Manitoba Hansard — 1 March 1988 (Sitting 14, 33rd Legislature, 3rd Session)

33-3-14

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 1 March, 1988. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillipa: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . . . MINI STERI AL STATEME NT S AN D TAB LING OF REPORT S MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Health. HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker , I would like to table three annual reports and I also have a ministerial statement to make.

I beg leave to table the Annual Report of the Manitoba Health Research Council for the year 1986-87; the Annual Report of the Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba for 19 86-87; and the Annual Report of Manitoba Health, 1986-87. I will now distribute copies of the min isterial statement. Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Manitoba Court of Appeal unanimously struck down the compul sory admission provisions contained in The Mental Health Act as being contrary to the rights and guarantees of

section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In response to this situation, and after consultation with the Attorney-General's Department, the government will proceed to have Bill 59,

An Act amending The Mental Health Act, proclaimed today in order to ensure a full continuity of law. Given the num ber of people being held on a compulsory basis throughout Manitoba, and the need of the government and psychiatric facilities to act responsibly , keeping in mind the need to protect the public and the welfare of the compulsory patients themselves, we will follow a prudent course of action. Following proclamation, each compulsory patient's case will be reviewed to determine their status under the new act.

We had withheld proclamation of Bill 59 in order to allow various groups to comment on possi ble amendments which would fine tune the bill. Work on this has been done and will continue, and we may bring forward further amendments to The Mental Health Act during this Session, if necessary. Thank you. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, having sat till approximately five o'clock in the morning, on the evening that we listened to public presentation on Bill 59, one quickly came to 391 the conclusion that Bill 59 was drafted in haste and without consultation with the various people involved in the delivery of mental services in the Province of Manitoba.

A rather hasty proclamation as a result of yesterday's court decision will now trigger, with the proclamation of Bill 59, many of the problems which were identified by presenters to that bill in the early hours of the morning, and the then-Attorney-General may well remember a number of them; for instance, the problems caused in the mental health wards of hospitals. Now, Madam Speaker, that's the reason why Bill 59 has not been proclaimed to date. The fine tuning that the Minister says may be necessary to Bill 59 is not a "may"; it's a "defi nite. " There will have to be amendments to Bill 59.

What we have with the proclamation today of Bill 59 is a knee-jerk solution to a court decision which has caused the Provincial Government problems and difficulti es, but in proclaiming Bill 59, we will have a myriad of other problems caused by enactment of that bill; problems which would have been identified had the government, prior to writing Bill 59, consulted with the various disciplines involved in the delivery of mental health, something they failed to do prior to the rapid and hasty introduction of Bill 59 last Session.

What we are seeing now is again an entire lack of planning by this government in delivery of mental health in the Province of Manitoba; a lack of planning and program approach which has been there since this government came to power. They have not acted on the Pascoe Report; they have not acted on any of the suggestions made by ourselves, in Opposition, and other groups involved with mental health.

This knee-jerk proclamation today of Bill 59 solves potentially one aspect of the court decision yesterday, but creates a myriad of other problems in mental health that this government will have to deal with in a very expeditious way. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs. HON. G. DOER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm pleased to table the 1986-87 Annual Report of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission; and the 1986- 87 Annual Report of the Manitoba Telephone System. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Highways and Transportation. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I'd like to table the Annual Report of the Department of Highways and Transportation for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987. MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . .

TUeac:lay, 1 March, 1988 INTRO DU CTION OF GUE ST S MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have, from Mount batten School, twenty Grade 5 and 6 students under the direction of Mrs. Peck. The school is located In the constituency of the Honourable Member for Niakwa. On behalf of all the members, we welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon. OR AL QUE STION S Budget - foreign loan payments MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I direct my question to the Min ister of Finance. Yesterday, in question period, Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance expressed his great concern with respect to the way the Free Press was reporting accurately the growth within the Department of Finance, particularly interest costs. Madam Speaker, today, my colleague, the MLA for Fort Garry, and myself, will call into question again the accuracy of many of the Minister of Finance's figures as brought forward within the Budget.

Madam Speaker, within the Budget, page 14, where the Min ister of Finance states that roughly $19 million extra was going to be allocated to the economic and resource development envelope, or representing an increase of some 6. 7 percent, my question to the Minister of Finance: Can the Minister indicate whether $14 million of that $19 million increase was directed towards the money speculators outside of this country who thought the Canadian dollar was going to fall, relative to other currencies, and who were right? Was $14 million out of the $19 million directed to money speculators outside of this country?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Anance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Some of that money was directed to the economic program that a previous Conservative Government had brought In, dealing with hydro rate stabillzatlon, where they said that that program would assist economic and resource development in the Province of Manitoba. lt also includes loans and Interest and currency, or, in that case, currency fluctuations on loans that were taken out during the period 1978 to 198 1, which Include loans by members opposite when they were in government, loans that were done in Japanese currency, Swiss currency and U.S. currency at times when those currencies were at a lot of different levels than they are today.

MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Speaker, the Min ister then confirms what I asked, and that Is, that indeed $14 million of the $19 million Is not lnfusioned towards economic development here, but Indeed Is a payment to outside lenders. 392 Budget -MACC write-offs MR. C.

MANNESS: My supplementary question to the Min ister of Finance: Was the additional $5 million which he claims he directed into that economic development envelope, was the majority of that in support of MACC wrlte-offs, the detail of which we do not have at this point, but was the majority of the additional amount directed, supposedly, to resource and economic development basically directed to MACC write-offs? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Madam Speaker, we're getting to areas that we'll have ample opportunity, as we do the detailed review of Spendin g Estimates of all departments, to engage in the detailed discussion.

The numbers are there for the member to read. 1 believe the member can read and can understand the numb ers that are contained in the Budget. Each department shows year-over-year spending. In some cases, it shows increased spending such as that for the Department of Agriculture, which includes funds for the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation. lt also Includes Increased spending in the area of job creation through the Manitoba Jobs Fund. Those figures are spelled out specifically and in a great amount of detail, Madam Speaker.

In fact, there will be more detail when we are able to present the Supp lementary Spending Estimates for each of the departments. So all that information is contained in the Budget. Ye s, that does include funds for the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, unless the member is suggesting that we ought to foreclose on loans related to farmers and cause even further grief for some farmers in Manitoba. Budget - economic and resou rce development funding MR. C.

MANNESS: A final supplementary, Madam Speaker, and I remind the Minister and members of the House that the government's credibility is on the line in the manner in which they choose to distort some of these figures. My direct question to the Minister of Finance, Madam· Speaker: Will the Minister of Finance tell us the true amount of additional new dollars that is going in support of economic and resource development in the Budget this year? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Madam Speaker, I thought the purpose of question period was to get information which was not available through other sources.

That information Is contained in the Budget; it has been presented In the Budget; it's in there in the Detailed Spending Estimates. I'd be pleased to sit down with the member and take him through any area where he has trouble understanding the figures in the Budget, but you've got the Budget document, you have the Detailed Spendin g Estimates of the government, department by department, which outlines all of those areas, Madam Speaker. Yes, there is increased funds going to those areas. Yes, they do support activities in the Department of Agriculture like the Manitoba Agricultural Credit

Tuesday, 1 March, 1988 Corporation, which, I think, does support the economic well-being of farmers in this Province of Manitoba. That is of great concern to members on this side of the House, and we'll continue to give that kind support through the Department of Agriculture, through the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, through beef stabilization, through hog stabilization and other areas to support farmers, Madam Speaker, unlike the kind of action the members opposite would take when they say that they want to reduce spending in economic areas.

Budget - Child and Family Se rvices funding MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Finance. In his statement on Friday to this House, he indicated, under the

section Child and Family Services, that they would receive $121 million, up $20 million or 19.4 percent over the '87-88 Budget. Given the fact that the Mini ster of Com muni ty Services and Corrections made three announcements during that year, indicating the funding in that fiscal year would increase in excess of $11 million over that which was budgeted; given the fact that the Min ister also proved Special Warrant for that funding; why did the Minister tell this House on Friday that the increase in the day care and child and family support would be $20 million when, in fact, it was only $10 million?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Madam Speaker, this is truly a good example of the way they want to play it both ways. They want to talk, on one hand, that overall spending has gone up year-over-year -this horrendous amount of 8.8 percent - but when they want to deal with specific spending in one area, they want to compare the spending year-over-quarter, or year-over-actual. In actual, we won't know until the end of the year.

If you want to do that kind of comparison, I'd be pleased to spend the time and go through every department of government on the basis of the second quarter or the third quarter when it's available, which will show that year-over-year spending - that is what's in this Budget, over actual - will be lower than the 8.8 percent that the members opposite are waiting around for. It'll probably be something less than that, Madam Speaker. Yes, there is extra spending in the Department of Community Services this year.

Yes, that will mean that the year-over-year actual increase will be somewhat less than the year-over-year Budget increase. The pattern of presenting Budgets in this House, far before my time, including time when members were bringing down Budgets, was to show the comparison budget-over-budget. That's the way it has been. We also admit that there was increased spending on Community Services this year. We don't apologize for that, Madam Speaker, because the needs of children 393 and families in this province are very important to members on this side of the House.

We will continue to meet those needs where we can, within the overall fiscal policy of the government. MR. C. BIRT: Madam Speaker , the question the Minister and the government has to address is the Minister's credibility in presenting the Budget to the people of Manitoba.

Given the fact that the increase in funding for this coming fiscal year for Child and Family Services and child day care is less than $10 million; and given the fact that the amount of extra funding coming from the Federal Government for Child and Family Services is $6 million, and also the child day care is at $4.6 million; in other words, the total cost of increase for Child and Family Services being spent in the next fiscal year in this province is being funded by the Federal Government; why didn't the Minister give credit to the Federal Government in his speech that he gave on Friday?

Why did he take credit for himself? HON. E. KOSTYRA: That one rated two-and-a-half claps from one of the members there. Again, the revenue from the Federal Government is shown in the Budget. I indicated right in the speech that there is a year-over-year increase in federal revenues. That was contained right in the Budget itself.

The reality is that those increases are still not keeping up with the costs of services in areas like Child and Family Services, in areas like Health, in areas like Education, but yes, there is increased funding from the Federal Government for those sources under the usual cost-sharing programs that are in place either through CAP or the changes that were made in the day care funding programs. The member seems to be indicating that there's not enough money spent on Community Services in this Budget; yet his colleague, the Member for Morris, was calling for a reduction of $1 30-odd million more in spending.

I would ask him where would he take it from? Would he take it from Community Services, from day care, from Child and Family Services? Would he take it from Agriculture? Where would they get that $13 0 million they are talking about, Madam Speaker? MR. C. BIRT: it's interesting that the Minister can fudge his figures but no one else can. According to him, it's a double standard but the facts speak for themselves.

