Manitoba Hansard — 14 June 1989 (Sitting 19, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-19

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, June 14, 1989. The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDING S READING AND RECEIVI NG PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition, and it conforms to the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? (Ag reed) Mr. Clerk (W illiam Remnant): We, the undersigned, urge and request the Government of Manitoba to reverse its decision to eliminate the General Insurance Division of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation inasmuch as: 1.

The Division has experienced a significant financial turnaround and has shown a net income of $1. 5 million for the first nine months of 19 88 operating year. 2. Many small businesses, persons in remote communities and others would not be able to obtain ade qua te general insu rance coverage from the priv ate sector at acceptable rates. 3. There will be a serious loss of jobs in the province, including 55 in Brandon with a payr oll of $1. 5 million which will have a detrimental effect on those employees as well as the economy. MINISTE RIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLI NG OF REPORTS Hon.

Albert Driedger (M inister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Supp lement ary Es tima tes for the Depar tment of Hig hways and Transportation, and I would also like to table the Highway Construction Program for the year '89-90. I would like to say that I am very proud to indicate that it is the biggest program tha t this province has ever seen. INTRODUCTION OF BILL BIL L NO. 28-AN ACT TO ESTABLISH AND VALIDATE THE PU BLIC INQUIRY INTO THE ADMIN ISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND ABORIGI NAL PEOPLE Hon.

James Mccrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General) introduced, by leave, Bill No. 28,

An Act to establish and val idate The Public Inquiry into the Administration of Justice and Aboriginal People; Loi portant sur la creation et la validation de la Commission 560 d'enquete sur !'administration de la jus tice et les autochtones. (R ecommende d by His Honour , the Lieutenant-Governor.) * (13 35) INT RODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr. Speaker: Prior to oral questions, may I direct Honourable Members' attention to the gallery where we have from the Wabowden School twenty-two Grade 5 students under the direction of Florence Benson.

This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie). Also this afternoon from L'ecole Lavalle e forty-two Grade 5 students under the direction of Yvette Dion and Leonne Brisson-Kelsch. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs. On behalf of all Honourable Members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Throne Speech Minority Language Rights Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, when the First Minister (Mr.

Filmon) withd rew the Meech Lake Accord from this House last December, we on this side of the House appla uded the action, even though there were some who questioned the motivation and the rationale. He said at the time that the infringement of minority rights by the Government of Quebec was a violation of the spirit of the Meech Lake Accord and, therefore, unacceptable. The First Minister was roundly criticized for playing the role of defender of the linguistic minority of Quebec, while at the same time ignoring his own record with· respect to minority lang uage rights in this province.

We are all very well aware of the turmoil that ensued. We are left to wonder, will the Premier prove those critics wrong or will he pr ove them right? My question is for the First Minister. In light of his nationally publicized support for the linguistic minority of Quebec, which he said was the basis of his change of heart on the Meech Lake Accord, why was there no mention of minority lang uage rights in Manitoba in his Government's Throne Speech, thereby weakening his Government's position on the Meech Lake Accord? Hon. Ga ry Filmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, very straightforwardly we have carried out the policies that have been in place ever since the two Supreme Court decisions of the early'80s. We have carried them out, not only to the letter of the ruling but beyond in terms of continually adding to the services available, the numbers of people who are in positions who can provide

Wednesday, June 14, 1989 bilingual services to the people of Manitoba. We have carried on the programs and the policies of the former administration, and that is the policy of the Province of Manitoba. It is not a new policy. It is a continuation of a pol icy that was establ ished by the former administration that is being carried on and pursued by the present administration. Manitoba lntercultural Council Russell Appointment Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge, with a supplementary question. Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, with a supplementary question for the First Minister (Mr.

Filmon), yesterday we learned that this Government had appointed one of the most vocal and ardent opponents of French lang uage services in the Province of Manitoba to the multicultural council. How can the First Minister claim tha t this Government is making progress for the Francophone minority in Manitoba when he honour s a lea di ng opponent of French langua ge services with a Government appointment? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I think most people will find it curious-I will not use the word "hypocritical," although others might-f or the Member for Fort Rouge (Mr.

Carr) to phrase that particular question when he and his colleagues embraced and welcomed with open arms the Member for Springfield (Mr. Roch), who was one of the most vocal opponents of the bilingual-- Mr. Speaker: Order , ple ase; order, please. The Honourable Member for Springfield, on a point of order. Mr. Gilles Roch (Springfield): En ce temps-la, pour etre candidat pour le Parti conservateur, pour avoir la signature pour la nomination j'ai ete oblige d'embrasser la plate-forme du Parti conservateur. Et puis la plate forme du Parti Conservateur- (Transla tion) Mr.

Gilles Roch (Sprir.gfield): Mr Speaker, on a point of order. At that time, to be a candidate for the Cons ervative Par ty, to get the signa tur e for my nomination, I was obl iged to embrace the Conservative Party platform, and the Conservative Party platform- (English) Mr. Speaker: Order , pl ease; ord er, please. The Honourable Member does not have a point of order. A dispute over the facts is not a point of order. Order, please. The Honourable First Minister. Mr.

Filmon: Prior to even getting inv olved with our Party or being elected, he was a member of the Grassroots organization, the Mem ber for Springfield (Mr. Roch), actively involved as a citizen member of this province in opposing bilingualism. * (13 40) 561 Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Springfield, on a point of order. Mr. Roch: Sur un point d'ordre. Je n'ai jamais ete membre de Grassroots Manitoba. (Transla tion) Mr. Roch: On a point of order. I have never been a member of Grassroots Manitoba. (E nglish) Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please.

A dispute over the facts is not a point of order. There is no point of order. Mr. Roch: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: On a new point of order. Mr. Roch: I am asking the First Minister to withdraw. He put false information on the record. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A dispute over the facts is not a point of order. The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge (Mr. Carr). Mr. Filmon: He was an active supporter of what they were- Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. I have al ready recognized the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. I have recognized the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. Mr.

Carr: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. With a supple mentary que st ion to the Premi er, we are interested in his Government's position on this issue, and in particular we are interested in knowing if the Premier endorses the appointment of Grant Russell to the lntercultural Council. He said yesterday that he was not aware that the appointment had taken place. Does he today in this House endorse the appointment made by the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation (Mrs. Mitchelson)? Mr. Filmon: Mr.

Speaker, again it is the Liberal Party who is standing forward in a very what I would consider to be a hypocritical and political fashion and taking issue with this particular appointment. I have information from the R.M. of La Broque rie in one of their meetings in which they were asked to accept the support of this provincial Government, the Department of Municipal Affairs, offering to print bilingual French and Engl ish 1988 tax statements for their municipalities.

The Liberal candidate in that area in the last provi ncial election, running under this Liberal banner, under this Liberal Party, voted against that resolution. That is the Liberals' attitude and approach to bilingualism. I find it more than a little curious, when referring specifically -(Interjection)- Well, I am telling you that one of your own candidates voted against having bilingual tax sta tements in the R.M. of La Broquerie,

Wednesday, June 14, 1989 as a member of that council. That is your Party's appro ach to bili ngualism -e very where, anywhere, whatever is politically expedient. I say to him that I find it more than a little curious that when Mr. Russell was appointed by his community, the Irish community, to sit on the Manitoba lntercultural Council, they said nothing, not a word, not a boo, not a peep, nothing from the Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), nothing from this Member for Fort Rouge (Mr. Carr).

Now, when he appears back on the lntercultural Council as an extension of the term that he has already served as a Government appointee, they want to take issue with it. I would say that is true hypocrisy. Mr. Carr: When the Premier talks about hypocrisy on langua ge issues, he is on a very slippery slope, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker. We are not talking about the electoral process. A person is elected by a community. We are not questioning democracy, we are questioning the appointment of this Minister and this Premier. Does the Premier of this province endorse that appointment or does he not? Mr.

Fi.lmon: I would like to hear from the Liberal Party why they did not criticize the appointment when he was a member of his community on that same lntercultural Council. For two years, he sat on that council, having been appointed by the Irish community. That was totally acceptable to the Liberal Party. It is not acceptable when that appointment is-tha t is cheap politics and this Mem ber for Fort Rouge (Mr. Carr) does not understand that and I am very sorry for him. * (13 45) Gold Mine-Shoal Lake Environmental Impact Study Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge (Mr.

Carr), with a supplementary question. Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, if I may, a new question to the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) and it concerns the gold mine on Stevens Island in Shoal Lake. Years ago, our civic leaders showed considerable foresight in supplying the City of Winnipeg with water from Shoal Lake. In fact, Winnipeg is one of the very few places in all of North America with an untreated water supply.

Consolidated Professor Mines has completed five years of explo ratory work on its gold mine on Stevens Island and, as the Minister knows, the company has since applied to the Ontario Government for permission to bring the gold mine into production. The exploratory work has revealed that there are environmental risks associated with the mine. The Minister has received a copy of the mining company's applic ation and presumably he has had a chance to read it. My question is to the Minister.

Has he had any discussions with the Ontario Government about the need to conduct a full environmental assessment under the Ontario Environment Act with full oppor tunity accorded to Manitobans to make representation to the 562 comm issi on, as oppo sed to the Ontario Wa ter Standards Act which will not protect the city's potable water? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Yes, Mr. Speaker, precisely from the early interest that was shown in this pr oject immedia tely upon it being registered in Ontario, precisely we were looking for hearings under the Ontario Environment Act.

I might add that as recently as Monday I was talking to both Mr. Bradley and Mr. Bouchard about this item. Water Protection Plan Mr . James Carr (Fort Rouge): With a supplementary question to the same Minister, environmental damage has already been caused by the explo ratory work, for instance, the tailings from the mine which have found their way into the lake, to oil spills, a sunken barge, tailing ponds in danger of overflowing. Mr. Speaker, Winnipeg 's water supply has already perhaps been put at risk.

What action plan do the Minister's officials have in place to deal with the Shoal Lake incidents now? - (I nterjection)- It is not, I said "may." Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I think the Member for Fort Rouge (Mr. Carr) has finally dug out his file on Shoal Lake and decided tha t perhaps it was ov erdue tha t they ask some questions again.

That information has been made available for some time and I think that he should be more responsible than to raise fear in the minds of those who are using Winnipeg 's drinking water that it may in some way have been alr eady deli berately poll uted. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge (Mr. Carr), with his final question. Mr. Car r: Mr. Speaker, these tailings, like most gold ores, may contain arsenic and heavy metals such as cadmium, antimony and other toxins which are water soluble. The only way to know for certain is by analyzing the ore, which Ontario Environment has so far refused to do.

My final supplementary to the Minister is simple. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that toxins are not present in Winnipeg's water supply? Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, we have asked for access to the site to begin to take some samples to make absolu tely positive on what is implied or rather-and put it into facts as to what is possibly being exposed to the water on Shoal Lake. Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): I hope the Liberal Premier of Ontario when he visits northwestern Ontario tomorrow, which he is going to do, will accede to the demands of Manitoba as articulated by the NOP in the Ontario Legisla ture for the last month.

