Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 42B (36th Legislature, 1st Session)

36-1-42b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLV No. 42B -1:30 p.m., Wednesday, October 4,1995 . ISSN 0542-54 2

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name Constituency � ASHTON, Steve Thompson N.D.P. BARREIT, Becky Wellington N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUA Y, Louise, Hon. Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Roblin-Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary Concordia N.D.P. DOWNEY, James, Hon. Arthur-Virden P.C. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. Steinbach P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside P.C. ERNST, Jim, Hon. Charleswood P.C.

EVANS, Clif Interlake N.D.P. - EVANS, Leonard S. Brandon East N.D.P. FILMON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo P.C. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Springfield P.C. FRIESEN, Jean Wolseley N.D.P. GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface Lib. GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa P.C. HEL WER, Edward Gimli P.C. HICKES, George Point Douglas N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KOWALSKI, Gary The Maples Lib. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU, Marcel St. Norbert P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord St. Johns N.D.P. MALOWA Y, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McALPINE, Gerry Sturgeon Creek P.C. McCRAE, James, Hon.

Brandon West P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane Osborne N.D.P. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. Assiniboia P.C. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn St. James N.D.P. - MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East P.C. NEWMAN, David Riel P.C. PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Portage Ia Prairie P.C. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. PITURA, Frank Morris P.C. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. Lac du Bonnet P.C. RADCLIFFE, Mike River Heights P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack, Hon. Niakwa P.C. RENDER, Shirley St. Vital P.C. ROBINSON, Eric Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Gladstone P.C. SALE, Tim Crescentwood N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Broadway N.D.P. STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. Kirkfield Park P.C.

STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin N.D.P. SVEINSON, Ben La Verendrye P.C. TOEWS, Vic, Hon. Rossmere P.C. TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. Fort Garry P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann Swan River N.D.P.

3629 LE GISLATI V E ASSEM BLY OF MANITO B A Wednesday, October 4,1995 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS RO UTINE PROCEE DINGS PRESENT ING PETITIONS Federal Immigration Policies Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington) : Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Luong Ly, Lieu Chau, Ha Ly and others requesting the Legislative Assembly to request the Government of Canada to cancel fee increases and instead institute policies that will encourage immigration to Manitoba Ms .

MaryAnn Mihychuk (St James) : Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Pablo Javier, Bernadette Javier, Mary Grace Javier and others requesting the Legislative Assembly to request the Government of Canada to cancel fee increases and instead institute policies that will encourage immigration to Manitoba. REA DING AN D RECEI VING PETITIONS Federal Immigration Policies Madam Speaker : I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), and it complies with the rules and practices ·of the House (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

Some Honourable Members : Dispense. Madam Speaker : Dispense.

WHEREAS Manitoba has been immeasurably enriched socially, economically and culturally by immigrants and their families; and

WHEREAS it was for this reason that successive provincial and federal governments have encouraged immigration to Manitoba; and

WHEREAS since 1993, the cu"ent federal Liberal government has reversed these policies by instituting a series of changes making immigration more difficult; and

WHEREAS the 1994 changes in quotas for family reunification class of immigrants were unfair and punitive; and

WHEREAS the fee increases for immigrants instituted in the 1995 federal Liberal budget are neither fair nor justifiable and border on racism; and

WHEREAS the new $975 fee being imposed on adult immigrants is more than many immigrants make in their home country in an entire year, and will make it even more difficult for people from these countries to immigrate to Canada; WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the Government of Canada cancel these fee increases and instead institute policies that will encourage immigration to Manitoba. PRESENT ING RE PORTS BY STANDING AN D SP ECIAL COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources Second Report Mr .

Frank Pitura (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources) : Madam Speaker, I beg to present the Second Report of the Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources. Mr . Clerk (William Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources presents the following as its Second Report. Madam Speaker : Dispense. Your committee met on Tuesday, October 3, 1995, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to

3630 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 4, 1995 consider the Annual Reports of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission for the years ended March 31, 1994, and March 31, 1995. Mr. Grant Holmes, chairperson, and Mr. Derek Smith, president and chief executive officer, provided such information as was requested with respect to the Annual Reports and business of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission. Your committee has considered the Annual Reports of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission for the years ended March 31, 1994, and March 31, 1995, and has adopted the same as presented Mr.

Pitura: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. TA BLIN G OF RE PORTS Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report of the Community Support Programs for 1994-95. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS J.M. Schneider Inc.-Pork Processing Facility Hon. Harry En o s (Minister of Agriculture) : Madam Speaker, I have a statement for the House.

Madam Speaker, we in this House should be very much aware of the fundamental changes that are occurring in our agricultural industry. Manitoba has always had a diversified agricultural economy. However, recent changes such as the elimination of the multimillion-dollar Crow rate and the St. Lawrence Seaway pooling benefit have accelerated the need for adaptation. Madam Speaker, Manitoba farmers have shown that they are more than up to these challenges. Over this past year, we have seen record production levels of potatoes and other special crops.

In livestock we have surpassed the record levels of the mid-'70s in beef production and set an all-time high for hog production. As well, we have seen the rise in the level of nontraditional livestock numbers. Madam Speaker, I have been told that it is the goal of the Alberta government to see that not a bushel of feed grain is exported from that province. I believe in the same goal for Manitoba for a very simple reason.

When a bushel of feed barley is exported from Manitoba at a price of somewhat less than 10 cents a pound, so, too, are many jobs to regions where that feed barley is turned into value-added product such as pork. *

(1335) When that barley remains in Manitoba, it is put into feed rations and fed on one of our many farms in Manitoba. It gains tremendous value so that the exported product can actually be worth several dollars a pound. This is why yesterday's announcement that the J.M. Schneider Corporation has chosen Manitoba in which to construct a new world-class, state-of-the-art pork processing facility is tremendous news to all Manitobans. Not only will this plant provide for increased opportunities for Manitoba pork producers by utilizing a further 48,000 hogs per week, this $40-million plant will employ some 500 people.

They will produce a value-added finished product that will leave this province bound for the supermarket shelves of Toronto, Tokyo and the international community. On behalf of this government, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the management of Schneider's in Winnipeg and in Kitchener for the confidence they have shown in Manitoba producers, workers and this government with this very exciting announcement yesterday. Thank you. Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, in response to the statement of the Minister of Agriculture, we, too, would like to congratulate the management of Schneider's and the workers at Schneider's at the present plant for making a decision to locate a major investment in our province and a plant

October 4, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3631 in our province that will employ some 500 people, and as the Minister of Agriculture indicated, will help us to our continued provincial goal of having value-added jobs here utilizing our natural resources and our agricultural resources to their fullest capacity and to the fullest capacity of our province. It is good news. In 1988, there were some 4,900 people working in meat and poultry product processing here in Manitoba. Regrettably, we are now down to about 2,600 employees according to 1994 Stats Canada reports.

I believe the last plant that had been announced as a new plant in Manitoba had been the Springhill plant. Before that, we had bad news in this province with Canada Packers not proceeding with their modernization proposal that was very important for our community and for our province, and before that Swifts. Luckily the Burns plant was modernized with support of the provincial government, I might add. It should not have been that way, but it had to be to keep the plant here, but, regrettably, we lost a plant in Brandon for finishing of cattle.

Madam Speaker, this is a good announcement but it also represents a real challenge for all of us in this Chamber. Hog production is very important for agriculture, as the minister indicated, with the changes in the Crow rate, with the changing of the pooling benefits. It also represents real challenges. I have listened to fishermen worried about the situation in their lakes with potential liquid manure. The ministers across the way have probably heard some concerns of other ministers about jobs in the tourism industry, and I sometimes fmd the debate is always, are you for jobs or against jobs?

We are all for jobs. We are all for value-added jobs. What I would like to suggest to the government is that we must have a way of providing leadership to make sure that this plant and the hog industry are sustainable in a way that is balanced across our province. I challenge the government ministers, those responsible for the round table on the environment and sustainable development, to meet this challenge as the challenge has been met by Schneider's to locate here, so that neighbours living beside neighbours can live in harmony with this good news today and not live in conflict.

Thank you very, very much, Madam Speaker. *

(1340) Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker : Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw all honourable members' attention to the public gallery, where we have this afternoon twelve Grades 9 to 12 students from Pierre Radisson Collegiate under the direction of Mr. Chris Loewen. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIO D Winnipeg Jets Keith Tkachuk Contract Mr . Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon).

The Premier knows that we have raised the issue of his signing of the operating-loss agreement with the Winnipeg Jets hockey team in 1991, a document he said would provide us peace in our time with the professional hockey team.

Madam Speaker, we have asked the Premier a number of times and on a number of occasions questions about his signature and our commitment as taxpayers to fund the losses of a privately owned hockey team through public commitments that the Premier made, especially at a time when we have cutbacks in health car�Dauphin was announced yesterday-cutbacks in education, when we see special needs kids being cut off in our public school systems. Many people believe that the government has lost its sense of priorities.

The most recent announcement, Madam Speaker, is that a hockey player will sign for some $17 million U.S. with close to $6 million U.S or

3632 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 4, 1995 $8 million Canadian at the front end, at the taxpayers' end of that contract. I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), does he agree with the signing of Keith Tkachuk and the amounts of money that have been agreed to, Madam Speaker, for that contract? Bon . Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance) : Actually, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question, because there are some very, very pertinent pieces of information which should be put on the record.

First and foremost, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, the Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club has to operate in the bottom one-third of all hockey teams in the NHL, so that is an overall parameter around the kind of budget, the amount of money, that they can spend.

Secondly, once it was determined that the team would not be able to stay in Manitoba, discussions with the current owners is that we would not accept any front-end loading of any contracts, that depending on cash flow requirements or whatever, that any contracts would be dealt with on prorating the contract over the term of the contract, that for the upcoming hockey season, we would only be responsible for that portion of the contract. I guess the best way, Madam Speaker, to outline that is in the case of the hockey player that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to.

It is a five-year contract, and the responsibility for the upcoming hockey season will be no more than one-fifth of the value of that contract. Any residual over and above that will be the responsibility of the current owners or the prospective owners whom they are currently negotiating with.

In fact, Madam Speaker, we do expect this one-fifth value of the contract to probably be reduced, and I believe the Leader of the Opposition has followed this issue, that there is now an equalization formula in place with the NHL that provides for compensation for exchange rates, so the one-fifth that will be allocated for the upcoming season will actually be reduced by an equalization return here to Manitoba. So in the final analysis, the team has to operate in the bottom one-third. The contract has to be prorated, so only one-fifth is applied to this year.

