my family is suffering. People
who are just starting in this business told of how they were living on $7,000
per year, others that were lucky enough to have saved some money for a rainy
day said it was gone and the equity that had been built up over the years was
now being eroded."
We
know that farmers are hurting. What is
it that farmers wanted? If I could quote
Leanne Knutson again, she said, "We do have a different perspective on
life and our lifestyles may vary from region to region, but we do want the same
things. Quality of life, security,
education and pride in our accomplishments. This isn't possible without
remuneration for the important role we play in society. We need a further commitment from this
government and from our fellow taxpayers to allow us the dignity to go on. In this province alone, one in every eight
jobs are a direct result of the agricultural industry. Without us, jobs will be lost."
Are
the demands of the farming community reasonable? Yes, I believe they are. Why am I using this? I am using it to draw an analogy. I think that just as the reasonable requests,
as I have said, of the farm community have been made on government and the
government has responded by substantially increasing funding through the
Department of Agriculture, I think there are other groups in our society that
are hurting as well.
A
very large group in our society that is hurting is the 52,000 people who are
unemployed. These people are in similar
circumstances. When people lose their
jobs, they feel that it is a blow to their dignity and their pride because they
want to be working.
How
has this government responded to the 52,000 people who are unemployed? I would like to suggest that they responded
primarily in two ways: first of all,
with tax concessions, and secondly, by increasing social assistance payments,
which they were and are legally required to pay in any case.
What
were some of the tax concessions? If you
look at the budget again one of the largest increases in budgets is in the
Department of Energy and Mines, where the budget increased from $9 million to
$15 million. The main reasons for this
are a mining tax holiday and elimination of corporations capital tax on mine
exploration.
In
the budget, there were five other tax breaks and tax credits.
As
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) said in his budget speech, the purpose is
to promote activity in specific sectors of the economy.
I
think his goal is commendable, but I have problems with tax incentives. Tax incentives have been studied by many
economists. I was reading some of those
studies this morning, and the economist that I was reading pointed out that tax
incentives do not usually work, and they gave some reasons. The first is that if demand for a company's
products are low, it is unlikely they will invest even if there are incentives
to do so, and by this I mean government incentives to do so. Secondly, if demand is high, the company
would have invested anyway and the tax break is an added windfall.
Four
Canadian studies all found that the amount of increased investment generated by
the incentives was actually less than the amount of money the government gave
up in revenue. Douglas May, an
economist, found that for every dollar Ottawa gave up in corporate tax breaks
to stimulate investment, it got about 21 cents of new investment back. Douglas May, the economist, also said that
tax breaks created unemployment as companies invested in new equipment and laid
off staff.
I
think when the government gives tax breaks and tax incentives the public need
to know how much additional investment will result. I do not think that the government has
studied this sufficiently. I doubt very
much if they have any predictions. If they do, I would be interested in hearing
about that from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness).
*
(1530)
Another
question is: How do we know that
whatever benefit is derived is greater than benefits that might have accrued to
equivalent tax savings for wage earners who would spend the extra dollars? Tax breaks allow corporations to dramatically
reduce their taxes. It is just a way of
channeling money to business, which we know from previous budgets this
government is fond of doing.‑‑[interjection]
In
response to the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh), I do not know why mining
companies pulled out of
The
third area where we see a large increase in budget is in the Department of
Family Services, whose budget went up from $589 million to $640 million. If you look through the line‑by‑line
spending it is very obvious where the majority of that increase is going to be
spent. The first area is on provincial
social assistance or welfare, where there is a projected increase of $11
million. The second area is municipal
assistance or welfare, where there is projected to be an increase of $21
million, for a total of $32 million. I
suspect that may be even higher than what the government is projecting.
This
morning I was visiting one of the city of
Now,
of course, we are seeing people who have had good jobs and their unemployment
insurance has run out, and they are being forced to go to city social
assistance. These are not people who
have been unemployed before. Many of
them are the new unemployed, and many of them have homes. In fact, I was told that social assistance is
paying the mortgage payments on these homes, and it is not uncommon to be
paying $900 or $1,000 a month mortgage payments.
They
will even pay second mortgage payments, and they will pay interest‑only
mortgage payments. This was quite a
revelation to me. I do not know whether
that will continue indefinitely or whether eventually they say to people this
is costing the public Treasury too much money.
Hopefully, the situation that they find themselves in is temporary, and
they will find jobs and support themselves.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Would
you make them sell their homes? Is that
what you are suggesting?
Mr. Martindale: The Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) asks if I am in favour of forcing them to sell their house, and
the answer is no. I think that people
should be allowed to stay where they are and, in fact, under the current laws
they are able to.
I
believe that the government had a choice in this budget as they do with every
budget. They could put money into job
creation or put money into welfare.
Obviously, they chose to put large sums of money into welfare.
If
I could go back to my advice about the next election, we might ask, well, what
would it take to get re‑elected by reducing unemployment? If they were able to get 10,000 people back
to work, would they get re‑elected?
If you put 20,000 people back to work, would you get re‑elected? Would it take 30,000 people back to work?
I
am suggesting that if this government were successful in significantly reducing
unemployment that it would certainly improve their election chances.
What
I am hearing and what my colleagues are hearing when we knock on doors is not
that people want the government to spend more money on welfare, they want the
government to spend money on job creation.
I think that taxpayers would support the government spending money on
job creation and pay people to work rather than pay people to collect welfare.
That
is what they are doing. They are paying
people to stay home. I believe that the
majority of the public would prefer to see those people working. They would rather pay people to work than pay
people to stay home.
Why
will the government not do this? Because
they do not believe in job creation except through capital works projects.
Instead they are putting all their marbles in two baskets. One is tax incentives, and the other is so‑called
consumer confidence, but I do not know how they are going to instill consumer
confidence and business community confidence with the policies that they have
now. I believe that people do want to
work.
In
fact, I have had numerous discussions with my honourable friend from Rossmere
(Mr. Neufeld) on this topic, and he says that he has actually learned something
from my advice, and I think discussions with Harold are always
interesting. I think it is a two‑way
street.
An Honourable Member: He has always been a closet NDPer.
Mr. Martindale: If he is a closet anything, I think he is a
closet member of the Reform Party.
An Honourable Member: He is a Liberal.
Mr. Martindale: There is a dispute going on here. Some people think he is a Liberal.
I
am straying from the point I was trying to make, and that is that there are
many, many people out there who want to work. I have convinced the member for
Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) that this is true, and he has acknowledged that.
Just
today when I was at the social assistance office, the city welfare office, on
the door of the supervisor who I was visiting were these two notices. One said jobs, jobs; the other said jobs,
jobs, jobs, which sounds like Mulroney in 1984.
The
job is described and the address. I
said, well, how long is it going to take for these jobs to be filled to prove
my point that there are people who want to work? She said these were posted at 1:30 yesterday
and by 4:30 both of these jobs would have been filled. She said that people who come there do not
want to be on welfare. They want to
work. There are people who have never
been in a welfare office in their lives, and she said people have offered to
shovel snow in front of the office rather than come in. They are embarrassed to find themselves in a
welfare office.
If
I can go back to my analogy about agriculture, and to quote the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness), he said, quote:
We will continue to stand with our farmers in these difficult times, and
as a result resources deployed through the Agriculture department will increase
by $23 million or 21 percent.
What
about the 52,000 people who are unemployed?
I believe that they are a resource, that the government should consider
job creation as an investment, an investment of people as well as an investment
in the
There
are a number of particular items that I would like to look at in the budget, in
addition to the three large areas of increased expenditure. One is the Core Area Initiative. We on this side are very disappointed that
the government has not allocated significant sums of money to the Core Area
Initiative.
Now
perhaps they know something that we do not.
They probably know where the negotiations are at with the federal
government or where they are not at if they are not being very successful. It may be that the federal government has
said, no, we will not put any money in in 1992‑93, that we are going to
wait till '93‑94. Therefore, there
is a reason for not putting money into the Core Area Initiative this year, but
we do not know that. We probably will
not know until there is some kind of announcement from the three levels of
government.
We
do know that the first and second Core Area Initiatives were very
successful. They were successful in
improving the downtown core of
I
have heard that if there is another Core Area Initiative agreement that it will
include housing as a priority, and I am pleased to see that. In fact, I am pleased to see that the budget
for the Department of Housing is increased this year over last year, that it
will probably include job creation and training, especially job training. If that is the case, then we commend the
three levels of government for making that emphasis.
*
(1540)
I
have been told that it will include
We
see with interest that the government did allocate $1 million to implementing
the recommendations of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry. We know from reading the report that some
recommendations will actually cost the government less money, some will cost
about the same, and some will cost more.
I do not know which recommendations will cost more, but certainly the
report is quite honest on that score. We
do not know the government's priorities yet, so we do not know how they will
spend the $1 million implementing the AJI recommendations.
I
did have occasion to be part of our caucus who met with a very interesting
group from
They
said to us, you know, we have been doing this very cheaply since 1984. We have been doing it very successfully since
1984. We have been doing it on our own;
we have not had judges being flown in at great expense to
If
that is the case, then it could save the government thousands of dollars. It would seem to make sense to have it
administered locally, and the people who run it be aboriginal people in keeping
with the recommendations of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, and that it be a
diversionary program which in essence it is.
Instead of criminalizing people, what they do is they offer them
community work, and that is supervised by the whole community.
They
have business people who are involved; they have a cross‑section of their
community involved in supervising young people on community work. If it can be successful, and it has been
proven to be successful in
We
do, however, believe that the recommendations of the report are so important
that they should be implemented, and they should be implemented as quickly as
is feasible in conjunction with aboriginal people in
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Oh, no.
Mr. Martindale: The member for
I
listened very closely, yesterday and the day before, to the member for Rossmere
(Mr. Neufeld), and I disagree with many, many things that he said. In fact, I highlighted them in Hansard, and I
think these would make some good quotes in the next election campaign if we
were to quote the member for Rossmere as being a representative of the
Conservative Party, and saying some pretty amazing things on the record.
