LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday,
April 7, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Joyce
Bruyere, Lesley Peebles, Elaine Fontaine and others requesting the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to consider restoring funding of the student
social allowance program.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Ashton). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
[agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the state of Highway 391 is
becoming increasingly unsafe; and
WHEREAS due to the poor condition of the
road, there have been numerous accidents; and
WHEREAS the condition of the road between
Thompson and Nelson House is not only making travel dangerous but costly due to
frequent damage to vehicles; and
WHEREAS this road is of vital importance
to residents who must use the road.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member (Mr. Storie). It complies with
the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules (by
leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the provincial government has
without notice or legal approval allowed wide‑open Sunday shopping; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has not
consulted Manitobans before implementing wide‑open Sunday shopping; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has not
held public hearings on wide‑open Sunday shopping;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
BE IT FURTHER resolved that the
Legislative Assembly be pleased to request the Attorney General (Mr. McCrae) to
uphold the current law concerning Sunday shopping until public hearings are
held and the Legislature approves changes to the law.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis).
It complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies
with the rules. Is it the will of the
House to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 1000 young adults are
currently attempting to get off welfare and upgrade their education through the
student social allowances program; and
WHEREAS
WHEREAS the provincial government has
already changed social assistance rules, resulting in increased welfare costs
for the City of
WHEREAS the provincial government is now
proposing to eliminate the student social allowances program; and
WHEREAS eliminating the student social
allowances program will result in more than a thousand young people being
forced onto city welfare with no means of getting further full‑time
education, resulting in more long‑term costs for city taxpayers.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member (Mr. Hickes). It complies with
the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 1000 young adults are
currently attempting to get off welfare and upgrade their education through the
student social allowances program; and
WHEREAS
WHEREAS the provincial government has
already changed social assistance rules, resulting in increased welfare costs
for the City of
WHEREAS the provincial government is now
proposing to eliminate the student social allowances program; and
WHEREAS eliminating the student social
allowances program will result in more than a thousand young people being
forced onto city welfare with no means of getting further full‑time
education, resulting in more long‑term costs for city taxpayers.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Santos), 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? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 1000 young adults are
currently attempting to get off welfare and upgrade their education through the
student social allowances program; and
WHEREAS
WHEREAS the provincial government has
already changed social assistance rules, resulting in increased welfare costs
for the City of
WHEREAS the provincial government is now
proposing to eliminate the student social allowances program; and
WHEREAS eliminating the student social
allowances program will result in more than a thousand young people being
forced onto city welfare with no means of getting further full‑time
education, resulting in more long‑term costs for city taxpayers.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* (1335)
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member (Ms. Barrett). It complies with
the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 1000 young adults are
currently attempting to get off welfare and upgrade their education through the
student social allowances program; and
WHEREAS
WHEREAS the provincial government has
already changed social assistance rules, resulting in increased welfare costs
for the City of
WHEREAS the provincial government is now
proposing to eliminate the student social allowances program; and
WHEREAS eliminating the student social
allowances program will result in more than a thousand young people being
forced onto city welfare with no means of getting further full‑time
education, resulting in more long‑term costs for city taxpayers.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual Report of the Department of Education
and Training for the years 1991‑92.
I also would like to table the Annual Report of the Universities Grants
Commission 1991‑92 and the Annual Report for the Public Schools Finance
Board, the year ending June 30, 1992.
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister responsible for and charged with the administration of The Workers
Compensation Act): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table today the 1992
Annual Report of the Workers Compensation Board of Manitoba as well as the
annual Five Year Operating Plan of the Workers Compensation Board.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today the
Fatality Inquiries Report for the year 1992.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Budget
Property
Tax Credit
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions,
leading up to the budget and including in the Speech from the Throne, the
government talked about sharing the pain, having a fair approach to our
economy, and the Premier himself, in his own Speech from the Throne, talked
about the priority of their Conservative government in protecting those who are
less fortunate and protecting vulnerable and disadvantaged citizens.
We were looking for fairness in the budget
yesterday because the government alleged that that was what we would see, but
instead, the most vulnerable people, the most average‑income people were
the ones who were hit, and corporations were left alone in the budget.
I would like to ask the Premier
specifically, dealing with the property tax credit, which, of course, is a
reduction for most people of $75 minimum in their property tax and therefore a
cost to their personal disposable income:
How can the Premier justify his measures in his budget as being fair
when this will cost an average homeowner in Tuxedo 1.9 percent and an average
homeowner in the north end of
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, what the member opposite
conveniently glosses over and in fact misrepresents is the fact that this is
tied to income and that in fact people earning $27,500 and less will still get
the tax credit. It is income tested, and
if he is suggesting that people in poorer areas should get it cut as well, then
I think he is wrong.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Premier did not answer the
question because he knows full well that this will represent a much smaller
percentage increase for the people living in Tuxedo as it represents for the
people living in
I would like to ask the Premier another
question. How can he justify this budget
as sharing the pain when this budget represents a 1.3 percent increase for
people living on Wellington Crescent versus a 5 to 6 percent increase for
people living in the west end of
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the people who are living in the
west end of
* (1340)
Mr. Doer: Again, the Premier well knows, with the $75
reduction on the average homeowner, we are going to see a situation where
people in Tuxedo, the pain that they will feel is much different than the
people living in other areas of the province, Mr. Speaker. The Premier knows that, and he knows that
full well.
Budget
Property
Tax Credit
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): A final question to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).
The senior citizen change, Mr. Speaker,
the $175 will be moved back, for purposes of claim, to the income tax period.
Many senior citizens have prepared their savings, and they have budgeted their
lives in such a way, calculating the use of that $175 for purposes of property
tax this June. Many people are phoning
us and saying: Listen, I have planned a
trip to see my children, my grandchildren.
I budgeted very carefully. How
can the government change this provision to take it back to the income tax
system, which will in fact deny me the opportunity to save that $250 at the
period of time of the property tax?
Will the Premier look at the fairness of
that system, consider the fact that seniors budget long in advance, and have
some sensitivity to our senior citizens with the change they made in the
budget?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the impact does not take place
on averages; it takes place on individuals. Let me also remind the Leader of
the Opposition that low income people are exempt. We did everything we could within the very
complicated tax credit system that we have to minimize the impact on the
earners of income between $15,000 and $25,000, but specific to the question,
the member says: Why do you not allow
for the same way through the tax form?
Once we introduced a sense of testing
income, over 55 years of age, we had one of two ways of going. We could either ask the federal government to
do it on our behalf through the tax form, or we could have employed, like the
member I am sure would have preferred, significantly dozens of people more to
go through the means testing associated with a senior. We refuse to do that because indeed that
would have added another bureaucratic cost and more duplication between the
province and
Budget
Provincial
Sales Tax Base
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, back in 1990, the Premier of the
province promised not to raise taxes. He
followed that by a commitment in 1990 as well to not expand the provincial
sales tax to bring it in line with the goods and services tax, the much‑hated
goods and services tax. In this budget,
that promise was broken.
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the
Premier. Why has he decided to broaden
the sales tax to implement a tax grab which affects the poorest in our
community, people living in‑‑
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, I did not make the promise. The Premier made the promise. My question is: Where is the fairness in a $435 tax grab for the
average family of four when that tax grab affects the people on low income, the
people in my communities on a disproportionate basis compared to the member's
constituents in Tuxedo?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, we were so committed to and so
proud of the commitment that we made to freeze personal income tax that we put
out a news release on the 7th of September, 1990. It said:
Premier Gary Filmon today challenged Sharon Carstairs and the Liberal
Party to match his commitment to protect
That has been repeated time and time again
throughout the course of‑‑but, we have done better than that. We have not only frozen and reduced the
personal income tax rate. We have not
increased corporate income taxes. We
have not increased the payroll tax. We
have removed businesses from it, and we have not increased the provincial sales
tax rate.
Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely
incredible that the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), who was a member of the
cabinet that twice increased the sales tax rate from 5 to 6 percent, from 6 to
7 percent in this province, could talk about a tax grab with respect to the
changes that have been made to the sales taxes in this province. That is sheer hypocrisy. For him to be able to say that with a
straight face is unbelievable, when he was a member of the cabinet that
increased the sales tax from 5 to 6 percent and then from 6 to 7 percent at a
cost of hundreds of millions of dollars to the people of this province. Shame.
* (1345)
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, I made no such promise in 1981
when I was elected. This Premier was
elected on a promise of not increasing taxes, in plural. That is what it said: Our commitments are not to raise taxes‑‑plural.
This Premier is not keeping his word, and
not only is he not keeping his word, he is doing it in the most dishonest way,
by attacking the people who can least afford it.
My question is: How can this First Minister justify a $435
tax grab which affects the people who have to buy school supplies and baby
supplies, which affects them disproportionately to members in his own community
of Tuxedo?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the only dishonesty in this
House is being spoken by the member for Flin Flon over and over again.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I find
it incredible that the Premier in an election said he would not bring in a GST
provincial or an income tax, talks about dishonesty. This member should absolutely‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) will take his seat. The
honourable opposition House leader does not have a point of order.
Point of
Order
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have been recognized on
a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: On a point of order, you have been. What is your point of order?
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not
expect the First Minister to acknowledge that he has misled the people of
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. The honourable member for Flin Flon will take
his bench now. The honourable member
does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, in addition, of course, he then
adds to his falsehoods by quoting an erroneous story from the Winnipeg Free
Press. [interjection] We know about the view of the Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Doer). He had his member for Dauphin
(Mr. Plohman) write to the paper whining about the fact that it was the
Conservative media in
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the members
opposite are not employing Jack Katz to do their work just as the Free Press
are, because they are so far out on their calculations that they are out by a
factor of two in the calculations, absolutely.
The fact of the matter is that they take as the basis of their
calculation for the cost of gasoline tax a one‑cent‑a‑kilometre
increase, and of course, it is not. They
take as well‑‑[interjection] It is dead wrong. [interjection]
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has asked his question; now we will get the
answer.
* (1350)
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, they assume that things like
formula and baby food are going to be increased in tax. They are not. They assume that things such as
cloth diapers will cost tax. They are not.
They assume that there has been an increase in the taxation on
disposable diapers, and those in fact have been taxed since the last
budget. They are wrong in that. They assume a thousand dollars of
expenditures on‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Prior to recognizing the honourable member
for Flin Flon, I would like to remind honourable members on both sides of the
House, because the word has come from both sides, that the word
"dishonest" is unparliamentary. [interjection] Order, please. I have said it comes from both sides of the
House. Honourable members have got away
with it this time, but you will not get away with it again.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of co‑operation,
I would certainly withdraw the word "dishonest."
Mr. Speaker, I will substitute a
transcript from an August 30, 1990, CJOB interview, where the First Minister
says: "And our commitments are not
to raise taxes."
I would like to table that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my question to the First
Minister was a question of fairness. The
First Minister cannot deny that the sales tax increase is on items which are
required by every household. My question
therefore is: How can he justify
expanding the sales tax to include those items which every household requires
and which are clearly going to cost disproportionately more for low‑income
families?
Mr. Filmon: An increase in the sales tax‑‑as
was done twice by the New Democrats‑‑would have been the most
regressive of all, because it would apply to everyone, regardless of means; it
would have applied to them. All of them,
poor people, middle‑income people, everybody would have paid more as a
result of it. That is exactly what New
Democrats did in the past and New Democrats are doing in every province in this
country. Wrong, Mr. Speaker. That is the most regressive.
* (1355)
Budget
Economic
Growth Predictions
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, the First Minister should know
that by broadening the base, he has increased the sales tax rate by about half
a point.
Mr. Speaker, in the first five budgets,
the Finance minister was off on his deficit predictions by about $358
million. I would like to ask him
something about the projections that exist in this sixth budget.
He talks about the creation of 12,000 new
jobs in
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, we are
well aware that real incomes within the country are not experiencing any
inflationary growth to speak of. We draw
our forecast from federal Finance.
Whereas a year ago‑‑and the Leader of the NDP party
particularly likes to make issue of the fact that my estimate was off. I tell him, my estimate came from federal
Finance.
This year I have taken that federal
Finance estimate and I have discounted it accordingly, because I do not want to
suffer the same shortfall of revenue this year as occurred last year. That is
why the number is less.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about individual
personal income growth. The minister is
saying there are 12,000 new taxpayers in the province, yet he is predicting
there will be less growth. Can he
explain it for us?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, my answer still stands. I do not want to be in the same position at
the end of '93‑94 as occurred at the end of '92‑93. [interjection]
Well, you will support the budget then, I
imagine.
Some Honourable
Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Manness: My answer still stands.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, let us try it in a different
area then.
When you take out the tax grab in the
sales tax area by broadening the base and look at the actual year‑over‑year
sales tax revenues, it comes to about half of what the minister is predicting
the economic growth in the province to be.
How can that be?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, the member makes one very faulty
assumption. He assumes that my revenues,
government revenues generally, increase at the same rate as economic growth,
and that is not a fact. There was a time‑‑[interjection]
Do not take my word for it. Go and ask
the economists of the country who will tell you that when you have nominal
growth in the rate of 5 percent, the increase in revenue to government is going
to be less than the real economic growth of 3 percent, and that is the dilemma
that we have.
I will not have 3 percent or 4 percent
revenue growth this year, as much as I would love to, because nominal growth
today is not translating into 8 and 10 and 12 percent growth in revenues like
it did when the NDP were in government.
Personal
Care Homes
Per Diem
Increase
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, no group has been harder hit by
this budget than the elderly and the sick.
An example is an increase of 74 percent or $500 per month in the per
diem fees for some people in personal care homes.
Mr. Speaker, was the government aware‑‑and
it could be the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) or the Minister of Health‑‑when
it signed the contract with the
* (1400)
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, from time to time, when I close
my eyes, I can almost see the former member for St. James, Mr. Al Mackling, in
his strident anti‑Americanism, emerge when my honourable friend poses
questions.
Mr. Speaker, let me explain to my
honourable friend how we arrived at the decision to raise the contribution of
per diems in personal care homes from those individuals who have the income and
the ability and the means to pay.
We have a substantial amount of co‑operation
at the Minister of Health‑Minister of Finance level across
All provinces to the east of us, with the
exception of the
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that in
some instances where there are two spouses, and one individual is in a personal
care home and the other is on fixed income at their home, the person on fixed
income at the home will be forced into very serious financial straits as a
result of this because of not only other tax measures taken against that
person, but because the disposable income of the person who is in the nursing
home can no longer be utilized by that person who is in the home. Was that taken into consideration?