At the end of the day, Madam Speaker, it is important for all of us that this asset be maintained, because we and the City of Winnipeg will receive 36 percent of the value of the hockey team which today is based on a value of some $90 million, so we expect that at the end of the day, we will receive probably $10 million or $12 million net returned to our Treasury, plus the net benefit that our Treasury will have had over the course of this agreement, a net benefit of some $8 million or $9 million on top of that. *

(1345) Mr . Doer : Madam Speaker, one fifth of$17 million U.S. is still an obscene amount of money for the taxpayers to pick up. The Premier and his minister responsible for the Jets are now saying that they support the decision, and they want to match the deep private pockets of Chicago with the very, very nondeep public pockets of Manitoba. That is what they are basically telling the people. We can cut health care. We can cut education. We can cut food for kids, but we can support this contract for a hockey player, Madam Speaker.

I would like to ask the Premier-it is his signature-when is he going to start saying no to the priorities of paying for millionaire hockey players and say yes to health care, education and food here in Manitoba? Bon . Gary Filmon (Premier) : The point that has to be made is that by maintaining the Jets here, we have been able to keep some $8 million or $9 million more in the Treasury of the Province of Manitoba to pay for health, for education, for social services and everything else.

Madam Speaker, the maintenance of the hockey team here maintains a revenue flow, a cash flow, to the Treasury that over the period of the agreement has exceeded any money that we have put out, No. 1, and, No. 2, by maintaining the value of the franchise, which -

October 4, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3633 is the players who are contained within that franchise, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) says, we will get an additional $12 million or so as well for the Treasury so that we can pay for health, so that we can pay for education, so that we can pay for social services. Operating-Loss Agreement Mr .

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition) : Two weeks ago, when the Premier, as he has done in the past, painted this rosy picture on the operating-loss agreement that he signed-! recall when the Premier signed it, he said, oh, this will only cost us about $5 million over the next six or seven years, and we will be able to keep the team here. Of course, the Premier promised to cancel this operating-loss agreement. His minister responsible for this fiasco promised to cancel it prior to the election campaign, another broken promise.

Madam Speaker, in the Auditor's Report, Volume 1, released last Friday, there is a contingent liability in the private sector fund of some $8 million, half of which is the responsibility of the provincial government; in other words, another $4 million. When the Premier answered the question about how much money under the operating-loss agreement we would lose this year, he failed to mention this amount of money as a contingent liability.

I would like to ask the Premier, how much money will be in that fund when the team leaves, and what will we be responsible for on top of the other commitments that this government has made on our behalf? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance) : Well, Madam Speaker, I am surprised at that question from the Leader of the Opposition.

At times, I wonder where he has been the last several months, because it has been perfectly clear, I think, to most Manitobans that the private sector notes are the first element to be paid out of the proceeds coming to the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba, that if the team sells for approximately $90 million Canadian, which has been a suggested figure, that the gross proceeds back to the City of Winnipeg and the province are going to be in the vicinity of $30 million, that the first payback is the payback of the private sector notes, with the residual $22 million to $24 million being split between the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba� That is how we get down to a net proceed to our Treasury of approximately $10 million to $12 million.

That will be the net return after the disposition of the hockey team, along with the return to date of some $8 million to our Treasury, so over the term of the interim agreement and the disposition of the Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club, our Treasury, the Province ofMimitoba's Treasury, will be ahead by approximately $20 million. I wish the Leader of the Opposition would purely listen to the facts and take them into consideration when he deals with this issue, Madam Speaker. *

(1350) Emergency Physicians' Strike Mediator's Report-Recommendations Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan) : Madam Speaker, from the very beginning of the doctors' strike, we have stated that the government has been slow to act. According to the mediator's report, the failure of the government to act on previous recommendations of previous reports may well have been the reason for the strike, Madam Speaker.

Since the minister now has in his hands a letter from the doctors agreeing to the recommendations of the mediator's report and since the minister now knows the doctors are prepared to go back to work, will the minister instruct both his department and MHO, which is funded 100 percent by the government, to agree to the recommendations and immediately cease and end this strike? Hon.

James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, not only do I have an indication from the Manitoba Medical Association that they are prepared to accept the terms of the report of the mediator, I also have similar information coming to me from the Manitoba Health Organizations stating the same thing.

3634 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 4, 1995 I would like to thank both of those organizations for their prompt response to the mediator's report and the recommendations in it. I have asked them already to meet immediately to finalize an agreement within the framework of the mediator's report. I am delighted that we have reached this juncture without imposing on unwilling parties binding arbitration, as suggested by the honourable member for Kildonan, and without imposing on everybody a legislated settlement, as suggested by the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).

Yesterday, the honourable members asked for me to table the report of the mediator, Madam Speaker. I had not completed my review of that report at that time. I have now, and I now table this document for the honourable member in case he has not seen it yet. Health Care System Emergency Services Review Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): I think all members of the House are very pleased, and it only took a month for the government to act.

My supplementary to the minister: Will the minister who has said he is monitoring the strike situation on a regular basis and, in accordance with a review of emergency services that he is mandated to do under the mediator's report, will the minister do a review of several incidents of death during the course of this strike? I am prepared to share with the minister the specifics that I have of at least three instances and a fourth incident that occurred last night. Will the minister undertake to do a review of those particular instances for all members of this Chamber? Hon.

James McCrae (Minister of Health): I told the honourable member and members of this House that while this disruption was in progress, we were monitoring the situation very, very carefully. The honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) raised a matter with us which we followed up and made certain findings as a result of that review. If the honourable member has some other cases that we have not looked at, I would like to know about those. We may already, but if we do not, I would like to know about it.

Certainly, the one he refers to relating to last evening, I would like to know more details from the honourable member's point of view on that particular matter. Mr.

Chomiak : Madam Speaker, will the minister, when he does his review of the emergency services, as outlined in this mediator's report, which obviously has been agreed to by the government, also undertake prior to the implementation to provide to this House information concerning these recommendations and to the public of Manitoba, so they will have an opportunity to comment prior to the government closing emergency wards, as well as dealing with the serious issue of recruitment of and retaining emergency physicians at emergency wards? *

(1355) Mr. McCrae : Madam Speaker, I neglected again to offer thanks to Mr. Jack Chapman, the mediator who has ultimately rendered a valuable service to all the parties in this matter, and, certainly, his second recommendation is that we forthwith instruct members of Manitoba Health staff in conjunction with the appropriate officials of each facility and the MMA and its members to immediately commence a full and complete review of the provision of emergency medical care.

Madam Speaker, we fully intend to do that, and the things the honourable member says are helpful, I believe, in that we need as much public participation and understanding of the issues that we are all facing together as possible. I would encourage as much of that as we can have. This is necessitated all the more so by the very radical cuts to social programs from Ottawa Certainly, Health is not spared the federal knife in this regard. While the honourable member for Inkster (Mr.

Lamoureux) is urging certain actions upon us, I urge him to raise the issues with his colleagues and friends in Ottawa so that we can have a rational planning and policy-making and decision-making process for the future of health care in this country. - -

October 4, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3635 Dauphin Regional Health Centre Hemodialysis Services Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin) : Madam Speaker, there is a very great need for hemodialysis services in the Parkland area. The Dauphin Regional Health Centre has had the capability to offer full-time hemodialysis services but has not received funds from this minister to fill this need.

Given this government's cutbacks yesterday of the Dauphin hospital, can the minister tell the House whether or not the Dauphin hospital still has the capability to offer full-time hemodialysis now that this government has reduced the number of nurses in our hospital? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, one area of health care that has required attention each and every year from the government of Manitoba has been the dialysis program in the province ofManitoba.

Unlike some other aspects of health care delivery, hemodialysis and the need for it has been growing at alarming rates over the years, and our response to it has been there as well, as can be evidenced through a review of the Estimates of the various years expenditures. We work with health centres like the Dauphin Regional Health Centre and others in the delivery of dialysis services to Manitobans throughout the province. Mr. Struthers: Given those words then, will the minister make a commitment today to the expansion of daily hemodialysis at the Dauphin Regional Health Centre? Mr.

McCrae : The commitment I make, Madam Speaker, is the same commitment I have been making, and my predecessor before me, and that is to continue to provide appropriate resources to meet the needs that exist in the various areas of our province. Mr. Struthers: Madam Speaker, given what is happening with the regionalization of health care decisions, will the minister make it clear to the boards that he is appointing that strengthened dialysis services to the Parkland region should form a part of the essential core services? Mr.

McCrae : I thank the honourable member for raising the issue of the development of regional boards throughout Manitoba, and I would be putting that and other issues to those boards to assist us in planning for program delivery in the various regions for the future. I see an enhanced opportunity for improvement of service delivery, not only at the acute end of health care but also in the areas of health promotion and in community programming that we can expect to see enhanced through the process of the regionalization in our province. Vehicle Safety Inspections Random Program Mr.

Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Highways. Madam Speaker, a year ago, this government ended a very successful random motor vehicle inspection program and replaced it with a private sector garage program which has numerous flaws. Now,-given that unsafe vehicles will now only be caught when vehicles are sold, and, recently, police found SO percent of vehicles checked to be unsafe, I would like to know, will the minister now look at bringing back and expanding the random government inspection program? Hon.

Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation) : Madam Speaker, we are all concerned about the safety of vehicles on the road so that persons driving them and persons approaching them are not involved in accidents due to mechanical failure. For the member's information, in the random inspection approach, about 25,000 vehicles a year were inspected. It just was not catching those that maybe we should have been catching. The current program will probably inspect about a third of the vehicles per year. Anywhere from 150,000 to 200,000 of the vehicles will be inspected. This is at time of sale.

3636 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 4, 1995 What this means is that many vehicles that might have been put up for sale are not, because they know they will not pass safety or that the cost of bringing them up to spec will be too high, so they are now off the road. That has been a statement from the industry in general, that many vehicles deemed unsafe have come off the road simply because the cost of bringing them up to spec is too high, plus the high level of inspection that is going on will definitely increase the safety of the vehicles on the road. *

(1400) Mr. Maloway : This current program is a mess and this minister knows it. There are many cases of documented abuse. Madam Speaker : Order, please. Would the honourable member for Elmwood please pose his question now? Mr . Maloway : Madam Speaker, why is it that a person can now drive a vehicle in an unsafe state for many years, and only when it is sold does it require a safety check? Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, any vehicle is subject to being spot-inspected on the road by my officials or if the RCMP decide to pull one off the road, they have the opportunity to inspect it.