However,
there is one area that I agree with the member for Rossmere, and so I would
like to quote the part that I agree with him.
He talks about a partnership. In
fact, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) talks about partnership as well,
although I noticed that in his speech on the first page he only talked about
partnership between government and business, but I guess he redeemed himself a
little bit because on the second page he talks about a strong partnership among
government, business and labour to capitalize on every new opportunity to
create jobs and build a strong economy.
I
thought that the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) was actually much clearer on
this subject. He said, "I suggest
to you that we work together‑‑labour, industry and government. It is up to government to ensure that labour
and industry work together co‑operatively. It is up to government to bang heads together
if they do not . . . . It is up to
government to make sure that the industry properly looks after their
workers." Hansard, March 18, page 1376.
So
I commend the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) because this is an idea that
the NDP has been promoting for years. In
fact, our Leader (Mr. Doer) and our caucus have been saying we want an economic
summit. We want the government to get
business and labour together and to talk about ideas that can be implemented by
all three sectors in Manitoba‑‑
An Honourable Member: Business and labour.
Mr. Martindale: Business and labour. The government has not been listening to this
message, but the member for Rossmere has. The member for Rossmere is promoting
business and labour and government co‑operating. So, even though there are many ideas in his
speech that we cannot endorse and we totally disagree with, on this one idea
the member for Rossmere is right.
An Honourable Member: But you are both unable to . . . .
Mr. Martindale: Well, the member for
An Honourable Member: Philosophically, you cannot.
Mr. Martindale: Since we are not in government it is
difficult for us to achieve it, but the government, they are the government of
the day, and they could achieve it if they had the political will to do so.
I
think it is instructive to look at the economies of
The
member for
Mr. Lamoureux: What about big business?
Mr. Martindale: The member for
An Honourable Member: Is that not what small business does too?
Mr. Martindale: We do not have any problem with small
business. We want to encourage small business.
I think our quarrel is mainly with multinational corporations that get
the bulk of tax concessions and tax incentives from governments, mostly from
the federal government, but from time to time from the provincial
government. For example, the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) in his budget reduced the tax on locomotive fuel, which
we do not think will create any jobs. It
just helps the bottom line of Canadian Pacific and Canadian National. It does not really make them more
competitive. It maybe brings the taxes
in line with other provinces, but really just gives them a little bit more
money, reduces their operating costs.
*
(1550)
In
conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that the most important issue in
the next provincial election will be whether or not the public is in favour of
one of two ideas. Whether they think
that keeping taxes down is the major issue, or whether they believe that
creating jobs is the major issue. I know
that in the Burrows constituency the majority of people are in favour of job
creation. It will be interesting to see
if the majority of people and the majority of constituencies in Manitoba agree
with the government who are pushing keeping taxes down, and almost nothing
else, except, of course, spending more money on welfare, or whether they agree
with me and my party that the most important issue is job creation.
I
believe that people want and expect the government to stimulate the economy and
to create jobs. I think that, probably,
come the next election, the majority of Manitobans will agree with that point
of view.
Thank
you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy
Speaker, it is a privilege to rise and speak on the budget. This is rather unorthodox that the minister
would rise at this particular point in time; but, because of the fact that we
brought down the budget on Wednesday and, indeed, voting day is called for
tomorrow, it does provide some differences with respect to the order in which
we speak.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) will close debate tomorrow before we
are summoned to the House to vote on this very important piece of legislation.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, when we were crafting the budget, there were certain elements
that we could not disregard. We
recognized that we had been working very hard, certainly within Treasury Board,
within all the ministries of government, to try and work around the margins,
trying to split off those areas of government programming, after evaluation for
the most part, that indeed we found were no longer of the highest
priority. Now members opposite over the
course of not only this budget but budgets before this, and, indeed, in
Question Period on a daily basis, have berated this government for turning
attention away from various aspects of government program.
They
said that we were, using their words, reducing funding here, there, and they
pointed out certain program areas. They
were able to find in some cases the odd line within the Estimates package where
indeed there was a nominal reduction in funding. Madam Deputy Speaker,
throughout all of the deliberations around the budgetary decisions, we
acknowledge that we had to maintain a high priority in areas like Health and
Education and Family Services. So, when
this government, during these difficult times of revenue reductions and revenue
restraints, was able to contribute in this budget $200‑plus million to
the high priority areas of government, I say that we did relatively well under
the circumstances.
We
were also very mindful that, when we were crafting the budget, Madam Deputy
Speaker, we were bringing our budget down at least two weeks before any other
jurisdiction in
What
we had here was a government who, in some respects, with the co‑operation
of the opposition had been working hard over the last two years to try and move
us into some type of synchronization with respect to when we come into the
House and do our business. Still you had
a government, in spite of that, who was wanting to bring this budget down early
and indeed give Manitobans an opportunity to once again look into the fiscal
framework of our province, to once again get some understanding of the path
that we wanted to follow philosophically and, more importantly than anything,
realize that there was a government here who was going to protect tax
increases.
In
other words, we were not going to submit to the easy path, and indeed I have
called the NDP path, and that is continuing to levy higher levels of
taxation. I will speak to that in a
little greater detail in a moment.
I
have listened, for the most part, to most of the presentations made by members
opposite although maybe I have not been in attendance. I certainly have been in my office and I have
heard the feed that has come from the House, and I have heard most of the
presentation by members opposite. Quite
frankly, if one had to summarize from my point of view most of the criticism,
not too much of it objective, that has come from the opposition benches, I
would summarize it and say it is muted criticism at best. I have not heard a heavy attack on the thrust
of this budget.
We
have been accused‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Manness: No, that is one of the unfortunate elements
because I am not speaking last. There
are some other speakers and I imagine there will yet be some other criticism,
but the reality is that members opposite have a difficult time attacking this
budget because they, too, like many of the members of government side, are also
knocking on the doors of their constituents.
Last
night we were in the constituency of Crescentwood, many of us, and talking to
Manitobans and, of course, one does not have to open too many doors when one
realizes that foremost on the minds of almost every person that you speak to is
taxes. Even more so‑‑whereas in 1981 when I knocked on doors, in
1988 and 1986 and even to some degree 1990, the number one issue was jobs and
unemployment.
I
am not going to say that is not on the mind of people also, because it is, but
as the survey showed, still the No. 1 issue on people's minds today is taxation‑‑almost
two to one as compared to unemployment.
Members opposite also know that to be the truth, and they will come in
here on a daily basis and certainly berate the unemployment statistics, and
they will try and focus in on manufacturing numbers. I would say to them, as they know, as a
manufacturing province, one of the three basic manufacturing provinces in
Madam
Deputy Speaker, the members can hurl numbers at us all they wish within the
manufacturing area, but the reality is, they know and indeed many of their
adherents know that most people realize through structural change that the
manufacturing base as once defined is no longer the way it was. Free trade is not the reason that the
manufacturing base is dropping in
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I also listened, particularly to the NDP benches, as to how
they would deal with the stimulation that I see in this budget, particularly on
the taxation side. I wanted to hear how
it was they would deal with CPR, in other words, the reduction in the
locomotive fuel tax. I was surprised,
because I did not hear much criticism with respect to that until the speaker
just before me.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, the member says all we are interested in is helping out CPR,
helping out their bottom line, because it is not going to create any more
jobs. You have an industry, the railway
industry in this country which, I believe from memory, supports 10,000 or more
jobs, a significant portion of them in the city of
*
(1600)
I
do not know whether or not the executives of CPR or CNR have sent him the
information as to where
I
would have to think that would have to have significant impact on the member,
and if it would not have impact on him, it would have on the government and
indeed the people of the province. Yet
the member, when I tried to in a very small way to provide some greater
competitiveness to a railway, yes, the dreaded and in some cases hated CPR, the
member across the way accuses me of just trying to fatten the bottom line of a
multinational corporation.
At
least the criticism is muted. It has not
come from many members opposite, because they realize what is on the line. They understand. I do not think I heard the member for Flin
Flon (Mr. Storie) this time make mention of it.
I
can say the member for Flin Flon, when I brought down the first budget in 1988,
when we did not move to increase the locomotive fuel tax from 13.5 to 15.5 like
they were going to in their defeated budget, we were attacked not only in the
'88 budget but in the '89 budget because we did not increase the fuel tax to
the highest level in the land.
I
think there is a realization beginning to build in the members opposite that we
had better take very seriously this whole taxation issue; and, yes, even though
we would prefer that the small‑business sector would be the deliverers,
would provide the deliverance from this area, the reality is that these large
companies, many of them multinational, in many respects the wealth creators,
are still doing something and without them small business really has no basis
on which to begin. I am talking about
the retail sector. I am not talking
about small business in the sense of other sectors, but certainly within the
retailers. Madam Deputy Speaker, I
noticed that muted criticism and for that I say to the members opposite, thank
you.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, in my view this is a stimulation budget. The members opposite keep saying that we have
done nothing in the sense of unemployment.
I have done some research. I
wanted to compare what we have done in this budget with respect to what the NDP
did through that period '83 to '86 when indeed they said they were in the
depths of a recession, when they said they had to stimulate the economy, so
much so that they had to set up their jobs funds. [interjection] I do not have time to digress. I would love to get into that debate, but in
fairness to others, just not now.
The
question is, does a rising debt burden reduce unemployment?‑‑because
that is what the issue is here. The
members opposite are asking us to go further into debt. Yes, they are. They are asking us to go further into debt
and in effect try and reduce the unemployment statistics. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, during the NDP
years‑‑and I want members to listen to this‑‑the total
general purpose debt rose by a total of 164 percent after correcting for
inflation. Let us take the high rates of
inflation out.
In
other words, we took the deficit numbers $500 million, $600 million, year on
year, and we took out inflation, and we put them at a deflated rate, but even
during that period of time, general purpose debt under the NDP increased by a
total of 164 percent during the NDP years.