Wednesday, June 14, 1989 :Workplace Safety Regulations Cancer-Causing Substances Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): My qu estion is to the Minister of Workplace Safety and Healt h.

Yesterday in this Chamber, the Minister claimed that the changes this Conservative Government made affecting cancer-causing goods at.t he workplace, and label ling of carcinogens at the workplace and in our environment would, and I quo te, "the change in this regula tion in no way diminishes the effect on workers or their safety." * (1 350) Given the Minister's own department states that the safe level of exposure for cancer-causing agents is zero, would the Minister explain her statement in relationship to the advice of her department and the Cabinet submission, which we released dealing with cancer causing materials, and justify to the people of Manitoba why she changed that regulation, and this Government changed the regulation affecting workers and their families across the province?

Hon . Gerrie Hammond (Minister res ponsible for Work place Sa fet y and Heal th ): Mr. Speak er, I recognize this is an area of deep concern to the Member. The objective of the legisla tion is to eliminate exposure to carcinogens by substitution of materials, engineering and work practice controls and protective eq uipment. Certainly, the aim is zero. We do not deny that, and tha t is both for management and labour and Government. We want to protect the workers in this province, and that is our objective.

I recognize the concern of the Honourable Member, but at the same time, I want you to know that we are doing everything possible that can be done to protect our workers. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister claimed that this is in the best interest of management, labour and the Government. How could the Minister possibly make this claim in all seriousness reading her notes?

How can she possibly say in all honesty to Manitobans this is in the best interest of all three, when her Government received advice from Wally Fox-Decent, who is the chair of the Independent Council on Workplace Safety and Health, and in that letter the Government received and I quo te, "Our council gave concerted attention to this issue.

In the opinion of the majority of Members, there was absolutely no reason to change the regulation as presented by the Chamber of Commerce in terms of the change in this regulation, and it would not be prudent or productive to reopen the council's discussion on these contentious issues. Our recommendation of this regulation, th erefore, still stands." How can the Minister justify this change and say she has the support of labour and other experts in this area, when she knows it is not true? Mrs. Hammond: Mr.

Speaker, neither the employer or workers' groups who were consulted were in agreement totally on this particular issue. We wanted to bring in a regulation that had common sense, that was safe for the .workers, and we are aiming at zero when we are 563 looking at carcinogens; There is no doubt in our mind about this. I want you to know that we are monitoring, we are doing seminars, we are doing everything possible to make sure that workers are aware that the materials are safely handled, and so that we know they are going to be protected as much as humanly possible. Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, cancer is the biggest killer in our province. It is a health issue, as well as a labour issue, and it is an environment issue when you dispose it into the atmosphere. My question to the Minister is, in light of the fact that the letter again from the Independent Advisory Council signed by Wally Fox-Decent, a person we all respect in this Chamber, states that only two Members of the Commission and the Council, Mr.

Newman from the Chamber of Commerce, and another representative from the mining association, how can the Minister say with a straight face to Manitobans, this is in the best interest of workers, their families, our environment, and our health care system when it is contrary to the advice she received in writing from the Independent Advisory Council. · Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. Mrs. Hammond: Mr. Speaker, I can say again to the Honourable Member, I recognize his concern. It is our concern as well that the workers are well protected.

The changes were provided for clear labelling on hazardous waste and clarify acceptable exposure limits on hazardous materials and including cancer-causing agents. I wish to reiterate to the Mem ber that we will be monitoring, that we will send out workplace safety office rs wher ever there is a complaint, we are monitoring. We are doing everything possible to protect the workers. This is a common-sense decision. We could not get agreement from either side on this issue. It was where sensible people agree to disagree. We made the decision. * ( 13 55 ) Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, you had support from 10 out of 12 people. My question is, given you could not get so-called consensus, why did the Minister go against the doctors on the committee who voted against this Government's change in the regula tion? Why did she go agains t the advice of medical people on tha t committee in terms of their expertise in terms of cancer causing material? Can she justify that in the . Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. The Honourable Minister responsible for Workplace Safety and Health. Mrs . Hammond: Mr.

Speaker, I can· only reiterate to the Member that the objective of the regulation is to eliminate exposure to carcinogens by substitution of materials, engineering and workplace controls and

Wednesday, June 14, 1989 protective equipment. We will continue to monitor, and our objective is zero as well. I want to reiterate that we will do our very best to protect the workers in this province, because it is the workers-t hese are the people in Manitoba, these are our people and we intend to protect them to the best of our ability. Workplace Safety Regulations Chamber of Commerce Report Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed, as is the Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), in the answers given by this Minister.

The fact is that this Minister has brought into place regulations which lower the standards for exposure to hazardous materials in the workplace of Manitoba. These re gulations affect the health of thousands and thousands of working Manitobans. The Chamber of Commerce Report which this Minister has relied upon, which made the recommendation, in fact states they did not have the time to do sufficient investigation or study to develop a comprehensive report. Mr. Speaker, how can this Minister lower standards for workers based on recommendations made in a report which admits its incompleteness? POINT OF ORDER Hon.

James Mccrae (Government House Leader): The Honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) asked basically the same question three or four times in a row. Now we have the Honourable Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), who I guess could not think it up on his own and had to get it from the Honourable Member for Concordia, asks the same que stions. I do believe there are rules about repetition in this House. Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), on a point of order. Mr.

Doer: I believe there are a hundred questions to ask on this issue, and that is the fifth que stion. It is different because it quotes the Chamber of Commerce brief. There is a lot more to come. Mr. Speaker: I am of the opinion it is a different que stion. The question is in order. Ho n. Gerrie Hammond (Minister respo nsible for Workplace Safety and Health): Mr. Speaker, I can only give the same answer that I have given to the Honourable Leader of the Third Party. This does not in any way diminish the protection to the worker. We are monitoring in every way that we can this particular regulation.

It does not diminish the protection of the worker. I think that we will stand behind this because the changes were made so that we could provide clear labelling, so that the materials, including cancer-causing agents, were immediately identifiable to the worker. 564 Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for St. Ja mes (Mr. Edwards), with a supplementary question. Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): The questions are not the same. The answers unfortunately are. Medical Consultations Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr.

Speaker, the fact is as I have stated, this Minister simply does not seem to understand the impact of her regula tions. This is a health issue of enormous importance for Manitobans. My questions is, what specific medical advice, given that the Minister has said a zero level is the only acceptable level, what specific medical advice can she show this House in support of lowering the standard by getting rid of the lowest detectable level standard which was in the regulations and is no longer? Hon . Gerrie Hammond (M inister respon sible for Workplace Safety and Health): Mr.

Speaker, zero level is what we would aim at but zero level is not always attainable. We have a threshold level for every single chemical and they cannot go above that, and I cannot reiterate more that we have made this a safety. If there is someone who may have a certain aversion to a certain chemical, then the workplace takes that into effect. The employer is expected then to either move the worker or shorten the hours, but they are working with the workplace safety officers at all time and can be called in. * (14 00) Standard Reduction Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for St.

James, with a final supplementary question. Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): My question is simple. Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order. The Honourable Member for St. James has the floor. Mr. Edwards: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister states zero is the acceptable level. However, the fact remains that the standard of lowest detectable level has been eradicated in these regula tions. That simply does not make sense to anybody, I would submit, and I do not understand the Minister's continued insistence on this point. Mr.

Speaker, my final qu estion is, how does this Minister account for amending the definition of "action level," which is the level at which the material starts to be monitored by the employer? How does she account for reducing that action level and, in fact, eliminating the lowest detectable level standard which was the standard? Hon . Gerri e Hammond (M inister resp onsible for Workplace Safety and Health): Mr. Speaker, I can say to the Mem bers again and again, we have to have a common-sense safe workplace and this is what we have

Wednesday, June 14, 1989 done with t.his. We are looking out, there is a threshold level that cannot be exceeded, and I reiterate again that we will make it as safe as possible for the workers out there. We are handling the labelling in a way that they can understand. There is no way that we are not going to do as much for the workers in Manitoba that we can. We have seminars going on, we will have posters. We are wanting to make sure that the workers know exactly what they are dealing with, and this is what we have done with this regulation. Speech Therapy Waiting Period Mr. Guizar Cheema (Kildonan): Mr.

Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard). Pre-school children who need speech therapy continue to suffer because of lack of action. Last year, there were 250 children waiting. Now the number is 300. Last year, the waiting period was 14 months. Now it is 18 months. Can the Minister of Health tell us why the waiting period has increased? Hon. Donal d Orchard (M inister of Health): Mr. Speaker, if my honourable friend is referring to the waiting list at the Health Sciences Centre, his information is incorrect in that it has, in fact, decreased in time. Children Services Mr.

Speaker: The Honourable Member for Kildonan, with a supplementary question. Mr. Guizar Cheema (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker , it is not a Liberal comput er. It is that this Minister's action, day after day he is ignoring the children of Manitoba. My question is, last year on October 20, this Minister said in the House that pre-school children are his priori ty. Can he tell us that now he has cut the Hearing Conservation Program this year again, why he has done this? Can he justify that action? Hon. Donal d Orchard (M inister of Health): Mr.

Speaker , from time to time I have to confess, and I hate doing this, but I get a little annoyed at the shallowness of my honourable friend, the Liberal Health Critic. Mr. Speaker, we have taken a number of positive and pro-active steps in terms of speech therapy aimed at pre-school children in this province, starting with an enhancement of over $200,000 of funding at the Health Sciences Centre, which has helped to dramatically reduce the waiting list there. We now have a problem which has been long standing in rural Manitoba in terms of pre-school screening for speech pathology. What we are doing is having Dr.

Bill MacDiarmid, a respected physician, investigate the supply, the training program availabili ty, the slots at the university for speech therapy so that we can make an in formed decisi on, as Governments ought to do, in terms of training further people to provide services where they are needed in rural Manitoba. I am not,satisfied with. the fact that within the school system we provide speech and hearing services to 565 children of school age. I would tar sooner focus that on pre-school children. We will do that given the extension of our term in Government. Mr. Cheema: Mr.

Speaker, let us talk about the term of this Government. There are 10 0 students who were taken off the list because they are above the age of five, and they are· suffering because of inaction from him. Fiscal Stabilization Fund Health Care Mr. Guizar Cheema (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my final question is, can the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) tell us, this $200 million so-called rainy day fund or slush fund, can he tell us which is more important, the rainy day fund or the children of Manitoba? How can he justify not to have a treatment for these children who need treatment now?

Some Honourabl e Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker : Order , please; ord er, please. The Honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). Hon. Cl ayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the Fiscal Stabilization Fund is important. Indeed, the services to Manitobans are more important and that is why the Fiscal Stabilization Fund is in place to protect those services. Family Violence Housing Availability Ms. Judy Wasyl ycia-Leis (St. Johns): Mr.