That has been an ongoing process, but I caution the member, a third of the vehicles each year will be going through this process. It will catch an awful lot of the vehicles that are unsafe. Mr . Maloway : Madam Speaker, my final supplementary is to the same minister. I would like to ask the minister, should the police be using their limited resources conducting safety checks? Mr.

Findlay: Madam Speaker, both the City of Winnipeg Police and the RCMP across the province have responsibility for safety on the road in many respects, and I do believe that where there is incidence of a vehicle that is obviously in disrepair, they should take appropriate action. Whether it is a small vehicle or a large vehicle on the road, that is part of their responsibility, and various officers in both police forces are trained to do that. Health Care System Emergency Services Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster) : Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

We in the Liberal Party are quite pleased that it appears as if the strike might come to an end in emergency health care services, but this government, through this strike, has clearly demonstrated that, in fact, the patient was not their first concern, and we are disappointed in that. Now that it appears that the strike might be over, Madam Speaker, a lot of the concern that Manitobans are going to have is on the community health care hospitals and their hours of operation. I have asked this question before, and I would ask the Minister of Health to give a straightforward answer.

Is this minister going to be reducing emergency health care services in our community hospitals from 24 hours a day to 12 hours a day? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I believe what we have been doing in Manitoba right from the beginning of the efforts on our

part in government has been to put the patient first and to make the patient the focus of all health care decisions. It is not good for the patient, Madam Speaker, to have a climate in health care that is poisoned by precipitous actions of the kind recommended by the honourable member for Inkster when he suggests we force emergency doctors and pathologists back to work, when we have found that through the help of a mediator we have been able to resolve the issues. It appears we have been able to resolve the issues in a far more amicable way. -

October 4, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3637 I will tell the honourable member, as I told the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), that we will follow the direction of the mediator and that I will forthwith instruct the appropriate members of Manitoba Health in conjunction with the appropriate officials of each facility and the MMA and its members to immediately commence a full and complete review of the provision of emergency medical care. That is a position agreed upon by the Manitoba Medical Association, by MHO, by us at Manitoba Health. Mr.

Lamoureux : Madam Speaker, our community health care emergency services have been tracking referrals that have been sent over to the hospitals. I would ask the Minister of Health if, in fact, he has some form of a

summary that he would be able to share with us to indicate just what sort of an impact it has had. One would argue that you could ask those patients whether or not this particular minister had their concerns first and foremost in terms of patient care. Mr. McCrae : Madam Speaker, I have to admit that during this work stoppage, a patient waiting extended periods of time for assistance at an emergency room because the doctors decided to withdraw their services, that patient would indeed be wondering, well, who is putting my interests first?

I think that for the long term however, the outcome that we are expecting to arrive at will indeed be for the longer term best interests of the patient. The honourable member asks about information being shared with respect to our monitoring of emergency rooms, and I expect that as we go forward with the review that we have been talking about, there will be plenty of opportunity for discussion and debate and for information sharing. Mr. Lamoureux : Madam Speaker, long-term best interests of the patients are, in fact, what the Liberal Party is attempting to achieve.

I would pose the question either to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) or to the Minister of Health and put it very simply, Madam Speaker, and that is, can either minister indicate or confirm publicly to Manitobans that emergency health care services will be made available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, under a Filmon administration? Mr. McCrae : Madam Speaker, I have committed to an immediate review working with all the parties involved.

I hope the honourable member will put his demands on paper and put a carbon copy of it to the Honourable Diane Marleau, Minister of national health and welfare and the Honourable Paul Martin, Minister of Finance for Canada. Infrastructure Works Agreement Selection Criteria Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, in a memo dated February 16, 1990, from Don Leitch, the Clerk of the Executive Council, referring to decentralization of civil servants, I quote: On the last occasion when the matter was discussed at cabinet, Honourable J.

Downey brought a provincial map showing locations of decentralized operations. Please prepare a similar map using a provincial constituency map as the basis and showing the proposed decentralization moves. I will table this if you wish. My question to the Minister of Finance: Did the minister or cabinet use a provincial constituency map in this case in its decision-making process on infrastructure approvals? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance) : No, Madam Speaker. Report Tabling Re quest Mr.

Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Well, will the minister give a firm commitment to this House to provide the Legislature with a copy of the comprehensive report which he has on this program showing the distribution of money by constituency?

3638 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 4, 1995 Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance) : Madam Speaker, I will provide the member and this House with a

summary of all of the projects approved, and I believe in that

summary it shows the communities. It is not by constituency, but if the member wants to plot those communities on a constituency map, he can certainly do that. Madam Speaker, I would think by providing them with a

summary of all of the projects by communities, if they want to undertake to plot them on a provincial constituency map, they could certainly do that. Mr. Leonard Evans : Madam Speaker, will the minister acknowledge that he has this data in a computer and provide this House with any kind of analysis using constituencies, communities, infrastructure versus noninfrastructure projects? Will he at least do the courtesy to the people of Manitoba and this Legislature to make that analytical material available so that all of us can see it? Mr .

Stefanson : Madam Speaker, I have already indicated I will undertake to provide as much information on the projects, on communities, on distribution throughout the province as is available. I am certainly prepared to provide information on all of the projects, where they are located, and I will undertake to do that very soon. Winnipeg Jets/Arena MEC Proposal Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance) : While I have the floor, Madam Speaker, I took part of a question as notice last week from the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale).

He asked me to table a copy of communication between the provincial government and the Manitoba Entertainment Complex, and I am providing a copy of that letter at this time. An Honourable Member: Is there a contract with that? Mr . Stefanson : I am tabling what was asked for. *

(1410) Women 's Directorate Financial Planning Seminars Ms . Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, the fall 1995 newsletter About Women, which is published by the Manitoba Women's Directorate, devotes two of its eight pages to a book entitled Becoming the Wealthy Woman and a workshop being sponsored by the Women's Directorate, the Junior League of Winnipeg and the Royal Bank on, quote, Money Matters-The A to Z of Finances for Women Explained.

I would like to ask the Minister responsible for the Status of Women if she could explain the relevance to the many women on social assistance, the many women working for minimum wage or working only part time, of workshop topics such as Unravelling the Mysteries ofRRSPs or Financial Planning-Making Your Money Work for You. Hon.

Rosemary Vodrey (Minister responsible for the Status of Women) : Madam Speaker, the issue of economic security for women and how they plan for that economic security, how they develop that economic security was one of the No. 1 issues agreed upon by the Ministers responsible for the Status of Women at our most recent meeting in June. One of the other parts that we realized is that governments cannot do this alone, and individuals cannot do this alone.

We require partnership, so, Madam Speaker, we are very pleased to be in partnership with the groups mentioned by the member for Wellington, sponsoring a seminar which will deal with women's economic security. Madam Speaker, economic security for women, economic planning for women, is relevant to all women in Manitoba. Ms.

Barrett: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister responsible for the Status of Women how she can prioritize a workshop for women who should be able on their own to plan and develop for their economic security from the local financial advisers available throughout the communities in Manitoba rather than spending the very limited resources of this - -

October 4, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3639 province and the Women's Directorate on providing information and assistance so that the women who are at minimum wage, on social assistance and in part-time jobs can also plan and develop for their social and economic development, so that they can actually have some money so they can plan for their future. Mrs. Vodrey : Madam Speaker, as the member for Wellington knows, a number of women have not had the opportunity to interact with bankers, to understand the importance of credit ratings, to understand the importance of investing.

The member has referenced women who earn a minimum wage. Many women, Madam Speaker, are only entering into planning for themselves. In the past, many women have not done that. We recognize the economic security of women both now and for the future is one of the most important issues that we can deal with across this country, and, Madam Speaker, we are very pleased to have partnership from within our community to assist women as they look at planning for their own economic security. That is all women. Highway Maintenance/Upgrading PR391 Mr.

Gerard Jennissen (Fiin Flon) : Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Highways and Transportation. On Friday, the minister admitted that over 125 construction employees of Manitoba Highways category A2 are being laid off for the first time in history. Given the terrible conditions of many northern provincial roads, can the minister tell the House whether he will be following the recommendations of the Leaf Rapids community and make improvements on PR 391 from LeafRapids to Thompson a priority in the upcoming budget? Bon.

Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, I want to remind the member that because of weather conditions in '94 and concerns raised by the northern communities over the past winter, we did make some extraordinary considerations for the North, and in last spring's budget, in committed programs for the future, it was a 14 percent commitment to the North which was more than it has been in the past, recognizing the severe conditions they face. We will use the same process for that and every region of the province in upcoming Capital budget expenditures that we will commit to. PR373 Mr.

Gerard Jennissen (Fiin Flon) : Madam Speaker, will this minister be increasing maintenance on PR 373 this year, given the fact that poor conditions forced the closure of that road at least once last year? Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation) : Madam Speaker, the department has certain standards of maintenance it uses for every road, but it always responds to emergencies that happen, weather conditions that are unpredicted. Certainly, when there are more wet conditions than normal, the standard is raised, so they always respond to the circumstance of the road to the best of their capability.

I want to remind the member, sometimes the weather can be pretty severe in a short period of time and can make it difficult for the department to respond to the full expectation of the public, but our intention is continually to improve that expectation level. Highway Maintenance/Upgrading Northern Manitoba Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I too have a question on roads. We have been saying for quite some time that northern roads are in terrible shape.

I would like to table letters written by the minister to the federal Minister of Transport in which he states that air transport provides the vital transportation link which is denied them-this is the residents of Lynn Lake-by unreliable road conditions and actual road closures, and a further letter written by the same minister in which he

3640 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 4, 1995 indicates, and this is a quote, the undisputable fact that Lynn Lake's 322 kilometres of road access is unreliable and a further quote, that much of it is still far below provincial road standards. I have a very simple question, and it is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).

I would like to ask the Premier, given the fact that this government has not put adequate resources in place-in the past years, it has cut the northern share of roads to its lowest level-and given the fact that the amount of money that is being contributed now is still not going to bring it up to basic provincial road standards, when will the Premier step in and treat northern Manitobans fairly and give them decent road conditions? Bon.

Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation) : Madam Speaker, the federal government, in its cutback approach, is certainly going to impact many airports in the North, particularly at Lynn Lake, because of their inability likely to be able to fund the continued operation of that. The federal government is just walking away from those airports. Certainly, we recognize that the roads in the North were initially built to a pioneer standard, nothing close to the expectation level of people using those roads today.

We responded on that particular road by a gravel project of some 99 kilometres, a half-million dollars of expenditure, to bring it up along with the ongoing projects, of which there are many, that are in the committed program for '95 and '96. The expectation is we will continually elevate the standard of that road to the best of our ability, but at the same time, we do not intend to let the federal government off the hook of walking away from airport responsibilities in the North. Mr . Ashton: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary.