Now, since our government came to power, also stripping out inflation,
the inflation adjusted debt has declined, not increased, by 15.2 percent.
Now
apples to apples. I am comparing six
budgets to five budgets. I am telling
the member, we have stripped inflation out of both of them. Now arguably, the NDP debt might be justified
if it had led to very substantial job creation, compared to the number of jobs
that would have been created without the huge debt increase, but the record
does not support this view.
In
1981, the year the NDP was elected,
In
spite of the Jobs Fund and the huge increase in government debt,
Since
this government, our government, came to power we have tried to improve the
conditions for private sector creation of permanent jobs. We have largely avoided short‑term,
make‑work projects. It is true
that because of the international recession the unemployment rate has risen, but
not as much as the national average.
As
I said, in the year we were elected
My
friend‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I
am having difficulty hearing the Minister of Finance on all these points
because of all of the noise in the Chamber. I am wondering if the minister is
going to include a comparison of the increases‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order. It is a dispute over facts and
a request in clarification.
* * *
Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, the member brings up a
good point, but then when he asks us about manufacturing jobs, or when he asks
us about unemployment numbers, then I would ask him then also to give us
intentions for 1992 that he will also bring in the other provinces in
Madam
Deputy Speaker, my friend the kind Keynesian of Brandon East, the member for
Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), believes that the government of which he was
a part did more than this government to help the unemployed, but he has only a
theory on his side. The facts do not
support him. What his government did do
was saddle the people of
Indeed,
as I said in the budget, fully six points of
Madam
Deputy Speaker, this area of fiscal stimulus, this is in fact a budget which
provides stimulus to the economy while keeping the fiscal house in order. The stimulus arises on both the spending and
taxation sides of the ledger.
First
of all on the spending side, the direct fiscal stimulus to the budget is equal
to the difference between what the government takes out of the economy and what
it puts back in. In '92‑93 we
project own source revenue. In other
words, what we apply is direct taxes and fees to decline by $25 million. In other words, the government of
Madam
Deputy Speaker, what we are saying is that we are taking less out by way of
taxes, and yet we are maintaining through the Departments of Health and Family
Services and Education and other departments another $281 million.
*
(1610)
An Honourable Member: Not by choice.
Mr. Manness: The member says, not by choice. Of course, not by choice. This is where we disagree, Madam Deputy
Speaker. If my rates of taxation are the
same and the general growth of the economy swells and more revenue comes to us,
I am not taking more out. The member is
going to disagree with me, but I am not taking more out. If the pie grows, and I am taking out the
same slice in percentage terms, and my slice ends up being a little larger, I
will make the argument I am still taking out a larger slice of a bigger pie.
The
problem is, I am not increasing my rates.
The only individuals that increased their rates and took more out
through an increase in rates were the members opposite. I have the litany of tax increases here, if
they want to hear them.
This
is what they took out: Increased retail
sales tax from 5 percent to 7 percent, that took out $195 million. Introduced an increase to payroll tax, we
never had one before and now it is 2.25 of payroll, $230 million came out of
the economy. They introduced personal
net income tax and surtax, and that took out a $230 million take. Increased corporation income tax from 15
percent to 17 percent, that took out an additional $16 million of the
economy. Increased the gasoline from 6.4
cents to 8 cents per litre, that took out another $20 million. Increased the diesel fuel tax from 5.7 cents
to 9.9 cents a litre, that took out another $15 million.
This
is where they hit the railways, good CPR, the member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale) will applaud this. They
increased the railway fuel tax from 3.8 cents to 13.6 cents a litre, and they
got $25 million out of the pockets out of the CNR and the CPR. Then they, of
course, introduced a land transfer tax and took $8 million out of the economy;
increased tobacco tax, took $55 million out.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, in their tenure, what they took out of the economy, and they
may argue too that the pie was growing, but it did not grow to the size of $820
million that they took out of the disposable income of businesses and consumers
in this province. That is what the
members took out of the collective pockets of our businesses and our
households. So what we have done is we
have provided in this budget an additional, not taking out $280 million, $280
million more net to the economy, we have left with consumers and indeed in businesses
in this province.
Now
taxation‑‑the high level of personal and business taxation imposed
on
From
the reduction of personal income taxes in our first budget to the selected
business tax reductions in this budget, we have worked to make
I
can tell them that, because they will not have the gall to stand in this House
and ask questions in about two weeks. I
can tell them that. So they better get
their shots in. That is why I cannot
believe, quite frankly, in Question Period over the period of this week that
they have not hammered, hammered, hammered in every question with respect to
budgetary lines and taxation issues, because in two weeks from now they will
not have legs to stand on once the other provinces start to bring down their
budgets. It will be recited to them,
chapter and verse, by members opposite as to what is happening in other
jurisdictions.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, the tax incentives in this budget for manufacturing investment,
research and development, mining, transportation and export‑oriented
service industries will both stimulate activities in those sectors and improve
I
want to spend just a few minutes talking about the Fiscal Stabilization
Fund. I give the NDP credit. They understood why government maybe should
have this mechanism, why it is that government should have something to act as
a fiscal shock absorber when indeed you get these incredible increases or year
end, some say windfalls‑‑call them what they want‑‑or
why it is you have to draw and set aside and have in savings amounts when
indeed the federal government gives you by way of a unilateral decision the
information that they are no longer going to provide to you by way of transfer
an amount they said just previously a month before that they would.
You
have to have something in place, but the Liberals, I cannot understand on what
basis, have seen that this is working. It is not phantom like it was in B.C.‑‑and
it was in B.C.‑‑there was not even any money in it. The Leader of the NDP party has talked about
We
said we would treat it in a judicious fashion.
We said we would only go into it once a year. We said we would introduce the amount that we
were taking out of it in the budget, and the only thing that we would not do
is, if we did not need it we would not take it and it would stay there, and we
have done that three consecutive years.
I
say to the members opposite, if there is anything that saved us right now it is
the fact that we had this amount of money in the Fiscal Stabilization
Fund. Yet, as I have said, we did not
use the funds resources for '91‑92 because, barring some unexpected good
luck, and believe me when you are a Finance minister and you have money come in
that you were not expecting, call it good luck, call it anything you want. Happy to have it, we will largely use them up
in the coming fiscal year. To maintain
our commitments to Health, Education, Family Services and Agriculture we have
budgeted for increased expenditures of 4 percent while revenue growth continues
to be weak.
Without
any funds to draw on in the Fiscal Stabilization Fund for '92‑93, the
deficit would be at an unacceptable level, and, yes, I acknowledge it would be
$530 million‑‑unacceptable, totally unacceptable, an amount similar
to the four or five years back to back of the NDP.
Now,
members say it is my fault. They chew
the dickens out of this government on a daily basis because we made reductions
in certain areas. They say that we
should provide more funding in support of creating jobs and yet, when there is
a deficit, they say, in essence, shame.
I
have noticed that the taxpaying public does not share the view of members
opposite that the funds should not have been spent this past year. On the contrary, most taxpayers seem to have
taken some comfort from the existence of a rainy‑day fund.
I
must say, the supporters of our government, indeed the small "c"
conservatives everywhere, regardless of what party they support, some of the
criticism that I sense from them is a feeling of disappointment that this fund
is being drawn down in the fashion it is, because everybody, regardless of what
the current account looks like, regardless of what their operating loan looks
like, still likes to have stashed away a little bit of savings. I acknowledge that, and what then becomes the
responsibility for those of us in Treasury Board is to look for the savings
that can be found anywhere in government throughout '92‑93. So indeed, if there can be greater savings
found such that we do not have to draw $200 million, well, of course, we will
attempt to do that.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I just want to share with members opposite what we are talking
about, the big arithmetic picture. This is pure arithmetic. I would like to show the impact on the deficit
of three alternative levels of expenditure growth assuming revenue growth of 6
percent in '93 and '94, and 5.5 percent in '94‑95. I have always said that government's problem
with respect to its revenues and expenditure is a different problem than the economy.
*
(1620)
This
is what happens. If you have growth rate
of 6 percent in revenue or 5.5 percent in '93‑94‑‑I am
talking now the year after '92‑93‑‑what would continue to
happen if you had expenditure growth even only at 0.5 percent, at 2 percent or
expenditure growth of 6 percent, if the members opposite do not help us to try
and bring into balance this expenditure growth number‑‑and this
year it is 4 percent‑‑if the members opposite do not care about it,
and they are going to drive government to continue to increase expenditure at
the rate of 4 percent or 5 percent or 6 percent, I can tell the members
opposite, given a 6 percent increase in revenue and a 6 percent increase in
growth, next year's deficit will be $563 million.
That
is 6 percent at both levels and, indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, if expenditure
next year is held to 2 percent and we are able to have revenue growth somewhere
at 5.5 percent, then your deficit will drop to $169 million. That is what is on the line with respect to
'93‑94. [interjection] No, I
forecasted revenues at 6 percent for '93‑94 and '92‑93 much
lower. I said that in the budget but the
deficit this year is $330 million.
What
I am trying to tell the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) is that next year
the savings account is dry, and so it is going to be interesting to see whether
they continue to drive us to double‑digit expenditure growth and continue
to ask on a daily basis for us to spend more, more, more and more, or whether
they care at all. The Conference Board
says the economy in
It
is a stimulation budget in the sense of the taxation measures it has brought
down. It is fair and balanced, and
attempting to still maintain spending and priority areas, but most importantly,
it positions this province, and indeed this government. It puts us in a position that we can do
something that other provinces cannot do, including
Now,
it does not mean that the difficulty associated with '93‑94 is going to
be in any way made easier as a result of where we are. We have difficult decisions to make through
all of '92 leading into '93. They will
begin almost immediately. It is the way
that all governments in these provinces are going to have to act. I would tell members opposite, as the leaks
come through over the next couple of months, they will not have to wait until
next November or December or January for the pieces of paper to start to come
through.