Speaker , today at the noon hour, more than a hundred people came out to express sorrow and outrage about the death of another woman and her children from domestic violence, bringing to the total at least eight women having died at the hands of their partners this year. Given that it is no secret to Members in this House, but it was again reiterated to us today out their on the � lawn of the Legislative Building that one of the critical � factors for women is finding a secure place, a safe place if they are thinking about leaving violent situations, my question is to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Ducharme).

Given the fact that we have just learned that women are not even low priority on the list of regional housing but are, in fact, no priority when it comes to public housing after a stay in a shelter which, by the way, is limited to 10 days, could the Minister of Housing indicate to this House what directives he has given to public housing, to Regional Housing to ensure that women are given top priority when seeking housing? Hon. Geral d Ducharme (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker , first of all, it has been a very important issue with this particular Government.

If she looks at what has happened in our first year with Osborne House, we have shown on the record that Osborne House has become available. We have established a Native shelter for the women which is also under way: I can assure

Wednesday, June 14, 1989 the individual that my staff is very, very conscious about the abused women and finding shelters for them. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for St. Johns, with a supplementary question. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister may not have heard my quest ion. We are not questioning the role that he has played in terms of improved services by way of shelter . I am talking about shelter , a safe place beyond the immediate crisis.

Given the fact that women seeking that kind of housing go to Regional Housing and are told that they have to prove that they are not going to go back to their husband, they are being told that they are making it up. They are being told that other people are going to come and wreck the house- Mr. Speaker : Orde r, please; order , please. The Honourable Member kindly put her question now. Ms. Wasyiycia-Leis: -my question to the Minister of Housing (Mr.

Ducharme) is, will he issue a directive to Winnipeg Regional Housing to ensure that women coming from family violence situations, abuse situations, are put at the top of the list for public housing? Mr. Ducharme: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the individual, I can assure her personally that I am aware of the abuse situation, of violence to the female. I can assure her that they have been placed to the top of the Housing authority . I can assure her of that, and she is right out for lunch if she suggests that my department has not been directed, that the abused is not at the top of the list. Mr.

Speaker: The Honourable Member for St. Johns, with her final supplementary question. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: The Minister is dead wrong. The Director of Osborne House will tell him the facts and will tell him that women are at the bottom of the list. They are no priority when it comes to public housing seekings. Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. Does the Honourable Member have a question? The Honourable Member kindly put her question now. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: My question is to the Minister responsible tor the Status of Women (Mrs. Hammond).

Given that the draft plan of action that we released to the public some time ago indicated that very few recommendations, no recommendations dealing with support for shelters and counselling and housing, my question to the Minister responsible for- •

(1410) Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. 566 Family Violence Initiatives Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for St. Johns will kindly put her question now. Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns): My question to the Minister responsible tor the Status for Women (Mrs. Hammond) is, what is the plan of action from this Government for helping women in terms of prevention, in terms of protection and in terms of treatment because all areas are important when it comes to family violence? Hon.

Gerrie Hammond {Minister responsible for the Status of Women): To the Honourable Member, when we completed the Women's Initiative, there is an action plan in place. The Ministers are announcing the initiatives this month. We have recommended and there will be changes. There will be more money available for prevention, for women in crisis. The Minister responsible for Family Services (Mrs. Oleson) has already announced the crisis lines. She has already announced help to single parents, and there will be more announcements to come. Public Schools Finance Board Mandate Mrs.

Iva Yeo (Sturgeon Creek): The description in The Public Schools Finance Board Act under purposes and objectives states that the purposes and objects of the board are to facilitate the financing of the Education Support Program for school divisions and to assist boards of school divisions in the economic operation of the school system. School boards designate projects, specific projects, Mr. Speaker, specific schools that need renovating or in fact that need to be rebuilt.

Can the Minister tell us why if a school that is designated as a priority for renovations in 1989 cannot automatically be declared as the recipient of funds, given that the 1988 designated facility was denied by both the Public Schools Finance Board and by an appeal to the Department of Education? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the Member for Sturgeon Creek (Mrs. Yeo) for allowing me an opportunity to get up this afternoon to be able to correct an erroneous report in the paper and to perhaps correct her in terms of her impressions about the Public Schools Finance Board.

Perhaps she did not hear the answer yesterday because her Leader was tittering and giggling away and would not give her the opportunity to listen to the response. Mr. Speaker, of course the Member for Sturgeon Creek (Mrs. Yeo) is referring to Winnipeg School Division No. 1. Last year, the Winnipeg School Division requested the replacement or the construction of a new school to replace Margaret Scott School. The Public Schools Finance Board, within its mandate, did a review of the school and denied the project and asked the Winnipeg School Division to submit another request. To date,

Wednesday, June 14, 1989 the Public Schools Finance Board has not received the request. On May 18, the Winnipeg School Division No. 1 submitted a request to replace Robert H. Smith. That school is now being considered for replacement. When the Public Schools Finance Board has made its decision, then the Winnipeg School Division No. 1 will get the green light. Project Submissions Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek, with her supplementary question. Mrs.

Iva Yeo (Sturgeon Creek): Can the Minister tell us how many times must a school division keep submitting new and alternative options to the Public Schools Finance Board when they, the locally elected officials, are in the best position to request specific locations? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Well, I do not know, perhaps the Member for Sturgeon Creek should put her earpiece on and listen to the responses. But first of all, the Margaret Scott School was submitted and was rejected by the Public Schools Finance Board, within the mandate of the Public Schools Finance Board.

Now, the Winnipeg School Division Board has been asked for a resubmission of another project. When that has been received, the Public Schools Finance Board will consider it. Robert H. Smith has just been submitted on the 18th of May and, when the Public Schools Finance Board makes its decision, it will let the Winnipeg School Division Board know . Mandate Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek, with her final supplementary question. Mrs.

Iva Yeo (Sturgeon Creek): Will the Minister explain the rationale behind the right of the Public Schools Finance Board to demand that a school division designate a specific type of programming be placed in an individual school when the Minister has stated that it is up to the individual school board to make these stipulations? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Well, Mr.

Speaker , I am wondering if the Liberal Party is now saying that the Public Schools Finance Board and the taxpayers of Manitoba should start supporting administrative buildings under the operating grants that school divisions receive, because that is exactly the intent that was meant for St. Charles School when asked to stipulate what the use of that school would be. The Winnipeg School Division Board then indicated that this would become an administrative building.

The taxpayers of Manitoba do not support administrative buildings from the taxpayers' pockets and, therefore, the Public Schools Finance Board could not approve it. 567 Health Facilities-Dauphin Construction Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker , I have a question for the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).

Following the completion of the new Dauphin Hospital that was built in 1984 and '86 by the former New Democratic Government in this province, plans were in place to build a public health facility in Dauphin to consolidate all of the public health services in one office and to indicate the Government's priority for public health and preve['!tative health, as well a new 25-bed addition to the personal care home. In the capital program that was tabled by the Minister in 1988-89, M r. Speaker, there was no mention of the public health facility.

Can the Minister indicate at this time whether he is prepared to priorize these facilities for construction in the upcoming capital budget? Hon . Donald Orcha rd (M inister of Health): Mr. Speaker , I cannot indicate to my honou.rable friend that I can give him that desired priorization that he is asking for. Howev er, I can assure him that contrary to information that he provided me by letter, the board of the Dauphin General Hospital indeed supports construction of additional personal care home beds.

My honourable friend's preoccupation seems to have been offices for civil servants rather than personal care home beds. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, the people of Dauphin are concerned about both of these facilities. Dauphin has one of the highest percentages of senior citizens, elderly people, of any community in Manitoba.

Given this fact that the nursing beds are desperately needed to reduce the high cost of acute care beds, of use, will this Minister now make a commitment to ensure that those nursing beds are completed this year so that the cost of health care can be reduced and the service that the people of the Parklands Region have a right to is provided? Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Speaker, I am very pleased to indicate to my honourable friend that in my recent visit to Dauphin I had the opportunity to visit and tour two very excellent and well-run personal care homes that serve the senior citizens of the Parklands Region and Dauphin, in particular , in an exemplary fashion. At the time of that tour, I met with members of the board of the Dauphin Gene ral Hospital, the administrator and others, and am fully informed of their desire and their priorities in terms of capital program. I have had similar discussions previous to that with members of the board of the Dauphin General Hospital. Mr.

Speaker, I can only ask of my honourable friend his indulgence. When the capital program is tabled with the Manitoba Health Services Commission, he will have the answer to those very questions. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), with his final supplementary question. Mr. Plohman: Given the fact that the old facility that is in place for pu blic health delivery has been condemned by Workplace Health and Safety, the

Wednesday, June 14, 1989 Minister should acknowledge that .it is not just a matter of convenience for for civil servants. It is a service that is needed and an old facility that is badly needed to be replaced by this Government. Will the Minister now admit that he made a mistake in cancelling that facility last year and putting it on hold? Will he now commit to providing that facility to the people of the Parklands Region and to discontinue the legacy that was started by the Lyon Government of cancellation of health facilities in Dauphin? Mr. Speaker: Order , please; order , please. Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Speaker , I realize my honourable friend is attempting to ingratiate himself with the individuals in Dauphin, and that naturally is his role as an MLA. As I have pointed out on a number of occasions, when we come to decisions on the capital program, we are looking at any given time in the formulation of the capital budget upwards of $700 million to $800 million worth of construction requests. Mr. Speaker, even the fast- and free-spending New Democrats, when they were Government, did not accede to those capital demands.

The New Democratic Government, when my honourable friend was indeed a Member of Cabinet, froze the capital budget including the Dauphin Health building. Now, we are in a very prudent way going to make capital decisions with long term planning in place to assure that Manitobans are well-served in the health care system. Mr. Speaker: Order . Time for oral questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE Mr. Speaker: On the adjourned debate of the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the Government, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge (Mr. Carr). * ( 1420) Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): Thank you very much, Mr. Speak er. I am very pleased to add my comments to the debate over the Budget which ends some time later today because it is a most unusual Budget, a Budget which has been called by many a good news Budget because, on the surface, indications are that there is good news in it for Manitoba.

But once Manitobans have a chance to look carefully at what this Budget really says and really means, then I think that good news is probably not the way it will be thought of. While I was preparing remarks for this debate, I thought about how important timing and circumstances can be in political life. I was also reminded of an old maxim in political science, "That the enemy of my enemy is my friend." That truism, that reality, explains why there is a continuing and, if I may say, unholy alliance 568 between the New Democratic Party on my left and the Tories across the way and figuratively to my right.

It is truly, as the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) says, a marriage of convenience. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that was in my notes. I do not know whether or not a leaked copy of my Budget speech got into the hands of the Minister of Natural Resources, but he has a very good grasp of what happens to be on my mind.- (Interjection)- The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) says it would be a big seller. I doubt it, I doubt it, Mr. Speaker.

