ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would ask if you could please call for Debate on Second Readings, the bills as listed in order on the Order Paper.

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS

Bill 2--The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, Bill 2, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur l'équilibre budgétaire, le remboursement de la dette et la protection des contribuables et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Emerson, who has 13 minutes remaining.

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to continue the discussion and the debate and put some more comments on record in regard to our balanced budget legislation. As I said yesterday in my remarks, there was a reason why this government chose to implement or put forward this kind of legislation, and I believe that there is a reason why the opposition members are so paranoid about supporting this kind of legislation. That is simply that they do not have the will, nor have they ever had the will, to live within their own means.

I think it is about time that we discussed the realities of the economic situation in this province in real terms, and I think it is time that we determine what the impact of the misappropriation--I would call it--of funds or of tax dollars that have been raised by the opposition parties when they were in power and the huge debt load and the cost of the huge debt load that has been foisted upon taxpayers in this province time and time again. We are now seeing the effect of those kinds of actions.

I think it is important to note that when you look at it, to illustrate a detailed example of what has been said is that the impact of the debt in any given year or excess spending that government does of the cost of borrowing is truly demonstrated in a chart that has been prepared by the department.

But I believe that one of the most important facts is that for every hundred million dollars that we can decrease our debt in this government, you set aside roughly about $800,000 of interest cost. Now, when you translate that into the total cost of the debt of this province of some $7.5 billion and you multiply that, it is easy to see that if you could retire that debt within a given period of time, the huge saving of $650 million annually would be attributed to the taxpayers of this province. Would we then choose as a government to keep the tax formula as it is today, would we not lower the taxes any more than they are currently, we would raise an extra $650 million of revenue that could be spent on services to families and communities.

* (1050)

I think that addresses, in a large part, the questions that have been put before this House by opposition members over the last couple of days. We have talked about the needs for housing, and there has been considerable questioning about why the needs of housing are not properly addressed in some of our northern communities. Madam Speaker, it leads me to an issue that was brought to my attention so vividly about the impact of some these settlements that have been discussed and debated by our government, land claim settlements that have been discussed and debated by our province and our government over the last eight years. It is important to note that the opposition members when they were in government simply refused to address in a meaningful way those issues. That in itself has caused the aggravation that is currently prevalent in many of our northern native communities.

I think it is important to note that the Roseau Indian Band, the Roseau River Indian Band has settled their differences with the federal government, has settled their land claims issues, is now $12.5 million to the betterment and is utilizing some of those funds to build 20 new homes on their reserves. Now I say this in respect to what the needs of some the communities are, but I believe that there is a willingness now by both levels of government, both federal and provincial, to make settlement on many of these kinds of claims and thereby reduce the debt to communities, thereby increase the housing in those communities and increase an allowance, set up an allowance to allow for those communities to better their own employment opportunities and to, in fact, probably even generate industries and businesses on their reserves. That, of course, is what our government has constantly put forward.

That, Madam Speaker, is the whole essence of the legislation that is being put forward here in Bill 2. When you consider the impact of communities taking control of their own economies, provinces taking less of their net revenues and allowing those people to utilize those revenues within their own communities and build on their own abilities to fend for themselves, I believe should be supported in a very dramatic way by all parties in this House.

I find it very, very interesting that the honourable members opposite will sit and flail their hands and voice severe opposition to this kind of legislation that in my view will only enhance the ability for individuals to take control of their own destiny, contribute less to government spending, contribute less to the welfare of the financial institution and look after the needs of the general taxpaying public of this province.

I would propose to you that 20 years hence people are going to rally across this province and laud the efforts of our Finance minister (Mr. Stefanson), the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of our province and indeed all colleagues in this government for having taken on the initiative to make sure that the kind of legislation that is being proposed here was in fact enacted and that there was political will to enforce limitations of spending upon the Executive Council of our own government.

That is really what is behind this whole thing. I think that is the main fear of the opposition members because they think that some day their party might be elected to power, and the legislation that is currently before this House would set some severe limitations of taxation and their ability to raise taxes indiscriminately or at will and that they would in fact have to go out and ask the general public whether they could increase taxes. That is their fear, because up to now there have been no limitations put on that kind of power. And we are saying it is time that the people were given more say in the actions of government when it comes to spending their monies.

Now what does that do to the institutional side of government? It really adds a whole different power structure to government, does it not? It really says that we as legislators are willing to share in a meaningful way in that decision-making power.

Our socialist friends on the opposite side of the House simply cannot see themselves having to lower themselves to appear before the tax-paying public and putting forward those kinds of questions and being scrutinized by the general public in the interim between elections, and I say to you, Madam Speaker, that it behooves all of us to, first of all, question whom we represent, why we were elected and what our obligations are in the long term.

I propose to you that our main priority should be: to provide the most economical services to those that cannot fend for themselves; to provide for those that need to be institutionalized from time to time because of health reasons; to provide the kind of infrastructure that is needed to enhance and encourage economic development in all our communities, whether they be northern Manitoba, southern Manitoba or central Manitoba or our urban centres; then to encourage the freedom amongst the general public to be able to express their views clearly and definitively over the needs of where government should be.

I would propose to you that this legislation will in fact drive less government for future generations because politicians will not be able to indiscriminately propose to the tax-paying public that they will spend, spend more during election campaigns, and it will force politicians to really think twice about promises that are made sometimes without much thought given to them about what they will spend in given areas at given times.

That, of course, will allow the general public to have a much greater say in policy setting and future directions of government.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, it has been a great pleasure to address this issue and this piece of legislation, and I would encourage all members to review what they have said so far in this debate and think again about the legislation and support it.

This is meaningful legislation; this is responsible legislation; this will, in future, direct responsible government and drive honesty and integrity within the political community.