It
is going to come through much more quickly than that, because the government,
obviously, is forced to having to make difficult budgetary decisions, planning‑wise,
now, more immediately than any time in the past.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, thank you very much. I
would commend this budget to the House.
I would expect that all members would want to support it, and I say to
members opposite, they can help this province more so by trying to hold back
some of the expenditure growth than they can by the essence of their questions
that have come forward to this point in time.
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Madam Deputy Speaker, I made a couple of
commitments, actually, before I got up to speak today, so I would like to
recognize the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), and I think that is
enough said.
I
want to start my discussion of this budget on a slightly different note, and I
want, very specifically, to respond to some of the things that the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) has said, but before I do, in order to help us frame the
discussion I want to have, I want to just pick up on something that the member
for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) said yesterday.
I
do not want to spend any time with silly, cheap shots at some of the things
that he obviously feels in a very heartfelt way, but I have had some
discussions with him privately in the House, and he reflected some of those in
Hansard. They relate to something that
the Minister of Finance was saying today about manufacturing, but the first
thing that the member for Rossmere says here, he talks about the nature of the
problems that we are facing.
He
talks about recalling the way people co‑operated, the way people worked
together. There was no differential
between the races, he said, back then.
He was speaking then about the war years, and I think there are a large
number of Japanese Canadians who would disagree with him. I think there are a large number of blacks in
the
In
many ways there is greater harmony in the world today than there was back at
the time that he harkens back to. The
dilemma I have is not the simplistic kind of reaction to the things he is
saying, but it is his harkening back in the belief that somehow if we just get
it together in this province we can return to that style of operation. We can return to that kind of economic
activity, and we somehow will see growth in this province and in this economy. I think that is simply false.
That
is not what is happening in the world.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) referenced it, I think, rather
well when he said, it is not free trade that is making manufacturing fall off
in Germany. That is true. It is not free trade. It is a whole bunch of other factors that
have to do with multinational corporations, international competitiveness, and
the kind of dilemmas that we get ourselves into and that we are into right now
in this province. I can use the
minister's reference to the CPR fuel tax as a good example of that.
If
I understand correctly the policy that this Finance minister is operating on,
and I would reference the statements he made in his very first budget in 1988
in which he stated: This budget outlines
the government's plan to encourage job creation and capital investment and to
speed the recovery of agriculture, to regain control of spiralling debt and
interest costs, to improve management and accountability of government
departments, Crown corporations and agencies, and to make Manitoba's taxes
competitive with other jurisdictions.
Now that is the plan that this Finance minister laid out in 1988.
He
comes back to that plan in this most recent one when he talks, in the budget
speech he made in this House last week, about the path to renewal and says that
since 1988 his government has worked hard to fulfill the promises they made in
1988. He said the job has required them
to make difficult decisions and to choose their priorities carefully. Well, I took that seriously, and I have spent
the last week trying to figure out what has happened in this province. What is it that has occurred in this province
over the last five years since this Finance minister first got a hold of the
economic levers of this province? What
is the real result of all of these changes and the five budgets that this
Finance minister has brought forward?
I
would like to share with you a bit of information. I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Finance
minister will want to hear this. The problem
in looking at what is happening in this province relative to the rest of
*
(1630)
Let
us just look at a few statistics. If we
had the same proportion of the Canadian population this year that we had in
1988, there would be 33,000 more people living in this province‑‑33,000
more people to be consuming, working, contributing to the economic activity in
this province.
That
is not‑‑there is a much larger loss overall, but that is a relative
loss.
If
we had the same proportion of full‑time jobs in that labour force that we
had in 1988, there would be 11,024 more full‑time jobs today than there
are. Madam Deputy Speaker, there is not
a policy, there is not an action that this Finance minister has taken that has
improved the position of this province relative to the country that we live in.
There
is not a single indicator that he can point to that suggests that under his
plan this province has improved. We have
fewer people working, we have smaller contributions to our economy, not just
because of the recession, but because of the very narrow, limited view of the
economy that this Finance minister has.
Let
us talk about something else. The
Finance minister makes a big point, he speaks very eloquently about his ability
to reduce the draw on the resources of the province through the taxation and
fees that this government charges.
In
fact, if you look at it, the total revenue package of the Manitoba government
in 1988, and that is after the big increases, I did not step back as the
Finance minister did to before the big increases, but after the big increases
the total revenue package accounted for 20.3 percent of gross domestic product
in this province. Today, that is almost
two full percentage points higher. So
the Finance minister has increased the load on the economy not decreased it.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
Expenditures
in 1988 accounted for 21.2 percent of GDP. Today they account for 23.5
percent. That is taken off the Finance
minister's budgetary estimates. But the
fact is that, relative to the rest of
Mr.
Acting Speaker, on the area of overall net worth, the gross domestic product of
this province relative to that of Canada, if we were operating relatively, even
with the overall decline, if we were operating at the same level we were
operating in 1988, there would be $400 million more economic activity in this
province.
There
is an interesting phenomenon here, and it is one that took me a little while to
sort out. The Finance minister has made
much of the fact that he cut taxes and then froze them.
He
makes a big point of that in his budget where he talks about having frozen
taxes for some five years. I wondered
about that. I wondered how your revenues
could be increasing with zero increases in your tax package.
I
went to the Manitoba Bureau of Statistics and I pulled out their income tax
tables. Looking back, we cannot look at
this budget because it is just on the table in front of us, but we can look
back over the first three or four years that this government has operated. What do you find? You find, as a function of the changes that
the federal government made to tax deductions and tax credits, they reduced
them from 30 percent of assessed income to about 14 percent of assessed income,
that this Finance minister, while putting forward the image of having cut
taxes, has increased his revenues some 17 percent, 24 percent and 23 percent in
the first three budgets that he put before us.
While
talking the language of restraint and control, he, in fact, has been acting
quite differently, and I think maybe it is time he started being a little more
forthcoming with us.
The
fraud fund is something that I want to talk about because it is something that
the Finance minister made much of and spoke at some length about. I did not support it when he first proposed
it. I do not support it today. I am glad to see the Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Doer) has had some concerns about it.
He certainly has identified some serious flaws with it.
Now
let us look at the idea, because the Leader of the Opposition just said he
likes the idea, and I think that the idea, the concept, is an attractive one
and there are lots of examples of it in other jurisdictions. There are quite a few of them in the
I
took our legislation and I took the budgets down to a friend of mine in
Well,
the other thing is‑‑an interesting thing here. Now let us suppose I am a small businessman
and I go to the banker and I say, I have got a bunch of Confederate bonds here
and they are worth $100; will you lend me $100 against that? Well, the banker is going to throw out that
idea as quickly as the Auditor threw out the Finance minister's attempt to put
in worthless shares in a corporation.
This
Fiscal Stabilization Fund has been nothing more than an attempt by the Finance
minister to do the very thing that the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) complained
about in his speech yesterday. He talked
about how a lot of people in the‑‑
An Honourable Member: That is why he did not support it.
Mr. Alcock: That is right. That is why he did not support it, and he did
not support it because it was no different than the kind of leverage buy outs
with restructuring in an attempt to shift around the arrangement of capital in
order to create wealth. It is not real
wealth creation. All it is, is it
disguises the real economic position of this province.
No
matter what the Finance minister says, that has been the position of our
Auditor since the day that this fund was created. That has been the position of the auditor in
I
also note other little games that the Finance minister plays with the
budget. The allowance for lapsed funds
has gone from $30 million a year to, I believe, $70 million a year. When I take out some of the manipulations
that exist within the five budgets that the Finance minister has put forward
over the last few years, I take out the transfers to and from the Stabilization
Fund, let us forget about that for a moment; and I take out the lapses, and we
just look at net revenue, net expenditure and what the difference is, then we
find the difference in the first year is a surplus of some $58 million. The difference in the second year is a
deficit of $187 million, in the next year $426 million, $528 million last year
and $601 million this year.
So
the Finance minister has made a great art of playing with the picture he puts
before people, but the reality unfortunately catches up with him, over and over
again, as the public accounts finally come out and as we finally get an
accurate look at what is happening with the finances of this province. I think, as he gets longer and longer in the
tooth, what the people of this province are beginning to perceive is that his
budget is more of a political news release and less of an economic plan for
this province.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, what can we do? What is
the solution to help dig us out of some of the problems that we are currently
facing in this province? How do we act
to build some wealth relative to what is happening in this country?
Perhaps
before I finish completely on the Finance minister's changes or attempted
changes, I should just include a little bit more information here. There was, in fact, a survey done, a major
survey of people living in this city done last fall. It was done on eight urban centres. Among all the questions that they asked, one
of the questions they asked them was the rating of their cities in keeping with
their belief about the economy, how they felt the economy was doing in their
community relative to eight other major urban centres in this country.
The
fact is, after four years of management by this Finance minister,
While
saying that, the Finance minister, while in the front of his budget is talking
about the strength of the manufacturing sector and their promise of great
growth, a promise which was made for five years and it has not been realized to
date, he talks in the body, there is an interesting statement here. It says, according to Statistics Canada's
data,
I
have a little difficulty understanding why a 12.8 percent decline is better
than a 5.9 percent decline.‑‑[interjection]
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) points out that it is not, and I thank
him for assisting with that. I was not
sure. I thought maybe I was just
misreading what the Finance minister‑‑
*
(1640)
An Honourable Member: . . . worst economy in the country right
now.
Mr. Alcock: On every indicator, and I would point out to
the Leader of the Opposition, on every major indicator you want to look at, and
forgetting about the overall decline, just looking at the relative decline to
the rest of this country, we have failed on every one. There is not a single area you can look at
and say that this Finance minister has built us an economic plan that is preparing
this province for the future. I feel
very bad about that.
It
may not further my political interests, but I wish I could stand up here and
say Manitoba has gotten stronger and better and with more jobs, and we are
doing much better because of five years of this planning or this new philosophy
or this new direction that this Finance minister keeps attempting to
celebrate. But the reality is that we
are losing very badly, and we will continue to lose.