Mr. Orchard: I am certainly glad that my honourable friend
posed this question because it allows me to explain to Manitobans how factually
in error my honourable friend is. Mr.
Speaker, this maximum contribution is based on ability to pay, and the
exception is exactly the one that my honourable friend refers to. Where there is a married couple, one of whom
is in a personal care home, there will not be an increased required
contribution to per diem which will compromise the ability to live
independently by the spouse in the community.
We took that solidly, clearly and
compassionately into consideration, and the issue that my honourable friend
raises will not happen, Sir. My
honourable friend does not understand the program. I am pleased he asked the question so I can
take that little bit of misinformation away from my honourable friend.
Mr. Chomiak: I thank the minister. For the first time in the last month, he has
actually answered a question straight.
Home Care
Program
Equipment/Supply
Costs
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): My final supplementary is: How can this government justify or think it
is fair to charge sick people, people who are disabled or people who have
colostomies, or people who have medical necessities, for their medical
necessities when these people have no choice about their illness and they have
no choice but to pay this tax on the sick, imposed by this government on their
medical supplies? How can this minister
do that?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Well, again I do not
think that anybody took particular joy in, for instance, bringing in the
contribution by ostomates in
What we did again is we compared the
programs across
Budget
Impact on
Seniors
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Mr. Speaker, it is also written: From unto everyone
that hath shall be given, and from them that hath not even the little they have
shall be taken away.
While this government budget had exempted
some 900 businesses from their just share of the tax burden in the form of the
federal tax and had given $1.5 million in incentive training grants to their
corporate friends, they have reduced the minuscule pittance budget for the
Seniors Directorate by some 16 percent and have reduced the Pharmacare
deductible program and even confiscated‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Broadway, kindly put your question, please.
Mr. Santos: ‑‑from their Pharmacare
deductions. My question is to the
honourable Minister responsible for Seniors.
When will he start standing up and defending the interests of senior
citizens in this province?
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister responsible for Seniors): Mr. Speaker, since we
are quoting from the Bible, maybe I will quote:
The wise man's understanding turns him to his right; the fool's
understanding turns him to his left.
Mr. Speaker, when the honourable member
gets to the budget process, he will see in that budget process that the
deletion he is talking about is for the MSOS senior games. In that particular budget, he will see that that
is $30,000‑‑was reduced from the Seniors Directorate budget. However, I must tell the member he is invited
to the games. They will be carried out
in June, and they are paid through their $250,000 surplus that they have today.
Budget
Economic
Growth Predictions
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said that
everybody will be asked to contribute equally to the tax burden, and he
admitted that there will be less disposable income generally in the
My question is: If there is less disposable income, naturally
they can spend less; if they can spend less, naturally there will be less
economic activity; if there is less economic activity, there will be less
revenue. How does he expect the
government revenue to increase‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, ergo,
following his . . . then he would want us to leave more disposable income with
Manitobans so that then the economy will grow.
That is what we have been trying to do in six budgets, and he has voted
against every one of them. He believes
in the economic theory, and that is why we have tried to put a hundred million
dollars additional disposable income, leave it with Manitobans in all the tax
reductions so that the economy will produce jobs and the economy will continue
to grow. It seems to me, he does not
know whether he is going left or right, as attributed to him by my colleague.
Mr. Santos: The Minister of Finance has just admitted that
their management of this economy has failed for the last five years.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Broadway with his
question, please.
Pharmacare
Filing
Deadline
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): To the honourable Minister of Health: Given the letters of protest of some 18
organizations, what modification is he prepared to make in the Pharmacare
confiscation policy if they fail to file on time? One hundred percent confiscation in order
that there will be some justice to the claimant who has‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
* (1410)
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we have not changed the policy
that was established last year, of making sure that Manitobans file their
Pharmacare refund claims before April 30.
Again, I take this opportunity, and I
thank my honourable friend for the opportunity, to remind Manitobans that they
have had all of their Pharmacare receipts now for approximately three months
and a week, 97 to 98 days. They have
been able to file for 97 or 98 days. I
would encourage them sincerely to do so, so we can get the refund back to them
as quickly as possible. I hope that
filing is accomplished in timely fashion this year.
Government
Position
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, my quesion is for the Premier.
The biggest problem with this budget is
not so much that it recognizes that we are living in times in which we have to
live with great fiscal constraint, rather, the biggest problem with this budget
is that it proposes only one solution, that is, to cut, cut and cut social
programs to people.
Mr. Speaker, there are absolutely no
creative solutions. There is no new attitude towards the delivery of government
services. There is no new thinking in
this budget. As a result, the government
can offer Manitobans nothing but doom and gloom for the future.
My question for the Premier is: Why is this government not pursuing new ideas
like the $5 billion in savings that the Canada West Foundation says we can save
through prairie co‑operation between the four western provinces? Why is this government not pursuing things
that can save Manitobans in excess of‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, firstly, I would suggest to the
member opposite that indeed this government is pursuing many ways in which it
can do things more efficiently and more effectively. During the course of the last three budgets,
including this one, we have reduced the complement of the Civil Service by just
about 10 percent. That is an indication
of having to deliver services more efficiently, more effectively, and we have
worked very diligently towards that. [interjection]
Mr. Speaker, the member for Osborne (Mr.
Alcock) failed to make any points in his questions, so now he has to do it by
chirping across the House.
I would caution the member opposite as to
the wisdom of total integration, including political integration, of the
western provinces. I am not sure that is
an idea that the people of
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is
something that is acceptable to most western Canadians. I think you have to look at this in far more
detail rather than just take a ballpark, off‑the‑top assumption
with no facts to back it up and use that as the basis of some serious
questions. I can tell him this, that the
western provinces are interested in co‑operation‑‑
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the Premier simply does not
understand what is being talked about.
Political co‑operation is not the same as political
capitulation. There is a
difference. What is being talked about
is economic co‑operation.
Mr. Speaker, in May of 1991, almost two
years ago, the other provinces suggested they wanted to talk about this.
My question for the Premier is: Why, now that two years have gone by and
hundreds of Manitobans, businesses and individuals, have left this province and
will not be coming back, has this government not taken
Mr. Filmon: That is what the western provinces have been
working on as long as I have been in office.
We have worked on removal of the interprovincial trade barriers. We were the first group in
We have worked on all sorts of things to
do that, Mr. Speaker. In fact, that is
always the No. 1 issue and will be again this year at the Western Premiers'
Conference in May in Canmore, that we will indeed be working on continued
efforts to be able to make shared use of resources, to operate more efficiently
and more effectively and not to duplicate efforts where it is in our interest
to keep our taxes down and to provide more efficient services to our
people. We have been working on this for
five years. I do not know where the
member for St. James has been.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has been working on
a lot of things for five years, and he does not have a lot to show for it. The most current information is that there is
in the neighbourhood of $5 billion to be served between these provinces.
My final question for the Premier is: What vested interests, that are highlighted
by this report as being holding back these western provinces from co‑operating
efficiently, are holding this Premier and this government back from doing what
makes common sense, by making less of these borders between us, doing what the
rest of the world is doing and moving towards‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Filmon: None, Mr. Speaker.
Economic
Growth
Government
Record
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister
of Finance.
Investment is down. Jobs in manufacturing have declined. Housing
and construction have fallen very drastically.
In fact,
Will this minister, Mr. Speaker, now admit
to the complete and utter failure of his trickle‑down economic policies
and his negative do‑nothing policies which are again contained in this
budget?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): No, I will not admit
that. Mr. Speaker, the member is well
aware of what is happening across the nation.
He is well aware of the fact that employment numbers in the manufacturing
sector are down everywhere in the western world. He is well aware of the fact that virtually
every province in
I say to him, though: Is he aware that we have taken our tax regime
from the second highest to the middle of the pack? Is he well aware that we have not increased
personal income taxes for six years? As
a matter of fact, we have decreased them.
Is he aware that our provincial sales tax is at the same rate it was in
1987? I ask him to become aware of those
facts, and maybe then he will understand why it is that the future is so bright
and rosy for our province.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Nonpolitical Statements
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): May I have leave for a nonpolitical
statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable First Minister have leave
to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, this is a very significant day
in
I know that certainly all members will
want to join me in extending him best wishes as he embarks upon a new career,
leaving our Legislature with many friends and many fond memories, I am sure.
* (1420)
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Leader of the Opposition
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I also want to, on behalf of our
colleagues in the New Democratic Party and all members of the Legislature, pay
tribute to the honesty, integrity and quality of reporting of Glenn Johnson.
[interjection] I know the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has such a great
relationship with all members of the Fifth Estate as we all try to have.
It is quite an interesting symbiotic
relationship we have here in this Chamber.
On the one hand, we are adversaries across the floor. We all try to get our message out as best we
can through the media to the public. It
is a difficult job for them, and it is a difficult job, we believe, for us, but
I believe, in that to and fro, that honesty and integrity have always played a
part in Glenn's career. We wish him all
the best in his future endeavours.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Leader of the second
opposition party have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, it is always with some fondness and sometimes some disquieting
remembrances that we say goodbye to any member of the media. It has been interesting, not only in writing
my book but in also doing an interview last week, that I had to deal‑‑I
have to suggest‑‑with the issue of the media and how indeed we are
dealt with by the media.
I want to just make reference to one
specific series of events because it impacted particularly on the three Leaders
here in this Chamber. That was the whole
debate and all of the exposure to the Meech Lake process, in which I know that
it was very, very hard for members of the media, particularly those who had a
national focus‑‑in other words, their stories were not just for the
Manitoba scene, but a broader scene‑‑to sometimes make their
editors and their story writers understand what exactly Manitoba political
Leaders were saying.
Glenn was one of those, and I know that
sometimes he found in frustration that his stories were not always covered when
he did them in the way that he wanted them covered.
Other media came to me and complained
about it. They were trying to get our
message out there, yet they found themselves sometimes stymied by national
media people who just did not believe that that was the real story that the
Manitoba Leaders were trying to say.
I have a great deal of respect for all
members of the media, and just so that none of them rush out and buy the book,
wondering what I have said nastily about them, I have not said anything nasty
about any of you.
An Honourable Member: How about the rest of us?
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, now, I will not exclude the rest of you
from that, but I have not said anything nasty about the media.
Glenn, you do go with all of our best
wishes and with our respect for the very fine work that you have done in
reporting the events of this Chamber.
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: That was unanimous, Glenn.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
BUDGET
DEBATE
(Second
Day of Debate)
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that this House approve in general the
budgetary policy of the government.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this is a pretty serious time,
and it is a pretty serious budget. There
are literally hundreds of thousands of people in the
The Minister of Finance said this is one
of the toughest times he has had in political life over the last 12 years. I respect him for saying that, but I want to
say to the Minister of Finance and to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) that I believe
this is the most unfair budget I have seen in terms of the choices this
government can make in the short period of time I have been in this Chamber.
They had tough choices to make, Mr.
Speaker, because quite frankly it was kind of a laissez‑faire government
for the last six budgets. They really
did not have an agenda. They really did
not have a strategy. They did not have a
plan. They did not have a vision. The only thing they had was public relations,
media opportunities after media opportunities.
Their public relations strategy in terms of the
Mr. Speaker, it is a short‑‑[interjection]
The minister states, stay tuned, stay
tuned. Mr. Speaker, it is the kind of
cynicism we see opposite, the tired, cranky cynicism we see opposite, where the
multicultural communities are cut back while the minister fills up her own
office with political appointments, political patronage and appointments.
Costing the taxpayers more money is the Conservative vision of this province,
and Manitobans are not going to put up with it much longer.
Mr. Speaker, we will get to the Premier's
(Mr. Filmon) recorded announcements very shortly, because the one thing wrong
with the Premier's recorded announcements, they blow apart about two years
later when they turn out to be untrue and not factual for the people of this
province. We will cite four election
promises this Premier made on taxes, not one of which has he kept, and we will
name them.
Mr. Speaker, the question is: The test of this budget, is it fair, and have
the Conservatives been honest with the people of
Let us deal with the fairness issue, Mr.
Speaker. The Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) told us a couple of weeks ago that if everybody in
The fundamental problem is that the
ideology of members opposite is very simple.
You give tax breaks to corporations. You expect those tax breaks to be
trickled down into the economy. You
expect those trickled‑down tax breaks to create jobs and economic
opportunities and you, then, in turn, allow your province to go accordingly.
The Premier (Mr. Filmon) has himself said
that with his statement in this House in 1991 at the height of the recession
and the height of the depression. When
we were performing in last place of any province in
Well, who else said that, Mr.
Speaker? Ronald Reagan said that;
Margaret Thatcher said that; George Bush said that; Brian Mulroney said that;
Gary Filmon said that; and it has failed every jurisdiction where it has been
applied‑‑every jurisdiction.
In this budget again today, we see the
failure. We see a residential tax
increase for average homeowners across the province, an average tax increase in
the north end of 8 percent, and an average tax increase in the Premier's riding
of Tuxedo of 1.9 percent. We see an
average tax increase on
* (1430)
We see tax increases in Transcona and in
Mr. Speaker, the member for
The member opposite talks about it, Mr.
Speaker, but 13 percent out of 15 percent of sales tax has come in from Tories,
both provincial and federally. We do not
apologize to members opposite, we do not apologize in any way, shape or form
for getting rid of medicare premiums, for family tax credits and for property
tax credits these Tories are trying to erode.
Mr. Speaker, the change in the property
tax system is unfair. It is also a
tax. It is clearly a tax. It is a tax credit change. What kind of Orwellian language is the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) trying to use? The
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) did not use it, by the way. He was honest enough to say, yes, it is a tax
increase.
The Minister of Finance and I may disagree
about the priorities and the decisions and choices they have made, but at least
the language is consistent in terms of the Minister of Finance and ourselves. I cannot say that, unfortunately, for the
person who is supposed to provide leadership in terms of integrity in this
House, and that is the Premier of this province.
The government has run on a theme‑‑and
I think it is very important for Manitobans to realize‑‑that we are
not going to increase the personal income tax rates in this province. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier knows that any
percentage increase in the personal income tax produces $17 million worth of
revenue to the province.
The Tories opposite just increased
taxation by some $100 million. Our
calculations are that this works out to about $400 per family of four. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) is arguing with the
media about those figures, but we have calculated it on the basis of about $400
per family, including the gasoline one‑cent‑per‑litre
tax. That represents about 5 percent on
the personal income tax side.
So I think it is a little bit of a public
relations game they are playing when on the one hand they say they are not
going to do something and on the other hand, when they get rid of the property
tax credit at $75, it is not only the equivalent increase in the case of
property tax credit of 3 percent on the personal income tax, it is in fact, Mr.