Madam Speaker, I thank you very kindly for giving me the opportunity to address this issue in a meaningful way, and I would ask that the opposition members sincerely reconsider their position and support this legislation.

* (1100)

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): On Bill 2, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker: Yes.

Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak on the subject of Bill 2, which is the main piece of legislation before the House in the current sitting. Its purpose is to set out a requirement that the province balance its current and capital expenditures with its income in each fiscal year.

There are three exceptions that the government notes: for natural disasters that were unanticipated, the outbreak of war, a 5 percent or greater reduction in revenues from all sources--and I assume this also includes the federal government.

The bill provides for financial penalties for cabinet members if those requirements are not met and requires an offsetting surplus for the following year to match the deficit incurred. The bill also sets up a debt retirement fund to eliminate the current debt of the province in an orderly fashion. Beginning in 1997, the province must deposit a minimum of $75 million in the fund each year. This $75 million must be included in the current expenditures of the province and offset by current revenues in order to balance the budget.

The surpluses on the operating account are to be used, first, to replenish the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, established in 1989 with the only surplus this government has ever had. That was the one left to them by the Eugene Kostyra budget--to use that to replenish to a level equal to 5 percent of the expenditures of the operating fund and from then into the credit of the debt retirement fund.

Thirdly, Madam Speaker, the bill provides for the so-called taxpayer protection. If the government proposes to raise the levy for health and post-secondary education, the sales tax or the income tax, it must put this to a referendum.

I want to consider this bill in the context of other jurisdictions where similar legislation has been put in place. In Canada, there are similar bills, in Saskatchewan, in Alberta, in New Brunswick, and most of the states of the United States have something similar. Massachusetts and California are the ones most frequently spoken of, and they were really perhaps the earliest to bring in this kind of legislation.

So there really is little new here, though I think it is one of the more unthinking pieces of legislation in that category across the North American continent. Its real purpose, of course, is an abdication of responsibility. It says that the government itself is incapable of responsible budgeting. That is the purpose of the legislation.

Its second purpose and, I think, also a fundamental purpose is that its purpose is to cut public service, to cut the role of government, to cut the role of the community in economic life and in the social life of this province. Its real context is the Free Trade Agreement and the triumph of government by monopolistic and powerful and unaccountable multinational corporations. Its long-term real effect will be to enhance private gain at the expense of the principles and practice of public service which serve all of our community.

Madam Speaker, the taxpayer protection legislation is a very narrow section and narrow in purpose in the bill, and it offers a rhetoric of local control. Like much of the so-called reform that we have seen from the Department of Education, it offers an illusion of local power whilst in fact strengthening the hands of the central government. The Department of Education in Bill 5 and Bill 6 and in earlier bills before this House has done exactly that as, of course, have the changes to The Child and Family Services Act as well, a rhetoric of local control, a rhetoric of citizen control but, in fact, a much greater enhancement of the central powers of the provincial government and, in the case of this bill, of the abilities of unaccountable multinational corporations to govern in areas of immense economic power. I will come to that in a minute. I want to talk about the absence of protection for Crown corporations.

The tax increases are indeed possible under this legislation. The previous speaker, the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), made great play, I think, in his last 10 minutes of his speech about the importance of democracy and the importance of going back to the taxpayers to find out what they will pay for. I respect his opinion on that, but I am really not sure that he has read the bill.

I have waited. The member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) is one of the few government members who has spoken on this bill, and I commend him for that. I have a great deal of respect for that because we have heard from so few members of the government on this bill, and I am beginning to understand the reason why, because, when they speak, they do display what seems to me an incomprehensible ignorance of the provisions of the bill. The member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) had three opportunities to go back to the bill and look at it. I believe members on our side of the House spoke to him about the absence of protection in certain parts of the bill, and each time I listened to what he had to say to see in fact if he had gone back to read the bill and to understand the provisions of it.

Now, in his final submission on this bill, I think his indication is that he believes that taxpayers will have the opportunity to speak upon all taxation that would be opportune, but that is not the case under this bill. The taxpayers are being offered a referendum on certain areas but not on all. They will not be offered any voice in fuel tax. They will not be offered any voice in the property tax or in tax credits, and we know that the last two of those in fact are ways in which this government has chosen, relatively secretly, to increase the taxes of every Manitoban.

I do commend to the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) that in fact he go back to the legislation and he examine very carefully the very limited voice that people are being given over their taxation, and look at the record of his own government on this. Which taxes have they raised? When did they raise them and how did they raise them, and did they do it knowingly? Because they did, and we have submitted the memos and the briefing notes for the Premier which show the relationship between the increases that the tax credit, the property tax credit that the government introduced, the relationship between that and an increase in the sales tax. Of course, it was considerable. The Premier knew it. The government knew it. The member for Emerson must know it, and yet still they want to maintain the fiction that there is some aspect of local and citizen control over taxes. It is not so. It is there in part, but is not there for the kinds of taxes that this government has always chosen to raise.

Madam Speaker, in 1992 the government used both the property tax credit and the extension of the sales tax and brought changes that amounted probably to about an increase of $400 a year for every Manitoba family. This is at a time when we know that the incomes of Manitoba families are declining in real terms. We know now that this has been happening for some time, but in 1992 it was already evident, and the growing gap between rich and poor, the ability of some people to afford that $400 and the great inability of many people to afford that $400. Yet what was so appalling about that was the way in which the government tried to hide it, the way in which they tried to deny it, and they are doing it again in this bill. This bill in that sense is a deceitful bill, and it continues the same kinds of deceits that the government has proceeded with in the past.