Given the fact that we are only getting $10 million allocated to the Child and Family Service area this year and all of that funding is coming from the Federal Government, the question is: What new monies will the province be putting into this area? HON. E. KOSTYRA: lt was interesting, Madam Speaker, that the member admitted he is fudging the figures. If you need a further elaboration of that, let me just go through what he said.

He says that the Federal Government has provided this increase in revenue, budget-over-budget, not recognizing that, yes, there is increased revenue coming during this current fiscal year from the Federal Government as a result of the increase in expenditures which the government is including in this current year because of the increased pressures on the Child and Family Services system.

Tueaday, 1 March, 1988 So he has showed the increase on expenditures from quarter-o ver-quarter or actual, this year over to next year, but he uses the reven ue figure from Budget over to Budget. Talk about fudging the figures, Madam Speak er. Pharmacare - dispensing fee increase MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Klldonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Madam Speak er. My question is to the Minister of Health. Yesterda y, it was noted that the negotiations between the province and the pharmacists broke down.

I'm wondering, people now going to pharmacists to get their prescriptions filled, will they be covered by Med icare and to what extent? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Health. HON. W. PARASIUK: Ye s, Madam Speaker . I should indicate to members of the House that the Government of Manitoba had offered the Pharmacists' Society a 30-cent increase, or a 5.8 percent Increase, which would have brought the dispensing fee covered by Medicare to $5.55. We also offered to provide, as an alternative, a fee based on a floating average of dispensing fees across the province.

Both of these were rejected at this time and the pharmacists have said that they will unilaterally increase fees by as much as 45 percent to $7.50 and I am not sure if all or even many of the pharmacists will indeed extra bill In this manner. But I do want to Indicate, as I Indicated before, that the Province of Manitoba will indeed pay the $5.55 that we have indicated we would pay, that extra billing beyond that would not be covered by Pharmacare.

As in the case with doctors in the past who extra billed, I would advise people to look around for those pharmacists who do not extra bill because there are many pharmacists out there who will not extra bill and I believe would want to live within the spirit of Pharmacare, which I think has served this province exceedingly well. On that basis, Madam Speaker , I hope that everyone will, in fact, deal in a reas onable manner with this because we, as a province, have increased our funding on Pharmacare from $4 million, when it started, to some $38 million now.

We have a very, very good program, one that Is the envy of people across Canada, Madam Speak er. I think it's a benefit to the consumers, to people who need the pharmaceutical drugs, and I think it's also been very good for the pharmacists. MR. M. DOLIN: A supplementa ry to the same Minister . Those individuals, due to handicap or geographical location, who are not able to shop arou nd, is there going to be any advantage to those individuals?

Will there be services provided, for example, in local hospitals which have licensed pharmacists, where they may not be able to do the shopping around that the Minister suggests? HON. W. PA RASIUK: I recognize that there are extenuating circumstances in rural Manitoba. We, in 394 fact, offered to the Pharmacists' Society a way in which we would try and provide extra fees for pharmacists in rural Manitoba. Again, that was re jected.

There seemed to be the notion that you should treat rural Manitoba the same as urban Manitoba, and I think the economies of scale or the economies of doing business are probably different in Winnipeg. What we will do for an interim period, Madam Speaker , is monitor the situation and determine whether , in fact, rural pharmacists are indeed raising their fees without options for local consumers. I would hope that that isn't the case.

But I am also considering establishing a fact-finding commission that would take a look at all aspects relating to Pharmacare and drug costs, because we're finding that there are very major differences in the costs per drug. Some pills are being sold by one pharmacist at 2 cents or 5 cents and another pharmacist is charging 14 cants or 18 cents for exactly the same medication. I think those types of anomalies should be looked at within a comprehensive fact-finding study with respect to drug use in Manitoba and Pharmacare itself.

In fact, we would hope to look at that in a way that would make the system far better for everyone. Health Sciences Centre strike - contingency plan MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Health. Has the Minister developed contingency plans with the Health Scien ces Centre to avoid closing of beds and cancellation of elective surgery in the event of a strike by the In ternational Un ion of Operating Engineers? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Health. HON. W.

PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, I recall being in the Opposition when there were strikes in the hospitals between 1977 and 1981, and I recall the Health Minister at that time saying, "This is an industrial dispute; it is a labour dispute that is best handled through collective bargaining. There are people who are involved as conciliation officers. it Is a matter between the Health Sciences Centre and the union involved." They have, indeed, indicated that they do have contingency plans.

I would hope that things do work out, but, Madam Speaker, I do not think it is the role of the Minister of Health to intervene in those types of disputes which may arise from time to time because I believe that all parties will want to make sure they act in a re sponsible way so that ess ential services are, indeed, provided within the overall health care system . MRS. B. MITC HELSON: Madam Speaker , a supplement ary to the same Minister .

Given that other hospitals are full as a res ult of recent bed cutbacks approved by this gover nment, can the Minister assure that patient safety will be maintained at the Health Scien ces Centre in the event of a strike?

Tuesday, 1 March, 1988 HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, the premise of the member's question is wrong. At any point in time, there might be anywhere from 5 percent to 10 percent of the hospital beds empty. it is a matter of scheduling in the most efficient way. You will always have some vacancy within hospital beds and I would hope that there would be an extra effort on the part of everyone to ensure that people who, In fact, need emergenc y or urgent work will indeed have that emergency or urgent work done. We have had instances before, Madam Speaker, where there have been strikes.

When the Member for River East talks about hospital bed closures, she should und erstand that there are some 4,139 beds in Winnipeg, that there were some 11 1 beds closed, less than 2 percent. In fact, when those beds were closed, by and large, the services were still provided not on an admittance basis but on a day-surgery basis, Madam Speaker.

I think we have a health care system today that provides many more services in a far better way than it might have 10 years ago because our health care system, Madam Speak er, is always providing more and more, and I think we do have an efficient system. it should be fine tuned, improved, and we intend to do that, Madam Speaker. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Madam Speak er, a final supplement ary to the Minister of Health.

Given that If half of the hospital beds at the Health Sciences Centre are closed down, as they were during a similar strike a few years back, that means there will be 500 beds closed In the City of Winnipeg as a result of this strike, Madam Speak er. What assurance can the Minister give the people of Manitoba that essential services will be provided and patients will not be held ransom, Madam Speake r, by having beds closed and elective surgery cancelled and longer waiting lists? HON. W.

PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, when there were strikes between 1977 and 1981 when the Conservative Government was in office, and also in 1983 when the New Democratic Party Government was In office, I do not belie ve that people were held ransom. I believe that health care providers in all areas of health care try and act in a cooperative manner when it comes to providing essential services.

Madam Speaker, I believe the record in Manitoba is second to none in that respect and the Member for River East is trying to raise a set of hypothetical issues; and again, I would caution Conservatives against fear mongering In trying to raise emotions with respect to sensitive issues, because I think that the people in the health care Industry and the health care field, as a whole, are very responsible and the record proves that. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West . MR. J.

McCRAE: Madam Speak er, I think Manitobans listening to the Minister of Health showing such little concern for the closure . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? 395 MR. J. McCRAE: . . . of over 500 beds should be shocked and very annoyed at this Minister. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! POINT OF ORDER MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi nister of Health, on a point of order. HON. W.

PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, when you have the deputy leader getting up and making a speech in question period, supposedly as a preface to a question, and then raises a question to another member , is that in order? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. W. PARASIUK: I ask for your ruling on that. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I couldn't hear the honourable mem ber. Could the Honourable Minister please -{Interjec tion)-Order please. The Honourable Minister has risen on a point of order. I would like to hear what his point of order is. HON. W.

PARASIUK: Ye s, Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The deputy leader of the Conservative Party, possibly trying to usurp the role of the present Conservative Health Critic, got up and indeed made a speech on health care, supposedly as a

preamble relating to Health, and then directed a question to the Minister of Labour. Madam Speaker, if, In fact, that is the case , I believe that is totally improper in terms of the way In which business has been conducted In this Legislature in the 10 years that I've been a member , and I ask for your ruling on that. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Opposition House Lead er, on the point of order. MR. G. MERCIER: Ye s, Madam Speaker. Everyday the Ministers ignore the questions that are asked, do not answer the questions that are asked.

Now they want to direct who the questions will be asked to, Madam Speaker. That is entirely out of order. SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: I don't think it helps the conduct of question period to confuse the difference between questions and answers. A

preamble to a question is -{Interjection)- Order please. According to Citation 359(2), "The question must be brief. A

preamble need not exceed one care fully drawn sentence."

Tl(eaday, 1 March, 1988 1 would presume that a pream ble is the part of a sentence directed to the Minister to whom the question Is being asked, and that question period is the time for see king information and for asking specific Ministers ques tions, not for making speeches. On the Minister's point of order, I had already requested the Honourable Member for Brandon West to place his questi on , not to make statements. Health Science• Centre •trike - conciliation officer• MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: I am sorry, Madam Speaker.

I didn't realize it was so easy to confuse the Minister of Health. Madam Speaker, my question Is directed to the Minister of Labour, and If the Minister of Health had been patient, he would have realized that my remarks were part of the

preamble to my question. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. J. McCRAE: I do have a question. The Min ister of Health referred, Madam , to conciliation officers being Involved. I'd like to ask the Minister of Labour when those services were asked for, or when they were offered, and what activity is going on in that regard. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. M. SMITH: Well, Madam Speaker, I don't have to hand the information just when the services were asked for. I do get a regular report on the requests and progress made, but I can take that specific as notice.

I've been informed that there is an orderly procedure going on. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, as Minister of Labour, I should think the Minister would be interested in relations between the employer and the employees, and as Deputy Premier of this province, I should think that she would also be Interested In keeping . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. J. McCRAE: . . . health services available to people in Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, can the Minister tell us why it is that she can't tell us today what activities are going on, and what assistance her office is providing to the parties in this dispute? Madam Spea ker, we're talking about the most important service possible to Manitobans being held from Manitobans, or the potential is there, and this Minister should know more about this than she does. HON. M. SMITH: We ll, Madam Speaker, I do regret that the Member for Brandon West is not more informed 396 about the legislation and the conciliation proce ss. Our legislation makes services available.

They are available through channels that are defined. lt would be quite inappropriate for me to intervene on a daily basis. What I am assured is that the service is available and that it is being used and that things are moving along, and that is the level of detail which is appropriate for a Minister to have; not to try and insinuate herself into the actual negotiations; so I really find the question of the Member for Brandon West quite Impertinent, Madam Speaker . Western Diversification Fund - health care exclusion MADA M SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Ellice. MR. H.

SMITH: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Te chnology. According to published reports, the Caucus Chair of the Manitoba Progressive Conservatives said that health diversification programs are not eligible under the Western Diversification Fund because he said health is a provincial respon sibility. Have officials from the fund stated that view to your department previous to that public announcement? MADAM SPEAKER: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Tec hnology. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speak er. If Mr.

Duguay wasn't misquoted , then it's pretty clear that he has not read our proposals to the Federal Government; nor has he been bothered to keep himself informed with respect to the discussions which have been going on with the Federal Govern ment re garding the health industry development initiative for a period of close to three years.