Speaker, a regressive tax, a very regressive tax, because it hits the middle‑income
earner more than it hits the high‑income earner. It hits somebody in East Kildonan and in St.
James, in Thompson and Dauphin and
The member opposite should start speaking
up in his caucus instead of speaking up in this House. You know, it is easy to chirp, but we would
like the member for
Mr. Speaker, the second question is the
PST extension for some items covered under the GST. There is a reason why those items have been
excluded by previous governments and provincial sales tax. They were considered the basic necessities of
the provincial sales tax and, therefore, they were made exempt. They were made exempt because successive
governments felt it was fair to make those items exempt, and that was Ed
Schreyer, in fact, even going back to Duff Roblin, who initiated the original
provincial sales tax at 5 percent, Duff Roblin, Ed Schreyer, Walter Weir,
Sterling Lyon, Howard Pawley, and now we come to the meanest Premier of them
all, the Premier from Tuxedo, the Premier opposite.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very unfair
tax. This is a regressive tax. We have the equivalent of a 1 percent
increase in sales tax.
You know, the Tories did a good job. They let everybody believe that a 1 percent
increase in sales tax was going to come down and then when it did not happen
everybody went, phew. Well, this is the
equivalent of a 1 percent increase in sales tax. It is the equivalent of a 5 percent and 5.5
percent increase in personal income tax, but the real insidious part of this
increase, it is more negative for the medium‑paid, the middle‑income
people and the lower‑income people than any other change they could
make. That is why we say to the Premier,
it is an unfair tax. That is one of our
major concerns.
We also believe that the decisions they have
made have been very unfair in terms of the spending side‑‑children,
seniors, people on social allowance, people in poverty, Indian and Metis
Friendship Centres, foster parents.
Those are the groups the Tories have targeted.
It is not the payroll tax that they have
now given more to in terms of small business.
It is not the training allowances, the really orientation grants of $7
million for corporations. It is not the
$15 million in Vision Capital to places like Chip and Pepper that have been
given out by the Conservative government. It is not the $15 million or $12
million in the I, T and T department that have provided grants for companies
like Linnet to take over public intellectual property.
Those are not the cuts the Tories have
made in this big, tough decision‑making process. They have gone after the seniors in terms of
home care, user fees, Mr. Speaker, which of course work totally opposite to any
alleged plan they had on health care reform.
They are going after the seniors in terms of delaying the $175 and tying
it to income tax. The Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) said today, that is the only way we could get the federal
government to do it. I say to the Minister
of Finance, do not do it at all and you would not have to change it, to the
Minister of Finance.
They go after the foster parents, Mr.
Speaker, and the training and development for foster children which of course
has kept people out of higher‑cost institutions. It is going to cost us more money. They go after the more vulnerable
people. They took the food away from
families of four and five living in the city of
Mr. Speaker, so on the spending side and
expenditure reduction side, and on the revenue side or the taxation side, we
see two fundamental themes of the Conservative Party under the Premier (Mr.
Filmon). Those two fundamental themes
are unfair, and they are not fair to the people of this province. They do not build and invest in people. They do not build and invest in our greatest
resource, the population of this province.
They do not build in the children.
They do not provide dignity to our seniors.
They cut, in some cases, the very
underpinning of the dignity and the livelihood of the people most vulnerable,
and for that I say to this Premier, you should call an election on this budget.
You do not have a mandate to proceed on this budget. You did not campaign on it in '88; you did
not campaign on it in 1990. I wish he would
have the courage of his convictions to campaign on it in 1992.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about a couple
of areas of honesty. In 1988, I was in
Leaders' debates with this Premier (Mr. Filmon), and the Premier said at that
point in time‑‑and I have been critical of the Liberal Leader (Mrs.
Carstairs) on this, too, on the payroll tax‑‑the Premier said, I
will get rid of the payroll tax in four budgets, completely eliminate the
payroll tax in four budgets. I asked the
Premier, where is he going to get the $200 million? Where is he going to get the money? Where is he going to get that revenue,
because it is health and post‑secondary tax. Nobody likes taxes, but that tax was put in
place to offset the reduction from the federal government in EPF payments that
were made starting in 1981.
You had two choices, to cut back on health
care and education, or you could raise the tax from the corporations, nine
corporations which pay over 50 percent of it, that could keep those vital
programs going. Those are choices to be
made. So the Premier criticized those
choices and said he would get rid of that one decision, but he did not tell us
where he was going to get the $200 million.
He did not tell us where he was going to get it out of health care and
education. He just said, I will get rid
of it in four budgets.
* (1440)
He said that, Mr. Speaker, and I can quote
him time after time where he made that quote.
Then he went to the Chamber of Commerce breakfast and made another
promise on taxation. I guess by that
point, he was feeling the heat from the Liberals. I know at that point, he was not feeling the
heat from us. He made a promise to get
rid of the land transfer tax. Oh, that
is a terrible tax, another terrible tax.
Oh, if I am elected, at the Chamber of Commerce, I will get rid of the
land transfer tax.
I have looked at the third budget, the
fourth budget, the fifth budget, the sixth budget, and they have not got rid of
those two taxes. We knew they could not
do it in 1988. We were honest to say we
would not lower that tax. We went to the
Chamber of Commerce breakfast and said, we would love to get rid of that tax
and all taxes, but we cannot do it, we cannot afford it. We are not going to be dishonest with
you. We had increased the small business
threshold twice. The Premier has done
that now four times, but we could not get rid of that fundamental source of
revenue in 1988.
In 1990, the Premier also campaigned on
taxation. Now, he is pretty clever about
this because he knows a 1 percent increase on personal income tax is only $17
million. In 1990, it was about $15
million. He made a number of commitments
in 1990 in the election.
I remember this, Mr. Speaker, not from
reading all the newspaper clippings. I
remember standing beside him with the Leader of the Liberal Party in
debates. I remember the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) turned to the Leader of the Liberal Party in the debate and said: What is your commitment on taxation? Our commitment on taxation is we are not
going to raise taxes, period.
Then the Leader of the Liberal Party said
to the Premier: Oh, I suppose if you are not going to raise that, are you going
to raise the GST and the PST combination?
The Premier said: No, we are not
going to do that.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
Later on CJOB in another Leaders' debate,
he talked about the harmonization of the GST and expanding the PST. He made a statement: We are not going to tax children's clothing and
music lessons and all these other things.
The Premier clearly has not kept his word on four promises on taxation,
four big ones‑‑not little sort of equivocations, four major
commitments on taxation from '88 to '92.
The Premier does not believe me. I know he has his people running around the hallway
saying the Premier only said personal taxes, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, did not
say taxes period. We looked at the tape
the other day because we heard this massive spin going on out there. It comes right out of the Premier's own
lips: We are not going to raise taxes,
full stop; what is your commitment, Mrs. Carstairs, full stop‑‑or
the Leader of the Liberal Party. I will
show the Premier the tape if he wants to see it. I will show it to him. It comes right out of his very own lips,
Madam Deputy Speaker. [interjection] He did not say read my lips. He did not say that. I wish he had, but he did not say that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a very
serious problem, because you know this is much more insidious. Four major breaks of promises on taxation is
indicative of a style of government dealing with honesty that is very serious.
Let us look at some other issues. Let us look at the deficit and the Fiscal
Stabilization Fund. I supported the
Fiscal Stabilization Fund. I thought it
was a good idea to have commodity prices‑‑
An Honourable Member: You voted for it?
Mr. Doer: Yes. We
did not vote against every budget the Tories brought in. We voted for the '89 budget. [interjection]
No, I still support the idea in a province like
I could tell the member for The Maples
(Mr. Cheema) that we did not want an election in 1988, and we were not voting
for or against the budget. In 1989, we
did support the budget, and we did vote for it, and we supported‑‑we
did not change seats or anything else because we thought: (a) that the family tax credit was consistent
with what we had said in the election; and (b) we thought the Fiscal
Stabilization plan was not a bad idea.
I am going to tell the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) where we part company with him and his Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness). We thought that program would
allow an unusually high revenue year and particularly the commodity market to
allow us to take extraordinary revenue and put it against other fiscal years
where there was going to be a decline in revenue in a very, very unfair way.
I believe that if the government took that
extraordinary revenue and put $100 million in the budget or $200 million in the
budget, they should have kept it in the budget.
Where I leave company with this government and where I say they have
been fundamentally dishonest is, every year they say they are going to put some
money of the Fiscal Stabilization money into the deficit. Every year, television shows these slides on
the six o'clock news saying the deficit is $200 million less than what it
really is.
They have spent that money for three
fiscal years in the budget presentations they have made in this Chamber. That is dishonest, absolutely dishonest. Every year, the television tapes have
included a deficit that is wrong. The
Auditor will record this year that the deficit for the
When you consider the fact, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that this Premier started off at a zero point‑‑Sterling
You know, he is like Grant Devine. Grant Devine is a good friend of the Premier
opposite. They have golf tournaments in
Madam Deputy Speaker, this Premier (Mr.
Filmon) has taken the deficit up over $700 million in four budget years. No other Premier has taken the deficit up
more than $300 million. He is twice as
bad as any other Premier in the history of this province, and he should stop
contradicting the Provincial Auditor, who is contradicting his numbers every
time she releases a report for the people of
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have four
election promises on taxation: payroll
tax in four years; land transfer tax; I will not raise taxes, to the Leader of
the Liberal Party in 1990; and we will not extend the PST‑‑four promises
there, promises on the deficit.
So you will excuse us when you show your
fancy charts saying we will eliminate the deficit in four budget years. You will excuse us for being a little bit
skeptical, if you do not mind. You were only off a quarter of a billion dollars
in your deficit projection‑‑a quarter of a billion dollars in your
deficit projection.
You know, this man opposite says: Oh, yeah, we are Tories, we are business
people, we can manage things, we are like Brian Mulroney and Michael Wilson. You can trust us with our finances.
Who can believe the Premier opposite on
taxation promises and on deficits and they have the gall to table a deficit
projection for the next four years showing there will be a surplus in 1996?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would ask the
Premier just to look at his budget in 1990.
I would ask the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) to look at his budget
in 1990. You know what you projected as
a deficit in 1990 for 1992‑93?
This is your multiyear budgeting.
An Honourable Member: $800 million?
Mr. Doer: No.
An Honourable Member: $600 million?
Mr. Doer: No, it is not $600 million.
An Honourable Member: $500 million?
Mr. Doer: $500 million?
No.
An Honourable Member: Four?
Mr. Doer: Oh, they projected a $270‑million deficit
in the year '92‑93. Do not worry,
you are only off 300 percent. You are
Tories. You know how to handle money for
So we have the election promises that have
been broken. We have the deficit
projections that have been broken.
Honesty is not a word that is in the vocabulary of this Premier and this
Tory government.
But let us look at some of the other
promises. You negotiate an agreement
with foster parents, then you rip it up.
You negotiate agreements with public sector groups. You negotiate 3 percent one year, COLA the
next year. You have a little signing
ceremony, Madam Deputy Speaker. The
Premier agrees to it. Oops, we are going
to change that too. I guess, you know,
the polls changed a couple of weeks ago.
Our integrity does not mean anything.
Our word does not mean anything.
Our signatures do not mean anything.
* (1450)
You go to the nonprofit groups, the Sports
Federation. Last year, you took $10
million away from them. Oh, we are going
to have an agreement with you next year; do not worry; here is our agreement
with you. We will have this agreement
that says you will get this much money next year because we want to reward you
for managing your money fairly and properly.
Oops, there it goes again. There
goes our word again.
Mr. Speaker, whether it is a social group,
whether it is a sports group, whether it is dealing with the deficit, this
government does not keep its word, and its election promises, its signature,
does not mean a thing. I think that is a
very major issue.
Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the so‑called
priorities of this government in their budget.
Health care is a so‑called priority, maintaining the vital health
care system. Does this government have a
plan on health care? It has a
booklet. It has public relations, media
opportunities, but when it released its booklet last year, we were worried
about giving the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) a blank cheque because we did
not see any specific action. We will
take this much from the acute care beds.
We will move this much over to the community‑based programs, and
we will have this much for home care. We
did not see any plan.
One of the fundamental community‑based
programs is in home care. Now, how can
this government square their alleged goal of having health care reform and
delivering more services in homes that are more cost effective, more dignified
for the people and part of their health care strategy, when they are putting in
a user fee for seniors and other sick people which would invariably drive more
people out of their homes, out of home care, into personal care homes and
hospitals?
They said a year ago they had a health
care plan. They do not have a health
care plan. They have a consultant from
That is why we would not give the Minister
of Health a blank cheque on health care because he never did have a plan. He is scrambling now to develop a plan from
Many of the other decisions are very
fair. I have mentioned seniors and the
changes, the Pensioners' School Tax Assistance, Home Care, Pharmacare, Property
Tax Credit and hospital services.
But look at the programs for
children. Children's Dental Program cut
for 60,000 rural children. Student
social allowances cut. Day care programs
cut. Child welfare has a 13 percent
increase in demand and a 4 percent reduction in staff; a 2 percent reduction in
schools and universities, and that is on top of a 10 percent cutback for
community colleges in the
This government is not being honest with
the people of
Madam Deputy Speaker, why does this all
take place? It all takes place because
of the absolute dismal economic performance of the Conservative government
since they have received a majority government.
Every year, we hear Tory members and ministers opposite, and
particularly the Premier, say this year is tough but next year is going to be
great. Do not look in the rearview
mirror. Next year is going to be
great. Hallelujah, hallelujah, jobs,
opportunities, population is here to come. Just follow the Tory slogans.
In 1991, first year Tory majority government,
the statistics that came out in September are even worse than the ones that
came out in May, the preliminary statistics.
So 1992 was going to be better. It should have been better. If you go down
3.3 percent, if you go up 3.3 percent the next year, you are just going to be
even. Is it better? No.
In 1993,
That is why in 1992
There is a lot I could say about this
budget, but I want to close with a few comments. The government today is handing out a
pamphlet talking about sharing together, walking together, I think it is, in
the province of Manitoba, a blue pamphlet they are sending out with the
Minister of Finance saying this is the toughest year I have ever had, Madam
Deputy Speaker‑‑Manitobans pulling together.
I think this is very serious. I know the Minister of Finance did not write
everything in this statement. This plus
the cutbacks probably came right out of their polls, Madam Deputy Speaker. We had people who were called by polling
companies saying what cuts do you want to have?
What vulnerable people do you want to cut? I guess that is just like the focus groups
the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) had.