It
was interesting to note, it is no different than the loss that we saw under the
previous Conservative government, that this philosophy of holding back, of
kowtowing to major international corporations, of cutting back to preserve
competitive position is not a zero sum game.
It is a negative sum game, that if we allow ourselves to get into the
business of competing with other jurisdictions, to cut our tax base in order to
attract investment here, we are all going to be losers.
Finally,
some jurisdictions are realizing this, and some jurisdictions are cutting the
kind of agreements that allow areas, regions of the country, regions of the
continent, regions of the world, to co‑operate rather than get caught by
large corporations in competing to see who can be the worst off, because that
is where we are headed.
It
is astounding to me that in 1992 I can be standing here in the Legislature of
Manitoba and having a Finance minister stand up and tell me that that is what
we have to do in
There
are some suggestions, however, as to what the solution is. They are‑‑I am sorry, I just
wanted to point out one other thing because I did notice I had the interesting,
if not enjoyable task of rereading all five of the Finance minister's budgets
just to remind myself of some of the positions that he has taken over time.
Mr. Martindale: That is pretty punishing.
Mr. Alcock: The comment was made by the member for
Burrows that that was pretty punishing, and I can assure him that it was indeed
extremely punishing. However, it is
important to remind ourselves, because I will say that I have tried with these
various budgets to understand what is behind them, to understand what the Finance
minister (Mr. Manness) is really trying to say to the people of this province,
to understand what his strategy is, because if there is a strategy there that I
can see will produce some positive benefits, then I am quite prepared to be
supportive. There are elements of this
budget that I am going to talk supportively about.
But,
when I look at the philosophy, the ideology that is represented here, it is not
any different from what the Finance minister that sat in his chair under the
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
I
did want to reference one thing though, and I want to take into account two
things. The Finance minister, in his
1988 budget speech said, and I quote:
"Studies of the impact of the Canada‑U.S. Free Trade
Agreement indicate cumulative positive effects amounting to 2 percent to 3
percent of Canadian GDP in the first five years."
Well,
we are now three years in, coming onto four years, and some of the facts are
coming in. Again, we have the same
problem when we look at the Free Trade Agreement and its impact on this
province relative to other parts of
The
I
was interested in comments by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), I believe
it was yesterday, when he was answering a question from the member for
The
threat from the Mexican free trade agreement is not direct gain or loss in
trade between
Now
what should they do? There is an
interesting kind of debate that goes on in this House. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer)
occasionally throws across the floor that what we have over here is trickle‑down
economics, a form of Reaganism. Let us
make a few people really wealthy in the hopes that they will give the rest of
us poor folks jobs. I think that is
probably not a gross overstatement of what is happening over there. Let us see if we can shift the distribution
of wealth in the hopes that will create greater investment and there will be a
greater base of jobs in this province.
One
of the profits, if you like, of that particular philosophy is the Business
Council on National Issues, and they commissioned Michael Porter last year to
do a study on
We
knew in 1988 when we entered this House‑‑and this Finance minister
knew better than anybody because he had access to more information on this
province than anybody else‑‑that we were approaching a
problem. He knew that we were going to
have troubles as this recession began to impact on
If
you know they are going to drop out, if you know you are going to pick up
another 8,000 or 10,000 people on the unemployment rolls, why not use that
opportunity, as you are going to be supporting them financially anyway through
your unemployment insurance and welfare programs, to give them opportunities to
retrain? Why not expand dramatically
your retraining opportunities, your apprenticeship programs, your skill‑building
opportunities, so that when the economy picks up, the people at least have an opportunity
to reattach in a more permanent way. We
have here from BCNI exactly that kind of recommendation, provide more training
for the unemployed.
Mr.
Speaker, what has this Finance minister done?
He has successively cut training resources; he has successively cut
support to those elements in the community that provide training.
*
(1650)
Now,
I have yet to find an economic report, an economic writer, anybody who oversees
what is happening in the industrialized world, who says that you are going to
create more wealth by reducing the number of skilled and trained people, but
the Finance minister plays the same kind of shell game that he plays with this
entire budget.
Not
only is the Fiscal Stabilization Fund fraudulent, but I would note this particular
comment here, page 11 of the Budget speech:
"The introduction of $2.5 million of new training programs at the
province's community colleges."
Let
me reread that: "The introduction
of $2.5 million of new training programs at the province's community
colleges." Well, let us have a look
at what the Estimates say. The
Estimates, when you add up the money going to the provincial colleges, the
total amount of new money going to cover negotiated salary increases, going to
cover merit increases, going out to cover increased costs of heat, et cetera,
the total amount of new money is $1,164,000.
Now, that is the total support going to the colleges, which have
increasing costs. Some of them the
government was aware of through negotiated contracts and the like.
Yet,
the Finance minister stands up and says here that there is $2.5 million of new
training programs. I think it is like a
good part of this budget is just flat dishonest. There is not anything‑‑the facts
that support this budget are simply at odds with the statements that this
Finance minister says, and that is over and over and over again. It is not me, it is not my words, it is not
my analysis, it is in the book.
The
minister starts out here and he says that we are going to grow‑‑he
quotes the Conference Board‑‑[interjection]
Now, that is interesting. Wait now,
there is a very interesting comment here, because the Leader of the Opposition
made the statement that, if I heard him correctly, I only heard part of the
statement, but I believe the statement was that the budget has become
increasingly a distortion rather than a reflection of reality.
All
budgets are a statement of a particular party's philosophy. That is a fact, and I do not expect the
Finance minister to be any different than that, but I have read budgets going
back to 1979, and the fact is that his statement is correct. They represent a particular ideological
position, but they do not play as loose and fast with the facts as this budget
is.
I
am sorry, this budget is flat out wrong.
The statement that the minister makes in his public presentation are not
supported by the facts that the minister puts in his own budget.
I
find that really despicable, frankly. I
find it very difficult to have any faith when I hear the member for Rossmere
(Mr. Neufeld) stand up and say: We are
in a crisis, we have to work together.
We have to get labour and government and business and everybody working
together and really go back to the war years, get women knitting socks, and let
us get down there and really work hard.
What
he is really saying is, we have a crisis, we all have to work together, and we
have a government that stands up and puts inaccurate and, I think, fraudulent
information on the record. I do not
think that sets a kind of foundation where you can ask people to come and work
together. I do not think people will do
it.
How
much faith can people who take the time to look at these budgets‑‑how
much faith is a student, trying to go to the
What
is going to happen to them when they approach the colleges and they find that
there are cuts in all the programs? What is going to happen when the Finance minister
(Mr. Manness) talks about great support for education and the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) goes down to Ottawa and talks about great support for educational
labour force retraining, when people who want to access that training go
forward and ask for it and find out that there is not more training, there is
less training, there is not more access to the universities, there is less
access?
Do
you know right now the University of Manitoba is contemplating‑‑and
it is not beyond the realm of possibility that next year they will close
registrations for the first time. We
have always had open registration. We
have always said, if somebody met the criteria, they could go to university in
this province. We may lose that next
year as the Faculty of Arts, the last faculty to have open registration, is
forced to give that up because of the same kind of fraudulent promises from
this government without any follow‑through in reality, the same kind of
statements about their belief in the beauty of education, their belief in the
need for education and their complete lack of follow‑through on those
very important positions.
There
is a second aspect to this that I think is interesting. The Premier made a statement, and he
introduced a bill a little while ago about research and development. When you read‑‑again I will refer
you to the Business Council on National Issues, or I will refer you to Lester
Thurow, or I will refer you to Robert Reich or any one of a number of people
who are looking at the question of how does North America build wealth; how
does North America in this drastically changing world build wealth.
They
all say that one of the first things you have to do is push your
education. I have talked a bit about
that. Secondly, they say you have to
push your research and development; you have to give people the opportunity to
work on new products, on new‑‑there is an interesting debate here,
because when we talk about research and development, people tend to think about‑‑[interjection] well, if you followed
that, that is right.
Now
wait a second. That is an interesting
thing. The member for Niakwa (Mr.
Reimer) across the floor just said: Save
in the good times, spend in the bad times, very interesting Keynesian rule of
thumb, right, but they are not spending in the bad times. They are not spending in the bad times. That is right.
Now,
I will grant them that from 1985 to 1988 when there was an opportunity to
reduce the level of expenditure, to reduce the level of debt, the previous
government did not avail themselves of that opportunity. That is a fact, but that does not make the
other side of the coin wrong. We are not
in good times right now, and there is not a single piece of evidence‑‑[interjection] Hear me out on this. There is not a single piece of concrete
evidence that says that what this government has done has actually borne
fruit. Do not take my word for it‑‑[interjection] No, no, now listen, I am
sure I could find letters from individuals who have done a wonderful thing.
Look
on aggregate, look at the number of jobs that have been lost in this province,
look at the number of people who have been forced to move out, look at the
relative position on national‑‑show me a single indicator that
looks back over these five years and says that relative to the rest of Canada,
not overall decline‑‑there has been decline‑‑relative
to the rest of Canada‑‑[interjection]
No,
no, you misread what the Conference Board said.
The Conference Board said, because they believe that with the Conawapa
project there will be heavy investment, that this province will grow ahead of
the national average marginally. The
Conference Board also said something else which your Finance minister failed to
note.
The
Finance minister (Mr. Manness) says, and it is interesting because I do not
know why he would selectively quote things, but he says‑‑as the
member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) said‑‑he quotes the Conference
Board and he says, we are going to come out of recession ahead of the Canadian
average.
He
does not quote the Conference Board who also said that we fell twice as fast as
the rest of the country. He says, we
fell two‑tenths of l percent; the Conference Board says 2 full points.