I would like to table a copy of a Manitoba highways map for 1995 which lists 373 and 391 as provincial roads, and since in the minister's own words, the condition of 391 is below provincial road standards, will he now do the proper thing and advise motorists of the fact that this government has not maintained those roads in an appropriate condition, perhaps, Madam Speaker, because as the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) once said, northerners do not know how to vote right? Will he come clean with Manitobans and other tourists, travellers, et cetera, and tell them just how bad the roads are in northern Manitoba? Mr .

Findlay: Well, Madam Speaker, I want to remind the member that we are here to serve all of Manitoba, as we always have been. I hear delegations from all over the province. Always they say, I want my road treated as No. 1. I have heard that so often my head spins. Madam Speaker, we will continually evaluate all the input from my staff, from communities, from municipalities, from individuals and make assessments to try to continually elevate the quality of our roads to serve the travel needs of all Manitobans. Port of Churchill Status Report Mr.

Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, my questions are also for the Minister of Highways and Transportation. During the last federal election, and we have talked about this over and over again in this House, the current government that is in power in Ottawa promised to ship one million tonnes of grain through the Port of Churchill. Instead, shipments over the past two years have been some of the lowest on record with millions of dollars lost last year and expected again this year.

I would like to ask the minister if he has had any correspondence with the federal government, what he can report to the House and whether or not six ships this year are good enough through the Port of Churchill. * (1 420) Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, we are very disappointed at the federal government's follow-up to their commitment during the 1993 election that a - -

October 4, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3641 million tonnes should go through the Port of Churchill. Since then, they have actually shipped less through there than had been in the previous years, a significant shortfall in terms of their commitment. We continue to write letters. We have meetings with federal ministers. I will meet again with the federal Minister of Transportation at the end of this month.

We continue to raise the issue of the economic importance of the bay line, the Po rt of Churchill for the grain industry, for the mineral industry, for resupplying to Keewatin, for Akjuit, for tourism, but, unfortunately, we do not see the level of action from that end that is appropriate. Certainly, the member also knows that the Wheat Board, which is responsible for moving grain out of western Canada to various markets, has a lot to say on whether grain goes through there or not; again, totally and 1 00 percent a federal jurisdiction. Churchill Airport Terminal Construction Mr.

Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, I have another question to the same minister. I would like to ask the minister what action he has taken on the broken promise of a new $7-million air terminal building at Churchill which was supposed to be built there this year. Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, in the context of the federal airport policy, which is to reduce the subsidies to northern airports over five years, effectively walk away from commitments, at least in the case of Churchill, they identified it as an isolated airport and would maintain support there.

In terms of their commitment to get on with projects that they have already committed, we continue to ask them to do it. The time has come, and I think it is important for the tourism industry, Akjuit and all the other activities there that this airport be maintained to an acceptable standard for the travelling public. NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS Standard Knitting Ltd.-Export Award Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I would ask if I can have leave to make a nonpolitical statement. Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Inkster have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] Mr.

Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, it is with great delight that I acknowledge a very prosperous business in the community which I represent, that being Standard Knitting or most people might know it as Tundra. Just the other day, they were acknowledged as one of 12 Canadian companies to receive an export award, and I think that speaks very clearly to other industries throughout the province of Manitoba that there are many opportunities to be had for those who are prepared to invest in the province of Manitoba and to sell their merchandise abroad.

I know I have had the pleasure of touring this particular facility, compliments of Domenico Sacco, who is an absolute delight. I believe this is, in fact, one company that does not have a union in it. I think that speaks positively about-it is not an anti-union saying that I am trying to talk about. I do not want anyone to misinterpret my remarks. This is nonpolitical. Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Inkster that he was recognized to make a nonpolitical statement, and I would appreciate it if he would quickly complete his remarks. Mr.

Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, the reason I make mention of that is because there is a definite positive relationship that is there, that is assisted in terms of productivity out of this particular unit. Well, I do not want the spirit of the nonpolitical Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has discussion to drop, Madam Speaker, so suffice to say I expired. give my congratulations to all the employees and the

3642 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 4, 1995 employer on a job well done in terms of representing this province. Hon . Gary Filmon (Premier): May I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement, as well, Madam Speaker? Madam Speaker: Does the honourable First Minister have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I want to join with the member for Inkster in expressing my congratulations to Standard Knitting, the makers of Tundra sweaters, as well, on their tremendous achievements.

I have been very interested in their progress ever since I met with a prospective buyer, Mr. Wang, in Hong Kong in April of 1989. At that time, Mr. Wang was interested in investing in Manitoba. He ultimately bought Standard Knitting and along with son, Michael, has been successfully operating and expanding that operation. They have invested, I believe, something in the range of $7 million over the course of the last seven years in that facility and have expanded its employment base and expanded tremendously its markets.

I mean, they have had in the past five years alone almost a 500 percent increase in their exports.

I was in New York to visit the financial community but happened to spend some time with the Canadian consul there and his staff in talking about continuing to promote Manitoba exports in their market, and they were, of course, telling me about several of the very extensive export operations from Manitoba that are featured very prominently in the New York market, one of the top fashion markets of the world, one of which is Standard Knitting, the second of which is Nygard fashions that are sold at Saks Fifth A venue in New York.

The record of the expansions and the tremendous quality of merchandise of both of those operations, both of which I believe are in the constituency of the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux }-perhaps one is in the member for The Maples' (Mr. Kowalski) constituency, but they are truly a credit to all of the members of that company, not only the management and ownership who saw the opportunity but particularly the staff that are turning out a quality product that is essentially taking away market from competitors all over the world in the biggest consumer market of the world.

So I certainly join with the member for Inkster in extending sincere congratulations to Standard Knitting. National Award-Communities in Bloom Mr . Frank Pitura (Morris): Madam Speaker, I beg leave of the House to make a nonpolitical statement. Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Morris have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] Mr .

Pitura: Madam Speaker, on September 30, the National Capital Commission played host to over 200 mayors, dignitaries, national and local government representatives, participants, organizers and sponsors at the first national awards of Communities in Bloom, Canada's beautification competition. The awards ceremony was the finale of the summer long competition with communities representing every province competing in one of four categories, one for provincial capitals and three based on population size.

Four panels of expert judges travelled tens of thousands of kilometres crisscrossing Canada to judge each participating municipality on beautification, environmental awareness and the level of participation by all levels of the community. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the town of Morris received the award in the less than 5,000 population category for most colourful tourist appeal. In capturing this award, Morris won out over seven other provinces from the Maritimes, Ontario, Quebec and the West.

While the people of Morris have always had a tremendous pride in their community and their province, this national recognition is certainly a welcome acknowledgement of their eff orts. It is with a great deal of pride that I congratulate the people of Morris on this outstanding accomplishment. Thank you. -

October 4, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3643 * (1 430) Yom Kippur Mr . Mike Radcliffe (River Heights): Madam Speaker, do I have leave of this Chamber for a nonpolitical statement? Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for River Heights have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] Mr . Radcliffe: Madam Speaker, I rise today to advise the honourable members of this Chamber that today is Yom Kippur. Yom Kippur is the most holy day of the year in the Jewish religious calendar and many of the constituents in River Heights are people of this faith.

They are joining Jewish people all over the world attending religious services today. This is the Day of Atonement where each individual reflects upon the activities of the past year and resolves to go forward into the new year. I would ask that we all join with these people and wish them best wishes for their activities in the next year. I thank you, Madam Speaker. Winnipeg Television Series , Baby & Me Mr . David Newman (Riel): On this very busy day, do I have an opportunity, Madam Speaker, to make a nonpolitical statement?

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Riel have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] Mr . Newman: I am pleased to make a statement about parenting. Today Baby & Me, a 13-week television series on parenting begins airing nationally on television. Baby & Me is made in Winnipeg, a coproduction of the Victoria General Hospital Foundation and Buffalo Gal Pi ctures. My wife and I saw the premiere of the first show on breast-feeding last night. I commend this series to all new parents and parents-to-be.

The Victoria General Hospital Foundation conducted extensive research of parents who made it loud and clear that a program like Baby & Me was definitely needed, and now. Victoria General Hospital, with their nationally recognized family birth centre and their mandate for public education and community outreach, took on the challenge. The stars of Baby & Me are real parents who candidly discuss life changes a new baby brings. Health care experts from Winnipeg and across Canada provide information and advice on topics such as colic, breast-feeding and balancing careers and parenthood.

This is an excellent example of how the public and private sectors can work in partnership to the benefit of the community as a whole. Pa rents everywhere will now be beneficiaries of the support of the generous corporate sponsors, service providers and volunteers. Baby & Me will appear seven times per week on the Women's Television Network, WTN, beginning today, and throughout Manitoba on CKY television commencing in 1996. Thank you. Committee Changes Mr . Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs.

Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) for the member for Kirkfteld Pa rk (Mr. Stefanson); the member for Emerson (Mr. Pe nner) for the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render); and the member for St Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) for the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson). Motion agreed to. OR DERS OF THE DAY Hon . Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, will you call Bills 2, 4, 6 and then the balance of the bills as listed on the Order Pa per?

3644 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 4, 19 95 DEBATE ON SECON D REA DINGS Bi11 2-The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Conse quential Amendments Act Madam Speaker: To resume debate on Bill 2 (The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Pr otection and Consequential Amendments Act;

Loi sur l'equilibre budgetaire, le remboursement de la dette et la protection des contribuables et apportant des modifications correlatives), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). An Honourable Member: Stand. Madam Speaker: Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed] Mr.

Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, I would like to take an opportunity to rise for a few minutes in the House today to speak about Bill 2, The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Pr otection and Consequential Amendments Act. I am going to try to outline some of the views especially from the rural communities in my constituency and hopefully some of the rural views on this bill that are contained throughout rural Manitoba. [interjection] As the member for Emerson (Mr.

Penner) points out, I want to try to keep my comments very positive, as I always have throughout my tenure in the Legislature and from before that. First of all, I do want to point out in as positive way as I possibly can that this Bill 2 is nothing more than a gimmick, and I want to assure the member for Emerson that that is the most positive way that I can put this. First of all, it is a gimmick because of the record of this government over the last seven years.

Over the last seven years, we have seen debts increase, we have seen deficits each year, we have seen cut-and-slash attitudes when it comes to funding programs that are needed by the people across Manitoba. We have seen deception in the forms of taxes rising and we have seen deception in forms of covering up the taxes that have actually been imposed on Manitobans. Madam Speaker, let us be clear. Nobody on the face of the earth would stand up and say that balanced budgets are not a good thing.