Let us cut the immigrant student, Madam Deputy Speaker. That will be a popular one. That is a real winner for Tories. Take away the crutches from the old,
elderly. That is a good one for Tory
economic policy.
* (1500)
Madam Deputy Speaker, this Premier (Mr.
Filmon) is pulling Manitobans apart. He
has teachers fighting parents, fighting school boards. He has public employees fighting the government
and fighting to provide services. He has
foster parents trying to fight on behalf of foster children. He has labour fighting business instead of co‑operating
together. He has municipalities fighting
the provincial government which is in turn fighting the federal
government. He has multicultural
grassroots organizations fighting against the minister's own secretariat, the
political crony department of the provincial government.
This government is using a Tory tactic to
find a scapegoat, create a fight, have people fight against each other. They want people to fight against each other
as part of the Tory strategy. I believe that Manitobans need an alternative
vision, a vision of co‑operation, a vision of really working together in
partnership of business, labour and government going forward with a real
economic agenda, not just economic slogans.
I believe we should be providing investment in education and training
for people to provide the future jobs in our economy, not the cutbacks. I believe we should have real health care
reform with partnership with the health care providers and the patients of this
province, Madam Deputy Speaker. We
believe in pulling together, yes, not just as a slogan, but as an action plan.
I commit to the people of
Because this government is so tired and so
bereft of ideas, the only thing they have left is slogans, I would move, seconded
by the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), that the motion be amended by
deleting all the words after "House" and substituting the following:
Regrets that
(a)
this government's tax increases are regressive andunfair to seniors,
young people, low‑ and middle‑incomeearners; and
(b)
this government's inaction on job creation means morehardship for many
thousands of
(c)
as a result of this government's callous and unfair cutsin government
services for education, health care,social programs such as the reduction in
Children'sDental Program in rural and northern Manitoba, home carecuts and
reduction for schools and universities,Manitobans are losing their hope for the
future; and
THEREFORE this government has thereby lost
the confidence of this House and the people of
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member's amendment is in
order.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have to
say to my honourable friend the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer)
that this is now I think about the sixth time I have heard him reply to a
budget. With all the niceness that I can
muster, I think this is the worst job that my honourable friend the New
Democratic Party Leader has ever done.
My honourable friend the Leader of the New
Democrats talked about an unfair budget.
He talked about the wrong choices were made, that there was no plan and
no agenda. He talked, Sir, in his
opening remarks about honesty. Mr.
Speaker, I want to tell you I want to deal with the honesty of the New
Democrats and their Leader and the leftover remnants of Howard Pawley's cabinet
that occupy five out of six chairs in the front row.
The New Democratic Leader and some of his
members try to tell Manitobans that the budget that they left us with when
their own member, one Jim Walding, stood with the combined opposition to defeat
the worst government in the province of Manitoba, the first time in the history
of the province that a government backbencher stood to defeat their own
government. You want to talk about
honesty, that was the greatest expression of honesty this House has ever seen
when Jim Walding defeated his own government.
That was honesty, Sir.
Now the Leader of the NDP tries to say
that was a balanced budget. Mr. Speaker,
I want all members to pick up a copy of the Estimates of Expenditure that were
defeated that night. They will show that
the New Democrats were projecting a $334‑million deficit, but yet the
Leader of the New Democrats will stand up and say, well, we left you with a
balanced budget. That is an absolute
falsehood.
Now let us talk about the honesty of the
budget that was going to project a $334‑million deficit. Why did Jim Walding stand up to defeat
it? Mr. Speaker‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would direct the member's attention to
pages 16 and 17 of the
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Flin Flon does not
have a point of order. That is clearly a
dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I hope that you acknowledge that
this is my time that the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) just wasted. But I think the question around honesty has
to be, why did Jim Walding, New Democratic Party backbencher, stand up to
defeat the budget? Because he knew it
was a dishonest budget.
Do you want to know how dishonest that
budget was that we defeated, and you remember that night, Sir, because the New
Democrats did not include $22 million of settlements to nurses and doctors they
had already negotiated, but they did not print it in the budget to deliberately
understate a $334 million deficit.
There were $60 million‑plus of
understated expenditures in that budget that we had to add in to create an
honest budget. That is why Jim Walding stood up and defeated Howard Pawley and
the NDP.
My honourable friend the New Democrat
Leader (Mr. Doer) says, well, you know, by the end of the year, the budget was
in surplus position. Yes, it was, after
we had added expenditures of $20 million in Health, $8 million in Education,
$25 million in Agriculture and $10 million in Capital.
* (1510)
That is the spending we added in that
budget, and our deficit projected in the budget that was passed was less than
$200 million. We lowered taxes, we
increased expenditure in key departments, and we lowered the deficit projection. That was an honest budget.
Now, let us deal with how we ended up with
the Fiscal Stabilization Fund. The
The revenues went up because the
At the same time, Inco, the price of
nickel went to $9 a pound, and Inco paid approximately $100 million of taxes in
that year that no one projected would be there.
That was the money that was used to create the Fiscal Stabilization Fund. It had nothing to do with New Democratic
Party policies. It had everything to do
with
Now, my honourable friend the Leader of
the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) talks about honesty today, and he says that
we cannot budget. Well, that same
economy in
That is the reason for the increased
deficit in last year's budget, nothing to do with our management, because our
revenues in
Where is the honesty in the Leader of the
New Democratic Party when he tries to say it was them, the New Democrats, who
left this province in good shape? That
is the most dishonest statement I have ever heard from a Leader of the New
Democrats, and I have heard many dishonest statements from New Democratic Party
Leaders.
Now, Sir, my honourable friend‑‑I
listened intently, and he tried to say he had a plan that would change
I can conclude nothing else than that Monday's
Free Press statement by the Leader of the Opposition, Gary Doer, stays and
remains, that he has nothing that he would do if he was on government side of
the House. He has no ideas for change,
because I did not hear one today. That
is what I heard him attempt to say. He
has nothing‑‑the one thing he said was that they would create an
era of harmony between business and labour and government.
Well, that is not a bad idea, except he
did not go far enough, because we have done exactly that between business,
between labour, between government, and we have added the academic community of
the universities on the Economic Innovation and Technology Council. That is where we are bringing together some
of the leaders in labour, in management, in the university scene and in
government to create the new thinking that is required to get our economy in
Manitoba to transition into the next century.
This is a time of exceedingly difficult decisions for government.
My honourable friends the New Democrats
would like us to believe that there are no problems in
My honourable friends the New Democrats,
with piousness, talk about honesty. What
was Bob Rae saying in opposition? The
same kind of rhetorical flourish that we hear from the Leader of the New
Democrats in Manitoba, where they promise the world and in government deliver
absolutely the opposite, drive the Province of Ontario into debt. Ask yourselves, honourable members of this
Legislature, when Bob Rae made the statement that $17 billion was their
potential deficit, what happened to two very important indicators for economic
recovery, the level of our dollar in the international market, and our interest
rates? The dollar went down and interest
rates went up.
Bob Rae's statement will thwart economic
recovery in
Now, let us deal with some of the
budgetary issues, and let us talk about how we arrived at some decisions. I want to talk specifically about some of the
decisions in health care, because I do not want my honourable friends the New
Democrats spreading improper interpretation of decisions in the health care
system, because it was evidenced today‑‑my honourable friend the
critic for the New Democrats laid out a scenario in terms of the additional
charges of per diems which was wrong and would have frightened Manitobans in
that kind of a circumstance. That is why
we need to have this kind of debate to lay the information out. I look forward to Estimates to lay even more
out.
Yes, we increased the per diem in personal
care homes. We increased it for only
those Manitobans in personal care homes who have the ability to pay, in other
words, additional income other than the old age security and the Guaranteed
Income Supplement. It is only on a sliding scale that we will access additional
per diems up to $46.04 per day. That is
the rate
Is it fair? You know, I do not expect those who will have
to pay more will say, we are glad the government did this, but let us consider
what the alternatives are. Should we
expect those working poor, who our friends in the New Democratic opposition say
they are defenders of, should we have their taxes go to pay the cost of
maintaining a citizen of Manitoba with greater ability to pay in a personal
care home where all of the costs of a residence of a personal care home are
covered, the housing, the food, the pharmaceuticals, all their medical
costs? Is it fair to ask the working
poor in
I do not think so. That is an issue of fairness, and we are
asking, and we have developed a progressive scale of per diems which will
reflect the individual's ability to pay.
It will not compromise the spouse's ability to live independently
because we will not allow that to happen.
So the scenario painted by the New Democrats in Question Period today is
not accurate.
Let us talk about the Continuing Care
Programs and some of the changes that we made in the Continuing Care
Programs. Yes, we are asking for items
of equipment that cost less than $50 to be purchased by the user. No, we will not receive accolades for
that. We are also asking that home
maintenance, laundry and housecleaning be paid for by the individual. That is the program that was developed with
support services for seniors under the New Democratic Party under the
leadership of Howard Pawley.
It happens to be a good program, and we
have expanded it. It is significantly
throughout rural and northern
Is that going to be popular? Of course, Sir, it is not. We are not going to get accolades from those
seniors for doing that, but what is failed to be realized in this is that we
did not remove those budgetary savings from the home care budget, we reinvested
them into the area of real need and real care, where we are providing those $3
million of additional services in nursing and heavier care support in the home
care program to maintain a greater amount of independence in the community, not
a lesser amount.
Is that a reasonable approach? I think that is quite a reasonable
approach. We are investing in areas of
greatest need to support a greater number of Manitobans independently in the
community through home care by asking some Manitobans to make a modest
contribution for nonhealth‑related services in the home care program such
as laundry and household cleaning. I do
not think that on balance Manitobans will think that is terribly unfair.
* (1520)
What did we do with the ostomy
program? Yes, up until this budget the
ostomy supplies for ostomates in
What we have done, and our first proposal,
and I want to share it with the House so that they know the kind of decision
making we went through to get at this decision.
Originally the proposal was, Mr. Speaker, that we make ostomy supplies
part of the Pharmacare program so that you would purchase from wherever in
We changed that original proposal of
having it Pharmacare deductible and reimbursable to maintaining our central
purchasing, which saves about 25 percent in terms of the cost by bulk
purchasing, and developed the program which will be implemented this year of
asking for a 50 percent contribution on those bulk‑purchase supplies to a
maximum of $300 per year.
Again, I openly admit that Manitobans
requiring ostomy supplies will not thank myself or government for doing that,
but when you consider that other provinces require a contribution and that the
needs in the system are substantial, we made that decision.
The interesting thing will be whether the
New Democrats will stand up and say that if they are government, they will
reinstate gratis, free services, and I do not think they will. They will not ever do that, because I do not
think they will.
Now, the Children's Dental Health Program‑‑with
regret, we removed the treatment portion of the Children's Dental Health Program
in rural and northern Manitoba, but we will maintain the important component of
prevention and education in the Children's Dental Health Program.
We are going to ask Manitobans with
children in the six‑ to 14‑year‑old range in the school
system in rural and northern
But I want to remind my honourable friends
before they become too vociferous in their criticism. Ask yourself why the
So, you know, when my honourable friends
make these kinds of criticisms, make sure you look at provinces immediately
east and immediately west and see whether there is some consistency in approach
between us. Whether we are New Democrats
in
I do not expect Manitobans to give us
accolades when they are asked to contribute more. I do not expect that. But Manitobans also are giving accolades to
the fact that their income tax did not go up, the sales tax did not go up. Corporate income tax, more companies, smaller
employers are now sheltered from the dreaded payroll tax.
I mean, my honourable friends laugh, but
at one hand they want economic development and job creation and on the other
hand they do not want to provide‑‑[interjection] Ah, now my
honourable friend says, where is the job creation? Well, I want to tell my honourable friend
where it is.
The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) is
asking where there is job creation. What
is our contribution? Eighty million
dollars of taxpayer dollars in
Now, my honourable friend wants to know a
little more about job creation. Let us
talk about the job creation in Inco in Thompson. Let us talk about how well they are doing in
relative comparison to any other nickel company in
Well, is that such a scary concept? My honourable friends would think so. But we hosted the Total Quality Management
Conference in Manitoba just two weeks ago, and I want to tell you that that
opened the eyes of a lot of individuals who had this fear, and they were
running on this sloganeerism that TQM, Total Quality Management was some
American management philosophy.
In fact, it is Demming, the American, invented
the process basically, but it was the Japanese who significantly introduced it
into their industrial milieu and production method. And guess who just happens to have one of the
more robust economies in the world?
So, my honourable friends, when they fear
the future so much, and they talk in platitudes about what they would do, I
have this genteel reminder of hearing those very same swan songs from Bob Rae
when he was an opposition leader of the New Democratic Party. I heard those same swan songs in
I note my honourable friends, in terms of
the health care debate, have not commented from the New Democratic Party on the
decision, whether it is right or wrong, that the British Columbia Ministry of
Health has had to make because they believe it will preserve their ability to
deliver health care, of closing Shaughnessy Hospital, a major and significant
decision. Why have we not heard some
comment from New Democrats in
I do not argue with those kinds of
decisions made in
That is when my honourable friend the
Leader of the New Democrats in
Mr. Speaker, what is the challenge, what
is the agenda and what is the plan that has been consistently presented through
six budgets by my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)? It is to
make
In my constituency of Morden we have 3M as
a significant corporate partner. Last
fall 3M turned the sod on a $10.8 million expansion to their plant in
Morden. For what? For world mandate production of several
products including the red dot electrode used in health care, including
packaged Tegaderm, which is packaged in sterile packaging there and has eight
languages of the world on it because they ship from
Most recently, they have chosen the Morden
plant and that $10.8 million investment in new capacity to become the world
production centre for a new kind of knee brace that they have developed for
those suffering from problems with their knees. That has increased jobs. That has increased investment. That has increased creation of wealth in
* (1530)
Now let me deal with the second issue,
because my honourable friend the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) asked a
very important question‑‑show me where else. Well, also recently Monsanto searched the
world‑‑Australia, North America and Europe‑‑to find a location
to build a new plant to produce granular Roundup, the new wave product which is
not yet licensed in
Where did they choose in seeking sights in
What major investors look for is
consistency in policy, not stop and go, not indefinite promises, not flip‑flops
that they see in other provinces governed by other governments, but
consistency. Lowest cost place in the
world to produce granular Roundup which they cannot even sell yet in
What happened in
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend the
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) is a little bit sensitive these days because,
as I said earlier on, he spent‑‑what was it?‑‑six years
in cabinet under Howard Pawley trying to get the smelter in his town upgraded
and could not do it. Now he sees it
happening under a Progressive Conservative government, a failure in his own
town. No wonder he is a little embarrassed and a little chippy. Abject failure in his own community. Of course, maybe he does not have the same
commitment to Flin Flon today that he had in 1981 when he was first elected. Maybe he does not have that commitment
anymore to Flin Flon.