I
would encourage a member of the government, particularly on the back bench, to
not take my word for it, to sit down with Statistics Canada figures and look at
what is going on here, because you are being fed a bill of goods. You are not being given accurate information,
and the decisions taken by this Finance minister and this Treasury Board are
not producing the result‑‑[interjection]
If you could stand up and say that I am wrong on any one of these points, I
would love you to do it. I would love
you to stand up and say to me, you are wrong, Manitoba is going to have more
jobs, Manitoba is growing, Manitoba is better off. The fact is that we are not better off by any
criteria, not a one‑‑[interjection]
Yes, that is right. It will come.
An Honourable Member: We need that seventh member, please call us.
*
(1700)
Mr. Alcock: It will come.
Yes, absolutely. I miss that
seventh member.
Mr.
Speaker, I do want to just reference a few other little things, because there
are some things in this budget that I do like.
There are some things in this budget that I do find very interesting.
I
think they should have done this a long time ago. I think an analysis of the economic makeup of
this province would have demonstrated back in 1988, that a very significant
portion of total economic activity in this province is generated right out of
the city of Winnipeg, that the finance industries are the No. 1 generator of
jobs and revenue for this province, and that telecommunications is an important
sector of this economy.
The
ability to provide some stimulation to that sector of the economy to allow
people in this very small economy to compete at low or equal costs with the
rest of the country I think is an important step. So the move here to create‑‑let
me just see if I can find it here‑‑the sales tax reduction on telecommunications
I think is a very progressive step. It
is one that I applaud the minister for.
I think that is a move in the right direction.
I
do want to talk though a little bit about the‑‑because the second
one is the Manitoba Research and Development tax credit. The minister notes
here, it will have a very small impact on revenue. I think a combination of some R & D tax
credits, a proper research council, and a proper research activity in the
province could do a lot to build the kind of processed research and development
that we need so desperately.
One
of the things that members opposite should note, the research and development
does not necessarily just mean research in creating new products. In fact, Lester Thurow, in his writing, talks
about Ben Franklin's admonition of building a better mousetrap and the world
will beat a path to your door. He makes
the comment that that is no longer true.
Learning how to build it better and faster than your competitors will
give you the lead. So research and
development is not just in new product; it is in new processes, and that is
where we could have a competitive advantage.
The
minister's use of the Unisys plant is an excellent example. Unfortunately, they have done nothing to
provide any support for that kind of activity.
They have created a completely political secretariat that will simply
expand the staff resources available to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), much the same
way that the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) is building a new
staff complement for his office through this abomination called the advocate.
An Honourable Member: That is not what you called it yesterday.
Mr. Alcock: That is not what I called it yesterday,
no. I had a much more scatological
reference yesterday, but I have had time to recover from my initial shock that
any Minister of Family Services would act in such an irresponsible manner.
Well,
I note that my time is coming to a close, and I want to close with one
thought. It is a thought that has caused
me some concern, caused me to pause and reflect.
What
has happened to the political debate in this country? Right now, we spend 8
percent of our gross national product to provide high‑quality health care
to all the people in this country, and yet, all of a sudden, in these last few
years from that side of the House, this has become a crisis.
I
have to ask the question: Why is it a
crisis to do things that support and protect the people in this country? Why is that a bad thing? Why is that not something that we are proud
of as a country? Why is it not something
that we are looking to expand and do more of rather than looking to reduce and
create much greater problems for a much larger number of people.
In
any event, Mr. Speaker, with that I think I will yield the floor, and I look
forward to continuing the debate in this Chamber. I would like to hear some answers from the
Finance minister (Mr. Manness). I would
like to ask the members opposite to pause and consider, to look at the evidence
of their five years and to reflect on what a failure it has been. Thank you.
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): This certainly is a pleasure to be able to
rise today and make my few comments on the budget‑‑[interjection]
No,
I am afraid not. I do not have the
time. I would like to put a few comments
on record and, as I say, a few because some of the members here on our side
have indicated that they would like to speak and have the opportunity to speak.
Mr.
Speaker, the opportunity that I have had in the past week or so listening to
the different debates and reading through Hansard and different comments on the
budget, I find it very, very difficult to read and to hear the comments that
have been made.
What
I see and what I look at is this government, now in its fifth budget and has
been in government for four years, has really done nothing to improve the
economy or improve the well‑being of the fellow Manitobans in this
province for the last four years and five budgets.
I
had the opportunity since the budget was presented to go out in the
constituency and be able to speak to my constituents and the people of
I
ask for more. I say to my constituents,
I say to people, what else is there that you feel is good? I get no response, Mr. Speaker; there is no
response. The budget gives us nothing
really to look forward to. We still feel‑‑and
the last budget that I spoke to I used a number of 52,000 people unemployed,
54,000. Here we have one year later, we
have 52,000 people unemployed. So the
people in this province have been waiting. The people in this province are asking
why. Why has the unemployment rate not
gone down? Why has social assistance
gone up? Why are there cuts within the
different departments?
Mr.
Speaker, what I have done and what I feel is that I would just like to make a
few comments on how the budget concerns in the case of my constituency
alone. Now I see that after many years
the Health budget says that it is going to increase its funding for home care
and for personal care. I remember
speaking to that last budget and my first budget on how important home care,
how important personal care is to the constituency of Interlake. Communities throughout Interlake have been
coming to this government, have been doing their homework to get personal care
homes built and home care services improved.
Hopefully this budget, as indicated in the budget, will provide the
funding that is necessary.
*
(1710)
Mr.
Speaker, too, I just want to say that the message that my constituents have
asked me to pass on because of this budget‑‑and I could certainly
go on with other items, but I think I want to touch on that primarily because
of the time. The groups that I have been
speaking to, and I had the opportunity to speak to the Chamber of Commerce
yesterday at their annual general meeting, the same general meeting that was
last year greeted and spoken to by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), and
we had a long conversation after I had addressed the group and they indicated
to me that what they felt was that it was time for this government to stop
funding or giving breaks to bigger corporations and wait for this trickle‑down
situation.
The
government now, that is all you hear, let us give, let us give, let us give to
the higher. Let us hope that everything
comes down.
Mr.
Speaker, there are 52,000 people unemployed and there are no jobs‑‑and
welfare and in social assistance. These
52,000 people are tired of looking up to see where this trickle down is coming
from. As a matter of fact, their necks
are sore and the blood is all rushed down to their feet waiting so long for
this trickle‑down situation.
It
is not going to happen, Mr. Speaker, and I think this government better realize
that. I think this Finance minister (Mr.
Manness) had better realize that the true worth of a budget, I feel, is to
invest within the people. I will give
you an example of how the people in the Interlake are responding to this budget
and the previous budget. The previous
budget itself was the big, big slice, and now this is sort of like softening
the kick from last year's budget, sort of putting the band‑aid on what
damage was done last year.
The
people of the Interlake, Mr. Speaker, are realizing, yes, there are tough
times, yes, it is a recession. However,
the people in the Interlake have come up and are doing things from the
grassroots. They are doing things by
working and investing within their own communities. They are investing in the forage plant that
they would like to see in the Arborg area.
They are doing that.
There
is a gentleman in my home town, Riverton, who is looking very, very hard to get
something going for a fish plant, Mr. Speaker, which will employ anywhere from
25 to 30 people. The people in the Interlake are doing something grassroots.
However‑‑[interjection]
Well,
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. We are
trying to just address certain things and usually we get the rhetoric from the
other side. We do not need
rhetoric. We do not need rhetoric from
the other side. We need co‑operation. We need co‑operation with the people
who are doing what they can do within their own communities and trying to help
themselves and help this province out of this recession.
Mr.
Speaker, the one claim and the one response that I get from my constituents is
the fact that over the past couple of years, the natural gas, and I speak to
the other side, to the government, the natural gas would be an important,
important commodity for the Interlake and for the
The
people in the constituency are doing their bit.
They are asking for government support‑‑support for the
plans and for the developments that they themselves are starting and performing
within the communities. They are asking
for support. I have made mention already
re the forage plant, re natural gas, just to name a few.
Mr.
Speaker, there are other infrastructures that my constituency especially could
see. One item might be, of course, and I
speak of infrastructure, is the fact of the highways and the roads. Now, we saw last year cuts in the Highways
department; this year we see a cut in the maintenance.
This
government is aware and the minister is aware‑‑and in speaking with
the minister he realizes the situation in my area‑‑that the east‑west
connections and the east‑west roads in my constituency and in other
constituencies across this province are becoming to be more of an important
issue than just north and south than heading south of the border. We do not need any more people heading south
of the border to do their shopping. We
need people communicating between the east and the west part of the province
more.
Mr.
Speaker, I have attempted to again‑‑because of the time, I would
like to continue to address some of the situations that my constituents and
people I have talked to would like to see.
I would just like to make a comment on closing that we could compare,
and I would like to compare this government and the budget to a sports team who
is on a continuous losing record. In
such, when a team has a losing record normally‑‑
An Honourable Member: Remember, we won.
Mr. Clif Evans: They may have won the election, but they are
losing the game. So, Mr. Speaker, the
more they lose the game, the more games that they are losing‑‑I
mean when you talk about a team losing and losing and losing, who has got to
go? The coach. Unfortunately, we have 57 coaches over
there. We cannot do anything because
they are losing the game day in and day out. Instead of firing the coach I say,
either turn yourselves around or resign.
Call an election.
Mr.
Speaker, on closing, I want to make a comment.
I would just like to close and comment that the Finance minister of this
government has to realize the fact that the investment part of this province is
the people in this province, not necessarily just and only big corporations,
but the people. There are people
unemployed there who are willing to work, who are willing to turn this economy
around in this province, who need the support from this government and from all
of us in this Chamber. So I say, it is
time, time to look at the real facts.
Thank you very much.
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to
speak in this House on matters raised in the 1992
As
my colleague the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) stated in his
March 11 budget, we must champion better co‑ordination and partnership
amongst government, labour and the private sector. When I speak of economic realities, two
important concepts come to mind, Mr. Speaker, the process of change and the big
picture, the global economy. We believe
most Manitobans understand the need for a change in the way our economy
functions. We also know change implies
new ideas and approaches to economic growth.