What we were talking about and what we were applying for was a program that we think is a very good one, which the Prime Minister endorsed when he was here in this building back in the spring of 1987, which he set his Minister of Health up as the chairman of the federal part of a federa l-provincial committee to implement this particular program. Of course, it is an industry initiative, one which is very important for the diversification of Manitoba, and I would hope that Mr. Duguay and others who may not be informed about that whole initiative would take the time to Inform themselves.

I think that once they did, they would very quickly get on board and encourage the Federal Government to very quickly sign the agreement so we can get on with it. Special needs education MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin-Russel l. MR. L. DERKACH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question Is directed to the Minister of Education with regard to special needs students. In light of the fact that in question period last week, Madam Speaker, the Minister of Education admitted

TuHd ay, 1 March, 1988 that, under his direction, the public school system cannot offer an education to every individual student in this province; in view of the fact that there are many students in this province who are today not receiving the kind of education they should under the special needs program, will the Minister now acknowledge the need for such specialized institutions as, for example, the Laureate Academy and will he acknowledge the fact that children, in fact, should be attending these types of institutions when they have severe learning disabilities?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Education. HON. R. PENNER: I suppose, Madam Speaker, that's remotely in order. I'm asked not to give information but to acknowledge assumed facts. Let me say, Madam Speaker, that there was a statement in the premise of the question which is incorrect. I did not say that it was under my direction that school divisions could not meet all of the needs of all of the children.

I stated, what must be palpably clear to anyone who thinks about it, that it is not possible for any system, no matter how well-funded, to meet the individual needs of every student in precisely the same way at precisely the same time; nor did I say - and that appears to be an implied premise in the statement - that there is no room for specialized institutions. I never said that at all; nor was I asked a specific question about that.

Clearly, there will be very special kinds of needs which might have to be met by special programs and special institutions, so I'm not sure what the thrust of the question is, what it is that this member wishes me to acknowledge, other than that which is obvious and which is as known to him as it is to any citizen of this province. Laureate Ac ademy - funds transfe r MR. L.

DERKACH: Madam Speaker, if I could just correct the Minister of Education, and I'll quote from Hansard what he said last week in question period: ". . . it will never be the case, regrettably, that the school system, the public school system, can meet the needs of every individual student." That is what he said, Madam Speaker, in que stion period last week.

My question to the Min ister is this: In view of the fact that the Laureate Academy is meeting the needs of some of these students who have special learning disabilities, will the Minister now allow the special needs funding to be transferred so that those students can receive it, who are attending the Laureate Academy? HON. R. PENNER: Two matters, Madam Speaker.

First of all, I would like to point out, so that there should be no mistake about it, once and for all - and I will have occasion to point out again and again, both in my speech on the Budget and in Estimates - that the expenditure on special needs in this province has increased from $26.7 million in 1981 to $81.3 million in 1987, a three-fold increase. There is no Department of Education in this country that can equal that record.

Secondly, which ought to be known to the member, as the Education Critic, school divisions have the direct 397 responsibility for determining the level of educational needs presented by all students and for making the appropriate arrangements. Those arrangements are made by the school divisions; they are not made by the department, and I think it's appropriate that, in fact, they should.

We lend a lot of support to the school divisions with respect to consultants on special needs, with respect to training, in relation to special needs, with respect to financing on special needs, but the assessment of the student and how that student is to be dealt with, where that student is to be placed, is a matter for the school division. MR. L. DERKACH: Madam Speaker, nobody is arguing about the fact that the funding hasn't increased to special needs, but sometimes you cannot throw money at a problem and get the solution, and that seems to be the implication by this Minister.

Madam Speaker, Devlin Stevens has spent 10 years in a public school institution. He was told not more than a couple of weeks ago that the school which he is attending can do no more for him. They have run their course after some $44,000 of special needs funding being spent on that student. I ask the Minister whether he will allow Devlin Stevens to have the special needs funding transferred with him to the Laureate Academy where he can get the treatment which he requires? HON. R. PENNER: That is a matter for the school division, Madam Speaker. I gave that answer in my reply to the last question.

With respect to this student or any other student who receives special needs attention - because in fact there are special needs as there undoubtedly are in this case - it is not possible that we can say with respect to a special needs student in some of the categories that with all of the attention we are able to give them, that we are going to be able to bring them up to the same level of academic achievement as others in that classroom. That is simply not going to happen. We're going to help them function to the best of their ability. We can do no more.

If it's thought, on an assessment of the particular facts relating to a particular student, that there is something more which can be done in some other pr ogram, then the school division can make arrangements with the other facility and will, of course, have to transfer its special needs money to that other facility. Weste r n Dive rsific ation Fund - tabling lists MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Madam Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Industry.

The Minister of Industry today has made reference to the Diversificaton Fund and he has previously stated in the media that he has supplied a large wish list, a long list to the Federal Government Diversification Fund, and also he has distributed or presented to them a short list.

T'Qesday, 1 March, 1188 I wonder if the Minister would be prepared to table both those lists in this House so that members could have a look at them. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Industry, Trade and Technology. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, I will do that. I think that's an appropriate thing. I have also indicated that we are prepared to provide a medium list if that is the desire. Wester n Div ersi fication Fund - specific progr ams MR. F.

JOHNSTON: Madam Speak er, the project officers or development officers of the Department of Industry, for many years, have been working with industry for new investment and also for expansion. They would work with industries, and then with the Provincial Government, through the Department of Industry, would present the program to DREE later on, and now DRIE, and now we have the Diversification Fund. What specific programs can the Minister present to this House which are related to expansion of industry or new investment of industry in the Province of Mani toba?

What have they pr esented to the Diversification Fund in that respect? HON. V. SCHROEDER: I thank the member for that question. We have, of course, presented the Health Industry Development Initiative, which I indicated has been worked on for a number of years with the Federal and Provincial Government, as well as a number of industry sectors.

We are also presenting another similar kind of project dealing with grain handling and storage, where the Provincial Government took the lead, about one year, one year-and-a-half ago, to take that Industry together to develop them as a group to do general contracting in other parts of the world. In fact, that's becoming quite a success story, which I would love to get into during the Estimates.

A third area that we are looking at is the space technology where again the Provincial Government and the agents the member refers to took the initiative to get companies that might be able to get involved in the Space Technology Program together to share expertise in different areas. In the next 10 years, there will be more than $1 billion spent in space technology by the Government of Canada, so we better be involved with that if that's where the money is being spent. Our companies are working together on projects to take advantage of RadarSat and other projects to come through.

There are a number of areas in the aerospace industry that we are encouraging the Federal Government to look at in terms of the Western Diversification Program. There's just a great number of good projects on the drawing board which we would love to get busy with. Of course, as I say, there's many more projects. We've been criticized for presenting too many projects, it was too thick a list. I've indicated we presented a thin list and we're prepared to present a medium-sized list as well. 398 MR. F.

JOHNSTON: Madam Speaker , my supplementary question to the Minister is really to ask for an answer to my second question; not be told what's on the boards or any1hing of that nature. The Manitoba Industry Minister, Vie Schroeder, said that he expects more money to flow to Manitoba in this direction by the end of this month. That's dated February 14. Can the Minister tell this House what specific projects have been taken forward to the Diversification Fund, which has now been in existence for a long time, not what's on the drawing boards? HON. V.

SCHROEDER: I was very hopeful that there would be money flowing by the end of the month. I, of course, have no control over when it will flow. As the member knows, there was concern expressed recently by the Atlantic Premiers who have had their fund in existence for many months longer than the Western Diversificaton Fund. They've yet to have the first penny flow under that project. Maybe it's because they're attacking the feds too much, I don't know. In any event, they haven't had any money flow. We've had some money flow.

We're hoping to have more flow by the end of the month, but I don't have specifics for the member. He alth Sciences Centr e - conciliation office r s MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Labour. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, I undertook to get more detail about the conciliation efforts. I did know that there were conciliation officers involved at the Health Sciences Centre. In fact, the strike began on Friday, February 5, at 7:30 p.m. We had a conciliation officer active with them starting that afternoon. They are exercising every effort to resolve the issues, Madam Speaker.

RCM P protection - closu r e MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have a question for the part-time Attorney-General, Madam Speaker. When the RCMP Detachment at Reston was closed, there was a commitment from the Government of Manitoba that the community of Reston and surrounding area would see no less RCMP coverage or protection. Madam Speaker, I ask the Min ister: How can that RCMP protection be handled when they've reduced the staff or they're at half-staff complement for the rural area out of the Virden detachment at this particular time?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Tuesd•y, 1 March, 1988 I've had discussions with the Assistant Commissioner for the RCMP. Although I don't spend 24 hours a day at it, I spend enough time to do a complete job as Attorney-General, I want the member to know. I'm told that there's no particular difficulty, in any way, with respect to policing in that particular area. I would suggest that less than a half day would be quite sufficient to do more work than the Member for St. Norbert did when he was Attorney-General. MR. J.

DOWNEY: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that I've had three incidents reported to me now In the last year of incomplete RCMP protec tion, a shortfall in protection by the program that is arranged under this administration, will this government come to their senses and provide essential services and restore the RCMP detachment in Reston so those people can have the same protection that all other communities have in this province? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Madam Speaker, the member has gone through this now for more than a Session. He should be aware that we are not going to be closing any more detachments.

However, the one- or two person detachments, which were quite inefficient In terms of deployment, are gone. I've Indicated that the Assistant Commissioner for Manitoba feels that we're getting adequate policing down there. We 're in a position where we're attempting to deploy our forces in the most efficient manner possible; not in accordance with the political desires of that particular member who on one day keeps talking about how we have to cut our deficit In taxes and on the next day he tells us how to spend more money on highways, on agriculture, on beef and on policing.

MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE MADAM SPEAKER: On the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance, and the proposed amendment of the Honourable Lead er of the Opposition, the Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines has 25 minutes remaining. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The difficulty of having your remarks interrupted is that you, of necessity , have to rehash the

preamble. Madam Speake r, I was trying to establish in my initial remarks the basis for drawing some conclusions about what the government should and shouldn't be doing, and whether in fact we should be taking the observations of the mem bers opposite seriou sly. Madam Speaker, I began my remarks by indicating that the Leader of the Opposition had asked a very important question, and the question was: What has this government done In its tenure?

I started by outlining a series of the legislative Initiatives of this government which have run the gamut from issues relating to working people, the protect ion of wages, the protection of pension benefits, the 399 protect ion and introduction of additional rights to working people; through to initiatives that are on the economic front, which reflect our concern about the continuing health of our economy and important sectors in that economy.

I talked about the Homes in Manitoba Program, the Intere st Rate Relief Program, the Manitoba Jobs Fund, the initia tives in the area of the beef and hog stabilization, Madam Speak er, a whole range of initiatives that were designed to stabilize our economy , to allow us to grow on our strengths, and to achieve what Is undoub tedly one of the best economic records in the country.