Also when one listens to the speeches particularly from the New Democratic Party and reads them in Hansard, when one has not the opportunity to hear them in person, we are struck by the virulence and the attention given to the Liberal Party in this House. Now, we respected the verdict of the people of April 26, 1988, but I think that the New Democratic Party was so stunned by the election results they do not know who won. Well, Mr. Speaker, we did not win that election. We have admitted that candidly because there is no other

interpretation. The Tories are governing and they are governing with the consent of the NOP. Now when I talk about circumstance and timing in politics, we think back to events that occurred in this House not long ago when Mr. Walding, the former NOP Member for St. Vital, changed the lives of many Manitobans and certainly those who are sitting in this Chamber today by choosing to vote against the Budget of his own colleagues. What happened after that was that there was a denunciation of the New Democratic Party at the polls.

The reason that the New Democratic Party was denounced with such force by the electorate was because they had lost touch with the people. They had lost touch with the people for many reasons but one of those reasons was that they had taxed Manitobans to the brink. Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs): They have not lost touch with their pocketbooks. Mr. Carr: The Minister for Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) says they have not lost touch with their pocketbooks. He is absolutely right. It was the Kostyra tax grab, it was the collective mugging.

I am quoting now Members of the Government who were then in Opposition that led the electorate to its conclusion in April of 1988, that it was time for a change and a change we have. They did not rush en masse to the Progressive Conservative Party. There was hesitation in the electorate. They had every opportunity to throw the rascals out and usher in a new Progressive Conservative majority Government. The people of Manitoba did not do that. They were uncertain, they did not want to give that kind of power to a political Party which had performed rather poorly in Government.

As a matter of fact, it was the Progressive Conservative Government between 1977 and 1981 which failed to win re-election, which I believe was the first time in this century in Manitoba that a political Party was not able to gain re-election. So people in Manitoba were tired of the polarized politics of the left and the right and they were looking for a

Wednesday, June 14, 1989 more reasonable and less ideological approach to the affairs of state. Mr. Speaker , when I talk about circumstance, I have to give this Government credit-by golly , it is lucky maybe never in the annals ·of electoral politics in Manitoba has a Government been so lucky. We do not begrudge them that luck. The political cycle is such that you have lucky moments and unlucky ones and I think, in the course of events, they generally balance out. Let me just talk a little bit about the nature of that luck. If Mr.

Walding would not have brought the Government down, then we now would be heading towards another election in Manitoba and the New Democratic Party would be taking credit for tax cuts, no doubt. The same revenues that are flowing into the Treasury now from Ottawa would be flowing into an NDP Treasury. The same international nickel prices which have increased and enhanced mining taxes would be flowing into an NDP Treasury rather than a PC Treasury. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that Eugene Kostyra and Jim Walding ought to have the Christmas card list of every Member of this Government.

Their good luck can be seen in the mining tax revenue which over two years has gone up from $27 million to $180 million. Equali zation payments from Ottawa, which are a barometer of the performance of the Manitoba economy , have gone up by literally hundreds of millions of dollars. We can take no great pride in the inflow of money from Ottawa here because it is a measurement of the performance of the Manitoba economy. The Manitoba economy has been doing poorly . That is why we have more money through equalization from Ottawa.

I also want to talk about the process that the Liberal Party followed in determining how it would react to this Budget. I want the Minister of Finance (Mr . Manness), if he would not mind, to listen to the few remarks I may have to say on the subject. This Government had five-and-a-half months to prepare a Budget. In the preparation of that Budget, it had access to thousands of public servants who serve in the Province of Manitoba. If it wanted advice, it got advice. If it wanted to bounce ideas off professional staff, it could choose to do so.

The Minister of Finance has at his disposal the full powers of the Government of Manitoba. They had time, they had resources, they had expertise, and they had luck. When we as an Opposition Party were presented with the Budget, we thought the responsible thing to do was to take the time necessary-not obviously the five-and-a-half months, that is not reasonable, but a few days-to determine if this Budget was worthy of our support or not. The critics looked at the expenditure side of the Budget very carefully , consulted members of the community who were affected by the expenditure side on this Budget.

We had a few days to reflect and we determined responsibly that on balance the general budgetary policies of this Government were not worthy of our support. We were accused, and we still are accused by Members opposite, of not being able to decide, of being. wishy-washy-yes they are, no they are not. They are wrong. We did the responsible thing 569 instead of givi ng some knee-jerk reaction that was not based on analysis and the facts as we could best absorb them in the time available to us.- (Interjection)- The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is talking about Grant Russell.

I think it is in his interest and his Government's interest not to talk about Grant Russell. More important than the good luck faced by this Government, and I hope that if some day we become the Government of Manitoba we too will be blessed with good luck. My sense is that we will have some good luck and we will have some bad luck like any other Government does, and we will be judged not on how much luck we have had but how we have used the luck that we have been fortunate enough to have been given.

I want to spend some time now talking about how the Government has dealt with the hand that was given to it by Jim Walding, by Eugene Kostyra, and by the people of Manitoba, by the strong Ontario econo my, by mining tax revenues, by the international price of nickel, by the 2 percent tax grab that was called the greatest collective mugging in Manitoba's history. *

(1430) First, the tax cuts, we applaud the tax cuts. It was part of our policy since we entered this Chamber. Our Finance Critic (Mr. Alcock), in response to the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Manness) first Budget, actually gave him the idea that it was time to stimulate the economy by putting money into the hands of individual Manitobans to stimulate expenditures, to help the sagging retail sales market in Winnipeg and throughout Manitoba. This is an idea that we support.

We wondered during the first several days of the debate, and we continue to wonder why greater effort was not made on behalf of the Minister to allow Manitobans to be the beneficiaries of those tax cuts earlier . He says it was not possible. Let me remind the Minister that in the House in response to a question he said the deadline was some time in March, and then outside of the House in the hallway, he said, well, no, I think maybe it is some time in April, and then some time maybe it was in May.

If the Minister himself did not know when the deadline was, to have the effect of those cuts earlier , then we are not surprised that he was not able to deliver. Now the Fiscal Stabilization Fund is a way for the Government to show gently decreasing Budget deficits over time. This is a very attractive thing for a Minister of Finance to be able to do, we admit that, but it is not the reality of the finances of this province. The reality is that this year we have a surplus and next year we have a deficit, and the year after that we have yet a larger deficit still.

That will not be reflected in the statements of this Gov ernment because of the Stabilization Fund. Now, one of the provin ce's more respected economists, Norman Cameron, has an opinion on the subject. In the House the other day, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) said this particular economist applauded the Budget, and I presume this was at first hearing. Obviously, he had time to reflect because he

Wednesday, June 14, 1989 offered more comments on the record in an

article in the Winnipeg Free Press on June 12, and I quote, "The dark side of this Budget lies behind the camouflage of the Fiscal Stabilizat ion Fund. Last year provincial revenues actually exceeded expenditures by $48 million, yes, a surplus. That is how good fiscal year '88-89 was for the provincial Government. Rather than allow the $48 million surplus to show openly , however, the Minister decided not to acknowledge $200 million of revenue, and instead reported a deficit of $1 52 million.

Not only did he put $200 million of provincial revenue into the Stabilization Fund, but he deducted the same $200 million from revenue in calculating the deficit. " Let me continue, there is only another paragraph, "N ot spending the $200 million immediately on some current program makes a lot of sense, but not acknowledging its receipt as revenue is bizarre. Private citizens are not allowed to play fast and loose with their income that way; we have to report our income even when we use it to build up savings accounts for rainy days. " This comes from one of the provinces more respected economists.

He uses words like "bizarre. " I, myself, have had an opportunity to consult a number of tax accountants on the issue of the Stabilization Fund, and unanimously they say it is not consistent with accounting practices. We already have evidence from British Columbia that they are having trouble with that fund for the same reason. That is what the auditor of B.C. says. What this is, this Fiscal Stabilization Fund, is a pot of mobile good news which can be trotted out by the Government whenever the political or economic climate calls for a piece of good news.

So what the Government is trying to do here is to take the good luck that was given to it by circumstances, and allow it to linger as long into the future as possible, when it suits their political agenda, when it suits their economic agenda. How about the question of accountability? I remember what the Premier (Mr. Filmon) said in this House a number of days ago, and I remember what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) said yesterday, that these funds will be accountable through executive orders.

Through Orders-in-Co uncil, millions of dollars of taxpayers' money will be spent by this Government without the normal accountability in the Legislature. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) said yesterday- An Honourable Member: Is this word from executive Government? Mr. Carr: If the Minister can tell me right now that the accountability of the Fiscal Stabilization Fund is identical to all other revenues of the province, then I will say good. That is a good thing. If the accountability for those funds is precisely the same as other revenues which flow into the provincial coffers, then that is a good thing.

I look forward to how the Minister of Finance addresses the whole question of accountability when he makes his speech later on today. We have similar questions about the accountability of Lotteries funds. Somehow, the Government seems 570 to have found a pot of gold in the never-never land of gambling in Manitoba. More and more programs are being funded through the use of gambling revenues. Now we have funds going towards conservation, health care, the arts, sports, medical research and more, mentioned in the Throne Speech. We are not saying that these deserving programs ought not to be funded.

We are concerned though that they not be funded from the unstable and regressive revenues that come through gambling. If the Government is spending more through Lotteries revenues, if the Government is funding more programs through Lotteries revenues, then how do we explain the problem of an only 3 percent increase in the rise of these revenues over the last year or so? Someone is going to have to lose. Is the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) going to recommend that some programs currently funded out of Lotteries revenues go back into the tax base or will there actually be cuts of provincial support to some groups who over time have relied on Lotteries funds, not for capital projects or one-time projects, for which they were originally intended, but for operating grants which sustain them year after year . I am talking about the Wi nnipeg Symphony, I am talking about the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, who rely on the gambling habits of Manitobans for their yearly operating grant from the province.

We think that is wrong, and we have been saying so for a number of years now. On the issue of how much more the Government is spending this year, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) talks about consistency and there is no greater bridge between my remarks just finished and my remarks to come. The Minister of Finance talks about a 4.5 percent increase in expenditures, Budget over Budget, but when he is using figures to boast about how generous he is with the Department of Health, with the Department of Family Services, does he use the same figures? No.

He uses the figures which are actual to Budget, which are higher, because they are underspent in some of their departments. So when he wants to be conservative he uses those figures which are to his advantage, and when he wants to be progressive he uses different figures which he thinks are to his advantage. If that is what progressive conservatism is all about, I am even yet more thankful today that I am a Liberal. I notice no contradictions on the other side. Let Hansard record that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is smiling right now.

When he wants to take credit for being generous, he gives the higher figure. When he wants to take credit for being prudent, he uses the lower figure. That is inconsistency, and that is one of the reasons that we cannot support this Budget. • (1 440) We are here to serve all of the people, but we are here in particular to serve people who are disadvantaged, who are homeless, who are poor , who for whatever reason are not given a fair shake in life. This Budget, when we look at it carefully, fails every test of fairness and equity. Let us start with the Seniors Directorate.

May I say in passing that in his 40 minutes in response to the

Wednesday, June 14, 1989 Budget Speech, the Minister responsible for Seniors (Mr. Downey) did not mention . the Seniors Directorate once. I do not blame him. I think the reason he did not mention the Seniors Directorate is because it goes from a budget of $200,000 to a budget of $207,300, $7, 000 Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): A notable increase. Mr. Carr: The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) says a notable increase. He probably thinks it is because his budget went down, so no more resources for the Seniors Directorate. Now this is not a joke, Mr. Speaker.