It is universally accepted that if you are going to be in a position of handling public accounts, the goal in your mind should be to balance budgets. I have no problem with that. My problem is that the hot air contained in Bill 2 does not in itself produce a balanced budget. I want to point out that there are jurisdictions all over the world, including in our country, where these jurisdictions do not need to have balanced budget legislation in order to balance a budget. It can be done without the legislation.

I point back in our history at different times when provincial governments and federal governments have indeed produced balanced budgets without this kind of draconian legislation. I might sound like I am blowing my own hom, but Tommy Douglas did not use balanced budget legislations and stiff penalties for his cabinet ministers to produce one balanced budget after the next in the years that he was Pr emier of Saskatchewan. What the CCF in Saskatchewan used was good, old-fashioned common sense.

They realized that money does not grow on trees; you just cannot go out and pick up a bunch of money from a tree and use it to pay off the expenses that a province has. The CCF in Saskatchewan approached their financial responsibilities with common sense and did not use this type of legislation to get the final result of balanced budgets. The budget sounds good on the surface, but in reality there is no foundation. What I want to point out is that over the last seven years we have been treated to a government who cannot run a lemonade stand without running a high deficit.

We have seen a government who cannot run a lemonade stand without a million dollar feasibility study and we have seen a government who could not run a 25-cent-a-cup lemonade stand without some type of tax break to help them out. I want to get members to think a little bit about farming these days and, in particular, farm fmancing -

October 4, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3645 and compare what happens in a farm situation with what this government is putting forth in Bill 2. Today, if someone was to start out farming, they would need a high outlay of capital at the beginning to get started. They might want to purchase some land, land these days running in the area of approximately $50,000 a quarter, depending on what the quarter

section of land is made up of, but we can assume that an average of $50,000 for a quarter of land. And we all know that you cannot farm and raise a family in a profitable way on simply a quarter

section ofland. So you are looking at a lot more than one quarter of land at $50,000 per quarter. The farmer would need to buy a tractor. Let us just say a medium-sized tractor would cost the farmer in the area of$70,000. Everybody knows that a tractor is an essential part of a successful farm operation. The farmer would also need to take his crop off, come harvest time.

The farmer would need a swather in the range of$60,000, a combine which in many cases can run upwards from $1 00,000. * (1 440) It becomes a very expensive venture, this farming business, a very expensive venture to start out with, which is one of the reasons why not very many new farmers are taking up the occupation of farming in Manitoba these days. The main point, however, is that the outlay of capital at the beginning is great. The outlay of capital at the beginning is prohibitive, in many cases, to farmers starting out. So where is the farmer going to get this money to start out with?

First of all, in the fine farming tradition in rural Manitoba, the farmer is going to look for the best deal possible. The farmer is going to go from one farm sale to the next. The farmer will go from one auction sale to the next looking for good deals, looking for the best possible deal to bring his initial outlay of capital down. If the farmer decides he is going to buy these pieces of equipment new, then he is going to go from one dealership to the next comparing what one dealership to the other is going to cost him and then opt for the best deal in terms of new equipment.

So there we have a farmer with a huge outlay of capital that he needs to make to get started in farming. Where is he going to get the money from? Well, there are some farmers who are fortunate enough to inherit this equipment from one generation to the next. There are those farmers who inherit the equipment and the land already. Now these farmers, No. I, are few and far between. These farmers may be fortunate enough that they do not have to come up with this outlay of capital at the beginning of their farm operation.

Another option, I suppose, could be to approach the government for some type of start-up funds that one government from time to time has come up with to start out younger farmers on their way to becoming full time, permanent farming families in the rural parts of our province. That is always an option. But of course the majority of farmers do not inherit money. The majority of farmers cannot get started solely on the basis of one government program or another. The vast majority offarmers needs to take out loans, usually sustaining high levels of interest, but they need to take out loans to get started.

So what we have in the province right now is the majority of farmers who have incurred some sort of debt at the beginning of their farm career and now are out in rural Manitoba farming away, providing the food that we eat on our tables all across the province. Could these farmers have started out if they had not had the availability of loans to get started in their farming operations? I further ask, would these farmers, if they had to live under the conditions of Bill 2, have been able to get started in the first place?

I propose to those listening in the Legislature that farmers would not have been able to get started if they had to live under the rules set out in Bill 2, the balanced budget legislation that we are debating these days here in the Legislature.

3646 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 4, 1995 So right from the beginning, we can see that the provisions of Bill 2 are in fact counterproductive to what should be the fine objectives of providing employment through agriculture in our province. I want to also point out that even on a year-to-year basis, farmers need the loans in order to get the crops into the field, in many cases, to buy fertilizer and chemicals and the seed and granaries in which to store them and the final harvested grain that they take off the fields.

Each year, from year to year, farmers begin their operations by taking out a loan once again. This is separate from the large capital expense that they have put out in equipment and machinery at the beginning. Again, I would suggest that if the elements of Bill 2 were somehow included, if the farmer had to live by the rules of Bill 2, every year he would not be able to, or many farmers would not be able to, put the crops into the field. It is an investment. Farm communities, farmers understand what the word "investment" means. They understand what it takes in order to have a successful, prosperous farm operation.

Those same principles should apply to those of us in the Legislature. Those same principles should apply to the government. I want to talk, as well, about another example in which the proposals contained within Bill 2 would not make any sense. I have heard people from the government side of this House today, recently, during the last provincial election, even before the last provincial election, speak of how a family must balance its budget, implying that somehow the family would disintegrate or break up if they did not have a balanced budget.

Well, Madam Speaker, I would submit that, again, any Manitoba family would prefer to have its books balanced. They would prefer not to owe any money, but, if families did not, from time to time, take out some form of manageable debt, they would not survive either. Very obviously, a family needs a place to live. Families quite often will buy a home. Families very often will have to take out a loan to buy this home. I myself have a mortgage. Now where would families live if they could not have the option of taking out a loan and taking a mortgage out in order to buy a house?

Should not the same principles that we are talking about in terms of family apply to Bill 2? I would submit again that if families throughout the province had to live according to the proposals within Bill 2, the family situations across our province would be very grave indeed. Madam Speaker, families in our province, from time to time, need to buy cars. I know for myself, I could not just walk into a bank, slap down a cheque for a car of any kind, not even an inexpensive one, without taking on some kind of debt.

I would have a plan to pay off that debt, and I would not take on a debt that is much too far out of my possibility of ever paying it off. That is what we have got right now. It may be that I need my car in order to find employment, in order to maintain my employment. That becomes an investment, so the loan that I take to buy a car becomes an investment in order for me to get a job and to maintain that job. That investment or that debt enables me to be a productive citizen of Manitoba's society.

Now if l had to live within the proposals here on Bill 2, I would not be able to take on that debt for a car and become a productive citizen of Manitoba. Let us talk about investment families make in education. Some families have an opportunity to put money away over a period of time so that their sons and daughters can use that money, access that money at some point to go to some level of post-secondary education, college, university, whatever. Some families can do that.

I submit that there are not a lot of families, however, in a position where they can take a lot of their cash on a monthly basis and put it towards a child's education throughout that child's life. What we have to remember is that we represent all the people of the province of Manitoba, not just those who can aff ord to put money away for their children's education. * (1 450) Now these are the kinds of things that families deal with on a day-to-day basis: education, transportation, housing, the very basic needs, food, heat, all that sort of thing.

How is a family going to raise money in order to maintain the basics of life and also have a little fun while they are doing it? Well, again, a family could inherit a lot of money. Not many families in Manitoba inherit big potfuls of money which would sustain them -

October 4, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3647 for the rest of their lives. Those are the kind of people, though, that this Bill 2 is designed to protect. The vast majority offamilies in this country and certainly within this province are more in the stage of providing this investment on their own. Most families do not have silver spoons in their mouths; most families do not have the luxury of inheriting potfuls of money; most families have to try to survive month to month, and those are the people that I think MLAs in this Legislature should be standing and supporting. How else could a family raise money?

Maybe they could win a lottery? Well, there are not too many in this province who end up with bank accounts full of lottery money. Maybe the members across the way would suggest that they should pump loonies into VLTs and maybe, in that way, they will win enough money to send their kids to school or to buy a house or to buy a car, because this bill, if it would apply to families, would not allow families to incur some sort of small, manageable debt that they could use in order to invest in the family and the children of the family.

Maybe another suggestion would be that the people within the family should get second jobs. Maybe they could send grandmother out to work with the City of Winnipeg or they can send the youngest daughter out on paper routes. Maybe those are ideas that the government finds acceptable. Maybe we can put the children to work. That is also something that would be acceptable underneath the rules ofBill 2. That leaves one more-just a quick brainstorming here-avenue open for any family in Manitoba, and that is to take out a loan. It happens all the time. It is a daily occurrence.

Families take out loans for one reason or for another. Under Bi11 2, this government is trying to tell us that families should not do that. Well, I think it is perfectly acceptable for a family to invest in itself and I also think it is perfectly acceptable for this government to invest in the people of Manitoba. The provisions of Bill 2 will curb the ability of this government to do just that. The last specific example that I want fellow MLAs to think about as we consider Bill 2 is the plight of students.

Young people all across this province who graduate from school based on their hard work, if they want to go on to the post-secondary level, many of them find that one of the barriers is the high cost of post-secondary education. So right off the bat, the student has a choice to make: Do I want to go to school and pay that kind of money or do I want to take the chances of not going to school and not having to pay the high tuition, the high cost of books and, specifically for rural families, the high cost of room and board as you send your sons and daughters from rural Manitoba into the city?

Now, how are the students going to raise this kind of money in order to invest in their future and become contributing members of Manitoba's society? Well, again, maybe that student is lucky enough to inherit a bunch of money from a rich uncle someplace, or another good possibility is to marry into money. Maybe a student can find some money for education doing that. How many students across this province, though, to speak in terms of reality, are fortunate enough to inherit that kind of money? I would suggest very few are in that sort of position today in Manitoba.

Again they could play the lotteries, they could play VL Ts. Chances are though they are not going to win. Chances are they are not going to get enough money in order to afford to go to university, and chances are they are not going to find a summer job in which they can actually pay for their universities. Again we are left with one more possibility and that is the possibility of getting a loan in order to pay for education.