Madam Speaker, I won't repeat the observat ions which were made by groups like the Royal Bank and the Bank of Commer ce, the Investment Dealers Association, the Conference Board of Canada, all of which have remarked upon the success of this government, the success of this province, the success of our strategy of having working men and women in this province cooperate with government levels, with the private sector, to make things happen in Manitoba.

There is no doubt the Budget Address, the Budget documents, particularly the economic review in the Budget , show very clearly that this province has outpaced the economic growth and the economic development in most other provinces over the last six years.

Whether we talk about increases in the Real Gr oss Domestic Product, whether we talk about impr ovements In unemployment, the decr ease In unemployment that we've seen in the province, whether we talk about the real output in Manitoba's goods producing sector , which has averaged 6.2 percent, 50 percent more than the national average, the province's economic record is second to none. That clearly, Madam Speak er, is something to be proud of.

So when the Leader of the Opposition asks his rhetorical question, "What has the government done?", the answer is a su bstantial amoun t of positive, constructive, long-lasting Initiatives which will serve the province well in the decade to come. Madam Speaker, the main criticism from members opposite focuses on what they call mismanagement, and I have Indicated, and members on this side have indicated, that where there have been errors, there has been corrective action.

In terms of the Crown corporations, in terms of management of government, Madam Spea ker, we are a province that is less encumbered with bureaucracy than virtually of any other province. We have fewer civil servants per capita than most other provinces in Canada. lt costs us less, Madam Speak er, to provide services in Manitoba than most other provinces. Our record of providing services, particularly in the vital areas of health care and educat ion are absolutely second to none.

My collea gue, the Minister of Education, released the results of a Globe and Mail poll which said that Manitoba has the highe st level of satisfaction in public school education of any province. Madam Speaker, the Member for Brandon West asked why don't the people believe me? Madam Speak er, one of the difficulties of being an island of sanity in a morass of Tory medio crity is that people do not want, certainly members opposite don't want, to acknowledge what Is going on around us. They don't

1\le1day, 1 March, 1988 want to acknowledge that in the Province of Alberta, last year, there was a 3 percent real reduction to funding in education as opposed to a 5.2 percent increase in Manitoba. The result, I can tell you, is going to show up in the quality of the education that the people in Manitoba are receiving and the people are going to be thankful when they realize what is happening in other parts of the province. So the record, Madam Speak er, in terms of legislation, In terms of economic performance, is a good one.

I indicated, when I spoke last night, that deficit reduction, if you consider that an important priority - and I ind icated that the Minis ter of Finance and members on this side are as concerned about the long term financial stability of this province as anyone - our record surpasses any government, and I defy any member on that side to show me contrary facts. Our government record on deficit reduction in the last two years Is superior to every single administration in this country, cer tainly superior to administrations like the Reagan administration.

In terms of deficit -(Interject ion)- The Member for Portage la Prairie, of course, who wears his Reagan badge on his sleeve, wouldn't acknowledge the fact that his economic plan for the United States has been a failure. Howe ver, Ma dam Speaker , back to the more important, the more germane facts, the facts are that since 1986-87, when our deficit was $559 million, it has been reduced to the point that in 1988-89 we are projecting a deficit of $334 million. We have achieved a 35 percent reduction in the deficit.

Madam Spea ker , the Mem ber for Morris, the Opposition Fina nce Critic, applauds the Federal Government and his leader applauds the Federal Government for a one percent reduction, and let them not suggest that the Federal Government has not, contrary to their stated position, been the real Robin Hood - not Robin Hood, that's not right - She riff of Nottingham is more like it. Madam Speaker, the personal income tax has been raised some 13 percent under the Federal Government; the federal sales tax has risen from 8 percent to 12 percent. In the last year- and-a-half, the tax on gasoline has risen 3 cents.

We have the new tax, the extended tax on telephone services, a broadened federal sales tax base, Madam Speak er. Let them not kid anyone. There has been more money withd rawn from the Province of Manitoba by federal action by far than by provincial action and their deficit isn't moving. Even if you accept their criteria that that's how government should be evalua ted, Madam Speak er, their government has been a failure, this government has been a success. Madam Speaker, I'm not saying that we shall rest on our laurels. There clearly is more to do and we will do it.

Madam Spe aker, I am not going to spend time right now talking about Crown corporations. I did spend some time last night talking about the action that we have taken. Now we are starting to see the M PlC story come out fully, that it wasn't mismanagement in Manitoba; that in comparison, it wasn't deception. Madam Speaker, the facts have been put on the record . lt's been distortion, half-truths being told by some other people.

No, Madam Spea ker, the facts will come out and Manitobans want to know that this government is going 400 to keep MPIC, we're going to protect the Interests of car insurers in the province and we're going to protect the interests of the young people in Manitoba, unlike Oppositions whose motives clearly are suspect. Madam Speaker, I want to switch gears. I want to say that in terms of management, this government needs to take no direction from members opposite or their ilk in Ottawa or any other provinces.

For the Member for Emerson, who probably doesn't know this, the Federal Government Crown corporations lost $757 million last year. Now this is your basic competent Tory administration. Madam Speak er, look what happened to the Saskatchewan Government. Ask what happened to their Crown corporations under incompetent Tory management. Madam Speaker , we have made some small mistakes. They continually refer to Flyer Industries. They continually refer to Manfor.

I remind you this government had the guts to say Flyer Industries is not likely to ever return its investment to the Province of Manitoba and we resolved that issue in a successful way. Madam Speaker, the Member for Gladstone doesn't know anything about history because the Roblin administration and the We ir administration were at the inception of that problem by providing loans in the first place. The same with CFI - Manfor - in The Pas. So let's not get into that argument.

Madam Speak er, I can only indicate that we have taken the necessary action to make sure that the taxpayers' mone y, to the extent that is at risk in Crown corporations, is directed in a responsible way and that has been done. No one has turned, Madam Speaker, to the question that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to the question of record of the government. I know that members opposite don't have the privilege of representing a northern riding.

But I want to talk for a minute, actually a few minutes, about the success of this government in Northern Manitoba. lt is no accident, Madam Speaker, that the northern represe ntatives in this Legislature, the provincial Legislature, are New Democrats, because I want to tell you that the people of Northern Manitoba remember what Conservative Government means when it comes to services, when it comes to jobs, when it comes to dignity of northern living. They know.

I want to say to the members opposite that if they have any doubt that our performance as a government in terms of economic and social policy has been successf ul, they should come to Northern Manitoba. Madam Speaker, Northern Manitoba is experiencing a boom. lt's experiencing a boom in mining. We had the highest level of value of mineral production in our history, over a million dollars. The first new mines in two decades are being develope d, or have been developed, in Northern Manitoba. They include gold mines, of which there are at least three and will be five.

There is a new nickel-zinc mine, Madam Speaker, coming into production in 1988. We are seeing an increase in jobs, an increase in exploration and, Madam Speaker, that has not been without concerted effort on the part of the government, on the part of the mining industry, on the part of explor ation companies - a cooperative effort . Madam Speaker, I'm going to come back to the importance of mining in a minute. I want to say, as

Tuesda y, 1 March, 1988 well, that through the initiative of this government at least three other areas have also received tremendous boosts and incentiv es. For example, in 19 82 my colleague, the Min ister of Cooperative Development, the Memb er for Churchill, was responsible for signing a new Northern Development Agreement, a five-year agreement which brought $1 86 million of money for development of our hu man resource and our communities and for economic development into Northern Manitoba.

On top of that -(Interjection)- Yes, those agreements are cost-shared Madam Speaker, but there had to be the initiative, there had to be the willingness of the province to take those steps, to take the initiative, and those agreements didn't come without a concerted effort on behalf of the province. There was consulta tion. There was significant consultation on the best way to structure tho se programs to serve northern Manitobans.

We have a mineral development agreement which is worth $25 million, which has served to enhance exploration activity, which has served to enhance the development of new technology, which will serve the mining industry. Then you can move to the forestry agreement which provided some $25 million for the development of a nursery in Manitoba, to develop in Manitoba the capacity to reforest our harvested timber.

Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride as a Northerner that I say that by 1990 this province will have in place a full reforest ation program; probabl y, if I'm not mistaken, the only province which will be able to say that by the year 1990. lt is important to Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, Manitoba Mineral Resources, which is a Crown corporation, a profitable Crown corporation, has been instrumental in making sure that northern development occurs and that our interests in developing our resources have been maintained. lt has been an instrument which other companies, private mining companies, have used, I think, with enthusiasm. Manitoba Mineral Resources is involved in joint exploration projects, involved in mining projects, imp ortant mining pr ojects, Madam Speak er, for communities like Flin Flon, Lynn Lake, Leaf Rapids.

The province has been prepared to take the initiative, to lead the way through some difficult times to provide financial incentives, financial support, so that those activities can take place and the results are today hun dreds, if not thousands, of jobs retained or created in Northern Manitoba - important initiatives.

Madam Speaker, not only in the area of mineral development, Manfor - a term that is used with derision sometimes by mem bers opposite, and I think unknowingl y, or certainly it is unfortunate if their understanding of that corporation, its history and what it currently is achieving is that limited, it is unfortunate because Manfor has made a recovery.-(lnterjection) The Member for Portage la Prairie is going to chirp from his seat, "How much did you write off?" Well, Madam Speaker, we wrote off a sufficient amount which accounted for the incompetence of the government which got us involved in that, and the government from 1977 to 1981 that refused to make the investment decisions that were needed.

Madam Speaker, we are involved in an opportunity here to diversify the economies of Northern Manitoba, particularly The Pas and the surrounding communities, 401 and we're about to do that; but the only reason or one of the reasons that we're in a position to do that is because we made the necessary management decisions to improve the circumstances of that company. Madam Speaker, I want to move on and say that in terms of the economy of Northern Manitoba, if you look at tourism, if you look at forestry, if you look at mining, things have and are improving in Northern Manitoba. There are jobs being created.

Madam Speaker, the Destination Manitoba tourism program, which was the precursor of the current Canada-Manitoba Tourism Development Agreement which has allocated some $30 million for tourism development in the province, provided millions of dollars of incentiv es to small resort owners and tourism establishments in Northern Manitoba.

The bulk of the money was spent in Northern Manitoba and the current agreement is structured so that sports angling, wilderness adventure, naturalist self-education, the kinds of things that are tailor made for development in Northern Manitoba can move forward and can get the support of this agreement. In fact, there have been at least four major developments in Northern Manitoba. Madam Speaker, over the course of that Tourism Development Agreement, there will be others of significant size and significant import for the economy of Northern Manitoba.

I want to move on to another area, Madam Speaker, that is very, very important to not only the people in Northern Manitoba but people in the province in general, and that is education. Since 19 81, the Provincial Government has provided support for the establishment of new high schools in Northern Mani toba, the construction of schools in Northern Manitoba, including Flin Flon and Cranberry Portage, and many other communities as well. We have spent approximately $20 million per year on educational and training initiatives in Northern Manitoba.