Now let us talk, Sir, about where this
province has to go, where this country has to go, and the kind of new thinking
that we have to engage in, in order to achieve stability of economic growth in
this province and in this country. World
economy is changing. The old style of
union versus management, the old style of the isolation where the academic
community is by itself and never to be infringed upon, the old style of the
banking community not investing in innovation but in bricks and mortars, all of
those old styles of management and approach must and will change, because this
economy now has to focus on world mandate products in innovation and technology
and the new wave of the idea‑driven economy.
Now, that is exactly what we have been
doing for the last several years, is to try to position ourselves for that new
idea‑driven economy which will create the permanent employment in
Does that mean that the old standbys of
them and us, unions versus management, will prevail, the them and us that the
academic community ought not to be part of the economy of
Subsequent to that, let me tell you what
some of the investment successes are. I
heard a recent article on CBC Radio on Hughes Aircraft which was one of the
success stories, where they have gone from production in
Let us deal with some other notable
successes. We have mentioned Ayerst
Organics, and what does it mean? It
means that we not only have that investment in Brandon for world mandate
production of Premarin, but we also have a significant investment in rural
Manitoba on farms, a number of them in the Interlake, that my honourable friend
the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) well knows, with a quarter‑of‑a‑million‑dollar
investment into the horse business.
Why? Because it is a very steady
opportunity for income to protect and preserve family farms. Why is it here in
That is one of the largest success stories
I have been involved with in some 16 years of elected life in this province. It
is genuinely a megaproject, if you want to use that terminology. It is here in
Now the new‑wave economy says we
must look at innovation and technology.
Do you know what our greatest problem is? We do not recognize as Manitobans and
Canadians just how good we are. We tend
to believe the negative rhetoric that we hear constantly from some of our
opposition people and repeated in the media.
We do not believe in ourselves.
Let me tell you about agriculture. We keep thinking of technology and
innovation, and we tend to focus our thinking on computers and electronics and
all the gadgetry. That is not the only
means of innovation and technology.
Innovation and technology in agriculture‑‑let
me give you some examples. These are
Manitoba‑made examples, built on the investment that we have made as
taxpayers as a province in terms of genetic improvement around some of our
substantial grains and oilseed crops. I
want to give you several examples.
There is a utility wheat called
Glenlea. It has been on the market for
20 years. It fell out of favour because
other new varieties of bread wheat would pick up the yield. It started to come back into favour just in
the last three years, and I could not figure out why because the Wheat Board is
contracting‑‑it is all going to the
* (1540)
All of the bakeries in
I want to tell you a little side story,
and I want to share this with you because it tells you how unique an advantage
we have in
We have an absolutely unique product in
Let us talk about the contribution Dr. Baldur
Stefansson made in terms of developing low erucic acid canola to make canola
the best edible oil in the world for human consumption. It keeps getting better and better because of
research activities across the length and breadth of this province.
Guess what oil received the health food
oil of the
I want to deal with buckwheat because in
Let me deal with one more commodity, Sir,
before I close off, and that is the new research that is going into develop yet
another edible oil called linola. It is
a flaxseed oil, but it has removed the acid component‑‑linoleic
acid is what it is‑‑which causes the oil to discolour, which makes
it fine for paint but not too good for human comsumption. That is being developed in Morden and
And where is it produced? It is produced in
What I am saying to you is, that kind of
innovation can lead to significant secondary‑processing, job‑creation
investment in
That is why the programs, the policies of
this government are so successful and will continue to be the most successful
of any provincial government in Canada, because we have consistently stayed the
course, not raising taxes, keeping the deficit and government expenditures under
control and providing the best environment for investment in Canada, the best
environment for investment in Canada. We
will take those innovative ideas, those leading technologies, and we will turn
those into industries of world mandate like 3M has done, like Monsanto is
doing, like Ayerst in
Those are industrial presences of
multinational corporations that are in
That is the advantage of
The consistency of the approach is leading
investors to
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate
on the 1993 budget early. I am also
pleased to follow the member for Pembina who, in his own usual style, put on
his blinkers and provided this House with another example of why this province
is in such trouble.
If you read between the lines from the
minister's comments, the Minister of Health's (Mr. Orchard) comments,
everything is coming up roses. The
province is in perfect condition. It
just seems that some other people outside this Chamber are not quite aware of
the success of this government.
I want to start by talking about the
Minister of Health's little rant, his little diatribe about the member for Flin
Flon and the modernization which is occurring in the community of Flin
Flon. I think the Minister of Health
ought to know that when the NDP government were in power from 1981 to 1988,
they responded on at least two occasions very quickly to emergencies in the
community of Flin Flon. They responded
to emergencies in the community of Leaf Rapids, in the community of
Unfortunately, the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) did not comment on the fact that since this government has taken office,
three communities have been decimated by closures. In the Flin Flon and
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
At the first meeting, when the company
came to discuss that proposal with myself when I was Minister of Energy and
Mines, I indicated we would be there to support them. Well, unfortunately, the government changed
and the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and his crew came into office, and
they basically withheld support, frustrated the process for three years and
allowed for the deterioration of the position of HBM&S to the point where a
community was forced to close.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is the legacy
of the Conservative government when it comes to mining activities. Not only that, but the current Minister of
Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey) and the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) have on a
number of occasions quite erroneously suggested that somehow there was no
mining activity when the NDP were in government. Then the current Minister of Energy and Mines
talks about the tax regime that was imposed by the previous government.
The previous government saw the opening of
at least half a dozen mines. We saw an
increase in the number of miners certainly in our community, in my community
and the communities in the constituency of Flin Flon.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the ultimate irony
from the comments of the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Energy
and Mines (Mr. Downey) is that when this government took office in 1988, they
decided to impose a surtax on the mining industry and imposed an additional 1.5
percent on the mining tax in the province of Manitoba.
* (1550)
It seems a little bit ironic and a little
bit dishonest for the Energy and Mines minister to start talking about an
unfair tax regime when this government, this very same government, imposed
additional taxes on that industry. Not
only did the government impose those taxes on a one‑year basis, but they
have continued to impose those taxes and continue to impose those taxes to the
present day.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not need any
lectures or lessons from the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) or anybody else
on that side about the importance of the mining industry or any lessons about
how one needs to be committed to that important industry in our province. The sad fact is that over the next 18 months,
approximately, some 400 and more miners and miners' family members are going to
lose their jobs. Unfortunately, that
scenario has played out across
I do not know who the Minister of Health
was trying to kid when he started talking about the great success, the
groundwork that has been laid for the creation of jobs and the development of
I read a letter that was sent by the
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) to teachers in
This is the sixth budget of this
government. Who has created this
unstable, debt‑ridden province? I
wish members opposite, particularly the back bench, would look at their own
Minister of Finance's (Mr. Manness) Budget Address and background information.
In the last six budgets we have seen
deficit increases. Last year's deficit,
for members in the back bench who do not want to listen to the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard), was $762 million. The
fact of the matter is that this province not only has seen its deficit
increase, it has also seen its unemployment rate increase, the number of people
on welfare increase, and the number of people who have given up looking for
work increase.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that does not speak
to any great success in terms of economic policy, not any great success at all.
This letter, which is I believe the
epitome of gloom and doom, that the Minister of Health told us was
irresponsible only a minute ago, was sent out by his own back bench member.
A similar letter was sent out by the
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey).
This letter does not talk about the promise of the
Madam Deputy Speaker, it cannot have it
both ways. The First Minister (Mr.
Filmon) cannot have it both ways, the Minister of Health cannot have it both
ways, nor can the Minister of Finance have it both ways.
I want to continue with this letter that
is full of gloom and doom and, I think, fairly reflects the position that this
government has placed the
Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for
Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) is correct. The
question is: Who is investing in
Unfortunately, I have also a long list of
companies that this government also told us were going to invest in
We have the debacle which has become the
Repap investment, an announcement which was supposed to bring jobs to Swan
River and jobs to northern Manitoba, which turned into a nightmare for both of
those communities, which has seen no investment and which has led to
frustration and anger on the part of residents in both of those communities and
a number of others which are impacted by that failure to consummate a deal.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we were all
saddened and disappointed that this government also bungled Conawapa. The Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.
Downey), in his wisdom, made Ontario Hydro a deal they could not refuse. He said, either pay me $300 million and
cancel the deal, or $150 million and delay it.
He made them an offer‑‑I should correct that. He made them an offer which left them no
choice but to cancel the agreement. That was the ultimate impact of this
minister's negotiating skills.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the bottom line has
been that opportunity after opportunity after opportunity has been missed by
this government, and you have to ask yourself the question, why? Why has the government failed so miserably to
do what it promised to do and what Manitobans hoped it would do and that is
attract investment and create jobs and move our economy forward? I think the
answer lies in this memo, lies in the letter from the member for Niakwa (Mr.
Reimer). This is a plea as much as a
statement from the member for Niakwa for someone to come and rescue the
Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for
Arthur (Mr. Downey) is now talking about MTX.
Well, if the member for Arthur wants to talk about public investment‑‑the
Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey) cannot have it both ways. Either Limestone, which he now claims was a
good investment on behalf of Manitobans, is a good deal for
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, when the member
for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) writes to his constituents and says, well, nobody will
invest in
The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) was
talking only a minute ago about the importance that investment and growth had
on young people, wanted to suggest somehow that this government's agenda was
going to create that growth.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, the people of
* (1600)
When it comes to the issue of taxation, we
know that in 1988 and '89, when the government had a choice to reduce mining
taxes, they imposed more mining taxes.
When they had a chance to reduce the 2 percent net income tax, or I
should say leave it at 1 percent, they took the extra percent tax.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have seen
backdoor tax increases and offloading onto the municipal taxation base every
single budget. And what do we see this year?
Well, another $100 million‑plus tax grab, and to what end? Where is the other side of the agenda? All we have seen from the government in five
years, and all Manitobans have been forced to endure, is a series of
ideological, arbitrary cuts. My Leader
talked about the impact of this budget alone on
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not going to
just talk about the tax grab, the fact that the Premier did not live up to his
commitment, the Finance minister did not live up to his commitment, that, in
fact, they have increased taxes across the board. They have also indirectly increased the
property taxes that average Manitobans pay by approximately 30 percent in the
last three years. This government, while
attacking the incomes, particularly of those who can ill afford to have their
incomes reduced, has systematically cut programs that support those with low,
modest and fixed incomes.
I would like to talk about some of the
groups that this government has attacked in the last year. Madam Deputy Speaker, we can start with my
own constituency and the members of my own community in Flin Flon and
Well, what did the friendship centre do
for the people in
Madam Deputy Speaker, this government did
not care. Instead, they decided to
continue to give tax breaks to companies who are committed and have been
committed for a long time to the
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government chose
in its wisdom to cut the funding to the crisis centre in Flin Flon. Never mind the rhetoric that we read in the
throne speech. Never mind the rhetoric
we heard in the budget about this government's concern for the most vulnerable
in our society. You have to look at
their action. The cuts to the crisis
centre, the cuts to the friendship centre, the cuts to the foster parents
group, the cuts to Pharmacare, the increases in deductibles, the increases in
cost to people who are in personal care homes, the attack on the sick and the
poor and the elderly continues not only in the budget, but in the program cuts
that this government has implemented in a callous and careless way over the
last several months.
Madam Deputy Speaker, earlier in the day,
I tried to get the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) to address the question of
fairness in terms of the extended retail sales tax, the harmonization of the
provincial sales tax with the goods and services tax. The fact of the matter is that the figures
that were used in the Free Press, the figures that were used by our caucus in
terms of the cost to average Manitobans of this latest series of tax increases
are very accurate.
All you have to do is look at the numbers
provided by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) in his budget document.
The sales tax is going to raise
approximately $49 million. That sales tax, Madam Deputy Speaker, is applied now
to those basic supplies that every family needs. Virtually everyone in our society has to buy
the kinds of product that this government is going to now tax.
Previously there was a consensus about
what items should be taxed and what should not and there was a general
consensus that food and other necessities of life, including toiletries and
toilet supplies and nonprescription medicines, those kinds of things,
children's supplies were not subject to the tax for a reason. But this decision to broaden the sales tax to
include all of those items has meant that the average person, the average
family of four, is going to spend an additional $410 to $435 annually. That is not counting the increase in their
property taxes.
It is accounted for this way: $49 million is going to be paid for by the
sales tax broadening, approximately half a percent of sales tax; the property
tax increase is going to be $53 million; the gas tax is going to be $13 million,
for a total of $114 million. If you
divide that per person, approximately a million people, multiply it by four
people in each family, and you have approximately $412, by my calculation, per
family.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the First Minister (Mr.
Filmon) spent a great deal of time refuting or refusing to believe that figure
was accurate. We have not heard yet from
the government what they believe to be a more accurate figure.
The fact of the matter is, by virtue of
the nature of the increases that have been imposed on Manitobans this year, it
is inherently unfair and is going to impose a great deal of hardship,
particularly on those with modest means and modest expectations.
The list of cuts that this government has
imposed is extensive, and one of the areas that has been eliminated is the
student social allowance program. It was
interesting to listen to members of the front bench defend this particular
cut. Madam Deputy Speaker, a previous
Tory cabinet minister in the Lyon government, the previous member for
Madam Deputy Speaker, the problem is, of
course, that the mentality that goes into the thinking that it is better to pay
someone welfare than to work, to create a job, to create an opportunity to work
with industry or labour or municipalities, to do something constructive with
the dollars that we are spending on welfare, is pervasive over there. It is pervasive. The fact of the matter is that the student
social allowance program, which I will acknowledge is the only one in operation
in the
* (1610)
I do not think that you need to be a
rocket scientist to know that it is better to have someone working. It is better to have someone going to school
and educating themselves and upgrading their skills as opposed to sitting at
home watching reruns of Geraldo. I do
not think anyone would deny that, so what would possess a government to say,
no, you single mother of two children, you cannot collect welfare payments and
go to school. We are not going to allow that.
Go and live at home, as the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) would say, go live at home.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, what is wrong
with the Minister of Family Services' analysis, of course, is that is not going
to happen. What is going to happen is we
are going to lose another generation of young people who could have been
helped. What is wrong with the logic of
saying that a single person who takes advantage of an opportunity to get an
education, to better themselves and move out of the social welfare cycle is not
an advantage to the
Madam Deputy Speaker, we only have to move
a very few, a handful of people out of the social allowance‑‑
Madam Deputy
Speaker: Order, please. I am experiencing great difficulty in hearing
the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).