Again under Bill 2, if Bill 2 and the propositions involved in Bill 2 were applied to university students, then what would happen was that you would see a very drastic cut in the number of students going to university as, I would suggest, we have seen in recent times. I want to take a moment, Madam Speaker, to address the referendum

section of Bill 2, and I want it made perfectly clear that this is the part ofBil1 2 that protects those in Manitoba society who already have it made. This is the part, I think, ofBill 2 that protects the rich. In the bill, referendums are required if the government wants to increase the income tax, the corporate tax, the sales tax and the payroll tax. I want each and everybody here to realize that that is a

3648 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 4, 1995 protection of the people in society who already have a lot of money. It leaves the door wide open for attacks on the middle-income group and the group in the low income strata of Manitoba society. In the reading that I have done on Bill 2, I came across a tax lawyer who indicated that the loopholes for wealthy people that are found in Bill 2 are wide enough to drive a truck through, and as this truck goes through the loopholes, he aims at the lower-and middle-income earners in this province and runs them down.

Bill 2 leaves the door wide open to broadening further the base of the provincial sales tax, something that this government has already accomplished in its 1992 budget. It is bad enough that we have a 7 percent provincial sales tax; it is even worse that the Conserva tive government would broaden that tax to include baby's clothing and books and other things in society. That is a very sneaky, underhanded way of raising taxes.

Bill 2 leaves wide open, as well, the possibility of new taxes which would not require a ref erendum according to this legislation, this Bill 2. * (1 500) Another area that I am concerned with is that Bill 2 says nothing about the elimination of property tax credits. This is something that has already been done by this government. It has already been reduced once, I believe, in the budget of 1992. It was sneakily called a cut rather than being called what it was and that was an increase in taxes. People's taxes increased as a result of the action of this government with property tax credits .

Bill 2 does not say that the government cannot do that again. There is still room for this government to eliminate or further reduce the property tax credit from where it is now. So that is why I claim that this bill is nothing more than a gimmick. It is good window dre ssing, but when you look right into the bill and what it can and cannot allow this government to do, it becomes a sham.

Another part of the bill that I have some concerns with and I have been approached by many of my constituents on is the ability that Bill 2 gives for this government to use Crown corporati ons, specifically the selling of Crown corpora tions, to balance the budgets. I have to ask the question, how honest is this? We have in this province assets. We have some assets that are actually worth something. We have assets in this province that belong to all the people of Manitoba.

When a child is born, it has been suggested that automatically as they are born they have a certain amount of debt attached to them, but it makes sense and it is logical to assume that that same child has a certain amount, a certain number of assets, prov incially owned, that they are born with as well. It is not fair just to suggest that that child, when he or she is born, only has the debt, because it is an absolute fact that they do have assets that they are born with as well.

It is also not fair for this government to come along, take those assets from that child, sell them off and use those assets to try and balance the budget. I want to make as a specific example, Madam Speaker. I want to talk-[interjection] Permanent depre ssion is a result of cuts to Brandon Mental Health Centre, not what the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) is talking about. I want to specifically talk for a minute about one of these Crown corpora tions, one of the assets that each child is born into Manitoba with, and that is the Manitoba Telephone System.

Now, what we have seen over the past short period of time is a splitting into four of Manitoba Telephone System. My worry is that that makes the whole corpora tion easier to sell. For me, I am worried that it also makes parts of the corporation easier to sell. The other concern that I have is that the balanced budget legislation that is being proposed here puts governments, even this one, into a str aitjacket, not allowing us to invest in some of the things in our prov ince that have paid off over the long run, like the floodway.

Think of how many millions of dollars the government in the '60s saved Manitoba over the long haul in flood claims. Think of all the money we saved -

October 4, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3649 by investing some money at the front end. This government is saying that no future government should have that option available to it. It is a straitjacket. I want to touch a little bit on the amount of trust and accountability involved in Bill 2. I want to point out that maybe, Madam Speaker, it is necessary that this government have some kind of legislation contro lling itself because it certa inly does not appear to be able to do it on its own.

It was quite amazing, I think, to people of Manitoba when they realized that the same government that talks a lot about fiscal respons ibility had a $762-million deficit one year, the highest in the province's history, but what we find out later is that that was not even the worst of it; a year later, they had an $8 1 9-million deficit. That is what you added to the debt. What did you tell the people of Manitoba? Well, you told the people of Manitoba that year you had a $330.5- million debt. Oops!

It takes the Provincial Auditor to step in and tell the truth on the reporting of your own deficits, so maybe you do need this legislation to control yourselves, but I would suggest that most governments would not need this kind of straitjacket. As I think of the material that I have read having to do with the balanced budget legislation and this government's fiscal perf ormance, headlines jump out at me that suggest that Tories flunked math test, that Tories came out with an $8 1 9-million deficit one year and reported $330 million.

What kind of trust can the people of Manitoba put in the financial integrity of a government that would do that? Budget fantasy is another headline that pops out from the pages that I have read. Members of the government, former members of the government themselves have called into question the accounting practi ses of this government. Does it make sense or is it acceptable for a government to drain the Lotteries surpluses and use that to bring down the deficit? Is that acceptable? Are those acceptable accounting prac tices? I do not think so.

The Provincial Auditor does not think so, but this legislation, Bill 2, allows the Finance minister to do pretty much anything he likes to produce a balanced budget. That is in the area of honesty and trustwort hiness. What about another angle here? Where does this balanced budget leave health care? Well, I can speak fr om recent actions of this government in which the health care of Dauphin has been absolutely negatively impacted by cuts that were made by this government. Madam Speaker, $1. 4 million has been cut this year fr om last year out of the budget of the Dauphin Regional Health Centre .

Now, that is without this kind of draconian legislation. What is going to happen in years down the road when the pressure is really on this government, when the federal transf er payments do start to kick in and bite, and they are going to be massive, we know that. What is going to happen to health care when the choice of this government and particularly this cabinet is between funding health care or getting their own salaries reduced by 20 or 40 percent? I think that spells tough times in the area of health care. What about education? We have seen cuts again in education this year.

We have seen that without this legislation being in place even today. What is going to happen when this legislation comes in and starts to force even more and massive cuts to our public schools? Madam Speaker, it reminds me of a farmer who has a pig. This pig is a grand champion at all the fairs in the area. The pig is famous. He is in all the newspapers and on television and radio. The far mer is interviewed because his pig is such a good one. * (1510 ) When somebody came out to see this pig at the farm, there he was living a glorious lif e in a pigpen. He is well fed and watered . He is safe. He is secure.

He has got everything he wants, everything that a pig would want. He has only got three legs though. Somebody asks the far mer, why does this pig only have three legs? The farmer gave much the answer that I think this government would give: Why eat him all at once? That is what is happening in education, in health care. You are taking apart different departments one leg at a time. My worry is that what is going to

3650 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 4, 1995 happen-my worry about this legislation is that once it is in place we are going to start taking apart every department of the Manitoba government one piece at a time, much like the way the farmer was taking the pig apart. I think what we have to do is look long term as opposed to short term. This balanced budget legislation, Bill 2, is very much a short-term, knee-jerJc reaction to what has been happening across Canada and throughout the world.

When we lose millions of dollars in transfers from the federal government in the upcoming years, what is going to be the reaction of this government? What is going to be the reaction of the government in terms of child poverty? Will this government then turn and look at some long-term eff ective ways to battle child poverty? It does not do it now, and there is no legislation here.

Child poverty does not rate highly on the priority list of this government now, so when they are faced with the provisions of Bill 2, I would suspect the child poverty and any kinds of programs designed to help reduce the poverty, any program that would at least take us off the front of the parade when it comes to provincial provinces and their records on child poverty, I would suspect that this legislation will be very negative in terms of any kind of long-term strategy in fighting child poverty.

I also wanted to express my worry in terms of a government who would fund the losses of a hockey team, and we are stuck with those for the next year, if this legislation is put in place. We already have a government reluctant to fund to an acceptable level areas of health care and education and other areas, notwithstanding the amount of money we are going to put in to a hockey team in this province. I think that the government is absolutely abdicating its responsibilities.

Just to wrap up, I want to encourage this government to learn from the past, learn from governments who have balanced budgets without this kind of legislation. I want them to learn from the Californias of the world where this legislation has caused deep concerns, and I want this government to use a little bit of common sense when it comes to the financial management of this province's debt and deficits and expenditures and revenues. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Ms.

Rosan o Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to put a few comments on the record with respect to Bill 2, the balanced budget legislation. I would like to speak in the context of this government's record on balanced budget and budget performance over the past few years. I would also like to speak about the impacts of this legislation and also some of the myths that are out there about what this legislation will do. Madam Speaker, we believe that when you look at this legislation, we have to look at it in the context of how we run our family finances.

If we really, really look at this, all of us would like to balance our budgets every year, but in actual fact that is not a reality and it cannot happen. If we were to do our day-to-day business in that way, many people would never have the ability to own a home or to get an education or, within the farming community, buy a farm and invest in it, within the fishing community, major investments that have to be made and all of those things. If this legislation was applied, we believe it would be so restrictive that families would not be able to function.

So, Madam Speaker, as I say, we believe that to work towards the goal of a balanced budget is a good goal to work towards, but there has to be a realistic understanding that it cannot always happen. Under this legislation, a poor family would never be able to make progress, and really it would only be the rich families who would be able to, without borrowing, buy a home, because in actual fact very few of us who sit in this House have the ability to buy a home with cash up front or buy a car or any of those things.

We have to be able to borrow and take out a mortgage, whether it be on a home or on our land, and spread that debt over many years. For farmers to be able to buy a combine, which is a major piece of equipment right now, if you wanted to buy a new combine, you would be looking at somewhere between the range of -

October 4, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 365 1 $1 00,000 to $1 50,000. Now that is a tremendous amount of money and considering where the farm economy is right now and considering the blows that the farming community has taken from the federal government with respect to the removal of the Crow benefit and other support programs, certainly farmers are under additional hardship. But even in a very good year it would be beyond most farmers' wildest dreams to be able to purchase a piece of equipment like that without financing, without spreading the cost over a few years, over many years, in fact.

This legislation if applied to a family farm would restrict them completely from growing in their field of employment. Very few farmers would be able to pay for their children's college education under this. I know there are many people in this Legislature whose children are just coming to the age of entering university and some who have already put their children through university, and the majority of us would not have been able to do that, to support our children, if we had to pay for it within the one-year budget.

Without being able to borrow money and spread the costs over many years, it would be again, Madam Speaker, the wealthy who would be able to provide their children with an education. Under this legislation it would only be the wealthy who would be able to continue their growth and prosperity and anybody from lower-income families under this legislation would not have the ability to finance various things that they need in order to improve their economic situation. The Tories claim that this bill will put economic growth on a sound footing and protect taxpayers. We, as New Democrats, disagree.