When the economy is booming, or at least moving forward, the status quo
may be acceptable. However, when the tough times hit, when it is time for a
change, people look to government for the answers.
The
economic playing field has certainly changed over the past few decades. We cannot afford to be indifferent about the
challenges confronting us. We simply
cannot wait for something to break before crucial changes are, in fact,
made. Individuals, industry and
governments at all levels now find themselves swamped by the need to change the
way we regard our economy.
Unfortunately,
for too many Canadians, layoffs provide time to ponder the impact of a changing
economy. Owners and managers feel a
sense of helplessness as factors beyond their control sometimes kill
enterprise, and entrepreneurs may have trouble fending off feelings of
uncertainty. We all have questions, and
we will have to work together to provide the answers, Mr. Speaker.
*
(1720)
In
our highly competitive world, success will come from the ability to respond to
change and the capacity to be creative.
We see traces of an economic recovery in
Statistics
Governments
simply cannot afford to spend their way to prosperity. As the federal Finance minister said in his
first budget speech some weeks ago, you cannot get out of the hole by digging
it deeper. That is certainly a statement
I think some honourable members across the way should pay awfully close
attention to. As a nation and a
province, we will have to be prepared to act on opportunities. Advances in communications technology allow
for near‑instant access to the most remote corners of the world.
Globalization
is forcing Canadians to look at our country in new ways. We must be ready to compete in a world
without borders. Our government has made
the global marketplace an important focus for future economic prosperity. As outlined in our Speech from the Throne, we
have set a course designed to keep a tight rein on government spending. At the same time, we are improving the
economic climate for new and existing businesses in our province.
A
recent newspaper headline read:
Suffering tax grab phobia? No wonder, experts say.
The
article outlined the alarming federal tax increase burden aimed at middle‑income
Canadians since 1984. Tax increases at
all levels mean fewer jobs 10 times out of 10.
When we took office, what did we inherit? High taxes, high deficits and in the minds of
many Manitobans, a government out of control, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, our government has avoided tax increases for the fifth year in a
row. A recent poll, an article that
appeared in one of the local papers the other day, talked about the concerns of
Canadians and Manitobans. Consumers on
the Prairies say lower taxes are the top economic factor that would give them
the confidence to spend money and kick start the economy.
Only
consumers in
While
I am talking about taxes, I would be remiss if I did not step back in time and
touch on the record of the previous government, the record of the New
Democratic government from 1982 to 1987.
I think that was some six budgets of the NDP government. We have had five budgets with no increase in
personal income tax, no increase in corporate tax, no increase in retail sales
tax.
Let
us go back to the years 1982 to '87.
What happened? The government of
the day, the NDP government of the day, of which the honourable Leader was a
member of cabinet for a part of that time, increased retail sales tax from 5
percent to 7 percent, a 40 percent increase, creating $195 million of taxation.
What
other productive things did that government do, Mr. Speaker? How closely did they listen to the concerns
of Manitobans? Well, they introduced and
increased a payroll tax, 2.25 percent of payroll.
What
else did they do? They introduced
personal net income tax surtax. They
increased corporation income tax from 15 percent to 17 percent. They increased corporation capital tax from
0.2 percent to .3 percent. They
increased gasoline from 6.4 cents a litre to 8 cents a litre. They increased diesel fuel tax. They increased railway fuel tax. They introduced a land transfer tax. They increased the tobacco tax. Mr. Speaker, all of these accumulated during
that time frame, some $820 million of additional taxes levied on the taxpayers
of
What
have we done during five budgets? We
have not increased personal income taxes; we have not increased corporation
income taxes; we have not increased retail sales tax. The overall taxation levels to the citizens
of
What
are some of the initiatives that we are doing in this particular budget, Mr.
Speaker? Once again we are decreasing
railway fuel taxes. We are decreasing
the airway fuel taxes. Once again we are holding the line on taxes, and not
only holding the line, we are decreasing, unlike the record of the NDP
Government who obviously were not listening to the citizens of Manitoba, and
they should start listening to them today, as was pointed out in a poll as
recent as only a week ago. Clearly you
would think that message alone should give them the cause to support this
particular budget.
Other
changes, Mr. Speaker. Workers
Compensation rates are to be reduced this year.
Labour legislation has been changed and in the case of final offer
selection, repealed. At the same time,
we have made some tough but necessary moves to hold or cut government
spending. Eleven hundred positions, not
people, were eliminated within government last year. Less than 50 people were directly affected by
that difficult decision. At the same
time, public sector wage rates were extended without change for one year;
however, employees continued to receive pay adjustments for promotions,
reclassifications, pay equity and merit increments.
The
latest three‑year contract provided wage increases of 3 percent in each
of the first two years and a cost‑of‑living increase in the third
year, a very fair and reasonable settlement reached with the employees of the
government. The increases are in line
with what Manitobans can afford. That is
again an important statement, Mr. Speaker:
what Manitobans can afford. That is
something that certainly the NDP party should take note of and adhere to.
Changes
have also been made in the way services are delivered while protecting the
vital needs of Manitobans. As we put our
own house in order, we have welcomed business to
It
is time to put
What
are we doing for existing and new businesses in
The
board is chaired by the Premier, with all departments having a role to play in
efforts to encourage entrepreneurship, economic growth and job creation. The mandate of the secretariat is to provide
economic development expertise and analytical support to cabinet, the board and
to the council. The Economic Innovation
and Technology Council will act as a forum for the exchange of ideas between
economic stakeholders. Its members will
be drawn from the academic, the business and labour sectors and from the
community at large.
We
recognize the need for innovation, Mr. Speaker.
It is not sufficient for our province to merely adopt and adapt. We have natural resources to build on, to do
value‑added processing and to build on our natural resources. We have provided both the structure and the
dollars to make things happen in the areas of innovation and technology. The new Economic Innovation and Technology
Fund, which is outlined in the budget, to provide incentives for research, economic
innovation and commercial technology transfer, is provided some $1 million.
We
have also enhanced the funding to the Manitoba Research Council, that provides
our facilities on
Mr.
Speaker, our government, through a restructured Industry, Trade and Tourism
department, will emphasize strategic initiatives under a project‑oriented
approach. The department will serve as a
catalyst to create new development opportunities.
Some
initiatives that I would hope the honourable members across the way will find
of interest: a $20‑million
We
have implemented a sales tax exemption for 800 numbers, again relating to
central office processing operation.
The
Crocus Investment Fund, which I am sure the honourable members across the way
support, will provide assistance to employees to assume an ownership role where
they work, for the employees themselves.
During 1992 the structure will be put in place for individual Manitobans
to make contributions to that fund and to receive tax credits. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Doer) will be the first one there with his cheque, making his contribution and
getting his tax credit, Mr. Speaker.
*
(1730)
The
Vision Capital Fund provides venture capital investment to help Manitobans with
good ideas turn them into reality and in turn provide the opportunity for more
job creation.
The
Manitoba Industrial Opportunities Program has been strengthened. Its role is to encourage companies to build
on the advantages of investing right here in
In
other departments, Mr. Speaker, over $2 million has been allocated from the
Department of Rural Development for rural economic development
initiatives. We have also in the area of
education extended the payroll tax training tax credit to include training
delivered in export‑orientated service industries.
We have
also, Mr. Speaker, added some $2.5 million for new and expanded training at
Manitoba's three community colleges, because we recognize the need to provide
the training elements for the jobs that can be created.
Some
of the heckling coming from across the way, Mr. Speaker, I should compare that
to a‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Is truth a point of order, Mr. Speaker? Is it?
I guess I do not have a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader does not have a point of
order.
* * *
Mr. Stefanson: The honourable Leader of the Opposition never
has a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker, I wanted to compare some of the things that I just outlined to what we
see happening in
A
recent article:
I
want to talk about some highlights. I
want to talk about some good news, Mr. Speaker.
I want to talk about Medix, a medical supply firm selected
Recently
I had the opportunity to meet Con, Christopher and Paul Moreau who were
investing years of research into
We
also have Affiliated Credit Adjusters Ltd. expanding with the launch of credit
information services. Recently we had
Versatile Farm Equipment launching a $10.6 million expansion for a new tractor
line and 100 jobs that could be created.
We have Unisys
Just
to carry on in the same vein, Mr. Speaker, just starting from January 1, 1992,
to today, again an example of some of the good things that are happening in
We
have New Flyer Industries, Mr. Speaker, recently winning a $12‑million
bus contract from
I
touched on Versatile. We have the
Manitoba Hazardous Waste Corporation recommending to cabinet the $30 million
treatment facility to be located in the R.M. of Montcalm. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. That is during a matter of a handful of
weeks, to give you an example of some of the things.
Some Honourable Members: More, more.
Mr. Stefanson: If I only had more time, I would give you
more and more and more. I have a list
here, Mr. Speaker, that is some 50 pages long, and for me to read all of these
in the record, we know would take more time than I am allowed,
unfortunately. But I am sure over the
course of the next weeks and months I will get enough questions from members of
the opposition that I will get the opportunity to put all of these good news
stories on the record. I know the
members of the opposition. They want to
hear these good news stories because I think they believe in
Mr.
Speaker, there are sectors of our economy that have tremendous growth potential
and have had good growth to date: the health care industries, the aerospace,
environment and sustainable development, and as I have already touched on, the
information processing sector. These are
sectors for growth and they will grow in
Mr.
Speaker, I want to go back to some of the very specific aspects of the budget
that I think will do a great deal to stimulate the economy of
The
10 percent income tax credit for investment in new manufacturing and processing
in
Another
initiative to stimulate our economy, Mr. Speaker, has been transportation,
which has been a key to development and growth, and will continue to be a key
to development and growth. We house a majority of the head offices for the
trucking industry right here in
In
this budget, we are providing for the railway locomotive fuel tax to be reduced
by one cent per litre effective July 1, 1992.