Mr. Storie: Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for that. The fact of the matter is, if we move only a
handful of people out of the welfare cycle into the workforce, whether it is
done through the counselling that some unemployed may receive through a
friendship centre, or whether it is done through the student social allowance
assistance program, we save the province millions of dollars.
I would like the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) to get up and tell this House what it costs to keep someone on social
assistance for their entire working productive life? How much does it cost to offer that
individual an opportunity, an education, a means of making a living, offering
them some hope?
Madam Deputy Speaker, this government
views those programs not in terms of their ultimate success, but in terms of
how much they cost the government today.
They view those as somehow ridding themselves of long‑term costs
when that is not the case. It simply is not the case. On many other occasions, I have challenged
the government, the ministers responsible, the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), to table one single study
which shows that the student social allowance program was not a cost‑effective
program.
I remind members opposite that about 10
years ago, the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce came to visit myself and the
Minister of Family Services, it was then Community Services, to talk about the
costs of daycare. They said that daycare
was an expensive option for the people of
Madam Deputy Speaker, quite ironically,
the Chamber of Commerce took us up on that challenge. I believe that the subsequent president was a
Ms. Dorothy Dobbie. I had the privilege
of receiving the report from the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce on the net impact
of daycare on the
Well, as much as I would enjoy getting
into a debate with the member for
The Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce has done
the study which showed that there is a net economic benefit. I want the very reasonable, rational member
for
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) also knows that the simple‑minded slashing
of programs, in some cases very cost‑effective programs, is
counterproductive in the long run.
I have said on other occasions, and I
would wish that this front bench, this Treasury Board would encourage some of
their staff to do the analysis, to show me where a simple‑minded, cost‑cutting
approach to solving the economic problems of any nation, of any province has
worked.
If the approach taken by right‑wing,
neoconservatives anywhere in this world had ever solved the deficit of a
province or a state or a country, then I would like members opposite to show
me. It did not work for Ronald
Reagan. It did not work for Maggie
Thatcher. It did not work for Brian
Mulroney. It is not going to work for
Gary Filmon.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we need not get
bogged down in rhetoric when it comes to the deficit. If the simple‑minded approach of this
government worked, why, when this government took office and they had a surplus
of approximately $58.7 million, do they now have a deficit of $762 million for
1992‑93? If the simple‑minded
approach saying cut, cut, cut was going to increase revenue magically somehow,
I would like them to explain how that is going to happen. If the simple‑minded approach of
cutting spending, denying people access to programs that have proven cost‑effective
is going to work, I would like to know why, after six budgets, we are in a
worse mess than the province has faced in its history.
I would like to know why the member for
Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) is sending out a letter to his constituency bemoaning the
unstable, debt‑ridden state of the
Madam Deputy Speaker, as much as I agree
with the member for Niakwa that it has been a dismal failure, unlike the member
for Niakwa, I believe that an even more dismal failure has been their social
policy.
* (1620)
Social and economic policy go hand in
hand. You cannot have a successful
economic policy that ignores the social implications of that policy. You cannot have an economic policy that says
the private sector is going to be the engine of growth when clearly our economy
is based on more than simply the imperatives of the private sector.
In 1981, when we came to office, we said
that the province's economy is based on the co‑operative efforts of
business, of labour, of municipal and other levels of government and of the
business community‑‑business, labour, municipalities.
This government has ignored three of those
elements. This government has denied
municipalities any responsible role in creating economic development. This government has denied labour any
responsible role in promoting economic development. This government has attached its horse to the
private sector, and the private sector quite frankly has let them down.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) was
in here talking about the tremendous investment in the
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) knows as little about trade as he does about health. Since 1867,
Madam Deputy Speaker, to show you how hypocritical
the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) is, he then goes on in his early remarks
and he talks about how important creating the right climate is. The Minister of Health then spent some of his
time berating the much‑hated payroll tax and how it was serving as such a
disincentive to businesses who wanted to invest in
What the Minister of Health did not
acknowledge that their decision to come to
Madam Deputy Speaker, what is more telling
is the letter from the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) to his constituents which
talks about an unstable debt‑ridden province. The last five years have been debt‑ridden. I have just shown you that. The minister's own statements show that they
are debt‑ridden, increasing the highest debt in the province's history
and it is unstable. It is unstable right
now because there is no one in the public of
Whether it is home care or the student
social allowance systems or crisis centres, there is no one in our society
today who feels secure, and it is because of the approach of this government,
the heavy‑handed, heartless, mindless approach of the government in
power. That is the tragedy.
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been sitting here
in amazement over the last 40 minutes. I
think I heard the member opposite say you cannot have it both ways three or
four times. I heard him talking about
our concern about a debt‑ridden unstable province which is definitely
what we will have if we do not take the measures we are taking right now. They know that full well, because a lot of
the problems we are in right now are of their making. It is not the kind of thing that people are
grateful for.
Madam Deputy Speaker, my mother, not long
before she died some four or five months ago, was wont to tell me on a fairly
regular basis that she felt that she was a member of one of the luckiest
generations ever to have lived in Canada.
She spoke about having received family allowances, old age pensions,
things of that nature, regardless of income, of medical services, seniors
discounts and of the rich safety net available for the disadvantaged.
What worried her, and it worried her very
greatly, was that she had concerns about me, my sister, our husbands, and most
especially about her grandchildren, that we and they would pay forever for the
lifestyle that had been made available to her generation and that we might not
ever be able to have what she and her peers had been given. Most especially, Madam Deputy Speaker, she
fretted about every tax increase that was placed upon her children and
grandchildren's generation.
She believed very strongly that such
increases would become an ever‑increasing burden that would prevent those
generations following her from progressing according to their efforts and would
rob them of their natural initiatives and independence. I am not unlike my mother, Madam Deputy
Speaker, because like my mother before me I worry about my children and my
grandchildren yet to be. That is why I,
along with my colleagues on this side of the House, want to relieve future
generations of the burden of excessive taxation and the problems that go along
with debt and deficit that we are experiencing in this country and in this
continent and, indeed, in many places of the world in this particular
generation.
We want our children to be able to have
the incentive to strive to get ahead and to be able to start small businesses
and maybe just to be able to keep some of their pay cheques in their pockets at
the end of the month. We want them to
live in a country with a good credit rating so that there is hope for an economic
future that will be stable and not unstable.
That is why, for the sixth budget in a row, we have not raised personal
income taxes. We have not raised the
sales tax. We have not raised the
business tax, corporate tax or capital tax.
The budget includes a four‑year plan
to balance the budget that is based upon controlled government spending, modest
increases in revenue and transfers from lottery revenue. I cannot believe that I would hear members
opposite say shame when we talk about controlled government spending. I suppose I should be able to believe it,
Madam Deputy Speaker, because controlled government spending is not something
with which they are terribly familiar.
We have had a decade and a half of
government overspending and high borrowing, not just in
* (1630)
It is unfortunately a nationwide
phenomena, and provinces of all political stripes are struggling to set budgets
which will address their current situations.
My colleague has asked me how this
incredible burden of debt came about, and maybe I could attempt to give that an
answer, Madam Deputy Speaker, and perhaps we could look back at
In the six years that Howard Pawley was
Premier, he borrowed an unprecedented amount of money, and he borrowed this
money during a period of high interest rates and he left it for future
governments to repay. He doubled a
provincial debt that had taken over 100 years to accumulate, and in six short
years he doubled what had taken over 100 years to accumulate. His legacy for the future was not the
hospitals, universities, roads, floodway.
His legacy for the future was the debt.
He did leave a bridge, as has just been
pointed out. He left a bridge that went
nowhere except to add to our burden of debt.
The interesting thing about this period of
six years in which our Premier Howard Pawley reigned was that they enjoyed
growth in revenues of up to about 19 percent, and they had a very real
opportunity to use those revenues wisely.
They did have that opportunity.
Our current revenue increase, Madam Deputy
Speaker, is about 19 percent less than that, and yet the debt and the interest
on the debt still need to be repaid. We
face the alarming fact that we have to spend more on the interest on our debt
than we do on most of the government departments, with the exception of Family
Services and Health.
I often ponder what we could do with that
money if we had it. We could maybe even
leave it with our children in their pockets instead of having to collect it
from them in taxes. I am surprised, very
surprised when I hear members opposite advocating an increase on the sales tax
while at the same time they chastise us for having cut spending. I wonder why they do not seem to realize that
by not increasing the percentage of the sales tax we help all citizens,
especially the poor, in a very effective way.
I might add, by the way, that our sales
tax is now the second lowest in Canada, which puts us in a very advantageous
position vis‑a‑vis the other provinces, a much different position
than we were in under the NDP when our sales tax was near the highest in the
country.
We have adopted tough measures to cut
spending, and this is very important both for individuals and the economy. Those who think about it will understand
why. Those who care to only be negative
and criticize for the sake of criticizing will not bother thinking about it.
Along with these expenditure cuts we have
increased revenue by comparatively modest changes, and I say comparatively
modest because, compared to what is happening in other provinces, we are not
seeing the same distress being imposed upon us here as is happening in other
places in
Just a quick glance at some of the
newspaper articles across the nation can tell us that quite clearly. I have some clippings here, and I would just
like to indicate the one factor that cannot be overlooked when we are talking
about our provincial budget, and that is the common theme that is being faced
right across the nation. I know the
member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) does not wish to acknowledge that provinces
of her political stripe are having to do what provinces of other political
stripes are having to do.
There is an interesting article by Vern
Greenshields who is the
Greenshields talks about the bad news that
hit across the country as provinces across the land produced their budgets, and
he says: To a Finance minister, they
grabbed hold of each side of the ledger and pulled mightily. None of them managed to bring them together
to the point where the torrent of red ink would be totally blocked, but all
reduced the flow. Those who suffered
directly from government cutbacks raised the predictable wails of pain, and the
opposition dutifully joined in the chorus. However, something different was
happening across the land this spring, something that has never happened before‑‑this
is perhaps something the opposition should open up their ears and listen to‑‑the
chorus is largely falling on deaf ears.
Those deaf ears belong to the general public who finally are listening
to those cries from the wilderness that governments and the country cannot keep
living beyond its means. It appears that
the general populace is ready now to believe that
The country‑‑Madam Deputy
Speaker, maybe the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) would care to listen to
this. The country, like
Like
The Finance minister in
The administration instead will spend $19
billion in 1993‑94 for a fiscal year deficit of $1.5 billion. That pushes the province's long‑term
debt to a staggering $26.4 billion, a 32 percent increase since the NDP came to
power in
They will spend $1.8 billion on welfare
this year including an extension of the sales tax to cover pay parking. They are going to have a tax on parking now
in
The NDP's rhetoric suggests that it is
under the impression‑‑
* (1640)
Point of
Order
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): If the Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) would read anything on sustainable development, she
might realize that tax on parking cars‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Radisson does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Deputy Speaker, I trust that the time
the member for Radisson has just wasted will be given back to me.
The NDP's rhetoric suggests that it is
under the impression that British Columbians‑‑[interjection]
Madam Deputy Speaker, would you please ask
the member for Radisson to get herself under control? I am sorry, I cannot hear my own self speak
over her whining from her chair.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I appreciate having the member brought to
order that way.
The NDP's rhetoric suggests that it is
under the impression that British Columbians are, relatively speaking of
course, undertaxed in the same way that they say they are undertortured.
[interjection]
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
I seem to be touching the member for
Radisson's sensitivities in a way that is very revealing.
So the
Point of
Order
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like the Minister
of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to clarify the comment that she just made
about‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Sveinson): Order, please. The honourable member for Radisson does not
have a point of order.
* * *
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Acting Speaker, as I say it is very
revealing that the member for Radisson cannot sit still in her chair when some
of these points come out. If she wants an
explanation as to why‑‑she is again continuing to harass me from
her seat because she cannot tolerate hearing what is going on in other
provinces governed by the NDP‑‑what I am trying to do is put in
perspective for her the actions that are being taken by governments of all
political stripes right across this nation, something she cannot accept. I am sorry she has so little tolerance that
she cannot do anything but jump up on points of order to embarrass herself in
the way she is doing.
In
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
I will say then, we should maybe take a
quick, quick look at Saskatchewan, our province next door, which is struggling
and working very, very hard to get control of its deficit, as they should
be. We applaud them for their
efforts. But let us say that in
They have also in
The Liberals, of course, have to be
included because we are all in this together, as I have said before. We see that in
I was intrigued by the member for Flin
Flon (Mr. Storie) saying you cannot have it both ways, but it does appear that
is exactly what he is trying to do, Madam Deputy Speaker, to be able to be a
cabinet minister in a government that put us into the kind of debt situation we
currently face and then sit there and try to say that they would do it
differently, when it is very clear that they had a very bad habit of high
borrowing and high spending.
I am not pointing fingers by talking about
the other provinces. I want to make it
clear that I am not pointing a finger at the way in which our NDP neighbours
are trying to cope with their fiscal problems or indeed what our Liberal
neighbours are having to do, because they are trying to cope with the same kind
of problems that they were left with.
What I am trying to say is that we all have a similar problem, and for
anyone to point a finger at Saskatchewan and say it is Romanow's fault or to
point at B.C. and say it is Harcourt's fault, or to point at Manitoba and say
it is Filmon's fault is to deny the reality that governments of all stripes
through the last decade and a half have overspent and overborrowed. Governments of all stripes today are left
with a mess to clean up. That is just
the way it is.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer)
said, nobody likes taxes. This is an
amazing comment to come from the Leader of the NDP, just absolutely
amazing. Nobody likes taxes. I waited to see his nose grow right across as
far as the back benches here, but I finally found it interesting that when he
said nobody likes taxes he at the same time spoke in favour of what he
euphemistically calls the health and education tax, which is commonly called
the payroll tax, which in reality should be called the tax on jobs. We have moved to exempt more businesses from
this punitive tax so that they are able to create jobs without that penalty.
When the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie)
asked, as he did so arrogantly from his seat, why companies are moving here
despite the fact that we still have some companies left paying the payroll tax,
my reply to him is that there are hundreds of companies not paying that payroll
tax, thanks to our action. Companies coming here know our trend towards
removing and reducing taxation, and that is very important.