It is serious business because there are very important issues out there and I w ould like to take a few minutes to talk about some of them. Elder abuse: the Public Trustee recently told us that incidents of elder abuse are rising. They are rising because the seniors population is growing. The Minister knows full well that it is growing more quickly than any other population in our society. We are talking about financial abuse, mental abuse and physical abuse. I think the Minister should forget the deadline he has established for himself on that White Paper.

Some time in 1989 and 1990, we think he should put it on top of the priority of this Government. We think that he should exercise his considerable clout around the Cabinet table and bring his colleagues around to his view, that this is not an item that can wait a year or a year and a half. (Mr. Deputy Speaker, William Chornopyski, in the Chair.) Mr. Downey: Just watch me. Mr. Carr: The Minister says, just watch me. The Minister misunderstands. We are on his side. We believe that seniors deserve higher priority from this Government and I know he does too.

When he comes forward to this House with positive proposals, legislation, action, he can count on us for support if we believe that his proposals and his action are in the best interests of the seniors of this province. How about Bill C-22, the drug patent legislation? The Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) in response to a letter I wrote him said, no, this Government will not intervene with the Manitoba Society of Seniors on this question because the Manitoba Society of Seniors can make its own arguments. Well there are two issues involved here.

The first issue is the constitutional authority of the Government of Canada to establish a Federal Prices Drug Review Agency. The Manitoba Society of Seniors are arguing that the regulation of retail prices is a provincial matter and that piece of legislation is ultra vires of the Canadian Constitution. The Minister of Justice says we are not going to adopt that argument. The Manitoba Society of Seniors is capable of doing it all by itself.

I do not have any doubt that the Manitoba Society of Seniors has the capacity, the intelligence and the forcefulness to make its arguments known to the court, but that does not . answer the question why this Government will not int ervene on its behalf. 571 The second issue, and the one that is more important to many se niors in Manitoba, is the cost of pharmaceuticals itself. All of the evidence shows that drug patent legislation increases the monopoly available to drug manufacturers, puts the prices up. Only common sense tells us that. It has happened in the United States.

We see in the departmental Estimates in Health that the budget item that deals with Pharmacare is up more than $10 million. Why is it up more than $10 million? Are the prices of pharmaceuticals already rising at a dramatic rate? We know that there was an increase in deductibles twice last year and it is now tied to the cost of living, so unless the Government is planning some major new initiative in Pharmacare, and we are perfectly prepared to have a look at it, I think that there may be a very steep rise in the price of pharmaceuticals, mostly affecting seniors and the infirm in this province.

The Minister ought to take the side of seniors on this issue. There are reasons for him to do so and he should fight in Cabinet so that this Government is on the record and clear, fighting that Bill C-22. There are other issues facing seniors, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will have every opportunity to go through them during the weeks that remain in this Session. A few words on Ur ban Affairs, we were very disappointed in looking at the Budget to see that transfers from the Province to the City of Winnipeg in real terms are down. Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Urban Affairs): Four percent. Mr.

Carr: They are down in relation to the cost of inflation. The Minister of Urban Affairs from his seat says, 4 percent -(Interjection)- The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) can tell me what the rate of inflation is. (lnterjection)- A little over 4 percent, so they have just made the point for us, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Money to the City of Winnipeg is less than the rate of inflation. There are se rious problems facing the City of Winnipeg right now. There are problems of high property taxes, among the highest in the country . The Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ducharme) knows that full wel 1.

He was a member of council for years, he was chairman of the Executive Policy Committee. He knows that the effect of provincial transfers to the City of Winnipeg will mean, in all probability, higher property taxes. When you look at the elements of the Urban Affairs budget, you see that there is absolutely no commitment, in spite of the rhetoric, to riverbank development. Capital is frozen -(Interjection)- Well, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is saying spend more, yet he proudly tells us about the increases in the departments that he wishes to trot out.

Downtown revitalization is the single most important issue facing Winnipeg at the moment. The downtown of any city must be what attracts people to its core and we are in trouble. We are in trouble because there are 105,000 square feet of vacant space along the south side of Portage Avenue and up the north side. There are vacancies because when we planned the North

Wednesday, June 14, 1989 Portage Development we did not ask ourselves the question, what impact will that have on the south side of the street? The Minister of Ur ban Affairs (Mr. Ducharme) knows that to be true. Everyone knows that to be true and we are paying now, as a city, for lack of planning and lack of foresight. We also have decided to develop the Forks. We are in favour of developing the Forks. We think it is a good idea. We think it should be developed for what it is: an historic spot, a meeting place, the birthplace of western Canada, gateway to the West.

We do not need more housing in the City of Winnipeg, with a 15 percent vacancy rate in the downtown. Mr. Ducharme: Who says housing? Who says housing is going in the Forks? Mr. Carr: We do not need-the Minister of Urban Affairs, who says housing? He should talk to the general manager of the Forks Corporation so they can get their facts straight.- (Interjection)- Okay. My point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that we have this terrible tendency in politics and current politicians are no different than past ones.

You take an idea, you run with it, you want to gain political credit for it, you want there to be a monument built on your behalf, and then before you are finished you are off doing it again. This city needs one Downtown Development Corporation. It is a good idea. The Minister of Urban Affairs has had several months to look at the idea. He tabled salaries in the Legislature yesterday. I am sure the Minister of Urban Affairs, with his creativity, can find a way of saving money, increasing efficiency and guaranteeing better long-range planning for the City of Winnipeg.

If he takes this one simple suggestion, the Minister knows that tax reassessments are not fair, there has to be tax reassessment in downtown to attract people. The Minister of Government Services (Mr. Albert Driedger) should be looking for ways to relocate Government employees on Portage Avenue, the centre of the downtown of our city. It is not a wild idea, it is a good idea. There is a lot of vacant space, and I bet you he could find a real deal on a long-term lease. Yes, he can. So we say there are ways for this Government to help.

We have not seen that this Government has done nearly enough to show the kinds of leadership necessary to amass the political will to take downtown Winnipeg a step forward. Mistakes were made. We do not want to dwell on mistakes and we do not want to dwell on the past. We want to look forward. * (1 450) Housing and the poor -I said when I began my remarks that we have an obligation in this Chamber to look out for those most in need. If you look at what has happened to the Housing budget, it is depressing. It is not depressing for me because I am fortunate enough to own my own home.

I suppose that most Members of this Chamber are in the same position, but it is not the case for many homeless people and 572 those who are looking for basic shelter. What do we find? The Housing budget shows no real growth for 19 89- 90. In fact, it will be below the rate of inflation for 19 89. In real terms there will be less assistance, not more for Manitobans most in need of help. Grants and subsidies within the Housing budget will decrease by 10 percent, a 10 percent decrease, while at the same time they create a $200 million slush fund for a rainy day.

You will find that the cost in cutbacks in programs for low-rental housing, cutbacks to subsidies to lower income homeowners who require assistance to preserve their homes. These programs, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are cut back by 10 percent, while this Government jumps ahead into risky speculative joint venture development deals, but at the same time it cuts backs on housing assistance for the poor by 10 percent. That, to me, is not a Government with compassion. That to me is not a Government who understand very well those in the society who need Government most.

How about other indicators of how this Government deals with its responsibility to the poor? How about the CR ISP Program and the 55-PLUS Program, down between 1989 and 19 90? Not only in real terms but in actual terms, the funds available for CRISP and 55- PLUS are down this year. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) in his good news, blue sky Budget, refuses to meet the needs of those whose sky is not blue and whose future is cloudy indeed.

He talks about saving money for when we need it, but does not appreciate the need of today that I am trying to outline for certain Members of this Government and the Minister of Finance in particular. How about the disabled? I had the experience a week ago of spending a day in a wheelchair as part of National Access Awareness Week. Those who organized the event, Unemployment Day, asked a number of people to perform the routine of their day-to-day lives in a wheelchair . Others had different disabilities. I adopted that disability and, as a result, could not ask a questio n from my chair in the House that day.

I could not do it because there is no access. If I wanted to watch Question Period from the gallery , I could not in a wheelchair because I would have to roll the chair into the translation booth. That is in this building, which ought to be an example for the whole public service in Manitoba. We have problems with building codes. We have problems in our own back yard, making accessible as best we can, public buildings for all those Manitobans, even those with disabilities. What has the Government decided to do? There is a $3.2 million cutback in Government Services.

How is that cutback going to assist the disabled in this province to gain access to public buildings? Yet another example of the way in which this Government has already, in only a year and a bit of power, lost touch with the people in this society who need the most, those who live- Mr. Enns: But what a year! Mr. Carr: The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) says what a year. We have already talked about his

Wednesday, June 14, 1989 good lu ck; we have already talked about the Christmas card list for Eugene Kostyra and Jim Walding. We have already talked about the fortuitous rain which has fallen on · this province, and are we not thankful for it? Yet the Minister of Natural Resources has to deal with cutbacks in his own department which, by the way, surprised us. We thought that once the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) had rectified the mistake that he made of last year in leaving out the dean of this House, that he would have embraced him fully and moved him to the front benches and listened to his advice based on years and years of experience. He did not do that. The Minister's own department has been horribly cut and he will have to justify those cuts during the Estimates process. Those who need this Government most are those who have been most hurt by this Budget. We know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is using inconsistent figures.

When he wants to be generous he uses one set, when he wants to be prudent he uses another . One thing is constant, the people who need him most have been let down by this Budget and by this Government. How about job training? In spite of the fact that this is a blue sky Budget, indicating that the future for Manitoba is a rosy one, all of the financial indicators say something else. Financial indicators say that unemployment is as high now as it has been in years, that for the first time since 1966, Manitoba's unemployment rate is hi gher than the national average.

We see layoffs from across the province, housing starts are down. So what have they done? At a time of rising unemployment and layoffs, we get cutbacks, the Job Training for Tomorrow Program, a $3.2 million cut or 52 percent of its Budget. For the life of me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot come up with one single reason why that would be the case. Skills Development is down by 37 percent, from $8.7 million to $5.4 million. Why, why at a time when more people in Manitoba are unemployed, when we have gone from third to fourth in our ranking across the country, is the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) in this Budget allowing cutbacks for those programs which enhance job training for people and skills development? It absolutely makes no sense. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker , we find all in all that this Budget is a strange Budget. While on the surface it gives Manitobans good news, when you look behind the headline of this Budget, you see serious problems, and you particularly see serious problems for those who need this Government most. How about the NOP ? The NOP in a bu rst of principle has decided that it is voting for this Budget, because it contains within it tax breaks for Manitobans.