They include activities which are funded through the Northern Development Agreement, the ACCESS Program, which in a single year is currently graduating more than 250 people who are trained professionals, para-profe ssionals from Northern Manitoba. I don't think members on the opposite side can understand the importance, the signi ficance, of those figures because what it means to northern communities is that trained indi viduals, ind ividuals who have sympathy and understanding and empathy for those communities, are going to end up providing the services in those communities.

Let no one misunderstand the economic implications of that fact, because for many northern communities, in a paradoxical kind of way, educational training and the mobility and the opportunity that train ing provides is economic development, because what you are doing is replacing professional people. Professional jobs are being assumed by local people. Professional jobs which come with a significant income, that have stability, are being assumed by northern residents.

The long-term benefit, therefore, of those programs is not only training and the advancement that that means for the individual in the community in the North but it also has meant jobs. The spinoff benefit is that those people with those new skills are going to be the leaders in our communities in Northern Manitoba

TUesday, 1 March, 1988 tomorrow. So we have graduates in the field of nursing, in the field of education, in the field of social work, in the field of business management and engineering and civil technology, all graduates from northern institutions, northern programs and all from Northern Manitoba - tremendously Important. As I said, some $20 million being spent on an annual basis to support those programs, to support individuals in developing the skills they will need to carry themselves and their friends and their families in their communities Into the next decade.

I shouldn't leave that section, Madam Speaker, without talking about the success of the Limestone Training and Employment Agency, an agency which was established primarily to deal with the training needs of northern Manitobans as we develop the next generation of hydro electricity - the Limestone Generating Project. Madam Speaker, some 3,000 students have had various levels of training In the past number of years. lt has been a tremendous success.

Not only because the 75 percent of those who undertook the training graduated and that 75 percent of that 75 percent went on to be constructively employed almost immediately , but because the skills that they learned are now Infiltrating the communities and providing service and benefit on a much more broad base than previously. So, Madam Speaker, the record of the government and economic policy and social policy Is clearly a positive one when it comes to Northern Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, there are so many other areas where policy initiatives of the government have had a positive effect on Northern Manitoba: Main Street Manitoba, a program which has revitalized and rejuvenated the community, the downtown, the main streets of Flin Aon, The Pas, Cranberry Portage; Snow Lake had a project approved; Swan River, Madam Speaker, improved the quality of life, improved the attractiveness of those communities to tourists, to the business commun ity, and the pote ntial for new busi ness in those communities.

Water and sewer: The Manitoba Water Services Board has developed new infrastructures in the communities of Flin Flon, millio ns of dol lars, in Cranberry Portage, in Sherridon, In Snow Lake. Madam Speaker, throughout the constituency this government has provided leadership, programs and initiatives, which support the desires of northern Manitobans. Madam Speaker, we know that there are always things which are left undone. I said when I was first elected In 1981 that my goal was to establish priorities for each of the communities.

I sat down and I talked to the community councils, I talked to the mayor and council, I talked to community leaders, and I said, "What are the priorities of these communities?" And when I look over the record of this government's performance in the last seven years for each of my communities, I can say with a great deal of pride that we did what we said we were going to do; and, Madam Speaker, while we may have our faults, we are certainly better than the alternative. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C.

MANNESS: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. 402 lt is with great delight that I find myself rising to debate the Budget, Madam Speaker. I did not have the opportunity, as you probably know, to debate the Throne Speech. May I offer you, in the accustomed tradition, good wisdom in making decisions. Madam Speaker, we all need wisdom from time to time and I'm sure you would agree that you are no exception to that rule. HON. R. PENNER: I don't know. Would you speak to the Queen that way? MR. C.

MANNESS: Well, Madam Speaker, the former Attorney-General wishes to take my thought process away from the real issue here, which is the Budget, but I refuse to be tempted. I refuse to be tempted; there will be another time. (Mr. Deputy Speaker, C. Santos, in the Chair.) MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Budget in many respects, without qu est ion, is the most important document that the government lays before the people of Manitoba. it's almost the sole reason that there is a parliamentary system, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, and it's very incumbent that those of us, all of us, who represent constituents come forward and give our views on this very important fiscal document. Mr. Deputy Speaker, my time is going to be limited and yet I have four points I wish to make; namely these: Firstly, I believe that the Minister of Finance and the government have hurt their credibility to a large degree in the manner in which they brought forward the num bers and the supporting figures within the Budget document itself. Secondly, I believe that the government has missed a great opportunity to reduce the deficit significantly.

Thirdly, I honestly believe that some time should be directed to the tragedy of where we are headed financially as a province; and I daresay, for membe rs opposite, if they want to throw in, in their view point, other government jurisdictions east or west or south or any direction they want to go, if they want to say, "What about them?", I then would include some of those jurisdictions in my comments also.

And, fourthly, I would like to say, for the record, where I think we could provide alternatives that would be acceptable to the people of Manitoba and would provide a greater security of social services in the future. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the general theme of this Budget can probably best be captured by a little story I once heard where two long-lost friends who hadn't seen each other for a long period of time happened to run into each other on the street, and one of them went up to the other and said, "Jack, I want you to lend me $50; I will pay you back on pay day." Jack says, "Oh, well, Joe, that's fine, but tell me before I give you, when's payday?" And Jack says, "I don't know; you're the guy that's working." Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think the theme of this Budget can go something like this.

We have the Manitoba Government going to the lenders domestically - Canadians, and going to the lenders in the United States, and going to the lenders abroad, and saying, "Will you lend me $1 billion?", and the lenders say, "Yes, I would, but when are you going to pay it back?",

Tuesday, 1 March, 1988 and the Province of Manitoba saying either, "Well, don't worry about it," or, as was shown by the Premier, "Well, when you decide to invest in Manitoba," as he said to the Japanese people. Mr. Deputy Speaker , just remember that theme because I think, to dispel what I claim to be the essence of the Budget Speech, the Minister of Finance missed the opportunity he had to say to the Member for Morris, "Y ou're all we t"; that we are correcting the finances of this province; we are sett ing them into order. Mr. Deputy Spea ker, this is the great paradox contained within this Budget.

This gove rnment, through and because of the tax measures they brought into effect last June, was presented with two years of revenue flows unmatched, by my analysis, at least, as I try and look back to study revenue flows over the last numb er of years, back-to-back revenue flows in the order of 11 and 12 percent, respectively, and yet, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the government, in their wisdom, decided not, in a significant fashion, to address the problem that is going to threaten the very services that they rise to their feet to defend on a daily basis. My first point, though, Mr.

Chairman, of the four that I hope to make within the next half hour, dwells specifically in the area of what I consider to be the dishonesty , the distortion and the misrepres entation in the presen tation of the material. Mr. Deputy Speaker, for two days now I have asked the Minister of Finance specific questions.

Ye sterd ay, I asked him as to how he, in read ing the Budget, could rightfully stand In his place and claim that the cost of servicing the debt was $523 million, knowing fully well, like he does, that virtually all of the costs associated with the Manitoba Properties Inc.- the newest Crown corporation on the block - that the costs virtually associated with that new Crown corporation really , for all purposes, could be deemed to be interest. A MEMBER: How much? MR. C. MANNESS: Wel l, $61 million, Mr. Deputy Speake r, is the total cost.

Not quite all of it is Inter est or dividend payments, but the point being, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I've engaged this Minister of Finance on two occasions, If not three, in Public Accounts and indeed within debate within this Chamber, asking him how it is that we should consider payments In support of Manitoba Properties Inc. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I guess on one of his moments when he was a little bit less defensive, he admitted that it was interest. Mr.

Deputy Speak er, the Provincial Auditor has admitted that, for all intents and purposes, is interest, and yet, as that numb er continues to grow, it becomes more obvious with each passing Budget that the Minister of Finance Is trying to not capture the effect of that payment. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'm not going to go into the detail, but I'll tell you that if you go to the last pages of the Budget, the appendices, and you look at the comparison as to between province versus province and the amount of money that's directed towards interest payments, Manitoba looks in the mid-range. lt looks a little favourable. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I implore upon the Minister of Finance to bring forward that same information, in a 403 graphic form, including, on Manitoba's side, the additional costs associated with our borrowing and indeed associated with Manitoba Properties Inc., because if he had the courage to do so, the picture would be so much different. Mr. Deputy Speaker, today, we also brought up in question period the whole area of the gove rnment's distortion in the contribution that it claims it made within the economic and resource development envelop. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, how can the Government of the Day rightfully say to Manitobans that they've increased expen ditures within that major area to the tune of I believe 6.7 or 7.4 percent, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and yet under the fine and specific reflect ion of the miscroscope, it becomes most apparent that what the Minister has done is nothing more than included in that figure two basic write-offs: one, where he has sent money outside of the country in support of currency devaluation as a result of Schreyer borrowing; and, secondly , MACC write-offs. Distor tion, misrepresenta tion, and I dare say deception, Mr.

Deputy Speaker. We also talked about the other social services area. The Minister has made the claim that his spending within that area has increased $53 million. Mr. Deputy Speaker, does the Minister come forward and say that welfare, though, represents $1 4 million of that increase? Does he come forward and say that tax credit payments, Mr. Deputy Speak er, in support of worthy causes, represent $31. 5 million? Ye t, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the government deliberately leaves to the community the percept ion that they've increased spending in this area in a large measure. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we haven't even moved yet into the opportunity to discuss this item called "Soft Capital." If one looks closely at the Budget, they'll see an item for the first time - I don't recall having seen this before -w here there's an item now called "Soft Capital." Mr.

Deputy Speaker , we know the government, for a numb er of years now, has been wanting in some way to be able to say to Manitobans, "Well, look it, this really isn't a deficit because if you can, in your own mind, believe that we're making contributions in support of some capital asset, something that has a benefit to the cltizenry over a numb er of years, it should not be considered in the form of a cash cost." Mr. Deputy Speaker, what is minor capital? Is it paper clips? Is it education? Is it some facet of education? What is minor capital?

I'll draw to the attention of the members opposite: If you want to get involved in that type of discussion, that type of argument, you can make the case that almost every aspect of government spending really Is capital. Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are some jurisdictions in the United States that are trying to do just that. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I also again point out for you what my colleague, the MLA for Fort Garry, brought forward in his questions today, the manner in which this Minister and this government attempted to hide the fact that their Increased contribution in support of community services is virtually nothing. The Minister of Finance, he looks at me with his face askew. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can take you through this Budget and show you where the Minister of Finance quite often, in the past - if not here, in other documents - has taken the better comparison, whether it's print over print or

Tuesday, 1 March, 1988 whether it's print over the past year's revisions. So let not the Minister of Finance stand in his place and make the claim that he's pure in this regard, because I've seen him do it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to support his own argument. Mr. Deputy Speaker, let's move into the areas of revenue. Why didn't the Minister of Finance, in reading the Budget, be so forthright as to tell us that the projected sales tax revenues for this fiscal year that we're in right now are not going to hit Budget? He admitted that in question period yesterday. But why did we have to drag it out of him, Mr.