It is also possible under this bill, Madam Speaker, that the present graduated income tax could be replaced with a flat tax of 25 percent or any other amount that raised the same amount of money and would not be subject to a referendum because it is revenue neutral and does not fall under the referendum provisions. Again, I ask the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), the only person who has spoken out on this bill, to go back and look at that. I do not know whether the member for Emerson or the finance minister are flat taxers. I know that there are some flat earthers on the other side of the House, but flat taxers there probably are as well.

As I read the Fraser Institute bulletins, and I know that they do too, as I--frankly, actually I do not read Alberta Report. I do see the cover from time to time raised by various ministers on the front bench over there. I am sure that the Alberta Report also has an interest in the flat tax principle. It is something that really is on the next stage of the agenda for the kinds of people who influence and develop these legislations, some Chambers of Commerce, not all, but certainly the right-wing think-tanks that this government listens to.

Those who are most hurt by flat taxes, of course, are the poor, the small businesses and those on fixed incomes, exactly the people whom the Tories have targeted in the past two years.

* (1110)

Madam Speaker, I draw the members' attention to a column, I believe in an Ottawa paper, by Dalton Camp, a man who used to be associated with the Tory party. Perhaps we might say that he is more--what would I say?

An Honourable Member: Long in the tooth.

Ms. Friesen: Yes, he is long in the tooth.

An Honourable Member: He has gained knowledge as he has grown older.

Ms. Friesen: He has gained wisdom indeed as he has grown older. But, no, actually I do not think that is the case. I think Dalton Camp does come from a Conservative Party. He comes from a party of Duff Roblin. He comes from a party even to some extent of Sterling Lyon, but I submit that the Tories that we face across this House are not that kind of a Conservative Party. There may be elements of it, but what they have become--and it is to their great detriment and to ours and the loss in fact of that conservative, and I say it with a small "c," ideology across Canada--is a great loss.

There were elements of Duff Roblin. There were elements of others, of Stanfield, for example, which I think fit well into the kind of communitarian. I would call it social democratic; other people would have different labels for it. Dalton Camp, I think, comes from that kind of society which sees that there are important national and provincial economic levers of power which must remain in the hands of the community at large. It was a progressive conservatism, and he speaks from that perspective. I am, I think, greatly disappointed that there seems to be no one to speak for that perspective in Manitoba at the moment.

He speaks of the political reactionaries, and I expect he is speaking of the people in his own party, at this point, who demand less for the poor, the unemployed and the powerless, and bemoan their own misfortunes and yet seek more for themselves. These are the people who are now calling, he said, for yet more privilege in the form of a flat tax. This would impose the same rate of payment on all taxable incomes, a marvel of simplicity. It is also--

Mr. Enns: A great idea.

Ms. Friesen: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) says, a great idea. Dalton Camp says, it is a model of regressive tax policy. Obviously, the flat tax takes more from the upper income taxpayer as a percentage of income. Almost certainly, he says, the flat tax would yield less revenue; even if not, the continuing decline of tax monies from corporations will drive the government to find added sources of revenue from other regressive taxes.

I have Progressive Conservatives speaking, someone who knows full well what the next agenda is of the right-wing think-tanks in this country and some of the more extreme of the Chambers of Commerce. It is the flat tax. This bill does not protect Manitobans against the flat tax, one of the more regressive measures that we shall inevitably see in this government.

Again, I commend to the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) to go back and look at this bill and look at the very limited range of opportunities that are being offered for a popular voice on the nature of taxation.

But it is, of course, Madam Speaker, a fundamental tenet of the kind of Tories that we face across this House that they give money to the wealthy because they believe that they will spend it and create more wealth. I can put perhaps the most benevolent aspect of their philosophy. It is very much the same, as George Bush and Ronald Reagan said, a rising tide of wealth will lift all boats. They are, of course, dead wrong, and they have been proven dead wrong over the last decade--

Mr. Enns: That is not what Abe Lincoln said.

Ms. Friesen: Well, the Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Enns) wants to quote Abe Lincoln.

There are many speeches by Abraham Lincoln which I think are worthy of quoting. I do not think the minister is choosing the one I would quote. They are, of course, I believe, over the last eight years what experience has shown, is that the transfer of money to the wealthy has also meant the transfer of money offshore. We look at where the banks, who have been one of the greatest benefactors of the actions of Tory governments, are putting their money. We are not finding it in small businesses in my community nor dare I say suggest the community of the Minister of Agriculture.

The ability of the banks and the willingness, the political willingness of the banks to invest in Manitoba and small communities everywhere, I think is something that we all need to pay attention to. In some parts of the United States they have indeed created legislation which has enabled the banks, encouraged the banks, enticed the banks to invest in the urban areas of the United States and in some of the small communities, where much of the energy, what the government would call entrepreneurialism, what I would call an energy and inventiveness, co-operation, where all of that exists.

Finally, Madam Speaker, this legislation allows Crown corporations to be sold off to balance the budget, just as the government did last year with McKenzie Seeds. Those Crown corporations that Manitobans built up and nurtured through several generations can, under this legislation, under the actions of this government, under the experience that we have of this government, simply be discarded at a moment's notice at any price in order to meet the imposed guidelines under the balanced budget legislation.

It will be an illusion. There is a limit to the number of Crown corporations that we have. There is a limit to the number of Crown corporations that they can sell off. Apart from being a wrongheaded and counterproductive policy, the public policy, it can only work for a limited number of years. Then what do you have? You have not balanced your budget. You have nothing left in the cupboard. You have few levers of economic power and you have deceived the people. I believe that this is what this bill does.

No one runs their household in the way that this budget bill proposes. As families, we support our young people. We help them with their education. We invest in a long-term strategy that would enable them to be productive in the future. We support our old people, who invested in us and who most importantly invested in the public institutions which have enabled everyone in this Legislature to become the person they are today. The public health service, the public education system, all of those are the--we can go on to talk about the credit unions and the co-ops. The institutions that are community based in Manitoba and which are open and accessible to all have made every one of us the kind of citizen, the kind of educated, articulate people that we are in this Legislature. These are the institutions, these are the community-built institutions that this government is set to privatize. That is what they are going to do, one by one.