This is the same New Democratic Party that voted against the Tory Budgets in 1978 and 1979, when there were tax cuts. As a matter of fact, there was a cut by two points in one of those Budgets. Did the NOP vote against those Budgets in '78 and'79? No, they voted against the Budget in '78 and'79, they are voting in support of this Budget today. Is it because of principle that they are supporting this Budget? I think not. They are supporting this Budget because of political survival. 573 *

(1500) It is particularly upsetting and dissident that the New Democratic Party is voting for a Budget which is so hard on Inner City residents, that does nothing to address poverty of the Inner City, does nothing to help the homeless or the disabled. Mr. Deputy Speak er, they do not need any lectures from me. They will have to live with their own consciences. May my last remarks be these, Mr. Deputy Speaker . In Opposition, one is here to oppose, and often that means the necessity of being negative when, in my case at any rate, I would much rather be positive.

We would like to be able to say that all is well, but it is our responsibility as an Opposition to point out errors in the way this Gov ernment does its business, and to tell the people of Manitoba how we. think we could do better . This is a great province. It has diversity of resources and diversity of people. It has a fabric and a sinew which is the strongest of any province in this nation. It may pride itself on the strength of its multiculturalism, on the diversity of its natural resources, and its economic strength, which we hope will be enhanced by a Government that understands that strength.

We are sorry that this Budget has failed to answer the call, the call of opportun ity. They had the luck and they did not use it well. Thank you. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Member's time has expired. Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Deputy Speaker , I feel moved to rise to say a few words about the Budget that we ha ve recently presented before the people of Manitoba because I think we are sitting on this side of the House listening to far too much criticism that is not founded in fact. We are seeing a desperate Opposition trying to put together and cobble together some concerns.

They think they can cause the people of Manitoba to worry about the direction that we are now taking in this province. It seems to me, in the short time that I have available to me, that I would like to lay out a little bit more clearly some of the concerns that we feel need to be dealt with in this province and which we are addressing. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair.) I said in my Throne Speech address that the Environment Department, for which I am now responsible, was moving towards a 10.6, almost 11 percent increase in expenditures.

I think there has been some feeling in the Opposition that perhaps we were not really concerned and perhaps we were not really intent on dealing with the issues as they are brought forward to us, but that we are somehow putting together facts and figures in this Throne Speech that will not come through to fruition as we go through the year. Mr. Speaker , I look at last year 's Bu dget .a nd look at the success we had in bringing forward the programs that were in it. There is. no concern in my mind, and certainly there need not be any concern in the minds of the public in being fully satisfied that we will carry

Wednesday, June 14, 1989 through with the initiatives that we are laying out in this Budget and in the Throne Speech. I think one of the issues the Opposition wants to take great glee in is the fact that we maybe do not have a lot of green signs going up. Maybe the stickers in the windows are not going to be as obvious as they were where there were make-work and short-term job creation projects going on from almost a continuous basis across the province. This Government is approaching employment in this province with the eye of long-term and stable employment. We expect that the jobs we create will be real jobs.

When we talk about a real job, we are talking about a job that is productive. A productive job creates income for the province. That income for the province allows you to do other things within the province that will create more jobs. M r. Speaker, Government has never created a saleable product, to my knowledge, has not improved the GNP of a country or a province through and of its own initiative. We need real jobs in this province. We need the kind of jobs that will produce products for export.

We need the kind of jobs that will keep our young people in the province and in the various communities across our province. If we want to look at what is happening in some of the other jurisdictions around our country, we need only look to the Province of Ontario to the east of us to see what happens when we have a Liberal majority . They claim that they are going to all of a sudden become the great protectors of the environment, that they are now going to prove they are the ones who will save us all from the silent spring.

I can tell you, frankly, that does not seem to be the situation we are seeing to the east of us. They are scrambling to identify and to deal with the federal Government in trying to get assistance in cleaning up some of their orphan disposal sites. Of course you could argue that they are dealing with it, but they are all of a sudden in the middle of an economic boom, and still the � feel . that the rest of the country should be part of . f1_nancmg the clean-up from the profits which they ongma lly gleaned from those industries. Mr.

Speak er, it seems to me, because we have a province that is starting off in the position that we are presently in, we can move forward and we will make the concepts we are intending to use in the environment and in the volume of the handling of our waste, that we have a plan under our department with the funding that we are being given, that will allow us to deal with those issues as they are brought forward.

Quite simply, we are talking about long-term management of our environmental needs, long-term addressing of problems that face the province from day to day and from year to year, and not allowing those problems and those hazardous situations to build to the point where they become unmanageable. Mr.

Speaker, one of the serious concerns that we all have to have is whether or not, as we deal with the growth in our province and deal with the potential for expansion of industry, expansion of business, if we have 574 a plan and within that plan an ability to deal with the problems that come with growth and come with the development of our province. That is the type of approach that I see within this Budget because we have seen where we have been prepared to put money where the priorities of our province are.

As I have indicated, the Environment Department has received more than fai r treatment under this Budget, the Department of Health and the Department of Education. We have just seen in Education one of the largest increases in recent memory. What better way to deal with the future of our province than to make sure those who wish to expand their horizons, to expand their abilities, and expand their opportunities through education, to make that opportunity available to them in the best possible way. Mr.

Speaker , the rural part of this province is now sitting in a situation where we are going to see a 35 percent reduction in the provincial levy on education tax. There are those who would question whether or not that is an appropriate direction to move. I want to spend just a moment talking about that particular part of the Budget and that particular problem as is being faced in this province. We_ l�ok at the situation where there is a large body of op1mon that taxation for education purposes against real property has now gone beyond what is recognized as fair and equal treatment.

For those reasons in the previous Budget, we moved to a 25 percent reduction of provincial levy against agricultural property. In moving to 35 percent, we have again indicated that we are prepared to deal with a problem that has been identified and has not been dealt with in an ongoing manner an d in a manner that is consistent with a long-range plan. This Government, and prior to us coming into Government, made every effort to put forward a concept that we would be dealing with this type of inequity in the agricultural area, and the type of tax burden that is being assessed there.

In fact, I think this is one of the strongest pieces of proof that we have that when we make a commitment through our governmental process that we will live up to that commitment, Mr. Speaker . *

(1510) I think we need not take any concerns from the Members opposite regarding the manner in which we have been dealing with the social services and the problems that are faced in this province. All we have to recognize is that there has been a serious deficiency in the way in which Governments in the past number of years have dealt with the social expenditures within this province. We have seen the problems that have grown gradually over the years have never been identified as being as seriously underfunded as they have been in many of the areas.

We need to now recognize that by moving in a rational and reasonable manner to address these concerns that they are not concerns that grew up overnight, but they are in fact an imbalance that has been created by a number of years of very nice comments, very carefully phrased statements of concern, but then what do you do to

Wednesday, June 14, 1989 fund that in the end? I can tell you, frank ly, that the funding ha s not been available to many of the organizations that are out there working to deliver services to the people of this province. We, through this Budget, have made that commitment and I can assure you that we will be living up to it. It seems to me too often we have been looking at a situation where Manitoba has been put forward as a vulnerable, perhaps have-not province.

In fact, we have put ourselves in a situation where we are have not in terms of being able to attract people to this province when you are facing one of the tougher tax regimes in Canada in terms of personal income tax. We see now that we are prepared to reduce the level of personal income tax in this province. To me, I think that is the first indication the people of this province have had for several years that in fact they are being heard. The reduction in the payroll tax, I cannot tell you how many times people have indicated their serious concern that this was a tax on jobs.

There are those who will argue that it should be struck down complet ely. There are those who argue that it is the most imaginative tax that could possibly be brought forward. The truth of the matter is that it was a disincentive to invest in this province. The Premier (Mr. Film on) yesterday outlined a myriad of oppo rtunities that have started to open up in this province in the last year, companies that were prepared to invest, put their money into our province, money that they expect to regain and multiply in terms of profits, but during that time they will make a margin.

They will use that margin to empl oy, they will use that margin to build. I believe that our economy in this province will start to recover as a result of that. I think that there is a real desire from the people of this province to follow this line of dealing with the financial difficulties which the province has found itself in. As I travel across the constituency and as I meet people in various parts of the city, they are starting to realize that the path upon which we have embarked is a reasonable path, one that is not radical, one that can be rationally explained and one that has some obvious objectives.

I think the very fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) was able to announce in his Budget that we were now prepared to have an environmental tax imp osed on liquor bottles in conjunction with ML CC, that we are able to create a fund that will have, albeit not multimillions, but certainly hundreds of thousands of dollars in it which will be able to be accessed to start doing projects, to start creating initiatives, to start setting direction in terms of environmental activity in this province.

That is a small but a direct and I think an obvious indication that this province has now embarked on a path that there is a plan for, that we are in fact prepared to deal with the issues as they arise and try to get ahead of the issues so that we can show the leadership that this province has come to look for, because simply there has not been the kind of direction that we had hoped over the last number of years. We do not need a knee-jerk reaction.

We do not need $700 million added to our deficit overnight, as the 575 Liberal Opposition would have done on our previous Throne Speech and our previous Budget.- (lnterjection) The Member for Wolseley (Mr. Taylor) seems to deny that is a knee-jerk reaction. Well, probably that is a more gracious term than I would want to apply than what I really think it was in terms of reaction. There was a picture on the front of the Sun a year or so ago with the previous Minister of Finance wearing a big pair of boots, and it was something to do with the Minister of Fi nance putting the boots to the taxpayers of Manitoba.

I suspect that if the Liberal Opposition, with the additional expenditures that they were proposing at that time, would have received very much the same type of caption, probably only worse because it was expenditure without reason. If you do not call that knee jerk, then perhaps there is a more colourful term that could apply to it.

I think we have to beware of those nay sayers in this House who would indicate that the reserve fund that the Government proposes to set up for the future of this province is in any way more than an honest attempt to make sure that there is income to deal with the truly needed expenditures and cost increases that will flo w in this province over the next couple of years. I think it is only prudent that when we look to our Budget that we also look to the future and do not count on somebody suddenly providing a manna from heaven in order to bail out a Government.

Up until now, we have seen Governments who were prepared to go to deficit financing in order to produce their own manna from heaven, but we are now paying for that through interest costs to this province. Every day, we pay for that. It simply is no longer acceptable in the manner in which this province has to meet its costs. We are only a million people, and we have to carefully and constantly manage our finances and make sure that our expenditures are wise. We faced a number of rather awkward and difficult situations in human services when this Government came into power, Mr. Speaker.

I think that a good example of good faith and reason in the manner in which we deal with the public and with those who are the care givers in this province, an indication that is clearly shown by the manner in which we dealt with foster parents, the manner in which we have dealt with Osborne House. Those are simply two indications of a Government that was prepared to listen and then take action that would provide a demonstrable response to a genuine need. I guess I will go back to one more topic that is near and dear to my heart before I put my last words on the record regarding this Budget.