We have done a lot of things with this
budget, measures which I hope the opposition will support. In fact, I would like to see the opposition
tell us what they think of a one‑year freeze on diesel fuel tax to
support the trucking industry, a 3.15‑cent‑per‑litre
reduction in railway diesel fuel tax to support this important area of
employment, a reduction from 5 cents to 4.2 cents per litre in aviation fuel
tax to boost local airport activity‑‑I would like to see the member
for Transcona (Mr. Reid) vote on those because I know he would want to support
them‑‑a new 5‑cent‑per‑litre preference to
encourage recycling of waste oil into diesel fuel. I would like to hear the member for
Radisson's (Ms. Cerilli) comments on that.
We have done a number of things, Madam
Deputy Speaker, in our budget to encourage businesses to come and to
locate. I would like to go through some
of those new companies that are coming to
Just before I do that, I would like to
make reference to a comment the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and members
opposite frequently make that they left us with a surplus. Maybe the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) could
pay attention and listen. It would be
very much appreciated, because he speaks frequently, as does his Leader, about
honesty, about portraying figures correctly.
I say to him, let us look back about six years, let us look back to what
the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) referred to so well in his speech, to the
vote that took place when Jim Walding cast his last vote with the NDP in
Manitoba.
* (1650)
You heard what the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) said. You did not deny it when you stood up. You cannot deny it, because when you take a
look at that budget that was defeated by Jim Walding‑‑it was said
earlier, and I encourage all members to read the comments in Hansard that the
Minister of Health made because we are talking about a $334 million deficit
which was in the books. I somehow,
looking at those kinds of figures, cannot see calling that a surplus. The projected deficit under the NDP was $334
million. It does not sound like a
surplus.
The fact was that what you left out of
your budget, you left out of your budget some rather significant things,
amongst other things, 20 more million dollars into health. These are items that the PCs put back in to
create a more honest budget, to reflect the reality. I think you should be very careful about
making your words sweet, because you may have to eat them one day and you do
not want to be choking on something sour.
There were about $60‑plus million of expenditures not in that
budget that you say gave us a surplus.
The other thing that is very important to
recognize is new revenues came into us in that year unexpectedly because of
I listened carefully to the Leader of the
Opposition's (Mr. Doer) speech. It was a
hollow diatribe that attracted little attention. It attacked and condemned but offered no alternative. He had no alternative. All he said was we should not have cut expenditures. We should not cut spending, but we should
bring down the deficit. We should not be
raising the sales tax, but we should raise the sales tax. We should bring down the deficit but not bilk
the taxpayer. We should not cut
spending. I do not really know what the
man was saying. He attacked everything
all over the place‑‑no thread of consistency in there except to be
negative, negative, negative, negative, negative.
The member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) at
the time said when we were saying, where is your plan, well, we have policies.
We know about those policies. We know very well what those policies
are. We lived through them in the years
of horror here in
But the Liberals have a plan. The NDP do not have a plan except to follow
their old policies, which is to try to please everybody all the time, which you
cannot do. Well, the Liberals have a plan. I heard the leader say it yesterday. She said she would rather we raise taxes on
personal income tax. I read it in the
Winnipeg Free Press so it must be true.
I saw it on TV so it must be true.
Would TV and the Free Press lie?
Of course not. So the Liberals say that they would raise income
tax. The NDP we know would raise income
tax because they did that quite successfully while they were in office.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
But what both of those parties do not
understand is that high taxes are counterproductive to the stimulation of a
strong economy in every instance. I used
to listen with some degree of bittersweet amusement when the NDP would holler
out, make the rich pay, make the rich pay, because according to their taxation
record, they clearly believe that everybody in
I truly believe that they will be
satisfied only when everybody is equal at the lowest common denominator, which
is not our goal. They were well on the way
to achieving that goal. With the taxation burdens that the middle class bear
here in
We see that happening now in
The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie)
asked a question. I believe he was sincere
in asking it when he said, where is your job creation? Where is your job creation? He hollered that out many times heckling from
his seat. Where is your job creation? I
think it was pointed out by the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) that there has
been some very substantial job creation support in the member's area. Perhaps if he ever got up to Flin FLon to
take a look, he might visit around the community he represents and take a look
at some of those things.
I would like to indicate some of the
things that have happened, say, just in the last six months or so. The list is too long to go through it all,
but let me give you just a few highlights.
Ayerst Organics in Brandon, PMU operations, a $123‑million
expansion, about a thousand jobs in the making.
The member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), I think, probably is
not too unhappy about that. He asked
what that had to do with the budget, and to me that is an appalling
question. I cannot believe the member
for Brandon East asked, what does job creation have to do with the budget? My God and King, I cannot believe it. That is the most incredible statement. Circulate it to everybody‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): On a point of order, the minister is getting
up and making false statements. I do not
think that is in order. She said the
budget‑‑she said that I said that jobs had nothing to do with the
budget. I did not say that. I said the budget had nothing to do with the
Ayerst expansion.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the
honourable member for Brandon East, I would like to remind the honourable
member that indeed he does not have a point of order.
That is a dispute over the facts, but I
would ask the honourable member for Brandon East that the words "false
statements," they are unparliamentary.
I would simply ask the honourable member for Brandon East to withdraw
that remark of "false statements."
Mr. Leonard Evans: I certainly do not want to attribute any
dishonest motive to the member, but she did make a statement which I did not
say. If she‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I realize that. That is a dispute over the facts. I am telling the honourable member for
Brandon East that his remarks of "false statements" are indeed unparliamentary. That is the only part that I would ask the
honourable member to withdraw. Withdraw
it? I thank the honourable member for
Brandon East.
The honourable Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), to carry on with her remarks.
* * *
Mrs. McIntosh: It is my understanding that the correct
phraseology, and I will attempt to correct it because I certainly do not want
to leave false information on the record, is that the member for Brandon East
says that this budget has nothing to do with the job creations in Brandon East.
An Honourable Member: Ayerst.
Mrs. McIntosh: Okay.
This budget has nothing do with Ayerst Organics in
CalWest Textiles in
Those are just some of the recent
indications of expanded activity in
So when they see that we are pulling away
from the kind of society that was left for us, not a surplus, but left for us a
debt‑ridden unstable economy, when they see that we are pulling away from
that, attempting to get control of our deficit and our debt, and the Liberals
have a better understanding of that. Although we disagree on many issues, they
have a better understanding of the importance of attacking the deficit and the
debt than my colleagues directly opposite.
I believe very firmly that unless we can
continue to do things that will inspire companies to want to come and settle
here, and we are doing those things, on a constant basis being criticized for
the doing of them by members opposite who say that we should tax the life out
of the corporations, we should set up punitive measures to keep businesses out
of Manitoba. They, when they were in
power, taxed the mining industry until they would not come back anymore. They, when they were in power, imposed a
payroll tax that we are beginning to get rid of, and we are hearing from people
all across the nation that‑‑[interjection] Now, you know, the
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) is saying that I am believing my own party,
and you know what? He is right, I
am. The problem the member for‑‑what?
* (1700)
Mr. Storie: You just put a falsehood on the record. You increased the surtax in 1989.
Mrs. McIntosh: Oh, the member for Flin Flon‑‑you
know I am just so amazed when I listen to the way in which we all view history
in this Chamber. It is a fascinating
procedure. We take a look at a party
that raised taxes, that borrowed highly, that did not in any way, shape or form
try to put good measure between business and labour the way they say they did,
that were punitive to business, that still today insist on taxing the corporations,
on setting in rules that will make it not to the advantage of corporations to
come here to create jobs, to hire people, to stimulate the economy, to pay
taxes, to add to our overall wealth and provide for us the necessary money to
pay for health, education, the social services that are the hallmark of a
caring and compassionate society.
So, Mr. Speaker, while we have cut
spending and while we have frozen taxes, while we have taken decreases not just
for ourselves but for those who work for us, we have at the same time enhanced
our ability to be seen as responsible, fiscally responsible managers of the
money in this province.
I do believe that my mother, who had
worried so very much about the debt and the deficit and the burden of taxation
that would be imposed upon her grandchildren, might not‑‑
An Honourable Member: How does she feel about the $762 million?
Mrs. McIntosh: She died five months ago.
An Honourable Member: Oh, I am sorry.
Mrs. McIntosh: I can tell you I think how she would feel, and
that was what I was about to do.
At the beginning of my speech, I indicated
that, but you may have missed it. It is
easier to hear when you are in the room.
I like to think that perhaps the worries
she had prior to her death about the kind of society her grandchildren would be
left to pay for would be somewhat lessened by this budget. I believe that there certainly would be joy
in her heart, were she still with us, that we are finally getting a handle on
the control on government spending which was the big fear that she had and
worked hard for in every sense of the word at every level of government
throughout the last 10 years.
Mr. Speaker, with that I will close. I support this budget. I know that the opposition
will want to support many facets of this budget or explain to their
constituents why they are not.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in this
debate on the budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). I am sorry to say what I observe is,
I guess it really is in keeping with the
philosophy of this government. The
Conservative philosophy is simply keep services down as much as possible, cut
services, cut taxes and have government as small as possible. That is, I suppose, you could argue, the
legitimate position for the right‑wing political party that this government
is.
The fact is that we believe that
government has a very important positive role to play to ensure that there is
adequate social security for our people, to ensure that there is adequate
health care for our people, to ensure that we protect the environment. A government should play a positive role in
stimulating the economy, in encouraging private enterprise to invest, to doing
its very best to eliminate unemployment.
We believe that government has a positive
role to play. It should play a positive
role, an aggressive role. The position
of the government of the day is that the smaller the government the
better. Therefore, their ideological aim
is to cut spending and hopefully keep taxes down or even cut taxes. That is the basic philosophical or
ideological difference between that side of the House and this side of the
House.
Having said that, what I find very strange
for a government that continually ad nauseam talks about the problems of high
deficits and accumulating debt, itself‑‑and I look at the figures
in the report tabled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)‑‑has
achieved a couple of records in terms of Finance.
As of‑‑according to the
figures we have here‑‑this past year the budget of
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that this
government has to take full responsibility for continual deficits and has to
take responsibility for a rising debt load.
Under this government, we have now achieved the highest debt per capita
in the history of the
We were never anywhere near that under the
NDP, Mr. Speaker, never were anywhere near that. As a matter of fact, I guess if the
government had not played around with the Fiscal Stabilization Fund in 1988 and
1989, they could have used about $59 million to reduce the debt. Here was an opportunity. If you were concerned about the debt, here
was one major opportunity to reduce the debt but, instead of doing that, the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) took it, put it into a so‑called
stabilization fund and showed instead a deficit again in that year.
Mr. Speaker, we can hear as many speeches
as we like from the other side professing their concerns about high deficits
and accumulating debts, but they have quite a record building up the highest
debt load in the province's history, highest debt load in total, highest debt
load per capita. We have never been so
high, and you people were critical of accumulating deficits under the NDP. Well, I am afraid you have outdone us.
* (1710)
You have outdone us even in terms of debt
costs as a percentage of our total expenditure.
In the first year that you were in office, '88‑89, the debt cost
as a percentage of total spending was 9.8 percent, and now, '93‑94, you
are forecasting it to be 10.3 percent.
So this government is going absolutely nowhere in removing the burden of
debt and debt costs on the people of
What really surprised me, Mr. Speaker, was
the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) was so way out on his
forecast of what the budget deficit was supposed to be. It was supposed to be originally $330 million
and, instead, this is after you took away the $200 million for the Fiscal
Stabilization Fund. You can add the $200 million back in and come to $530
million, but regardless, the fact is, the minister was out by $200 million in
his forecast. That is an unheard of
error in forecasting in my judgment. It
is totally out of whack.
Why do we have these high deficits under a
right‑wing government that professes a concern about debt and
accumulating deficits? Why have we had
such an outlandish deficit of $762 million in the last year, the highest ever
recorded in the history of the
But the question is, why have these
deficits got out of hand under this government?
It is not because they have not been holding down spending, because I
have looked at some figures comparing
Now, I say this is subject to revision, as
we all appreciate, but the fact is, the problem we are having with deficits is
not because of high spending in relation to what is going on across the
country. The problem we are having is on
the revenue side, and the minister has acknowledged that in his speeches, and
indeed this is evident in the information provided in the budget document.
The budget last year forecast revenue to
be $4,895,000,000; $4,895,000,000 was the budget but what actually happened,
and this is still a forecast, it was down considerably. It was only $4,765,000,000. In other words, it was down by approximately
$135 million, if my quick arithmetic is correct here‑‑$135
million. The reason the revenue was down
in a large measure was because the economy did not perform. The economy did not grow to the extent that
was expected, and indeed the economy stagnated and we had unduly high levels of
unemployment. As a result, the revenues
of the Crown were not materialized.
Because consumer spending was lagging, therefore retail sales revenue
lags. If people are not working, then
obviously you are not going to get the same expansion in personal income tax
that you would have otherwise.
Similarly with corporations, if
corporations are not doing well, if corporations are being forced to cut back,
and if you find some going into bankruptcy or just simply closing down,
businesses closing down, well, obviously then corporate income will not keep
pace.
So as a result, Mr. Speaker, I believe the
chief failure in this government has been its failure to stimulate the economy,
its failure to get the private sector to respond, its failure to get private
investment, its failure to pursue policies that would have caused more jobs to
be created and to lower the unemployment levels. This government has singularly failed in
that, and we are paying the price now in this budget. Because of the failure of the economic
policies, we have got this government involved in cutting back to various
groups, in fact, throughout the society in
I would also put as a footnote, Mr.
Speaker, that we are subject also to the failures of the economic policies of
the federal government. The economic
policies that Mulroney and Kim Campbell and Jean Charest have been‑‑
An Honourable Member: And Hugh Segal.
Mr. Leonard Evans: ‑‑and Hugh Segal have been
involved in over the last few years, they have been a disaster for this
country. It has given this country unacceptably high levels of unemployment. It has caused economic stagnation. It has caused enormous amount of grief. It is causing, this government of Mr.
Mulroney, Campbell, Charest and Segal and others have caused our industries to
erode because of the Free Trade Agreement and so on.
One element of federal economic policy, of
course, is the role of the Bank of Canada and the federal monetary policy. All provinces have been hurt over the last
few years by excessively high interest rates.
In fact, interest rates are still excessively high, and I say that‑‑people
will want to interrupt and say, but interest rates are coming down. Well, they are coming down, but you have to
look at interest rates in terms of inflation.
What is the difference between the nominal interest rate and the rate of
inflation, and you subtract one from the other to get the real interest rate.
Real interest rates are still too
high. I am particularly concerned that
the federal monetary policies, the policies of the Bank of Canada, right after
free trade was introduced about three years ago, kept the Canadian exchange
rate unduly high, thwarted exports from this country and caused a lot of
unemployment that was absolutely not necessary.