We know the shopping list they have, and I will refer to that later. The province is choosing to limit its ability to engage in long-term planning and investment, in construction, in roads, in housing, in seniors facilities, in college and university building. Health and education facilities are funded somewhat separately, but the calls that I hear from the back bench really give me great cause for concern. That is why I listened with such interest to the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), because they do seem to believe that they can continue to invest in these kinds of public infrastructure on an amortized basis, but they simply cannot. Health, yes. Hospitals and schools, yes. There are different ways of financing those, but that is not the case for roads. It is not the case for universities and colleges. It is not the case for seniors housing. It is not the case for so much more of public infrastructure, whether it is related to tourism or whether it is related to the infrastructure of northern Manitoba, and other areas where the challenge of distance and transport is so vital.

I really did have cause for concern when I listened to, I believe it was, the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) speak about the abilities under this bill to amortize those kinds of public infrastructures. That is why I would challenge the government to speak on this bill. Tell us what you really think it is, because I am very concerned that you have seriously misunderstood the provisions of this bill, unless the intention of this government is to create a series of special operating agencies under which these kinds of provisions for amortized infrastructure building can be done. Is that the case?

I understand the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) nodded in approval. I did not see it. Whether he is considering it as an idea or whether he understands it to be one of the principles behind the bill, I do not know. Perhaps he will be able to tell us at a later date.

* (1120)

I do think that is an important question because, if that is the case and the government is indeed creating special operating agencies at quite a rapid rate, if that is the case, then this bill is a sham. It is even more of a sham than I think at the moment because there will be debt, and the ability to hide the debt, to conceal it, to not report it, to have it under separate auditing agencies, to have it under separate reporting agencies is completely different. [interjection] The minister says that I am on to something. I think he--[interjection]

The sheer genius of the bill, the Minister of Agriculture said. That is the sheer deception. It is a sheer sham. It is, I think--it is always difficult, Madam Speaker, when you are speaking extemporaneously, perhaps not to be carried away with vocabulary. I will choose my words carefully when I speak of the government's intention in this bill.

If its intention indeed is to create special operating agencies so that it can syphon off the debt of Manitoba into those, hidden, concealed from the votes of Manitobans and from the accountability to Manitobans, then indeed my view of this bill, I think, is even graver, more serious than I had originally anticipated.

We do not run our households like this. We support our families, and we support our seniors. We do support the public institutions that have enabled all of us to become productive citizens. We take out loans to build businesses and to pay for education, but I am concerned that this is not the road that this province is following. The province is choosing to limit its ability to engage in long-term planning. The road ahead in Manitoba will be open to only those who can finance their own education, their own roads, their own seniors housing, their own tourism infrastructure, their own art galleries, their own museums, their own personal libraries.

Who amongst us can do that without the collective support of the community? Madam Speaker, we know, in Manitoba--we are a small community--there are few of us who can, and there is a majority who cannot. There are some who can enter schools. There are some who can enter colleges. There are some who have the opportunity and the money to enter private facilities of all kinds, but the great majority of society cannot.

Once we have moved to that two-tier society where, when you cross the threshold of the emergency room, if we have any left at the end of this year, or you take you child to kindergarten, everyone in this society is equal, and that is the kind of society that this government is set to destroy. They have a clear, ideological perspective on that. Some of them are clearer about it than others, but certainly the majority seem not to be clear about the functions and purposes of this bill.

Madam Speaker, we all want to see a balanced budget. Indeed, we are waiting for one from this government. This is the government which has never produced a balanced budget, never ever produced a balanced budget. The second year in government they had the opportunity to use the Eugene Kostyra surplus, and they used it. They used it to create a Fiscal Stabilization Fund. Fair and good, it was a surplus, and they were left with it. Perhaps they used it wisely, but it was not a balanced budget, and every subsequent year since then the debt has gone up and up and the deficit has always been there. This bill is brought to you by a group of people who have never ever in their lives produced a balanced budget, and I think that should give every Manitoban pause for concern.

Many provinces have now set about balancing their budgets in very short order, as has the federal government. We all recognize, I think, that the federal debt is much larger and more difficult to deal with than that of many of the provinces, but we recognize too that the federal government has far greater powers and far greater tools and implements at its disposal for balancing its budget or for the economic conditions which will enable it to balance its budgets. But we all of us want to see those budgets balanced in all the provinces and in the federal government. We believe that government should be a sound steward of the people's money. It does not come easily, and especially in Manitoba now to people who are on fixed incomes and seniors, it does not come easily at all. It should be used where it can benefit most in a fair and a just way, and it should benefit the majority of our citizens, not the narrow minority, not the multinational corporations, not the unaccountable sources of power in this country.

Madam Speaker, I look with some pride at the accomplishments of the government of Saskatchewan which has balanced a budget. That was their first priority when they came to power, and they did it. They did it without selling Crown corporations. Indeed, their legislation would not permit that. They did it without the wholesale destruction, such as is happening in the social services in Alberta, for example. They had an enormous problem when they came to power in Saskatchewan. They followed upon a government of Grant Devine, an unfortunate name, but Grant Devine had wheeled and dealed his way around for Saskatchewan for some years, and the coffers were bare. There had been grants for hot tubs. There had been grants to friends. There had been grants for golf club memberships--was it not?--in Chicago for heads of Crown corporations.