I
will not go into all the detail that I am sure the Minister of Northern Affairs
(Mr. Downey) and others, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Downey), have done in the
mining industry, and I know that is of great interest to the member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie). The incentives I am sure they support in the
mining industry, whether it is our mining tax holiday for new mines, or our
mining tax exploration incentive, or our amendment to The Corporation Capital
Tax Act to deduct exploration and development costs. Those are some of the initiatives in the
mining industry.
Just
in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there are many strengths in
Mr.
Speaker, one thing I want to remind the members of the opposition, particularly
the NDP, is that Manitobans are the generators of wealth, not government. Governments create the climate. They provide some financial support. We provide the legislative and regulatory
climate. We bring the partners together,
and we help to recognize opportunities.
Simply stated, and I will put it simply so that hopefully everybody in
the House can understand, Manitobans create the businesses that create the jobs
that pay the taxes.
*
(1740)
Mr.
Speaker, our government has listened to the people of this province. We have listened to the people of
We
are well aware of the change in global economy and its impact on
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin where the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) left off. The minister ended off by hoping, and it is
perhaps a little bit of wishful thinking that this budget is going to get
unanimous support. I have bad news for
the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism.
Not only is this budget not going to get unanimous support over here, it
is not even going to get unanimous support on his own benches.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to begin by reading, for the edification of the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism, the remarks from the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld)
who said‑‑
An Honourable Member: Rossmere, oh.
Mr. Storie: Yes, the member for Rossmere who said: "I am not going to say right upfront how
I shall support it"‑‑on the budget. He is not sure whether he is going to support
it. He goes on further, perhaps more
ominously for the members of the front bench, and he says: I am not particularly happy with what we have
done here.
That
hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement even from the member of government,
and the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson)‑‑his own
caucus. So I think we have to dispel any
hope that the minister may have lingering that this is going to be supported
unanimously, because clearly it is not
Mr.
Speaker, I want to begin by saying, there can be no doubt that Manitobans are
frustrated. They may even be angry at
the current circumstances that face the province. They want solutions to some of the problems
that they see facing them. They want jobs for themselves; they want jobs for
their families; they want jobs for their sons and daughters; they want to have
the services to which they have become accustomed to be maintained.
Unfortunately,
this budget really undermines any confidence that Manitobans might have in the
performance of this province by being quite, unfortunately I have to say,
dishonest. It is dishonest not only in
terms of the economic circumstances as it is portrayed in the budget, it is
also dishonest with respect to its promise to maintain services for the people
of
Mr.
Speaker, on the one hand, I guess, the only way you can judge whether in fact
the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Manness) budget accomplishes what it says it is
going to accomplish is by trying to figure out what the focus of the budget
is. That is difficult, but I think if
you read the Minister of Finance's words carefully you can sort of decipher
that there are two fronts that the government considers very important. One is controlling spending and the other is
maintaining services.
I
do not think anywhere in the budget is there any evidence that the government
has met its first objective. If you
define the objective of the Minister of Finance and many of those who have
spoken, including perhaps most importantly the member for Rossmere (Mr.
Neufeld), the objective is reducing the deficit.
I
do not know how anyone on that side, in their wildest dreams, can claim that a
$530‑million deficit is controlling spending. Maybe they have abandoned that hope. Maybe they are not being completely honest
with the people of
Every
day, we hear members stand up and lament the fact that the province is carrying
significant debt burden. What they will
not acknowledge‑‑[interjection]
Well, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) is perhaps an example. He points his finger at members on this side
when this government has carried a deficit every year since they took
office. They were left a surplus and
every year they have carried a deficit and every year that deficit has
increased.
The
deficits, if the people of Manitoba were to be told the truth, are much higher
than the figures reported by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), because not
only have those deficits increased every year to the point now where we are
talking about $330 million, but the deficit has increased even more because the
government has misused the Fiscal Stabilization Fund.
(Mr. Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
We
did support the concept of a Fiscal Stabilization Fund. I believe that it has merit, but the
government has turned the fund into a political tool to be used to fool the
people of
No
one, for example, or very few, I should say, people in Manitoba understand that
what the government continues to do is sell off the assets of the Province of
Manitoba, roll them into the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, then subtract monies
from that fund from the deficit and pretend somehow that they are managing the
financial affairs of the province.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, no one in their right mind would sell off their living room and
then their family room and then the garage and use that money to fund the
ongoing operations of the house and maintain that they were holding the status
quo, that we were not losing ground.
This government has sold assets that belong to the people of
Today
we heard I think the first categorical correction from the government when the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) stood and said today, if we do not control
spending, next year the deficit will be, I think he said $593 million or $583
million. That will be the true deficit, not the fictional $330 million we see
reported in this Budget Address. So we
have to be honest with ourselves in the Chamber, and the members opposite have
to be honest with themselves.
We
also want to take issue with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism's (Mr.
Stefanson) suggestion somehow, and he is echoing here the Premier (Mr. Filmon),
that the best way to move the province forward in economic terms is to keep our
hands off. That is exactly what the minister said.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, it is more than a little ironic that in the government's budget
the successes that it reports to the people of
That
company would not be here if the NDP government had not made a deal with
Burroughs Unisys to keep the plant operating by agreeing to purchase some of
its equipment for our hospital system.
It would not have been here.
So
no one on this side is losing sight of the hypocrisy of the government talking
about keeping hands off when the only successes it can report to the House are
those which have required the involvement and the investment of the people of
That
is what we have been saying all along, that the hands‑off approach of the
government is taking completely the wrong approach to helping out our
economy. We also have to be honest about
the impact of government policies and also the federal Conservative policies on
the
*
(1750)
Mr.
Acting Speaker, everything is not fine.
The economy of this province is in a shamble, and we need more than
smoke and mirrors to correct the problems.
What we have in this budget is smoke and mirrors. [interjection] The member for
Mr.
Acting Speaker, just for the record, to counteract much of the rather jaded
information that was put on the record by the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), I think the people of Manitoba should know what the
circumstances of the province are with respect to its economic indicators.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Economic
growth in the
Mr.
Speaker, those statistics bespeak an economy in serious trouble‑‑serious
trouble. For all the fine words that we
heard in the Budget Address, that talked about the willingness of the
government to provide incentives, the fact of the matter is that this‑‑like
many of the other promises that this government has made‑‑is so
shallow you cannot fish in it. The fact
of the matter is that many of the incentives that they have announced, and they
acknowledge it later on in their budget, are going to have absolutely no cost
to the people of
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) took great pleasure when he read
the budget, in announcing all of the different kinds of incentives that he was
putting into effect as a result of this budget.
When I heard them, and I started analyzing what they meant for the
average manufacturing enterprise in the province, the average small business in
the province, and yes, even the mining companies in the province, the net
impact was negligible.
It
was not only my conclusion, because when I read in the Free Press the next day
the analysis of the business measures in the budget, they came to the same
conclusion. Whether we are talking about
Costas Nicolaou from the
Those,
Mr. Speaker, are the words of the government's supporters, that nothing in this
budget had any substance. There was no
substance. The government, by using
hollow, hollow incentives, was trying to create the impression that something
dynamic was happening. I have been
chastised‑‑although I have not had a chance to speak on the budget‑‑for
not referencing mining. The fact of the
matter is that in the 1991 budget, the government introduced the Manitoba
Mineral Exploration Incentive Program.
The
program was as ill‑conceived as any program that has ever been
introduced. Ill‑conceived, because
the Manitoba Mineral Exploration Incentive Program could not be used by the two
largest mining companies in the province.
It could not be used by Inco or
Mr.
Speaker, what is it going to cost the province to introduce its new incentive
programs? If we can believe the Minister
of Finance's (Mr. Manness) figures, in total, if you subtract the sales tax
reduction on the 1‑800 numbers, the mining incentives, less than $3
million in total.
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) again has not been completely
forthright, because he sneaks in the budget the continuation of the 1.5 percent
surtax, mining surtax, that he said he introduced as a temporary measure in
1989. The 1.5 percent surtax that he
continued in this budget eats up more than 10 times the amount of incentives
that are in the budget. Is that being
honest?
Mr.
Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the government continues on a path
which it has followed many times in the past.
It puts fine‑sounding words on paper, and then its actions are
exactly the opposite. It does exactly
the opposite.
Mr.
Speaker, the consequences of that are the 52,000 people who remain unemployed,
the 67,000 that are on social assistance in the
The
consequences go beyond that. They have a
way of spreading, of creeping like ringworm from the inside out. Mr. Speaker, when the unemployment rate is
chronically beyond 7 percent or 8 percent, the service sector begins to feel
the effect.
What
did we have last year in the
Mr.
Speaker, that is not talking about the thousands, literally thousands of other
small businesses who simply closed their doors, cut their losses, and said I
cannot make it, and I am not getting any help from this government.
The
government in its budget and in its estimates of spending has again used a
cheap PR ploy to fool people into believing that action exists where none is
being taken. Mr. Speaker, we only have
to talk about the fanfare with which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
talked about the increases in Health, Education and Family Services.
Mr.
Speaker, it sounds noble almost to say that the budget of Family Services has
increased $51 million. It sounds a
little less noble if you know that $40 million of that is going to pay people
welfare, an additional $40 million. That
follows on the heels of a $40 million increase in that budget the year before.
So $80 million of the Family Services budget, that huge increase that the
minister keeps talking about whenever we raise questions about cutbacks in
services, has gone almost directly to pay for the failure of this government's
economic policy‑‑the failure to really attract industry into the
province, the failure to get small businesses going, the failure to revive the
retail sector, the failure to put people to work.
So,
when the government says, in total we are spending another $200 million on essential
services, read welfare, read the consequences of unemployment, because the
violence and the abuse that we are seeing in our families today is most
certainly directed to the fact that there are no jobs and that people feel
despair.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
I am interrupting the honourable member.
According to the rules, when this matter is again before the House, the
honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) will have 21 minutes remaining.
The
hour being 6 p.m., this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 10
a.m. tomorrow (Friday).