We believe that this is very unbalanced legislation, and it will endanger the economy and close the doors on a positive government action. It is also full of gimmicks and tricks that will allow the government to take advantage of taxpayers rather than protecting them. There are some myths in this legislation that I would like to address, in particular the myth that since you balance your budget every year, why should not the government. Well, as I had indicated earlier, Madam Speaker, in actual fact very few people do balance their budgetevery year, very few people.

You can have a budget all set up and have things well planned out and then it may happen that you just have to buy a new car. If that is not within your budget, does that mean for that year you do not drive a car because you cannot balance it anymore? Mr . Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): You have to do it every so often. Ms. Wowcbuk: Certainly. The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says you have to do it every so often, and I agree, every so often, but that is long-range planning. You should not be restricting it to each year that there has to be a balance.

I guess that is where I commend the Saskatchewan government in their legislation in that they have at least looked at long range planning and they are balancing their budget over a four-year period, and that gives some room for flexibility to carry over things. * (15 20) This particular legislation, Madam Speaker, is very Draconian. If it applied to a household, certainly the average family would not be able to buy a car and pay for it in one year, so they would be out of luck under this legislation.

I am in that situation, and I know the majority of the people that are on this side of the House are in that same boat where they would not be able to buy a car. There are many other people outside, and people in the farming community, as I have indicated, would have great difficulty under this legislation. Again, the only people who would be able to go to university would be those who do not need a student loan, and when we look at ourselves within this House and look at people in our community, there are many who would not be able to operate, not send their children to university.

The majority of us would not be able to buy a house unless they were able to pay for it in cash. Now if people were not able to buy houses, what would this do to the whole economy of the province? What would happen to the construction industry? What would happen to our unemployment rates? They are high

3652 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 4, 1995 enough as it is, Madam Speaker, and we would end up seeing our unemployment rates go higher. I referred to farmers. Farmers would not be able to operate nor would fishermen. Now I think about the logging industry and the people within the Swan River Valley right now, many who are hoping to get jobs in the forestry industry with the harvesting of wood.

Again, if this kind of legislation was applied to the people who are hoping to invest in logging equipment or trucks, they would not be able to participate or have the opportunity to take any of those jobs, because this legislation, if applied to them, would deter them from investing. No one would ever invest in their future under this pay-as-you-go approach. This would be impossible for the average person to live with. The other myth that we hear about this legislation is that this balanced budget legislation will protect taxpayers from greedy governments by requiring a referendum before taxes are raised.

Well in fact, Madam Speaker, there are many, many loopholes in this legislation that will allow the government to raise money without holding a referendum. In fact, we could see property tax credits reduced without a referendum. You could see user fees applied to various administrations, something we have seen under this administration already, but we would see more of that. We would not see protection from that under this legislation. We could see the goods and services tax applied by this provincial government.

We could see the sales tax spread over an even broader base than this government has done in previous years. Again, those taxes could be raised without this government holding a referendum. So to say that the taxpayer is going to be protected from increased taxes is an untruth, Madam Speaker, because if this legislation passes, there are many loopholes that would allow the Finance minister to change the level of taxes, broaden the base. In fact, these taxes would hit most hard on low- and middle income people while the government could end up giving great tax loopholes to corporations.

The other myth, Madam Speaker, is the idea that cabinet ministers will act responsibly because, with this legislation, if they do not balance the budget, they will lose a salary. I think we could see the ministers actually punishing the poor and cutting programs in order to keep their budget in line just so they would not lose their salaries. (Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) The only way, for example, that the Family Services minister could protect him or herself from a salary cut would be to reduce welfare rates. Those are the dangers that are in this legislation.

There is no way to ensure that, in order to balance the budget, the average person is not going to be hurt. The ministers would have the ability to cut whatever they had to out of their budget in order to protect their own salary. I look at the Department of Agriculture. If it were the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) who wanted to underspend, you have to question: What kind of programs would we see cut?

Would those support programs that have just been announced by the Minister of Agriculture to help to diversify the agricultural community, value-added jobs, would those programs have to be cut in order to save the minister's salary? Mr. Acting Speaker, I feel that it is a myth under this legislation that the ministers would be held responsible because their salary would be reduced. To save face and to save their salary, they would reduce whatever they had to within that budget. It would be the poor and low-income people who are going to be the ones that would suffer.

The other things we hear is that it is tough medicine, but balanced budgets in every year are essential for a healthy economy in the province. Balanced budgets sound like a good idea, but in reality it is not a new idea. It is a very old idea, and we have seen attempts at this practice before. Throughout the century, there have been politicians who have attempted to balance budgets. When we look back, during the recession, there was a Premier by the name of John Bracken who made balanced budgets his highest priority. During that time, we had the depression and high unemployment extended for more than eight years.

We saw work camps. We saw the -

October 4, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3653 economy of the province just driven right down, so here we have a prime example. At a time when the government should have been investing in the economy during the depr ession, trying to get the economy going-there was a real opportunity for the government to get out-the priority of the Pr emier at the time was to balance the budget and in actual fact drove the province into a very serious recession, a prolonged rece ssion. We have to be prepared to invest in our province.

We have to be prepared to invest in the future of our children, and there are times when government has to do those kinds of things. The myth that if we do not balance our budget every year, we will leave our children with a crushing debt is also an untruth, because there have been examples where Pr emiers have had the foresight to take the steps, to make investments in this prov ince. The investments have paid off. There is nothing wrong with borrowing money and investing wisely and laying a foundation for a secure and cross-productive future . During the Second World War we saw examples of this.

During the Second World War, we saw where a Premier, Doug Campbell, put the province on a pay-as-you-go basis. Little was spent on schools and on hospitals, very little was spent on infrastructure . By the time the 19 50s came around we saw that there were real problems. Certainly there was a Premier from the Conservative Party, Premier Duff Roblin, who did have a vision and he was prepared to invest. One of his investments was the floodway. He was prepared not only to invest in the floodway, but Mr. Roblin said, who can say what the monetary cost is of not building roads and schools and hospitals?

His government was prep ared. There was a Conservative who did not need to bring in balanced budget legislation because no government needs balanced budget legislation. If the government has the will to balance the budget, they will do it without legislation, but I digr ess, Mr. Acting Speaker. I was ref erring to a Conservative Premier who was prepared to invest and take out long terms loans. He started the process of building roads and schools and hospitals, and cert ainly he invested in the Winnipeg floodway, which cost a tremendous amount of money at the time.

He was prepared to invest, just as Premier Schreyer in his day was prepared to invest, in the health and welfare of this pro vince. * (1 530) There are still marks of the work that was done under Pre mier Schreyer, but unfortunately actions taken by this government are destroying the healthy economy that we had, the investments that were made in schools and in hospitals under prev ious Pr emiers, such as Premier Schreyer, are being destroyed by this government. We are seeing our health care system gutted by this government.

We are seeing our education system progr essing to a system where it is, again, only the wealthy who will get an education. This legislation will not addre ss the needs of our young people. This legislation will not maintain Manitoba as a wealthy place where our young people can continue to live and prosper. This legislation will restrict all of those things, Mr. Acting Speaker. I think that when this government talks about balanced budget legislation, they should really look at their record because I think that their record is in fact very poor.

This government had many opportunities to bring in a balanced budget if they so chose without this legislation. Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to quote from the Crow Wing Warrior from Morris, Manitoba, certainly not a place that has strong supporters of-[interjection] A hotbed of socialists, as my colleague says. A very strong Conservative area, but in this arti cle it says, and I quote: It took the Filmon government seven years to finally get around to the balanced budget and legislation to ensure such budgets.

During those years, the Filmon government ran deficits including the all time record deficit of $745 million in 1992-93 . In fact the Filmon government once had the golden oppor tunity to give Manitobans a balanced budget a long time ago when the Fiscal Stabilization Fund or rainy day fund was creat ed. During the initial years of the Filmon government, they turned away from balanced budget in favour of running a deficit.

3654 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 4, 1995 Where was this idea of balanced budget legislation? I have to think, Mr. Acting Speaker, that this somehow came about just to have some idea before an election, and it sounded good. I go on: The Filmon government used what would have been a surplus to create a rainy day fund. The deficit was run in order to make up for the surplus used to create the fund. One line that Premier Film on likes to use is that New Democratic Parties and Liberals voted against his government's balanced budget legislation last March prior to the election.

Film on tries to create the illusion that the opposition are nothing more than free wheeling, tax-and-spend politicians. That is amazing considering the Premier was responsible for the all-time record deficit of $745 million. As Leader of the Opposition, Gary Filmon stood in the Legislature to vote against the budget that would have provided the province with a surplus of $58 million. A surplus, imagine that. This Conservative government when they were in opposition voted against the budget that would have had a surplus. Hypocrisy at its finest.

In 1988 NDP Finance Minister Eugene Kostyra tabled what would have been a balanced budget according to the Provincial Auditor's office. Mr. Filmon and his Conservatives stood against a balanced budget and now they are bringing in legislation because it sounds good. In today's day, it sounds good, but in actual fact, Mr. Acting Speaker, although it sounds good there are more loopholes in this legislation to raise taxes than this government will admit, and this legislation that they are proposing is very draconian and will hurt the poorest of the poor in this province.

And I go on with this article: And what of the balanced budget Premier Filmon and Mr. Stefanson have? It is full of leaks, this editor says, a balanced budget, a rare infusion of $14 5 million from the federal government as part of a readjustment to transfer payments, a balanced budget which does not account for the coming cuts totalling $245 million, thanks to the same federal government. A balanced budget from a government depending on $230 million to be made off gambling in this year-$230 million from gambling, that is what this government proposes to balance their budget with, Mr. Acting Speaker.

As the Filmon government prepares to pass their balanced budget legislation they should keep in mind one thing: The serious flaws in the March budget are so bad Premier Filmon and his cabinet ministers might all be $20,000 short in their pocket.

As I say, this is taken from a paper in Morris, Manitoba, people who are strong supporters of the Conservative government, but even those people who are strong supporters of this government are being very critical of this government for creating-[interjection] No, the people are being very critical of this, the editor, but I am surprised that government members and the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura) who has read this editorial, I am sure, has not stood up and put his comments on the record as to the views of his constituents with respect to this legislation. So, Mr.

Acting Speaker, there are very serious concerns with this legislation, and I think that this legislation will cause a downturn in our economy. If this legislation were to apply to a family, families would not be able to function, and I think that there are many myths. This was legislation that the government brought forward bef ore the election because it sounded good. The government should, if they are bringing this kind of legislation forward, be looking at- Mr.