Grant Devine, you have to admit, certainly had imagination, and for a while he was able to persuade people to vote for him. But the destruction of community which generations of Saskatchewan people had built was coming close, and finally people recognized that. I think this government should take a warning from what happened to the government of Grant Devine. People understood gradually what was being sold out from underneath them, the kind of community which they had built over several generations.

It is in that context that the work of Premier Romanow is even more impressive and that the ability of the people of Saskatchewan to see the importance of both long- and short-term solutions is also significant, for their recovery has not been without pain. There is nobody in Saskatchewan who will not tell you that. It has been difficult. To undo the damage and destruction of Grant Devine in a few short years was an enormous challenge, and Romanow and the Saskatchewan New Democrats met it. But they did it in an honest and forthright manner and the people of Saskatchewan returned Romanow to government.

Madam Speaker, I contrast that in my mind with the charlatan approach of this government and in particular this Bill 2. Remember that this bill is brought to you by the same gang who not only did not balance the budget when they came to power in the province, but they did not balance it when they were in city government either. They sowed the seeds of disaster for Winnipeg with their grandiose borrowing for capital projects when they were at City Hall.

The member for Tuxedo (Mr. Filmon), the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson), the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst), the member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay), the former member for Riel and the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), all of these were people who extended the debt when they were at City Council, who extended the infrastructure, in fact, have left us with a very dispersed city in which people, the taxpayers of Winnipeg, who are now continuously having their incomes reduced through a property tax credit of the same provincial government, are finding it very, very difficult.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): I voted against that budget, Jean. Jean, I voted against that budget.

Ms. Friesen: The member for St. Norbert tells me he voted against that budget. That is an important footnote, and I will enter that. I am glad to hear that from him. It still leaves a lot of others of the gang sitting on the front row of this government, does it not?

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would caution the honourable member for Wolseley to pick and choose her words carefully.

Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, the same people who are at City Hall and who laid the foundations for the great debt problems of the City of Winnipeg are now for the most part in the cabinet in the Province of Manitoba. These are the same people who are increasing the grants to private schools, as they decrease the funding for public schools. These are the people who give so-called training grants in the private sector, many of them of dubious merit. In fact, I always like to remember Clayton Manness trying to talk about a course that was offered under Workforce 2000. I think it was called Six Thinking Hats.

Even Clayton had trouble saying that without laughing, but still I believe they went onto greater glory, and Workforce 2000 is still distributing unaccountable grants to a variety of private industries.

Madam Speaker, the same people who now bring us Bill 2 are the same people who told us before the election there was only $10 million for the Jets, and then somehow we found out later that they were tossing out another $20 million, another $50 million, a nod and a wink in River Heights and Tuxedo. It will be all right, boys, hang in with us, and we will keep the Jets in town at any cost--at any cost.

That is what they were saying on the streets, brought to you, Bill 2, by the people who put up signs before the election to tell you they had not raised your taxes, when most Manitobans knew that their property taxes had been raised by this government. Even then the government's own briefing note told the Premier that his property tax credit changes were equal to large increases in the sales tax. He knew, the cabinet knew, their ad agency knew, and they still tried to tell you otherwise.

That is why I contrast it to the straightforward and honest approach of Premier Roy Romanow, and he was I believe dealing with the people of Saskatchewan in a straightforward and honest manner. I believe that there are elements of this bill, Bill 2, which are as much a sham as so many parts of this government's policy.

Should we, do we, can we believe what these people have to say about balanced budgets? Do we trust them? Do we trust them to not misrepresent the facts for Manitobans?

* (1130)

To me, Madam Speaker, the answer is clear, but fortunately we do not have to rely on my words. We do not even have to rely on the government's well-massaged words in its weekly press bulletins. We can rely upon the tones of the Dominion Bond agency which has raised questions about the reality of the government's last claim to a balanced budget. Not true, said the Dominion Bond agency. Again: Bill 2, brought to you by a group of people who have never balanced a budget. Should we, can we believe these people?

The Canada West Foundation equally found fault with the government's budget presentations. Now the Canada West Foundation is not what I would call a nonpartisan voice on many issues, and it is certainly one that is far closer to the government than it is to my perspective, but the Canada West Foundation has a cautionary tone in speaking of Manitoba's budget. It gives the Manitoba budget a 60 percent or a C. It says, the debt schedule is both incomplete and, worse yet, inaccurate. More accurate estimates are needed. The reported budget balance does not relate to the change in the province's debt as reported by other analysts. Does Manitoba really have a deficit? This relationship needs explaining. Detailed forecasts of prior years' revenue and expenditure would be helpful.

It records the Manitoba budget as disturbing and confusing--the fact that it is reporting a surplus this year. It too makes reference to the Dominion Bond Rating Service report that, quote, tax-supported debt of the province will actually grow this year. It will actually grow this year. These people not only have not balanced their budgets in any other year, they have portrayed a balanced budget in this year inaccurately, untruthfully, according to the Dominion Bond Rating agency and the Canada West Foundation. The debt of this province will actually grow this year, and, Madam Speaker, I know Hansard does not use capital letters, but I wish it could. The debt of the province this year will actually grow by $141 million, over $166 for every single Manitoban. No explanation is given for this in the budget. Yet the goals of fiscal clarity clearly demand one. Are these the people that we should believe on Bill 2? I think their record speaks for itself.

Let us compare what Canada West Foundation says about Saskatchewan. It says, Saskatchewan has a very good 85 percent or an A minus. It does mention, as it did for Manitoba, that historical data is lacking, and it does want to see more of that next time. It does say that the province presents a detailed, easy-to-read schedule of debt which also corresponds with numbers used by outside analysts.

There is an outside check on what Saskatchewan has done. There is an outside contradiction, fundamental contradiction, of the very principles and practices of this government's budgeting. We cannot and should not believe them.