I am of the view, Mr. Speaker, that the Bank
of Canada should be used as a progressive instrument to get the economy going
in this province and in this country at large.
Indeed, as during World War II, the Bank of Canada could be used in a
positive way to enable provincial governments to cope with their
responsibilities and also to enable a federal government to fight the
recession, put people to work, and to therefore raise the standard of living in
this country.
I would remind people in this House, if
you are at all interested, during World War II we fought the war primarily with
borrowing, primarily through a national debt that escalated enormously. We did not chicken out by 1942 and '43,
telling Mr. Adolf Hitler, sorry, Adolf, we cannot fight you anymore because the
national debt is too big. We did not do
that. In fact, what we did was use the
Bank of Canada to monetize the debt that was required for the war effort. A great deal, I think 25 percent by the year
1942, was financed directly by the Bank of Canada.
There are economists today who are saying
that we should be using the Bank of Canada, and I would hope this would be
adopted by other parties, the Liberal Party as well as the NDP and others, to
use the Bank of Canada now to help put Canadians back to work. The problem is that people are concerned
about the national debt and that we cannot get it any higher because we cannot
sustain any more interest payments and so on, but the government could use the
Bank of Canada to finance a program of putting Manitobans and Canadians back to
work. It could also use the Bank of
Canada to buy government of
Instead, we have this insane right‑wing
economic ideology running the Bank of Canada which is doing its part to ruin
this country. So I want to give full
blame to the federal government which has made the task very difficult for all
provincial governments in this country.
* (1720)
Mr. Orchard: Do you know who is making the Bank of
Canada's job difficult? It is Bob Rae,
talking about $17 billion deficits, interest rates up and dollar down.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard) does not know what he is talking about. He has not been following what I have said,
he does not know what I am talking about either. So let us go on and discuss what has been
happening because of this budget. Since
the Minister of Health in his usual way has interrupted me, I want to talk
about some of the spending cuts that have occurred that I think have hurt this
province enormously.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
One in particular really bothers me, and
that is the scaling back of the Children's Dental Program. I really think that is a mistake, and I only
wish the minister could have found money elsewhere. If he wanted to cut I only wish‑‑and
I know it is a difficult job. I know it
is difficult to cut anywhere, but that is one program that was not in the city
of
The fact is, the program was a good
program. It was a preventative program,
and I am afraid as a society our costs of dental health care are going to
escalate in the future because of what we are doing now. I think it is a classic example of being
penny‑wise and pound‑foolish, Mr. Acting Speaker, and I really
regret this.
There is no question in my mind that a lot
of children are now going to go without proper dental care that should be
administered in the early years. I can
tell you that this is a program that was extremely well received in rural and
northern Manitoba, and I know there are going to be a lot of people out there
who are going to be really upset, not only the 45 nurses and technicians and
others who are going to lose their job, but the children and the families of
these children who are losing a very important program. What I am afraid of is that people will
simply not, unfortunately, ensure that their children's teeth are being looked
after the way they should be.
There are other program cuts that I think
are undermining the quality of life in the
I regret that there have been cuts in
benefits to social assistance recipients, including eliminating the number of
over‑the‑counter drugs that are covered.
In particular I want to mention a couple
of constituents who phoned me. They are
in both instances suffering from asthma. They had to take certain drugs and
certain inhalers to just breathe, and they say now‑‑this one lady
told me now that she and her husband are going to have to purchase this. It is going to cost them another $80 a month,
and they simply did not know how they were going to afford it, because their
social assistance income was already very, very low, and they just did not know
how they were going to afford this.
I think it is really a classic example of
how we are zeroing in on the most vulnerable in our society, people on social
assistance who are also of ill health.
As I said, I got two phone calls from two different households on the
matter. Here is a good example of how
people are being hurt in that particular cutback.
I am concerned that we are threatening the
quality of education in this province by the reduction in funding of the
universities and the colleges and the school divisions. I think all in all we have always agreed in
this House that education was an investment in human beings, that it was a
human capital investment, if you will, and that we should do everything to
ensure we have the highest of standards.
I think that ultimately these cuts and these squeezes that are taking
place are going to cause a lessening in the quality of education in the
I am also concerned about the cuts to
foster parents. We had a demonstration
in Brandon a week ago, and the foster parents there were extremely upset, not
only with the reduction in the basic rates, but also in the total withdrawal of
the grant to the Foster Parents Association of Manitoba, which did play a role
in enhancing foster parenting in this province, and that organization has just
been totally eliminated. I find this
incredible.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we have had the
elimination of all kinds of grants to various groups. There were grants withdrawn to 56 groups, and
I would say that there has been a lot of pain and suffering caused out there by
this withdrawal. I think the withdrawal
of funding from all of these groups amounts to something on the order of $3
million, according to the press release of the Minister of Finance.
I think back, and of all the grief and all
the deterioration of service that is going to be caused by the elimination of
these grants, to '88 when this Minister of Finance came along and said, well,
we are going to cut taxes. I guess the
bottom line was, taxes were reduced by about $50 million.
I mean, we all want to reduce taxes. No elected representative in his right mind
wants to increase taxes and every representative would like to decrease
taxes. I mean, why not? But the fact is, Mr. Acting Speaker, in 1988,
in respect of then, I would say that this government was fiscally irresponsible
by reducing taxes at that time, fiscally irresponsible because now you are
making cuts to the sick, to the poor, because you say you have no money, and
yet you cut $50 million in 1988‑89.
On an accumulated basis we are talking about, what, $200 million you
gave up?
The point is that this government is
crying poverty now, saying, we do not have the money, so we are sorry, foster
parents, we have to cut. We are sorry,
old folks, we have to cut. We are sorry,
social allowance recipients, we have to cut. We are sorry, universities, we are
cutting. We are sorry, municipalities,
we are cutting. We are sorry, schools,
we are cutting. We are cutting
everybody. We are sorry we do not have
the money.
Well, I say, you gave up $50 million,
which accumulates to $200 million over the year, and you cannot have it both
ways. That act was fiscally irresponsible‑‑fiscally irresponsible,
totally irresponsible.
I repeat, no MLA wants to increase
taxes. I do not want to increase taxes,
and I like to see taxes lowered, but I say it is irresponsible to lower taxes
when you cannot‑‑look, you have the biggest debt per capita in the
history of
You were lowering the taxes four years
ago, 1988‑89, and now what have we got?
We have the highest debt per capita in the history of
So you cannot have it both ways. You are complaining about how the deficit's
rising, so you have to cut the poor, hit seniors, hit kids, kill a good dental
program for children in rural Manitoba and northern Manitoba, do all these
other things and yet, just for short‑term political gain because you
wanted to get a majority government, because you were in a minority in '88, you
cut taxes to appeal to the people and now you are crying the blues because you
do not have enough money. That is the
truth.
* (1730)
What I am saying, Mr. Acting Speaker, is
that this minister and this government were fiscally irresponsible, absolutely
irresponsible.
Mr. Speaker, I am confused. These members say they want a balanced
budget. You want a balanced budget, you
want a minimum, you want to reduce the deficit.
Well, tell me, how do you reduce the deficit when you cut the
taxes? Can you tell me that?
An Honourable Member: We cut spending.
Mr. Leonard Evans: You cut spending. This is what you have done now, but the
problem with the spending that you have cut is that you have hurt seniors, you
have hurt children, you have hurt people trying to get an education. You know, we had‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Reimer): Order, please. I have a very hard time hearing the member
for Brandon East. The member for Brandon
East, please continue.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, I must be getting to the Minister of
Health or somebody, because‑‑
Mr. Orchard: You are silly.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, I am logical. Mr. Speaker, I am logical. The Minister of Health is complaining about deficits,
and yet, do not tell me about your problems of deficit spending when you gave
up the tax revenues just to get a majority government in 1990. That is all it was about. That was totally irresponsible on the part of
this government.
Mr. Speaker, we get the litany that, well‑‑there
is a lot of phoniness too in terms of what you are going to do about taxes,
because I listened to the Minister of Finance, I do not know how many times
when he was on this side, attacking the payroll tax, the health and education‑‑we
are going to get rid of the payroll tax.
I predicted when we got on this side and
one of the budget speeches I guess back in '88‑89, '89, I said to this
Minister of Finance that we still have that, you will never get rid of the
payroll tax, you will never get rid of it.
And you have not. In this budget
document, you are collecting $190 million in payroll tax, and that is not a tax
that is disappearing. So $190 million
worth of payroll tax, so do not tell me you are on the way to eliminating the
payroll tax.
Please, Mr. Acting Speaker, please, let us
have a little bit of honesty here and admit that you were wrong, that you were
foolish when you were in opposition to say that that payroll tax could be
eliminated and would be eliminated. Again,
I would prefer not to have a payroll tax.
I do not want a payroll tax. Nobody wants taxes; no one in their right
mind wants to increase taxes. I do not
want high taxes, but the real problem that this government has, as I said, was
on the economy and the failure to stimulate the economy. We keep on hearing, oh, well, we are going to
keep taxes down in order to stimulate investment.
Well, I have listened to this Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) five or six times over now, saying how we are keeping taxes
down and that is going to stimulate investment.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I did a study of what happened to investment since
1988, and our investment level is lower now than it was in 1988. Not only that, it is a smaller percentage of
the total investment that is occurring in
In other words, our performance has been
worse than the national economy. You
just cannot blame it on the recession. Yes, the recession is there, but it is
not just the recession. The fact is that investment in
I am not going to read all these figures,
but I have them here. You could look at
all the major economic indicators in this province, whether it be employment,
whether it be retail sales, whether it be housing starts or whatever, and you
will see that we have shrunk. Our
economy is smaller in terms of the national economic picture than it was when
you took office.
Where is all the great economic growth
that we were supposed to have by your budgets, by your tax policies? It has not materialized, particularly
investment. You know, investment is
going down, and we are way below the national achievement in investment.
Mr. Acting Speaker, they keep on saying,
well, we are going to keep taxes down because we are going to stimulate
investment. That is not the key factor in investment. If you are a business person, the key factor
is whether you can sell the output from your factory or your establishment or
your business, and what is happening is that our businesses are underutilized.
Our factories are not operating to full
capacity, and if you cannot sell your output, you are not going to be idiot
enough to expand it. You are not going
to invest to expand your industry because you cannot sell what you are already
producing. The reason you cannot sell
what you are producing‑‑that is very fundamental‑‑is
because there is not the consumer demand for the goods and services. It is a circular business. There is not the demand there, because people
do not have the purchasing power because we have been in a recession. But as I point out,
To try to pretend that Ayerst expanded
because of the tax regime in this province is nonsense, absolute nonsense. Ayerst was built long before many of you came
to office here. In fact, it was built in
the Schreyer years. It expanded in the
Schreyer years and is expanding right now.
It is a block and a half from my house.
I wish it was a little further. I
wish it was a lot further than it is because it smells up the environment, I
must tell you that. Nevertheless, Mr.
Acting Speaker, there were other factors that were far more important. Sure, Ayerst likes low taxes, but there are
far more important factors such as the millions of dollars of grants from the
federal government, such as an industrial grant from this province, such as the
fact that there are farmers in western
Mr. Acting Speaker, you can go down the
list and show how this economy has unfortunately shrunk. You know that picture, Honey, I Shrunk the
Kids? Well, I could ask the question or
make the assertion how Mr. Manness and the Filmon government has shrunk the
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
You know, even our population as a
percentage of the Canadian population has fallen. We used to be 4.03 percent of the Canadian
population in 1988; 1992, according to Statistics Canada, we have dropped to
3.88 percent. Yes, our population has
grown, the dotted line here, if you want to look at it‑‑or rather
the solid line‑‑but the fact is that our national population growth
has exceeded that of
So as a result we have shrunk, but not
only our population. If you look at the construction work performed, we used to
have‑‑in 1988 we had 3.45 percent of the construction work
performed in
The same thing is true if you look at
building permits, if you look at manufacturing employment. We have a smaller share of the total people
working in manufacturing in
Certainly, in terms of housing starts, we
have a lower percentage. Our labour
force has not grown. The number of
people working certainly has not grown.
In fact, as of 1992, we had 10,000 fewer people working than we had in
1988. That is not only in my report, it
is in the budget. The budget itself
tells you that.
In the year 1992, there were 10,000 fewer
jobs than there were in the year 1988.
So we have not had the economic growth. Yes, there has been an economic
recession, but why has
*
(1740)
They have not lifted one finger to try to
fight unemployment in this province. They
have not lifted one finger to provide economic stimulus, and I have made
suggestions over the past. I would like
to remind people that previous governments, the Schreyer government and the
Pawley government, had an incentive program for municipalities. The Minister of Rural Development (Mr.
Derkach) should look into this. It might
be a good use of VLT revenue‑‑and that was part of the Jobs Fund‑‑but
that is a direct incentive to municipalities in
I mean, the infrastructure in the city of
Mr. Speaker, the fact is the failure‑‑I
have only two minutes left and I would like to wrap up‑‑in this
budget, the main failure in this budget is the inability of this government to
realize that it has a responsibility to create economic growth, and by that I
mean stimulating the private sector.
I am not saying government should do all
this. It should stimulate the private
sector. One sure fire way, we used it in
the Dirty Thirties, the Great Depression, and it has been used around the
world, and that is to have an increase in public works spending to put in place
the infrastructure that we all need for whether it is driving on the roads or
for having clean drinking water or adequate sewage disposal or whatever it is.
The municipalities have a long list, and
we could help those municipalities. We
would help the municipal taxpayers in the process, but what I am getting at is
that we could create jobs, useful jobs.
We could take people‑‑we could alleviate the burden of the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer).
He has more money for welfare. The reason he has more money for welfare, not
that the rates are going up, but he has more money for welfare because there
are more and more people falling off of UI onto welfare. I say, if you use an intelligent approach, we
do not have to have people on welfare.
We can have able‑bodied people, in my judgment, who are willing
and able to work, should be given jobs.
Everybody should be working.
People should not have to draw welfare if
they are able and willing to work, but you have to have government programs to
do that. That is the only way it is
going to happen, is if the initiatives are taken by provincial and federal
governments. I ask this government here,
I leave as a challenge, to look into this matter of stimulating the economy and
to provide an incentive to create jobs in this province. Thank you.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), that debate
be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock? [agreed]
The hour being 6 p.m., this House now
adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).
Erratum
On
Friday, March 12, 1993, Vol. No. 25, page 969, Mr. Gulzar Cheema's first
question should have read: Part of this
minister's health reform package has been the centralization of services, and
we believe that centralization of services is a necessity to improve the efficiency
in the system and spend our health care dollar more effectively.