Acting Speaker, I would hope that the government would reconsider what they are bringing in in this legislation, because I feel that it will have very negative effects. If we were to apply the same kind of legislation to our family operations, it could not work. It would be impossible for families to function. A farming family could not function- The Ac tin g Speaker (Mr. McAlp ine) : Order, please. The Chair has recognized the honourable member for Swan River. Those members who wish to indulge in conversation would do so outside the House or in the loge.

I will continue to recognize the member for Swan River to continue with her remarks and ask members to give her that time to have her say. Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker. If this legislation were to apply to a family, Mr. Acting Speaker, and a family got into a serious fmancial situation, it would result in them having to sell off their assets to pay off their bills. We do not want to -

October 4, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3655 see governments having to sell off their assets to pay off the deficit, and we do not see how this can work. * (1 540) We saw in 1994, this government sold McKenzie Seeds, a money-making Crown corporation, and manipulated that sale so that the proceeds could be put into the 1995-96 expenditures. We see them create slush funds. So, Mr. Acting Speaker, with those few comments, I want to say that I have serious concerns, as our party does, with this balanced budget legislation. If we were to apply this to a family situation, it would not work.

I also feel very strongly that if the government has the political will to balance budgets, if that is their political will, they can do it without legislation. There is no need. They can operate. Just as this government has the ability to run up debts right now when they want to support the Jets, they can run up that debt. If they have the will to pay off, to balance the budget and have a good record, they can do it. It has been done. The government should take a look at the examples of previous NDP governments. Look back at the governments that were in Saskatchewan.

Look back at what Roy Romanow did in writing down the debt created by Grant Devine. He did not have balanced budget legislation, but they had the political will to treat people humanely and also address the concerns of debt that was created by Conservatives. This government has run up great debts, and they have that ability. There are ways to do it humanely and treat people well without cutting back on hospitals, without destroying the education system and without putting a burden on the poorest of the poor in society. They have that ability to do that, Mr.

Acting Speaker, without legislation, but it takes political will. Unfortunately, this government has a very narrow vision. They do not have the vision that previous premiers had, such as Premier Schreyer and Premier Duf f Roblin, just for a comparison of both. Those premiers saw that it was important that you invest and you make long-term investments for the future of this province. That is not what we have seen when we listen to what the government has done with roads in areas where people do not vote right, according to some of them. We see that this government does not have the will, and I believe, Mr.

Acting Speaker, that even with this legislation we will not see-with this legislation, if it passes without amendments, we will see a deterioration in the quality of life of people in rural Manitoba, in all of Manitoba. We will see the poor and the middle-income people suffering even more than they are. We will see the wealthy prospering because it will be the wealthy that we will see loopholes created for, and it will be on the poor that we will see the government expand their tax base on, which they will be able to do without a ref erendum.

We will see the programs cut because ministers who are going to be losing $20,000 of their salary are going to make all the cuts they have to to ensure that they are not the ones that suffer, and it will be the poor that will suffer. We will see social programs cut. We will see education cuts, and we will see health care cuts. There is a much better way to do this. The government does not need this legislation.

What they need is the will, and I hope the government will recognize that they have many opportunities to create a better life for people in Manitoba rather than increasing taxes and cutting back on services, as we have seen under this government. Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker. Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr.

Acting Speaker, it is with some trepidation that I rise today to address this subject simply because of many of the things that the opposition members have said about this legislation, and in my view the complete lack of understanding of how government should function, how the business community functions and how business principles can be and should be applied to the operation of government as well as any other economic activity that is viable over the long term. For that reason, I cannot help but reflect over the past since the time that I started in business myself, into the business of farming.

Some of the things that the member for Swan River has stated in her remarks just now caused me some great concern, because I know that she and her husband also farm in the Swan River

3656 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 4, 1995 area, and she left the impression, as a number of the opposition members have from time to time, that government would be restrained from taking positive initiatives to address periodically situations of economic concern, whether they be child poverty, whether they be health care issues, whether they be transportation initiatives, infrastructure initiatives and those kinds of things.

The reason I say it appears that there is a complete lack of understanding about business principles is something that I think has been prevalent in the socialist ranks ever since they took government and became a party of some consequence in this province and I think when we go back as far as the Schreyer administration demonstrated clearly their lack of understanding on how you should apply those economic principles in the operation of government.

I remember well, and it is some 20 years ago, when many, many people in this province, and most of those comments were generated by then-members of the Legislature, said that governments should not really worry about borrowing money, because principals really did not have to be repaid. A lot of the economists of the day at the time said something similar. They said it was silly to apply taxation to buy down the debt. In other words you could keep on borrowing and borrowing and borrowing, and that is true, Mr. Acting Speaker.

That is true if you are willing to apply under the same principles increased taxation and increased taxation and increased taxation in order to maintain your revenues to offset your deficit. Now, they certainly were masters at applying those increases on a regular basis, because they certainly did borrow unendingly, even though their revenues increased very dramatically in some years and they had surpluses generated during those years, but did they apply the principles of true business to government? No.

That is what concerns me about the remarks that the honourable member for Swan River made and many remarks that opposition members have made in this debate. (Madam Speaker in the Chair) It demonstrates clearly a lack of understanding of what this legislation will and should do. There are no restrictions, Madam Speaker, on borrowing in this legislation.

Government can borrow if they can demonstrate that at the end of the day they can raise enough revenue to offset the borrowing, the same as any farmer or any businessman or anybody else can from time to time. * (155 0) It appears to me that the reason we really need this legislation, Madam Speaker, is to guard against the ruthless, unprincipled, unmanaged governments that we have seen in the past.

I would suggest to members opposite that had they truly applied business principles to the operation of government some 20 years ago when they ran very significant surpluses, and the government of the day, of course, made every attempt to spend every dollar they could to make sure that all the money was spent instead of putting some of this money into a rainy-day fund or a bank account or as you and I would call it, Madam Speaker, a savings account so that when revenues in fact fall, as we all know they do once in a while, you could write a cheque on your savings account and at the end of the day balance your books.

The lack of the knowledge and understanding of those business principles cause us now to have to introduce legislation that will put a great deal of liability on those politicians that are now espousing we do not need this legislation, that when they want to change this kind of legislation to follow their archaic principles of economics that would cause them to have to go before the public in a referendum to make major changes to this kind of legislation- therefore, Madam Speaker, this legislation should stand loud and tall.

This is why people in all parts of Manitoba support this kind of legislation because they want some fonn of law to be applied to those ruthless spenders on the other side of the House. We have heard nothing but, nothing but saying, spend more, spend more, spend more. In other words, bring on the Binx truck, the Brink's truck-sorry about that, Mr. Clerk, I did not mean to use your name in vain. -

October 4, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 3657 I say to you that I really do believe that the Brink's truck is something that the honourable members opposite, when they were in government, used far too often. They unloaded at the backdoor without having any recognition of the need to put some in the front door from time to time to ensure that next time there would be something to unload. So, Madam Speaker, I would suggest this whole matter of legislation before us is as simple as running my farm. When my wife, Dora, and I first got married we really did not have any money.

We did not have any land, but we did want a farm. See, we did want a farm. This is what the honourable members opposite do not understand. We went to the bank. We said to the bank, you know, in order for us to be able to make a living for the two of us, in order for us to build a base, to raise a family, we asked them whether they could borrow some money. You know what the banker said?

The banker said, well, if you can demonstrate to me that over a 20-year period you can raise enough money off of that farm and earn enough on that farm to repay not only the principal but also the interest and are able to demonstrate that you can make your living off of it at the same time, I would consider borrowing you some money. You know what, Madam Speaker, that principle is enshrined in this legislation. That is exactly what this legislation said, that in order for a government to spend more in any given year you have to go back to the banker. You know who the banker is? The people of Manitoba.

You have to ask the banker whether they are willing to put more money into your operation, so the monies that need to be raised need to come from the people that are going to pay the bill at the end. This legisla tion clearly states that in order for politicians to make promises to constituents during elections on education, on health care, on child care, on highways, on anything else, they better ask their banker. Some Honourable Members : Oh, oh. Madam Speaker : Order, please. Mr.

Penner: I really did not want to excite the honourable members opposite to the point of them standing in the aisle and wanting to sort of raise the roof. I know we have a light shining from above and that really reminds me, Madam Speaker-and I know that we are not allowed to bring exhibits into the room, and I really do not want to, but this whole issue of balanced budgets and the reasons for this legislation bring me back to a principle that is age, age old. It really got me to thinking about an apple, a nice, shiny, red apple. By the way, this apple was grown in Winnipeg. It is a Manitoba-grown apple.

Madam Speaker, I am going to put the apple away, but the apple reminded me of a story, a Biblical story where Eve held out an apple to Adam and said to Adam, if you will, I will give thee. And that is really the principle that should be applied to government, because politicians are so vulnerable when it comes to during election times or just prior to election times that they will from time to time promise far more than their economy can deliver.

So Adam found himself in a position that after he partook of the apple, he found himself in a position that he could not remedy himself of later, and so are governments the same way.

I say to you, the opposition members want a free, open door that they can make promises to Manitobans without having any fear of financial retribution and responsibility at the end of the day, and that is why we need this kind of legisla tion, to prevent ruthless politicians from going out on the hustings during a campaign debate or other areas and saying to the electorate, we will give you anything you want, we will borrow enough money to pay for it, we will not care whether we ever repay the debt or not.

But what we refuse to tell the electorate at the same time is that the interest clock is going to keep on ticking, and at the end of the day you are going to pay $640-650 million a year in interest costs. We will take that out of the mouths of children, sick people and those people who need highways, and we will give it to the banks, and that is the principle that the opposition members want to maintain.

3658 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 4, 1995 I say to you, Madam Speaker, that principle can no longer be applied. This legislation clearly demonstrates our will and our desire as a government to ensure, to put an insurance policy in the hands of the electorate and say to them that when we need to spend more money than we have, we will come to you and ask you how much we can spend. I will stand on any platform anywhere in this province and defend the principles of this legislation to no end. Thank you, Madam Speaker. *

(1600) Madam Sp eak er: I wanted to get clarification as to whether the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) wished to continue debate on this when this matter is again before the House or whether indeed he sat down because I stood up because it was four o'clock. The honourable member for Emerson will have 24 minutes remaining when this matter is again before the House. The hour being 4 p.m., as previously agreed, time for private members' hour. PR IVATE MEMBERS ' BUS INESS PRO POSE D RESOL UTIONS Res. 22-Political Advertising and Gov ernment Guidelin e s Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), t

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-1-42b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 1st hansardpdf 42b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	51ec5f9e4f5e24cdcb405848e2b5512300377208

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