Madam Speaker, what is the response of the government to these charges? What I have said today is nothing new to them. It is not just the opposition who has made these. The press has made them. The Winnipeg Free Press and its columnists have noted these charges. One would have anticipated that the Finance minister or the Premier might indeed have made some response to these charges because they are serious ones, and they are particularly serious for a government which is resting its reputation on the balanced budget legislation and upon its greatly advertised claims to have finally balanced its budget as it sold off McKenzie Seeds last year to do it.

So it is a puzzle to me as to why they have not responded, and I began to think about the debate in this House, or perhaps we should say the absence of a debate, because there is a distinct lack of interest on the part of the government to use the House as a forum of community concern or as a place for the exchange of ideas. [interjection]

Well, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) says, it never bothers them. Well, it does not bother them because they never open their mouth. We have a flurry of activity in private members' hour, when a few of the backbenchers are allowed to speak, but we have only had one speech on this balanced budget legislation. I think the reason is that the majority of them do not understand it, and they are on a very short leash from the Premier (Mr. Filmon) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), whoever, not to speak. Is it that, or is it a distinct lack of interest? I am casting around for ideas, and all I hear, of course, from the other side of the House is great guffaws, not speeches, not arguments, not debate, not responses to the critiques and analysts that have criticized them for their balanced budgets of the past few years. Absolute nothing.

It reminds me, as I thought about it, the absence, the mystery of this absence, of a poem. Many of you might know it as a song, but it reminded me of the Tory cabinet, Macavity: The Mystery Cat, never there when you are looking for them: "And when the Foreign Office find a Treaty's gone astray,/ Or the Admiralty lose some plans and drawings by the way,/ There may be a scrap of paper in the hall or on the stair--/ But it's useless to investigate--Macavity's not there!"

It is useless to talk about the absence of emergency wards or the cutting of foods to people who are hungry--Macavity is not there. This cabinet is not there. This Premier is taking it all under advisement. "Macavity, Macavity, there's no one like Macavity,/ There never was a cat of such deceitfulness and suavity./ He always has an alibi, and one or two to spare:/ At whatever time the deed took place--MACAVITY WASN'T THERE!"

The Jets, the Beaujolais dinner, the cutting of emergency wards, the cutting of cancer drugs--Macavity is not there. This Tory cabinet, this Premier takes it under advisement. No answers, no debate, no discussion of the kind of bill which they are presenting today, but, in any case, Madam Speaker, the real authorship lies elsewhere. It lies in think-tanks like the Fraser Institute, the Chambers of Commerce, the multinational corporations. They are the authors of this kind of bill, and they are the ones who will benefit from it.

Their goal is weaker government. Their goal is less public service. Their goal is limited social justice. Their goal is, and they would acknowledge this, the increasing and incremental freedom of the market. This is the world that they have been building for some time in different parts of the globe. The burden of their changes has been borne by the poor. It has been borne by labour in the race to ratchet down wages and any control of the workplace. The health and safety issues that people have won, sometimes with their lives, over the last 100 years, and that is being torn away. That is what is going to happen as a result of this government. It is the diminution of public service, and that is what they are after.

They said very little. I wish they had said a little more. A few carefully chosen words from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and then nothing other than the hectoring catcalls from the back benches and middle benches which give one little confidence that they have understood what the implications of this bill are.

An Honourable Member: I think they are being muzzled.

Ms. Friesen: Well, my colleague says that they are being muzzled. I do not know that we can say that, but certainly it appears that way. There does not seem to be any evidence of any discussion of this bill. But then, you know, it must be difficult, if you have never balanced a budget in your life, if you created the debt for the City of Winnipeg and you are now handling the budgets of the Province of Manitoba and if you have not balanced a budget in your entire political career, there must be perhaps a little flush of embarrassment, a little reddening of the neck when you come to speak on this bill and when you come to consider the criticisms of the Fraser Institute, and when you come to consider the criticisms of the Canada West Foundation and of the Dominion Bond Rating Service. There must be just a little hint of uncomfortableness on the part of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and his colleagues.

Madam Speaker, is it that they do not understand it or they have not read it, or is it, for example, that, as I suggested to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) just a minute ago, that they actually intend to create special operating agencies which will be exempt from the restraint of debt? What rules do govern them? Indeed, has anyone on the other side actually examined what kinds of rules will govern this balanced budget legislation? What role will the Auditor play, and what role will the special operating agencies play?

Why does this schedule--one of the things that concerns me very strongly here is the government's schedule for the selling off of Crown corporations.

I mentioned earlier that the Fraser Institute had put out its shopping list and indeed it has. The Fraser Institute says for Manitoba that McKenzie Seeds--well, No. 1, that is gone. The next one for the Fraser Institute is Manitoba Mineral Resources Ltd., then the Liquor Control Commission of Manitoba--is this the next one?--then Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board, the Public Insurance Corporation, the Telephone System, Western Canada Lottery Foundation, to be followed up by Leaf Rapids, Manitoba Development Corporation, the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation--I think they are working on that one--the Manitoba water supply and Venture Manitoba Tours. This is the Fraser Institute's shopping list. My concern is that it is the government's shopping list too.

* (1140)

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I move, seconded by the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), that debate be adjourned.

Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for St. Johns, seconded by the honourable member for Transcona, that debate be now adjourned. What is the will of the House? No?

Bill 5--The Education Administration Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, Bill 5 (The Education Administration Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'administration scolaire), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).

Some Honourable Members: Stand.

Madam Speaker: Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill the remain standing? [agreed]

Bill 6--The Public Schools Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on Bill 6 (The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les école publiques), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh), standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), who has 21 minutes remaining.

An Honourable Member: Stand.

Madam Speaker: Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing in both names? [agreed]

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 6, The Public Schools Amendment Act.