It seems to me that through the reorganization that we have seen in the last month and a half in terms of rural development, in the reorganization and re-emphasis that has been applied in that department, will provide the much needed focus to give rural Manitoba, first of all, its fair say and, second ly, its fair share of economic activity in this province. There has been no doubt that there have been forces far beyond what any Government can control when we look at the drought that this province has recently seen, not to mention all of the other problems regarding

Wednesday, June 14, 1989 pricing, which sim ply are a global problem. Mr. Speak er, rural Manitoba is strong and rural Manitoba is resilient and what it is looking for is a reasonable approach from its Government, a Government that has some direction and a Government that has willingness to deal with their problems in an honest and forthright manner , and that is what we are committed to do. * (1 520) Mr.

Speaker , the people not only of rural Manitoba but in the city have indicated very clearly to us that they are prepared to work with a Government that is prepared to put forward a plan, is prepared to explain what is behind that plan and willing to provide the political will to follow through on initiatives that we lay out for ourselves.

The fact that we have seen a Budget that is not exceeding the growth of the province which produces it, a Budget that is seen to be trul y relevant to the conditions that the province finds itself in and the conditions that it expects to face in this forthcoming year leads me to believe that those who say they will vote against this Budget are doing so without having listened to the people of Manitoba. We are seeing a situation, Mr. Speak er, where minority Government is working and is working well.

We are seeing a situation where I think the people of Manitoba are saying to all of us in this House, and I appeal to those who say they do not want to vote in favour of this Budget. I appeal to you to consider what the people are saying on the street, what the wage earner is saying when he looks at the discounts on his pay cheque and says, we finally have a Government that is prepared to deal with a problem that we have identified for years. Using the term "univers ally" - An Honourable Member: Royalt y. Mr. Cummings: I certainly will not use the royal "we, " believe me. An Honourable Member: No, that is Sharon.

Mr. Cummings: Yes, that may be more inclined to happen in other political Parties than it does on our side. Mr. Speaker, I simply say to you that it is without the slightest reservation that I recommend this Budget, not only to the House, but to the people of the province. By the feedback that I have already received, I think this is a Budget that has finally answered concerns that have far too long been ignored in the Province of Manitoba. The time has come to get on with the job of building this province. Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to join with others who participated in the debate and offer some comments on the Budget as we have it before us, and on the eve, I guess, or on the verge of the important vote that is going to tak e place in a very short time. I believe that this Budget without question reflects a minority Government situation. There is no doubt in my mind, having listened to the Minister of Finance 576 (Mr.

Manness) when he was on this side of the House making so many speeches over so many years about the problem of the debt of Manitoba, that if he had his druthers he would have loved to have brought in a Budget that had significant cuts in spending in various areas. I do not kno w which areas but in various areas that he could, and to bring in a large surplus in order to start paying down the provincial debt. There is no question, Mr.

Speaker , that you cannot tackle the problem of the debt without a surplus and, therefore, as I read this Budget, unless the Minister of Finance can show me where I am wrong, they will not really be paying any of the debt off or there would be nothing significant happen, because we have not had a surplus. Partly, of course, one of the reasons we do not show the surplus is because we have set funds aside in the Fiscal Stabilization Fund. I would like to say something about that later. This Budget reflects a minority situation.

As I say, if we had a majority Conservative Government, I have no question that, given the philosophy, the economic policy position that is stated by the Minister of Finance over the years and his approach to provincial finances, he would have come in with several cuts and therefore a surplus situation. Also this Budget reflects the very significant fact that the previous NOP Government put a tax structure in place that provided a flow of revenue to this Minister, to this Government, that really is a bonanza for them. To his credit, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) recognizes this.

I think he said it in his speech or in some document or both that there is a certain high level of tax flow that is coming into the provincial Treasury because of increased taxes put on by the previous Government. Why did the previous Government put on the taxes? No Party in power wants to increase taxes. That is the last thing that any Party wants to engage in but at the same time- An Honourable Member: You sure operated contrary to that. You were contrary to that. Mr. Leonard Evans: You say it is contrary, that it is self-interest. The fact is, it was believed that we needed the revenue.

We were trying to address the question of debt accumulation, trying to get to the point where we would have a balance and perhaps some surplus. The former Minister of Finance, Mr. Eugene Kostyra, stated that in this House as well that we were trying, with that increased tax structure put in place, to move in that direction. So because of that, we have these flows of revenues for this Conservative Government. In addition, of course, the Budget reflects perhaps unanticipated transfers from the Treasury of Ottawa. As a result, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) had a relatively easy task.

If the tax structure had not been adjusted, if the taxes had not been increased by the previous NOP Government, our Finance Minister would have had a much more difficult time . We might have seen cuts. We may have seen a tax rise, courtesy of this Government.

Wednesday, June 14, 1989 We note, therefore, that what we have is a rather modest Budget, a Budget that is moderate. There are certain revenue increases for health, education, social services and so on, and rather moderate in tone. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, it is because of the particular minority situation that we have, in addition to those revenues that I spoke of. As my Leader has said, the MLA for Concordia (Mr. Doer), we do approve of the tax break for families, $6 1 million I believe, or thereabouts.

It is about the same as we were promising in the last election that we would wish to have tax breaks for families. To that extent, we approve of that element of this Budget. There are many things though that we have concerns about, Mr. Speaker . I regret that this Government looks upon job creation, and I do not mean just job creation through grants, but job creation as a whole, as a relatively low priority . I know we will all talk about the need for economic growth, but the fact is that there are certain signals out there that give me cause to be concerned.

First of all, they dismantled the Department of Employment Services and Economic Security , which was an attempt not only to focus on jobs but also to focus on areas of our population where there is a lot of unemployment, namely the long-term people on welfare.

The idea was to work very closely looking at the social assistance caseload, seeing what we could do to provide training, job opportunities, incentives to people so we could remove them, so that we could improve their situation, that we could raise their standard of living by taking them off welfare, by removing them from social assistance and putting them into useful employment so that they would have a better standard of living and indeed so that we would have to pay out less in the way of welfare payments.

That was one of the major reasons for putting the department together as it was put together, economic security in with employment initiatives, training programs and so on. The department has been broken up and we have a rather confusing situation. For some time, I was trying to find out where all the various job programs were, but I would say my basic observation is that any programs to create jobs have been given a low priority . I know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) have railed against these make work projects and so on, but I would say that their criticism reflects an ignorance of some of these programs and what they were attempting to do and what they did do. The Job Training for Tomorrow Program was a program that gave money to the private sector, to the small business community in particular, in addition to non-profit organizations. These businesses had to indicate very clearly that we were talking about a permanent job, a real job, a job that was going to go on beyond the period of subsidy . In fact, they had to declare that in applying for these grants.

As a result, we were talking about training people on the job. Incidenta lly, some of these people did not do that well in institutional settings, in colleges and high schools and so on, but they had some potential to be trained 577 on the job, people to be trained on the job by the business sector, by their employers, and we are talking about small business units, and to be given a permanent job, a regular job. * (15 30) So what we did, we provided an incentive to the business sector by reducing the labour costs for small business.

As a result, I think we did a fairly good job in creating some job opportunities that would not be there otherwise. You do not resolve the unemployment situation by one program such as that alone, but it helps. It helps, Mr. Speaker, and the fact that other provincial jurisdictions and indeed the federal Government is into this field would indicate to me that there is some merit in this. I say what we have got in this Government is a clear indication that job creation is a very low priority . They have eliminated the department. They shifted some programs over to education.

The amount of money has been cut in half, if not more. There is no sign of any action. In fact, the Job Training for Tomorrow Program, I believe, was frozen or was not receiving any new applications as of the middle of last year. This was told to us by the former Minister responsible for that program. To my knowledge, there is no action there whatsoev er. I say that this is one avenue where we can stimulate the economy, where we can help to create jobs.

As I said, that particular program was not creating make-work positions, it was assisting the private sector, and we were talking about real jobs, permanent ongoing jobs. I note further, Mr. Speaker, going on to some other topics, that we are concerned about wise spending of money. I would say that, in my judgment, there is one area of considerable waste. I could maybe find others, but there is one area that this Government is going to spend money on, in my judgement purely a waste of money, and that is the Ottawa office that is about to be set up.

I can tell you that previous Governments, not only the NDP but even previous Conservative Governments, as I recall, had considered that and rejected it because they did not consider it to be efficient. To actually deal with Government officials, Government Ministers, you have to go as a delegation, you have to go with experts, you have to go well prepared. You could not expect someone in that office to be all things to all departments, to all official s. It could be very nice for people from Manitoba dropping in for a cup of coffee or a cup of tea or something like that, get a pamphlet or get a map.

That is very nice, but really it is a waste of money. I tell you, previous Conservative Governments thought it was a waste of money and I, for the life of me, do not understand why this expenditure. You may argue that it is not that many thousands of dollars, but I suspect that once it gets going it could be rather costly and of course it is not one year but it is year after year. I simply say that there has not been a case made to justify that expenditure. Just going on to some other topics I would like touch on, Mr. Speaker, something that is close to my heart, the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.

The largest portion of M PIC activities, of course, invol ves

Wednesday, June 14, 1989 automobile insurance, and that is a subject we will deal with at some other time. We would like to know, at some point, what has happened to the Kopstein Report and all the major recommendations there, and the no-fault system and so on. That is something that has to be explored. That report should not be shelved. There were some important recommendations for improvements made. I would hope that those improvements will be put into place in the months or the year or two ahead. I am zeroing in on something that I believe is a mistake on the part of this Government.

They seem to be determined to have MPIC rid itself of the General Insurance Division. I appreciate the fact that the General Insurance Division is made up of two sections, if you will: the special risk extension, which is definitely in a very profitable position, and also the personal commercial lines, which is still not "making money. " Having said that, Mr. Speaker , if you look at these figures, there has been a dramatic turnaround. There has been a significant improvement in the operations of those lines.

I know the employees are working hard, even though they are looking over their shoulders as to whether they are going to be put on the street without a job, but I know they are working very hard to try to make it as profitable. When we were in Government, we said too to the corporation, look, this cannot go on. We have got to get rid of these losses; we just cannot have this operate. I believe the former Minister , the MLA for the Interlake (Mr. Uruski) did indicate quite clearly to the corporation that changes had to be made. Changes were put in place.

There was evidence of improvements being made in the General Insurance Division at that time. (The Acting Speaker , Mr. Parker Burrel l, in the Chair.) What we have now is a Government which is adamant. Even though there has been significant improvement, even though it creates jobs in this province, even though it is providing insurance to some small business who cannot obtain that insurance from the private sector, even though there are remote and rural communities �. that cannot get insurance from the private sector, this ' Government seems to be determined to shut it down.

At least I have not had any signal to the contrary. I know a report is being made, it is being prepared. We have been over a half a year at it. I am very dismayed that nothing has come. I really do not expect anything to come, except I would not be surprised if there is an announcement soon that they are selling or are going to divest themselves of that division. I hope I am wrong. I truly hope I am wrong, but I believe that could be one result and one decision made by the Government. People are very concerned. I submitted a petition of about 2, 500 names. People worked very hard to get the names.