Deputy Speaker? Because, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it's a very, very important figure.- (Int erjection)- Well, he says he made the announcement on Budget night. I didn't hear it on Budget night. Did anybody here hear it on Budget night, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Why couldn't the Min ister of Finance be forthright at least on the revenue side? Well, I can't answer the question. Why couldn't he tell us?

Why couldn't he tell us, for instance, that on the income tax flows, the increase of $18 5 million, that maybe as much as $25 million - I would ask the Minister to listen to the comment I'm about to make - is a result of a new Federal Government policy where no longer do they hold in trust or abeyance two years tax revenues.

For those people who believe that there is something not right, who want to take issue with their specific requirement on their part to pay, why doesn't the Mini ster of Finance say the Federal Government released one full year of those, and Manitoba's share, a windfall of maybe $20 million or $25 million, is a result of that. Well, he chose not to tell us that either.

But, Mr Deputy Speaker, what I find most misleading was that the Min ister of Finance in reading his Budget on page 25 - and of course, we've heard a lot about this in the past and we'll continue to hear much more of it in the future - when he talks about equalization and he talks about Established Program Funding, fails to point out that if today we were under a 10-province average, for purposes of equalization, that Manitoba may be receiving less than they would receive this year.

And secondly, the Minister of Finance, within this whole transfer area, fails to point out that under Established Program Financing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the 54 percent that was apparent in the year '78-79 was basically an aberration, that from the best knowledge that we have in '75-76 that Manitoba's share was 43 percent, the same as it is today. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that's the trouble that I have with reading the document and going into it in some great detail and attempting to give some type of praise to government and the Minister of Finance.

If the man had the good courtesy to present fairly the figures, then I could be a lot more laudable towards the Budget, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I can't. I can't as long as he's going to continue to present the figures and facts in this respect. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the members opposite continue to like to throw at us what other Cons ervative Governments are doing, particularly the Federal Government. Mr . Deputy Speak er, I want to put something on the record. I was mildly critical of the Federal Government this last Budget. I was hoping that they could reduce the deficit somewhat more than they did, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, so let that go on the record. 404 But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the members opposite have the gall to say that the Federal Government can't seem to do much with this deficit, I say in some respects that they're right. lt's not from a lack of trying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, everybody knows that and the people who have been crying the loudest, because of some of the decisions made by the Federal Government or the members opposite. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, remember four years ago when 28 percent of all Federal Government expenditures were directed towards interest?

Now that figure is starting to come down, under 25 percent this last Budget. Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is a major, major issue here.- (Interjection)- No, it's not, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by the facts I have presented to me, there are now just under 25 percent. But the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that it's taken a Conservative Government for the most part of four years to try and turn around that massive inflationary growth of servicing debt. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, right here today, even though the deficit has diminished some $60 million, if one wants to look at the interest costs of the total expenditure, that proportion that is directed to debt servicing, there is no end in sight. lt's growing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, exponentially. Mr. Deputy Speaker, last year it was a little over 11 percent; this year it's 13 percent and beyond. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we've been saying this for years. A MEMBER: Did he say that? MR. C. MANNESS: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Of course, the Minister of Finance claims that's only 11. 4 percent, but he's, of course, neglected a couple of other interest sources, one of them very large. But the point I'm trying to make, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it's taken a Federal Government four years to try and work away the amount of the expenditure that is to be directed towards servicing debt. Mr. Deputy Speaker, today, in the Federal Government, it's still in the order of 25 because of wanton spending during the Trudeau years. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that is what's at issue here and that's why I have difficulty with the Minister in charge of Crown corporations, when he will want to point to us, and point out other Provincial Governments to us, as having increased their deficit, it's not decreasing the deficit. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if they don't look at Manitoba and see what's happening here, within two or three years, they will be in the same position regardless if they decrease their deficit or not. lt's too late, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you aren't prepared to handle the problem immediately. The second point I want to make, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, is the great opportunity the government has missed in not reducing the deficit lower. This government was given a once-in-a-political-lifetime opportunity to lower the deficit, and I honestly believe that they suffered their political lost last year, for the most part. That's when they announced the massive increases in taxation. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that's the worse part about it, because you can make your cut in a tax sense, but the blood in the taxation flow sense really doesn't begin to flow in large measure until some period of time later, maybe a year later, in this case.

So the government had taken - and I'm sure in their minds at least it survived some of the heat associated

Tuesday, 1 March, 1988 with the '87-88 Budget, but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this was the year that they had the opportun ity, if they cared at all about how future governments are going to provide services and also pay debt back, if they cared at all about the future, this was the opportunity they had and, of course, they chose to ignore it. The Deputy Premier talks about Herbert Hoover and the former President Roosevelt in the United States. She was trying to make the point, I think, that Hoover was hard-fisted, that all he cared about was the deficit, and all he cared about was the bottom line, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Yet Roosevelt came in and said well, I'm going to now open up the purses; I'm going to borrow; I'm going to deficit finance; and the American economy took off. I think that's the point she was trying to make, and she was trying to bring it forward into a modern day context, saying, well, as long as we do the same thing here, prosperity will continue. Mr. Deputy Speaker , are we not in prosperous times now? We certainly are not in all our sectors. We certainly are not in agriculture, but, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, when you look across the mix of industries and sectors within this province, are we not in a relatively prosperous time? Mr. Deputy Speaker, are we not? The members opposite would like to take the credit for that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you have a nation as a whole that's outperforming every ind ustrial ized nation in the world. So, Mr. Deputy Spea ker, every economist, whether they're ones that are of socialist flavour or one of conservative flavour, will tell you this is a propserous time. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker , they'll also tell the time of prosperity is coming to an end.

Every body will tell you that this cycle, this present so-called boom cycle, is not here for a much longer period of time. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think it's in that setting that this Minister and this government missed the greatest opportunity that any government has had , in my recollection, to do something significant. I dare say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to do something to dispel what they would call the my1h in their minds that they cannot handle management of gove rnment, because th ey would have appeared to be one of a few governments that could really cut the deficit. Mr.

Deputy Speak er, I've talked about the major reve nue inflows unhe ard of in two good years, but let me say to you today that even the Minister of Finance is hedging with respect to economic growth and the reason is quite obvious. We all have seen what's happened to the Canadian dollar over the last month and-a-half. All one has to do is see what happened to the Canadian dollar yesterd ay. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it's to 79.5 cents; it could be brea king upwards of $80.00. That's good news in many re spects. But, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , members opposite, particularly the Minis ter of Finance, knows what impact that's going to have on the Canadian economy, knows what impact that's going to have on Canadian trade. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you don't have to be an economist, you don't have to be trained in this discipline to know that if the Canadian dollar breaks through 80 cents, that we as a trading country are In some difficulty. I think that hedge is what the Minister of Finance tried to bring forward in his comment. Mr. Deputy Speaker , we missed a great opportun ity. Moving on to the third point I want to make, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, where Is it that we are headed as a 405 province given this latest Budget, hopeful ly, that forecasts are more or less accurate? Mr. Deputy Speaker, we seem to be so conditioned to deficits that when members opposite talk about red ucing it to $334 million, it's as if they forget that basically is a third of a billion dollars, as if it's going well. I remind members opposite; I remind them of this informat ion. Personal ly, you cannot pay for services out of int erest costs. In my view, the choice of the government is not services toda y versus services tomorr ow.

The cho ice of government right now is services today versus no services tomorr ow if this borrowing is continued. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that's the choice; that's how simple it is. There's no alternative to that axiom. lt's right there. That's the state that this government, over the last six years, has taken this province. Let me expand on that. I've done some straight-line projections, Mr. Deputy Speaker . These are the assumptions that I brought in and I'm glad that the Minister of Finance keeps filed away some of the forecasts that we do because, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, as you know, I don't have an $800 million Budget, scraps of which can be di rected towards supporting my arguments or, indeed, my analysis. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if one wants to look at what's occurred in Manitoba over the last few years and do a linear projection - just a linear - and if one wants to make these basic assu mptions, reve nue growth 8 percent a year for the next 10 years, reve nue growth of taxation - mind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know you are fully aware that in the last two years it's surpassed 10 percent, it's been in the area of 10 and 11 .

Let's just say reve nue growth of 8 perc ent, given an economy that's going to turn down. Let's plug in continued expenditure growth of 8 perce nt, Mr. Deputy Speaker , and le t's plug in debt servi cing, costs increasing at the rate of 10 percent per year. This year, by the way, they increased 20 percent - 20 percent - but let's plug in only 10 per cent. If you do straight line projections, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is what happens to the deficit over the next series of years: ye ar-end 1990 - $350 million; 19 91 - $376 million; 1992 - $406 million.

And that project ion keeps going right up to $670 million in the year 1999. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what's so important here as the interest rate keeps going up, or the interest portion, the amount that is directed to an increase in service costs, the amoun t that's left over for non-debt expenditur e increases only a pittance, hardly at all. Now, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if you were to use the same analysis but this time increase debt servicing costs at a 15 percent increase year-ov er-year - and again remember, this year is 20 percent, but let's plug in only 15 percent - those deficits then may remain the same, but the amount of money that the government has to direct to expenditures, other than debt servi cing, the amount of money that the government has to direct to social services and all of the responsibilities of government, Mr. Deputy Speaker , by the year 1999 is in the realm of $7.5 billion dollars. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that represents some year-over-year increase of roughly, within all the social areas - and I don't have quite the figure, but I think it's roughly - in the area of 3 percent. That's the legacy that this Minister of Finance and the government is leaving to the next government, Mr. Deputy Speak er. That's what they're saying to

TUesday, 1 March, 1988 Manitobans. We have sufficiently tied your hands that when you come to try and want to increase the amounts spent in all areas of government, you may have 2 percent to offer. And, Mr. Deputy Speaker, inflation then may be 6 percent, but they are saying to governments to come, you will have 2 percent to direct towards expenditur es of gove rnment. That's what this Mi nister of Finance has done; that's what this government has done over six years. Mr. Deputy Speak er, I defy the Minister to tell me what's wrong with the logic that I have used here.

Of course, what we're leading to Is what my leader said yesterday, Mr. Deputy Speaker. it's on this basis that we need desperately this three-year forecast. We need it In the worst way, If for no other reason than to provide self-discipline on the members opposite for their remaining tenur e In government, and of course all governments to come, and also to show Manitobans some of the Impact of the spending decisions over the past six years. Mr. Deputy Speak er, the government applauds themselves tor decreasing the debt.

Why don't they be so honest as to tell us the im pact of a $334 million deficit over the years to come? Why don't they tell us, for instance, that the Interest next year, that they're going to have to put in next year's Budget, will be equivalent to almost the entire Increase In education this year? Why don't they tell us that it's greater than the increase in Community Services this year? Just the interest they will have to put in next year's Budget to cover off the deficit of this year. Mr.