A short time ago, I had the opportunity to add my comments with respect to Bill 5, which also impacted upon the various school divisions throughout the province relating to the duties and powers of principals and the setting up of parent advisory councils as two of the main parts of that particular bill.

I had the opportunity at that time, as I had indicated in my comments, of communicating directly with several parents in my community, parent councils, the ones that we have, because we have had parent councils since 1978 in the Transcona-Springfield School Division, but I also had the opportunity to talk directly with several, in fact, many of the principals in my community that will be impacted by Bill 5 but will also be impacted by Bill 6.

It was interesting to note the comments that the principals of the community had with respect to the performance of their own individual jobs but, at the same time, to relate to me those experiences so that I might carry their thoughts back to this Chamber and to put on the record the comments that they have.

As I proceed through debate on Bill 6 here during my comments today, I will hope to relate some of those comments to members of this House, so they may too be aware of the intent of this bill and how the performance of the principals' duties will be impacted.

This bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since we are talking about the principle of the bill itself, has several components to it. It is not an extensive piece of legislation by its content. It only numbers three pages in total, but it will still have an impact on the activities of the public school system and will in some way limit the activities that take place.

(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)

I am not saying that this bill is totally without merit. There are some provisions I believe need to be looked at, perhaps some amendments may be required to this piece of legislation, and I will point out some of the shortfalls of this legislation.

In the legislation, it proposes that under one of the initial sections of this legislation, it talks about selling of goods, where no person would be able to sell or canvass or offer to sell goods or services or merchandise to teachers or a pupil on the school premises without the prior approval of the school board or a designate.

That I find somewhat unusual. I guess in some cases it may be appropriate where there are individuals, perhaps if there are activities relating to individuals selling illicit substances, for example, on the school premises or on the school property, that necessary steps should be taken to curtail, in fact prevent that activity from taking place. I am sure we all want to protect the children of--[interjection] The Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) references another matter dealing with the selling of illicit substances. I do not want to comment on it because it was not directly involving schools I believe, or at least I hope it was not involving schools, although I do not know for sure. Maybe members opposite know more about that matter than I do, so I will have to trust their judgment and their knowledge when they relate that to other members of the Chamber.

There are two points here that I am trying to balance in my mind with respect to this particular section or clause in that schools quite often do fundraisers. I know the children of my own family, and, of course, the children in the schools in my community are currently involved in school fundraisers. It can be involved in selling products, such as chocolates or other items, as a means of fundraising for various school activities. Does this particular section then say that the schools themselves, the teachers, the pupils in those schools, will not be able to go forward within the school and not sell those school fundraiser items, such as chocolates, for example, within the school premises without first contacting the school board or designate, perhaps the principal in this case, if the school board so wishes to sell that product on the school property?

I know schools require a significant amount of funds to continue their activities or any extracurricular activities in particular, and this is one way that they do that fundraising. Does that mean they would have to leave the school premises or the school property to have the exchange of those goods that would be done in good faith and would not be illegal under the laws of this province?

I see no designation; perhaps that is something that is going to occur under regulations when the minister and the department sit down to identify items that can and cannot be exchanged on school property. I throw that out for the minister's consideration because that is one of the issues that came to my mind directly when I read that clause for the first time.

Now, members of my own community, I am sure, like many other members, other parents of the province whose children are attending the public school system in our province, are obviously worried and concerned about the things that we see in our media, whether it be issues relating to violence where there are weapons that are involved, whether there is gang-related activity. I do not think that the community which I represent is much different from a lot of the communities in the province. Occasionally, from time to time, we have had our difficulties, but they have been dealt with. In talking with the principals of the various schools, including the junior highs, elementary and high schools, the principals have related to me experiences that they have had where people have come onto the property and have been under the influence of various substances, for example, and the principals have had to deal with it.

They, quite fortunately, have a good experience in being able to call the local police, the City of Winnipeg police, who have responded quite quickly and the matters have been dealt with quite effectively and quite efficiently. By the experience that is there, we see that the police respond quite readily to any calls that the schools may make for anyone who may be creating a disturbance within the school.

Now I am not sure what effect this is going to have, and I know the minister in this legislation indicates that there is going to be an increase in the fines. In fact, there are going to be two sections dealing with fines relating to those who trespass on school property because this bill is related to persons that trespass without approval or, in fact, create a disturbance within the schools or on the property.

In the first section, under Offence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it refers to subsection 1 where an individual would sell goods on the school property. It says that the fine is increased up to $1,000. Now I believe that is increased from $100 that is currently in place. Does that mean that if a teacher or one of the students is selling the chocolates in the school and they do not have authorization from the school board--and I am not being facetious in this matter--but these individuals will then be subject to prosecution and perhaps fined for that activity and not receiving prior approval for it? So I am not sure what effect this is going to have on those people who are undertaking legitimate activities and to what length and what degree the school boards and the principals are going to go to give approval or to curtail this type of activity.

* (1150)

Also, under the legislation, it indicates for the other sections that, where people trespass or create a disturbance on school property, the fine is going to increase up from $100 to $5,000. To some, that may be a deterrent if they have money. Of course, there are, I am sure, situations that occur and the principals in my community have raised it with me, what happens with an individual who comes to the school, creates a disturbance, or, in some cases, by-passes the principal, goes directly to a classroom and wants to see the teacher because they are quite concerned about the way certain matters have been dealt with, perhaps not to the liking of that parent or that individual or the guardian who has come to see the school? Does that mean that these individuals, perhaps maybe unemployed in some cases and have no employment earnings--how are they then going to be able to pay or afford the $5,000 fine, and what kind of deterrent would it be to them?