They were not hard to get in shopping centres, going around businesses, and so on. The City of Brandon's Municipal Council has taken a stand on this. The Labour Council has taken a stand. I have talked to the Chamber of Commerce. I have talked to the Economic Development Board there. They are all concerned for various ways about the threat to the Brandon economy because of the potential loss of these jobs. 578 Surely to goodness, there has been enough economic bad news for that community in the last several months. There has been a closure of an international nursing home with 44 jobs gone.

There has been a reduction in staffing at another nursing home, the Rideau Park, 13 full-time jobs and another seven or eight full-time equivalents for about approximately 20 jobs; Marr's Leisure Products, 44 jobs gone, thanks to free trade which was supported by this Government. As of January 1, leisure craft and other leisure products can come into Canada, as I understand, duty free. It is now possible to manufacture these products in the United States, ship them up without any duty.

There is a potential there that was seized upon and the company, I appreciate the fact that most of the product is sold in Ontario, 85 percent, but that is not something that occurred overnight, Mr. Acting Speaker, that developed very slowly and over a matter of years. What did change was the tariff. So we have lost an industry, there are another 44 jobs. So I say we do not need to lose another 45 jobs or 55 jobs. We cannot even afford to lose five or 10 jobs, Mr. Acting Speaker.

The community is in the doldrums because of free trade and because of reductions in nursing home beds and nursing home sta ffing, therefore, in the City of Brandon. So it rings hollow when the Government across the way talks about rural decentralization, jobs in rural Manitoba, jobs outside of Winnipeg. I am not suggesting that Brandon is rural, but it is certainly outside of Winnipeg. We are talking about decentralization of jobs. This is going in the wrong direction and people are very sensitive to this.

I do not understand a Government that professes to be concerned about decentralization, jobs outside of Winnipeg can do this to the City of Brandon. Because I say, while this Premier of ours is prepared to go to Ottawa and pound the desk for Portage la Prairie, he is doing the same thing virtually to the City of Brandon. Why is he doing this to the City of Brandon? * (15 40) He is doing this to the City of Brandon. We are going to lose jobs thanks to a decision made here, thanks to a decision made by this Premier (Mr. Filmon). He is adamant, he is going to get rid of it.

It does not matter what we say, what we do. It does not matter that it is being improved. All we are saying is give the corporation a chance. We think it is going into the black. Leave it alone, give them a chance. Do not interfere, that is what we are saying. But you are going to interfere. You are going to insist that they get rid of it, even though it has had a dramatic financial turnaround, even though we have got some damn good employees, they are working hard. Their morale is low because their jobs are being threatened. -(Interjection)- Mrs. Thatcher-at any rate, I say there is a paralle l .

It is just hypocritical, Mr. Acting Speaker , a hypocritical action to say I am fighting for jobs in Manitoba and go down to Ottawa and try to get the federal Government to reverse its decision on cutting back on the Portage base, eliminating the Portage base,

Wednesday, June 14, 1989 and then a couple of weeks later tell the Members of this House that no matter what, no matter how improved this situation is in the General Insurance Division, we are going to get rid of it. So I say, Mr. Acting Speaker , this is an action that will not be accepted by the people of Brandon, and we are going to hear more about this in the future. I can assure you of that. But it makes me wonder why I should support the Government.

The only concern I have is that I was trying to get friends, my friends in the Liberal Party, to support me in the Public Utilities Committee and I did not get very far. I ju st want to comment, in my enth us iasm for questioning yesterday, I did make a mistake. I did not want to mislead anyone. The motion of course was not carried unanimously because there was a division. There were three NDP versus two Liberals plus the Minister . The now Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) was acting as Chair and he broke the tie, voted with the two Liberals and the Minister responsible for MPI C, so it was four to three.

It was a clear division. My reference to unanimity was-I did not put it right-it came back to this Hous e as a report of the committee and it was accepted by this committee without any debate, without any division. It could have. We could have debated it, we did not have to accept the report of the committee without a debate and witho ut a recorded vote he re, according to my understanding of the rules, but I did not call for that recorded vote and we did not make an issue of it. It was accepted therefore unanimously by the Legislature, but admittedly not at the committee level.

What I find strange is the Government is committed to doing this study of the General Insurance Division. In the meantime, within an hour or two later , we have the Premier (Mr. Filmon) still telling the media that we are going to get rid of the General Insurance and, as he said again yesterda y, even though the majority on the committee-and then the committee 's report being accepted by the House-said we will study the options. I say the Premier either does not know what is going on or else he is prepared to ignore a majority view which was supported by two of his present Ministers. (Mr.

Speaker in the Chair.) At any rate, I would like to make some other points about some other issues that have been raised in the Budget. The other is the matter of the health and education levy, sometimes referred to as the payroll tax. What the Minister of Finance is doing-he is very proud of it, he is very happy with it, and so on-I say he is not doing anything significant with the payroll tax. The NOP, which brought it in not because we wanted to levy extra taxes but because we had to levy extra taxes to pay for health and education and social services or whatev er. It is a very difficult decision to make.

Who in their right mind wants increased taxes and who in their right mind wants to bring in a new tax? Nobo dy enjoys that. At any rate, we brought it in. Quebec had had some success with it, so we brought it in and we did provide cer tain exemptions. Then the following year , we 579 provided some additional adjustments. Rather than eliminate it, we reduced the number of businesses that had to pay. I tell you now, Mr. Speaker, categorically neither this Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) nor any other Minister of Finance in the foreseeable future will get rid of the payroll tax because the province's Treasury cannot afford to do without the payroll tax unless there are some major cutbacks or reductions in spending or unless there is an increase in sales taxes. I cannot see any Minister of Finance wanting to increase sales taxes from 7 to 8, 9 or 10 percent although, goodness knows, it is high and double digit in eastern Canada, in the Atlantic region. We realize that. I do not think that we want to see the sales tax go up.

We have to recognize, and the Minister of Finance will probably not say this too lou dly, if he ever says it pub licly, that money, and I think it is still about $18 0 million, even with these new exemptions or the raising of the exemption level, that the bulk of this money comes from large corporations, national corporations, federal Crown agencies, and brings in revenue that we could never get otherwise. To that extent, it is a new found source of badly needed revenue for the Treasury of this province.

I say, therefore, I am quite prepared to bet a cup of good coffee, made in this Legislature, that this Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) nor any other Minister of Finance in this foreseeable future will eliminate the payroll tax, the health and education levy, because it does not make sense to do so. I would even go as far to say that there is no statistical evidence, there are no hard studies that shows that the payroll tax actually reduced the level of job creation in this province. Put it another way, there is no hard evidence that it added to unemployment in this province.

In fact I think some of the figures showed unemployment getting better after the payroll tax was imposed. I am not making the case one way or the other except to say there is no clear evidence that the payroll tax did slow down the rate of job creation. You may think that it should do so from a logical perspective, but the fact is there are so many factors that influence business decision making, that influence a businessman, an emp l oyer's decision to hire more workers. It is not only on a minor tax, it is profit opportunities out there, it is other costs, it is the conditions of the market and so on.

There are so many factors at work, it is very hard to isolate it. No one yet has written a report on this to prove to me or anyone else that the payroll tax has hurt the Manitoba econ omy. In contrast, however , it has brought in badly needed revenue, so this will be one promise this Conservative Government will not keep. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.) I have bet a cup of coffee on it . I am quite prepared to pay my cup of coffee if I lose tha t bet, but I will gladly provide an addi tional cup of coffee to pay off this bet with who ever, with the Speaker or the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) th at he will not eliminate the payroll tax.

Wednesday, June 14, 1989 I would like to make a comment also about the HydroBond issue. I think $300 million is the amount tha t was raised -3 3,000 Manito bans, I bel ieve, purcha sed these. I think it is commen dabl e. Governments in the past have talked about it. We have issued-I do not know what we call them- saving certificates or bonds or whatever.

Our NDP Government actuall y had an issue of certificates to raise savings for Manitobans, and so on. * (1 550) The fact that it was sold so quickly though makes me wonder whether the rate of interest was set at too high a level, that maybe we paid a trifle bit-I do not know how much, maybe we paid a half of one point or th ree-quarters of one point, I do not know. Maybe we paid a little bit too much in the way of an interest rate for this. Otherwise, I simply say it sold so quickly, it was such a good deal, the interest rate was so high that they were sold very, very quickly.

I would lik e to know, and I do not have tha t information, what would it have cost the Treasury if the Gov ernment had borrowed ab road ? The reasons Government had borrowed abroad, not only the NDP but previous administrations and not only in this province but other provinces, the reason you borrow abroad is the interest rates are lower. You do take the chance of fluctuating exchange rates so there is some risk involv ed, obviously there is some risk. The point is that over the years Governments have done that with the best of intentions to save money for the taxpayers, to save interest payments.

I would like to know what would have been the cost to borrow outside of Manitoba as opposed to borrowing as we did? I appreciate the fact that the interest payments are made to Manitobans. That is good, no one will argue with that. Although I am not so sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether those people who own those bonds at this time will always be residing in Manitoba, or whether the bonds can be transferred out of the province somehow or other, someone buying them and giving them to a cousin or sa y, a gr andson or grandda ughter living el sewhere as a present, for instance, or whatever.

You can imagine ways and means by which financial securities may be transferred or spread around the country. The other concern I have about the HydroBond issue, for a while I began to think it was more of a PR exercise than a legitimate sale of bonds, because for the amount of advertising, when you think when that the issue was put out, it was sold quickly. I would submit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Government probably spent too much money on promoting the issue. We want to be careful with our money, I agree. Let us not waste money.

I think, and I do not know what the numbers are, but I suspect we spent too much money on advertising this. It became a big promotion meaning buy Manitoba bonds, it is a nice slogan, very nice, everyone can agree but really, were we in a PR exercise or were we really trying to sell bonds? I do not think we needed nearly as much advertising. The bonds sold immediately. The rate of the interest was so attractive there was no problem. 580 Again the total debt-this is related to Hydro-i t is still a very small amount when you look at the total outstanding debt of Hydro which is about $2.6 billion.

The $300 million is fine, but it is still only a small fraction of the total debt of Hydro. Let us not get carried away that all of a sudden we are financing Hydro development with the Manitoba savings. I do not think there are enough savings in the province to pay for some of the major Hydro developments in the past or indeed that could occur at some future time- not within a period of time, not within the short period of time. If we could do that, I say, good , great.

It would be good, but I do not know whether that is possible given the fact that there is such money, so many dolla rs, it is a fairly short period of time to pay for the development. On the matter of rural economic development, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wanted to say that while it is fine to have a new department, as far as I can see it is really the Department of Municipal Affairs with a new title, there is very little new money in it and I do not see any meaningful programs. Now if I am wrong, please tell me, but I do not see anything really meaningful in the department.

I am not trying to take away from the Minister, his Deputy or the staff or anything. It is almost like setting up the Seniors Directorate. That is the name, it is nice, and it sounds great. Every body can agree we should zero in on programs for seniors but nothing happens, except you get a lot of frustrated senio

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-19
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf 19.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	87cd2b1f1d3b170fe03b2b114b4dd0eded2582ff

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