Deputy Speake r, I say to you In all honesty that they don't really give a damn about the economy to come and the provincial finances to come over the next 10 years. The tragedy Is, and I honestly believe that it Is, that the members opposite believe that we have a fixation or some of us have a fixation with the deficit. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do have a fixation. lt's not with the deficit though, it's with the ability of governments to come to maintain services. That's the fixation I have. I have no difficulty in offering that statement and it is a real hang-up I have.

I only wish the Minister of Finance shared it with me. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the pure arithmetic, In my view, suggests that this government has no es cape. There are going to have to be some major, major decisions made In the next number of years. What I worry about the most Is that the members opposite collectively are saying to themselves, well, there is nothing wrong in being out of government for a while. Hopefully , though that will coincide with the downturn In the economy.

Therefore, we'll be able to then go to the people and say, see, uh-huh, see what happ ened , see what happened when you put a Conservative Government into place. They'll bring out all the economic indicators to prove their point. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that's where we're heading because there Is no magician. There is no politician. There Is no political party that has the miracle solution to what we're In now. We have never claimed to and you won't hear us claim, but at least we recognize the position

whereas the Minister of Finance, Indeed the government, have chosen not to. Please, Mr. Min ister of Finance, provide to Manitobans a th ree-year forecast , particular ly, of expenditure. The fourth point I want to suggest Is what would we do different ly. My leader yest erday In his Budget Speech 406 covered a numb er of areas, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I honestly bel ieve there is greater efficiency in government that could be brought to bear. I honestly believe that there is potential for the private sector to have a greater role in providing services to the people.

I honestly belie ve that through that there is greater opportunity for the government, if they so wish, to provide Manitob ans relief in taxation and at the same time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, maintaining services. See the people opposite, they like to perpetuate the myth that if you elect a Conse rvative Government, those that have a fixation with the deficit that it will represent or will cause to be brought into effect major, major decreases in public services. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that doesn't have to happen. lt doesn't have to happen at all, but I say to them there are other ways.

Nationally, I think it is Im portant that we support all trade agreements, Including the Free Trade Agreement. I think it's important that we appeal to provinces within the countr y to remove their barriers and I support the government. I can't understand how it is that governments east and west would put barriers to Manitoba-pr oduced goods, so I am an ally of theirs on that argument. Third ly, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I think on a national sense we can try to develop a greater consensus as to the services we want now, the services we want in the future and, more import antly, how it is we should pay for them bearing in mind of course the Indebtedness a government such as this have pushed our province and our people. Provincially, Mr. Deputy Speaker , I support a program by-program review. Now, I honestly believe that our party can give it clearer focus; we can bring greater objectivity to that type of review and consequently can find more efficiency within government than the NDP could ever do, Mr.

Deputy Speaker. I also believe that there are massive bureaucracies in our major social fields that must be closely scrutinized. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think you will hear critics of ours in the days and weeks to come who are going to highlight some of the major increases in bureaucracies. I am not talking about the people providing the services, Mr. Deputy Speak er. I'm talkin g about the bureaucracies. In my mind there is great potential to bring greater efficlencies within government. Mr. Deputy Speaker, in closing, I give the NDP some credit for some of their cost reductions.

As has been pointed out, programs that were put into existence five years ago, some of them have run their course and they should be removed and they should be shut down. When it's justifiably right to do so, I will not criticize it. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I point out, I honestly believe we could bring about that exercise, that task. We could do a better job in a more objective way than they're doing. You have to believe that there is a better way of running government because if you don't, in my view, we are doomed to destruction. There has to be a better way of doing it. I can't reiterate that enough, Mr.

Deputy Speaker. If not, health care will continue to diminish; roads will continue to deteriorate. Until I hear the Minister of Finance stand in his place and tell us what the long-run solution is, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I say he has no solution. The great paradox in this Budget is the fact that the government has had a boom in reve nues. The great

Tuesda y, 1 March, 1988 paradox, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the members spout Keynes to us all the time saying that in times of toughness, you're supposed to spend as a government and borrow. But the great paradox, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in times of relative good you're supposed to save and pay back the debts so you can be in a position to do something for the people when the next tough time comes. That's the great paradox, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The members opposite had the opportunity to play out the whole Keynesian theory; this Budget decided not to.

In my view, they fell miserably and I therefore support the amendment of my leader . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. L HARAPIAK: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the Budget Debate. I must tell you that I was awaiting for my opportunity to speak. I thought that perhaps I had been somewhat unfortunate in having to follow on the heels of the critic. I thought that he would identify the $13 4 million that he said should be cut from the Budg et.

I had some fear that perhaps my own Department of Agriculture might be eliminated totally. But I'm somewhat di sappointed and relieved, disappointed I guess that the critic did not identify those areas that he said there was great opportunity for savings, but relieved I guess that those departments perhaps which would have been the victims of that kind of a decision have indeed been spared. Before I go into the details of my presentation, I guess in keeping with the spirit of the Olympics, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was identified yesterday by the Member for St.

Norbert where he, I thought, paid us a tribute in likening us to Eddy the Eagle, indicating that we had courage and determination and staying power. As he pointed out, Eddy the Eagle's mission was to survive and indeed he did survive, but in thinking about a comparison in that he likened us to Eddy the Eagle, I was thinking that we might liken them to the Jamaican bobsled team. With all due respect to the Jamaicans, the sled didn't make the journey, and I'm not sure that the group on the other side is going to make it either.

In the case of the Jamaican bobsled seam, it seemed that the responsibility was attributed to the driver, and I'm not sure yet at this moment who the driver on the other side is. There's some conflict as to who is at the wheel. Mr. Deputy Speaker, reverting to the critic for the Opposition, I have some respect for what the critic was trying to address in his comments. I think he generally portrays a reasonable approach, though we're not always in agreement.

He was reasonable in his suggestion of prudent management, but I think he, despite the statements that he has made outside this Chamber that there was room for cuts, failed to identify what it is in fact that he would, if given the opportunity, eliminate from the Budget. I want to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is a good Budget. I think this Budget demonstrates an approach which is reasonable and rational in terms of making decisions. I think it clearly demonstrates sensitivity to the choices that had to be made, and again, as the 407 Member from Morris recognized, that there are no easy choices.

I think we are at a point in time where, having exercised the choices, there wo n't be some pain experienc ed on the part of those who would be excluded. But I think given the expectations, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the public that there is a commitment on the part of this government to maintaining health services, maintaining social services, dealing with questions of the economy, dealing with questions of agriculture, I think you will find that indeed they will be satisfied and they will be supportive of the decisions that have been made.

This Budget, I maintain, seeks to gain the maximum benefit from those dollars that will be expended. I think it recognizes the limitations of the province's financial resources and demonstrates that the government is committed to responsible fiscal management. But again, using the words of the critic opposite, there is no magic in government, Mr. Deputy Speaker - no more magic in budgeting for government than there is magic in budgeting for our families, budgeting in our farming operations or budgeting in our business operations, whether they be large or small. Money, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is earned.

Money flows in for government. The large portion of that will be by way of taxes that are collected and decisions are then made on how those resources should be allocated. Most would recognize again, whether in government or in our families, the demands on the available resources will most often exceed the resources that are available to meet those demands and that requires some priorizing of the decision-making. Some decisions have to be made as to what will be the priority of the particular expenditure, and that, I think, is reflected well in the Budget that has been brought forward by this government.

There is a clear indication of where our priorities as a government are. But it is also clear that we cannot meet our commitments always on the basis of current revenue. We borrow and we incur a debt, and we know full well, whether in government or in our private lives, there is a price attached, there is a cost attached to that borrowing, but very few of us would suggest that that borrowing is irresponsible.

In fact, if you look across to members opposite, it is many of them who espouse to be the entrepreneurs, and it is many of those entrepreneurs who have built and done well - and I give them credit - on the basis of having borrowed. You would not see members opposite, nor members on this side, criticize those who would borrow. I can look about this Chamber and I can recognize people who would have borrowed for an education. There are many who are in this Chamber and were able to have a formal education because they borrowed. lt was an investment in the future; it was something that would be repaid.

If you look at the quality of life that we enjoy today, much of what we enjoy today is there because someone was prepared to make an investment to in fact borrow. Very little of the economy of the province and very little of the economy of the nation is operated on a cash basis, if you like. How many of us would enjoy the standard of living that we do today if we relied strictly on that cash that was available to us from our sources, from income sources or Investment sources? That would not be there.

Tuesday, 1 ...,eh, 1988 How many of us have a mortgage on our home? That is a debt. How many of us have a mortgage on our farm? That is a debt. I am in that situation on both counts, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I don't think that I was reckless in either one of those. I was not reckless In that. lt was a commitment that I felt I wanted to make because I saw an opportunity and it was a debt that I could service. Much of that happens in society by members on all sides of this House and the public at large.

I would ask mem bers to consider: what Is the average indebtedness of a Manitoba citizen today just In terms of their personal affairs? lt Is far In excess of what it was at one time. We don't criticize most of those people. There are some who will have made unwise decisions with respect to borrowing and Incurring a debt, perhaps Incurring a debt for the wrong reason or Incurring a debt which exceeds their capacity to service. Now, should it be, Mr. Deputy Speaker, any different In terms of what government would do? Governments have demands on their resources.

There are programs that we, as government, are asked to deliver, that cannot be met from the current expenditures of the government. I would ask members opposite, If they would suggest that what we had to be doing was providing all services on a cash basis, how many hospitals would exist if they were built on a cash basis? How many elderly persons housing units would exist? What kind of Infrastructure would we have in our community?

We have debt attached to many of those kinds of services, and I think it will be seen by most people as being responsible borrowing. lt Is true that in addition to considering debt for those longer-term purposes, we, in our individual lives, In our businesses, can, in a given year, in a given time frame, Incur a deficit. We do not have sufficient funds to meet our current commitments, and that cannot go on indefinitely, and I don't think anyone has ever suggested that that is what should be happening. In fact, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if you look at the present Budget and you look at what we have done In terms of reducing the deficit, most objective people would recognize that we have done a much more effective job in that respect than Indeed the Federal Government had done. So I, for one, think that we are making good progress in terms of managing our deficit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I look forward for improvement in that respect.

Certainly, I don't think that we can proceed blindly In terms of addressing the question of the deficit without addressing at the same time what the consequences would be of proceeding at a faster rate to reduce that deficit. lt could be done but what would be the consequence of that? lt is true at the same time that by Incurring that deficit and adding to the debt, there is indeed a price to be paid for that. But as we make those decisions, I think we have to say, Is it worth it?

I think we make those same kinds of decisions in terms of the investments that we make as individuals, that debts that we incur as Individuals, we recognize that there is a place, there is a time in which to incur a debt In a responsible way, and I feel the debt that has been Incurred by this government has been incurred In a reasonable and in a responsible way. I want to point out, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that In terms of the operating deficit that I referred to only a few 408 minutes ago, that in putting on the record the progress that has been made, we have reduced the operating deficit of the government by 78.7 percent over the last two years. I think that's a notable achievement. (lnterjection)-Now the Member for Arthur suggests that it was out of line. lt would be out of line given the values that he holds, that he would not want to provide the services that were provided or he would not want to use vehicle of public spending to deal with the economy when it was in a period of down turn.

If, in fact, he does not subscribe, and I don't believe that he does subscribe to that - he is being honest in that re�pect - he would see that as an unwise expenditure. I, for one, Mr. Deputy Speaker, want to say that there is a role for public expenditure and public debt in terms of meeting the needs of the citizens of the province and, indeed, for playing a more proactive role in the economy using the vehicle of public investment to stimulate the economy at a point in time when the economy from private sector investments might have been on a down turn. We are not blind to that cooperative kind of approach, Mr.

Deputy Speaker. We recognize that an economy such as we have In Manito ba, which is a very stable and diversified economy, has served the people of Manitoba well relative to other jurisdictions. That economy, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, is diversified and balanced not only in terms of the natural resources of this province, a diversity of opportunity related to agriculture, related to the mining industry, related to forestry and those in turn leading to opportunities in terms of further processing and manufacturing, but it is also an economy which is built on cooperation between the private sector, the cooperative sector and the public sector. We see nothing wrong with that. In fact, we think it is desirable to have that healthy mix.

Again, I would recognize that some of the members opposite would not be comfortable with that kind of a mix in our economy. They would look to shift that balance. I think that was demonstrated clearly by some of the members opposite when we had some of our discussions on the question of public insurance. The Member for Ste. Rose and the Leader of the Opposition - the Member for Tuxedo - indicated on more than one occasion that in their view, a public ownership concept to insurance should be perhaps reconsidered, put out for competition with the private sector, and they would want to see that eliminated.

Well, I would want the record to show, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I think there is a very useful role. I think there is a demonstrated record here in Manitoba of the benefits of public insurance, the benefits that accrue not only to people in terms of insurance coverage but to the benefits that accrue in terms of having that pool of investment capital available for Manitobans. I want to refer, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, as the members on this side did yesterday, to the Budget Speech which clearly puts on the record the achievements of this government, and I think the Member for Kildonan did so particularly well last night, referring the members to the record, asking them, imploring them to read it, because obviously they had not. What they were doing was making statements which did not at all reflect the evidence which was presented for the public for all to see in terms of the achievements of this government. The financial statistics which are included as an addendum to the Budget Address clearly indicate, as

I have already , that the operating deficit of this government has been reduced very significantly , the operating deficit being projected to be some $66 million in the up-coming fiscal year. Of course, we said you cannot talk only about questions of expenditure; you have to make reference to rev enues. lt is important to note what is happening In the mix of reve nues within the province.

As I said, the bulk of the revenues for the province are in the form of taxation, some direct taxation by the province, others being In the way of federal transfers and then other Manitoba collections as they are referred to here. But if you look at the record , Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will see that for the period from 1980-81 and the Budgets for 1988-89, federal transfers as a percentage of Manitoba rev enue will be declining from 42.4 percent to 30.5 percen t. Given that, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, there obviously have to be some changes made if there's going to be a reduction In federal transfers and we are to maintain our programs. There has to be some off setting Increase at the provincial level whether in the way of provincial taxes or other charges, or there should be, I supp ose, some corresp ondin g reduction in programs. We have had to make thos e assess ments on programs. The reduction in federal transfers do In fact restrict what we are able to do In terms of the delivery of programs.

We are particularly concerned in the area of health care and education, where we have made major commitments, and I am proud to say we have been able to maintain our commitments. Despite the reduction In federal transfers, Mr. Deputy Speak er, we have been able to maintain our commitments. But I find it rather inte resting that members opposite would, on the one hand, criticize us for the level of the deficit which I maintain is very responsible, and at the same time the members saying, spend more. I think they cannot have it both ways. The Member for Arthur , Mr.

Deputy Speak er, wants to dissociate himself from that kind of a statement. Now there are the people on that side of the House who are consistently saying spend more. Then they say as long as it's In my area, but then the y say reduce the deficit. They cannot have it both ways, Mr. Deputy Speaker .

Now, I think it's important as well to have the record clearly show where we are in Manitoba in terms of expenditur es compared to other jurisdictions because, depending on the mood that the members opposite are in, they would paint at one moment as being chint zy and not being prepared to spend; on the next, they would suggest that we were spending recklessly. I want to indicate, Mr. Deputy Speak er, that Manitoba, in terms of Its expenditure, has been proceed ing at a reasonable and steady pace, as a reflection of that rea sonable, steady economy that we have.

When you look at the level of th e per capita expenditur es in Manitoba, Mr. Deputy Speak er, we are the fourth lowest In Canada. We are below the average of the 10 provinces. So it cannot be said that we are spending reckle ssly. I think we have been spending in a very reas onable and responsible way. Now, it would also be suggested by some of the members opposite that we have proceeded irresponsibly over the years on capital expenditur es, adding our deficits to the debt and burd ening Manitobans excessively.

Now I have never suggested 409 that we shoul dn't be trying to address the question of the debt, but given that there are reas onable circums tances under which you would incur a debt, let us compare, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the debt load in Manitoba, or let's take the deficit firstly, the deficit per capita. When you take the per capita deficit and compare it other jurisdictions for the '87-88 year, Manitoba is again the fifth lowest.

We're slightly above the average for the 10 provinces, but take note of our two neigh bouring provinces to the west that are often referred to by members opposite, particularly when we are dealing with issues on agriculture, and I hope to get to that point. Saskatchew an's deficit is far in excess of ours, and Alberta is at the top of the heap, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So clearly , there is an indication from the record that we, in Manitoba, have proceeded in a very responsible way in terms of our expenditur es and our deficits relative to other jurisdictions are in a respe ctable range. Now the same can be said, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in terms of the total debt load. We do have a significant debt load because of our prepared ness to invest in publicly-owned facilities, but our debt toad is not out of line in any way with neighbouring ju risdictions. Mr. Deputy Speaker, what I would like to do for the balance of my comments Is refer to the area of agriculture, and I think it's im portant that we place on the record some of the questions related to the economy, the agricultural component of our provincial economy , and the level of expenditure in this area compared to other jurisdictions. I'm pleased, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , that we see once again the level of expenditure In agriculture up in the Province of Manitoba compared to the previous year. In fact, at $90 million, it has never been higher and that represents an Increase of 28.2 perc ent over the last two years and 129 percent more than was included in 1980-81 in the last Budget prepared by the members opposite. So this, clearly no room for a statement which suggests that we on this side of the House are not committed to agriculture. Let me read Into the reco rd, Mr. Deputy Speaker , some comparisons.

If you look at the provincial expenditur es on a per farmer basis and compare that to Saskatchewan and Alberta, it's rather interesting. In 1985 in Manitoba, Mr. Deputy Speaker , the average expenditure on a per farmer basis was $2, 124.00. That has increased sl owly, steadily, to the level of $3,090 in 1987, and that obviously again will continue on that progression, an increase for 1988. Now compare tha t with Saskatchewan, Mr. Deputy Speaker, where in 1985 they had a level of $4,430.00.

They are continuing on a straight-line progression but rather than being upward, as we are in Manitoba, they are consistently moving downward from a level of $4,430 in 1985, as I said, to a level lower than Manitoba's in 1987, at 2,979.00. Now we have not seen their figures for 1988, but there are indications from people in Saskatche wan; there are concerns that the level of spending on agriculture in Saskatchewan will be reduced again. So there is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the expenditur e in agriculture in Manitoba, relative to Saskatchewan, compares well. We are at a higher level.

We are increasing ours and I am confident that we will

l'Uftday, 1 March, 1988 be ahead of Saskatchewan in the year ahead . Alberta's, of course, Is higher than either of Saskatchewan or Manitoba with their level of expenditure being in the range of $4,500.00. lt's important to make this point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the Member for Roblin-Rus sell, in question period today in speaking to the Min ister of Education, said you can't just throw money at a problem and hope to bring about a solution.

I'm wanting to quote these figures so that I can ind icate to mem bers opposite that our approach has not just been to throw mone y. lt has been a reasonable approach and it has been eff ective. I want to demonstrate Its effectiveness, Mr. Deputy Speake r, by ref erring to income levels in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and Alberta as well. These figures will show that the average income per farm in Manitoba exceeds that of Saskatchewan, and both Manitoba and Saskatchewan incomes will exceed that of Alberta.

So in 1986 the average farm Income, realized net Income for Manitoba farms, was $1 8,474.00. ·ft went down in Manitoba to $1 7,742 in 1987. In Saskatchewan the figure was, In 1986, $12 ,000, approximately 66 percent of what it was In Manitoba. lt did increase In 1987 to $1 6,747, still below that of Manitoba. So though the members opposite are critical of what is happening in Manitoba, I have to say to you that what is happening in Manitoba Is bringing better results than what is happe ning In our neighbouring jurisdictions.

Now I would never for a moment claim that what is happening, In terms of farm income, is totally the respo nsibili ty of the government because that level of income I think is again a reflec tion, Mr. Deputy Speak er, of some of the natural attributes of the agricultural economy of Manitoba, which has provided for a much more diversified economy than that in Saskatchewan, and, yes, more diversified than that which exists in Alberta. So, in making those comparisons, we cannot simply say, as the Member for Roblin- Russell said, you can't solve a problem simply by throwing money at it.

Yet I hear from mem bers opposite - there seems to be the suggeS tion that what you have to do is throw mone y. We have not thrown money; we have targeted money. We have provided funding in different areas. We have looked to provide this funding In a reaso nable and in a responsible way. In listening to comments from the members opposite and in reviewing the materials of yesterd ay, I notice that there see ms to be some, dare I say it, objection to the matter of writing down or making a provision for losses on some of the MACC loans.

In fact , the leader of the Opposition was the one who suggested that this was In some way mislea ding. Let me tell you, Mr. Deputy Spea ker, that the Federal Government has taken considerable credit and I think some credit Is due to them for writing down some of the deficit for the Western Grain Stabi lization Program. They have indi cated that they are making a provision for some write-down or write-off on accounts with the Farm Credit Corpora tion.

If it is acc eptable, and this Is not just a question of what might be acceptable in terms of policy there, it is required in terms of proper acc ounting to make that provision. Clearly , if you went to any other lending Institution, now you would see that they would make provisions for doubtful accounts. Whether they are dealing with 410 agricultural lending or lending in any other sector, they would be making that provision.

We have made that provision here in recog nition of what exists in the agricultural community particul arly , as I've said on so many occasions amongst the producers of grains and oilseeds, that there is a very sign ificant shortfall in income and they are inde ed under stress. We are prepared to stand by them. I want to point out as we

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-3-14
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 3rd hansardpdf 14.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	15b5aa99de4dacbedb6dcf89ebeab276e37b5095

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).