I would perhaps like to see in place that we have some means or mechanism whereby the principals would have the opportunity to have the one-to-one discussion with the individual coming into the school facility. I know one principal in particular, whom I have known for quite a number of years in my community, raised the issue with me where a parent came to the school. It was an elementary school, and the parent was quite incensed with the way a matter had been dealt with and by-passed the principal's office.

Well, there are ways of dealing with that whereby, I believe, it would involve an education of the parents, because I think the parents have a responsibility in cases like this, if they have concerns, to bring them to the attention of the principals of the various schools and to sit down and talk face to face with the principals on these matters. Perhaps then an appointment can be arranged, get the teachers involved and, if necessary, get the student involved and sit down and talk about the matter face to face. I believe it involves an education of the parents in cases like this as well.

I have to think, to the increase in the fines or the level of fines that would be issued to individuals, whether they violate the subsection 1 or subsections 2 or 4, where you have a variance in the fine amounts, whether or not we are putting in place or using a hammer to swat a fly. You know, that was an example that was used. It seems to be excessive, particularly in light of the fact that not all people would be able to afford those fines, and I am not sure how the courts would view matters where that would be the case. In fact, would community service be an avenue or some other means that the courts would use to discourage that type of activity?

We currently have, from my understanding, a Petty Trespasses Act in place in the province of Manitoba that does allow, for individuals that trespass on property and are knowledgable that they are trespassing, for a fine or penalty of $25. So there is some deterrent there. Quite frankly, in my discussions with the principals in my community's schools, they have indicated to me they do not know, in their recollection, in all their years of service, both as a teacher and as a principal, when The Petty Trespasses Act was imposed on anyone for trespass on school property or for creating a disturbance in the school. So we are not sure if this new provision is even going to be imposed or implemented where we see increased fines, since the principals themselves indicated that the current provisions are not enacted.

The other matter that comes to my attention, dealing more broadly with the policy that is in place--now, not all school divisions have a wide-ranging use, and this is one of schools, through various hours of the day. This is one of the things that has bothered me because, in a lot of cases, I suspect that school premises are going underutilized in the off hours. I see a large number of young people, not only in my own community but in other communities throughout the province, that are looking for things to do. I sense that we are missing a real opportunity here, where we can be utilizing the school facilities to allow for activities to take place involving young people, to encourage them to be involved in there and to move away from other activities that may be, in some cases, destructive, where there is vandalism involved, where there is graffiti involved.

They are looking for an avenue, an outlet for their energies, and I think that if we utilized school facilities for that--since they are in many cases. In particular, school gymnasiums that may be sitting vacant throughout the evening hours, why can they not be utilized to assist the young people and allow young people to partake in activities utilizing those particular facilities?

I have a hard time understanding how the minister who is now, under Bill 6, indicating that there are going to be greater powers, I believe, given to a principal or person authorized by the school board, to direct a person to leave the school premises. I mean, public schools are public property. Does that mean that I as an individual then cannot go forward under this legislation, should it be passed without amendment--that I cannot go to that school without phoning ahead and getting an appointment with the principal or with a teacher? Would I be, in fact, trespassing on that school property? I am a member of the public. I would be going there in the performance of my duties or to talk with the school officials as a parent, but does that mean that I would be trespassing if I did not call ahead and arrange an appointment?

You know, it leaves a doubt in my mind whether or not--[interjection] I am sorry, I did not catch that. [interjection] Well, if I am an invitee, and I drop in unannounced or uninvited to have some discussions, does that mean that the principal then would say that I am an invitee and would the same rules apply to everyone? It is a question that is in my mind. [interjection]

Well, I know the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), of course, has some I believe legal background working for the government of Manitoba and his previous employer is Great West Life where I believe he was legal counsel as well--

An Honourable Member: The Attorney General's department.

Mr. Reid: The Minister of Labour references that he worked for the Attorney General's department, and I believe that to be accurate.

Point of Order

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): I would suggest to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the honourable member is detracting from the actual issue that we are debating, and I would suggest that you would ask him to retain his comments to the subject.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the honourable member for that advice.

The member for Kildonan, on the same point of order?

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe the member was referencing the fact that one of the factors in the bill is the attendance of an individual on school property, and I believe he was discussing the legal ramifications of such. I think that is clearly relevant to the topic and the debate about the bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the honourable members. The honourable member for Emerson did not have a point of order.

* * *

Mr. Reid: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am indeed trying very hard to be relevant to Bill 6, and this, in fact, does--these legal issues that I am debating here today and responding to the comments by the Minister of Labour, who has some legal background and has made comments on the comments that I have made, I think, are relevant to Bill 6. It is an issue that needs to be dealt with, and I am sure will be debated at more length when we move into the committee hearings on this bill. I do not know why the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) took exception to the comments that have been made here. I am only referencing the comments that his own colleague had been asking me of. Therefore, I am just trying--

An Honourable Member: An internal split.

Mr. Reid: Yes, it does appear to be a bit of an internal split on that side of the House. Perhaps after the sitting hours today the members opposite could get together and discuss the issue and try and resolve the difficulties that they are having.

I noticed that the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties that has, I believe, reviewed this legislation has raised several issues. Now members opposite, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), who seems to be offended that this public body would be commenting on this legislation--I do not know why he would take that tack, but I guess that is his personal choice. Anyway, the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties has suggested that perhaps this legislation should not affect, or does not affect, the normal and legitimate rights of individuals being on school property.

Now, as I have raised a few moments ago, the fact that I as an individual could go to any school in my community and talk to the--

Point of Order

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): I am here on a point of order. My only concern in respect to the statement that was made, that MARL was a public body. It is not a public body; it is a private lobby group. I just want that clarified.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

* * *

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it 12:30 p.m.? [agreed]

When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have 22 minutes remaining.

The hour now being 12:30 p.m., this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday.