Manitoba Hansard — 4 March 1988 (Sitting 17, 33rd Legislature, 3rd Session)

33-3-17

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday, 4 March, 1988. Time - 10:00 a.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillipa: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Stand ing and Special Committees . . . MINIST ERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. V. SCH ROEDER: I beg leave to table, pursuant to The Regulations Act, a copy of each regulation filed with the Registrar of Regulations since the regulations were last tabled in this House in April of last year .

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation. HON. J. WAS VLVCIA-LEIS: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual Report 1986-87 for the Manitoba Arts Council. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Business Dev elopment and Tourism. HON. A. MACKLING: Thank you, Madam Speake r. I am pleased to table two reports: one under The Trade Practices Inquiry Act and another under The Insuranc e Act. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Finance. HON. E. KOSTVRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to table the Quarterly Financial Report for Nine Months, April-December 1987.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Natural Resources. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker, I wish to table the first report of The Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation for the three-year period, 1984- 1986. MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . INT RODUCTI ON OF BILLS MR. A. DRIEDGER introduced, by leave, on behalf of the Honourable Member for Brandon We st, Bill No. 6,

An Act to amend The Labour Relations Act; loi modiflant la

loi sur les relations du travail. ORAL QUESTIONS Final offer selection legislation MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Minis ter of labour.

Speaking about labour legislation this morning, I wonder if the Minister has been informed that since her government has proclaimed the final offer select ion legislation earlier this year, there have been eight applications before the Labour Board for the use of this law which the government, at the time that it introduced and debated the law, said would be rarely used and would be just another tool In the hands of labour relations in this province. Has she been Informed that in less than two months there have been eight applications for use of that final offer selection legislation?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of labour. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speak er, there Is a large flow of cases that come before the labour Board. I think a judgment on the frequency of use of any legislation has to be measured over · time, so I registered the member's concern, but I think it's very premature to make a judgment. 487 MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Minis ter has been further informed that seven of the eight applications for use of this law have been applied for by the Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers Union under their president, Bernie Chrlstophe, and in every case he's used the 30- to 60-day window prior to the expiry of the contract. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, I query the relevance · of that question. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I'll give the Minister an indication of the relevance of that ques tion.

Will she now admit that this law will undoubtedly be widely utilized, that it will have dramatic ramifications on labour rel ations In this province, and that it is being put forward simply for the use of one Bernie Christophe and it is nothing more than a "Bail out Bernle" bill? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition seems to have a magic crystal ball that gives him the power to predict the future. He also seems to have a preference for strike action. I just can't really make any sense In the question and, therefore, really have no comment. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina .

Friday, 4 March, 1988 MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, I may defer my question because the Minis ter of Health seems to have left the House. My questions were to the Minister of Health. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. lt's not in order to refer to the presence or absence of a member. Ritalin abuae - children MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARST AIRS: I thank you, Madam Speaker . On August 17 , I wrote to both the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Education about the possible abuse of the drug Ritalin.

I was assured by the Minis ter of Education that there was no substantive data to support allegations of abuse and that there was no pressure by teachers to place children on Ritalin. I was assured by the Min ister of Health that Manitoba Pharmacare claims are reviewed for possible drug abuse. My question is first to the Minis ter of Education. The parents of Devlin Stevens have informed me that their son was not allowed to return to school unless he was on the drug Ritalin.

Will the Minister order an immediate survey of school age children In Manitoba to determ ine the number, sex and age of children on Ritalin in the Province of Manitoba? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Education. HON. R. PENNER: There's almost a non sequitur there. One parent advises the Member for River Heights of an allegation which she takes as gospel, and on the basis, asks for the expenditure of a considerable amount of money to survey something which may not even be surveya ble.

I will take the question as notice, first of all, to determ ine, if I can, what substance there is into the allegations in the one instance given, and beyond that, we will take it on the basis of information received and verified. I do not propose to commit vast expenditures by the province on the basis of one reported incident without looking into it. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: With a supplementa ry question to the same Minister, Madam Speaker. All school divisions keep lists of childr en on prescribed medication.

So would the Minister get in touch with the school divisions and ask for those numbers of those children who are prescribed Ritalin? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, certainl y, we would be more than pleased to do that so that we can begin to get some hard information together. The fact that the school keeps a list of those who are on prescription does not, of course, mean that the school divisions have required that they be on those prescriptions. 488 Pharmacare - possible Ritalin abuse MRS. S. CARST AIRS: Madam Speaker, with a follow up question, actually, to the Minister of Health.

In his letter he ind icated to me that Man itoba Pharmacare claims are reviewed for possible drug abuse. Can the Minis ter of Health explain how Ritalin is reviewed for possible abuse when no statistics, according to his own department through a phone call yesterday, are kept by Manitoba Pharmacare about the number of prescriptions for Ritalin issued in the province? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Health. HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, there are literally millions of prescriptions written out.

We have had discussions with the College of Physicians and Surgeons whereby a triplicate form could be developed so that there would be records kept of prescriptions as to their type, number, by physicians. The College of Physicians and Surgeons would be the group to look at this providing pertinent information when required to the Manitoba Health Services Commission. Work on that is procee ding, and we hope that by the autumn of this year, Madam Speaker, we will be in a position to have much better information. MMA - current fee negotiations MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pe mbina. MR. D.

ORC HARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My question is for the Minister of Health. Madam Speaker, approximately three years ago, this government entered into binding arbitration with the Manitoba Medical Assoc iation as a method of sett ling fees to be charged by fee-for-service doctors in the Province of Manitoba.

Approximately a year ago, the first award by binding arbitration was brought down - bind ing arbitration being the method that this government sugg ested wou ld allow the medical profess ion to concentrate more on cooperation for reform of the system instead of concentrating resources towards simple fee negotiation with the governm ent. The government was not satisfied with that first arbitration award, unilaterally cancelled the binding arbitration, i.e., took their ball and bat and ran home from the game.

Madam Speaker , given that binding arbitration is no longer in place for fee estab lishment with the MMA, can the Mini ster ind icate the status of current negotiations with the MMA and how well they are progressing on a new fee

schedule for the doctors of the province? HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to deal with this matter . There was, indeed, an agree ment signed with the option for both parties or either party to withdraw. That was done according to the agreement. The MMA, itself, raised some concerns about clarification of that particular award.

Friday, 4 March, 1988 We have been negotiating with the MMA. Indeed, while negotiations have been taking place, doctors have, through volume Inc reases, been able to increase the average of their incomes by some $3,500 this year, on average, because of volume increases that they in fact have. We have had 11 meetings and some inf ormal meetings with respect to the MMA. Our latest offer - and we have had some movement - to the MMA was for 3 percent this year, 3 percent next year, which really reflects the type of offer that we've been making to ordinary Manitobans in all walks of life.

In addition to the volume increases that they would have, this would entail a 13 percent increase over two years. That would, in fact, provide for something that we think Is quite reasonable. lt would amount to some $3,800 with respect to fee increases, and some $2,000 to $4,000 extra with respect to volume increases, which we think is a reasonable level of compensation with respect to doctors who indeed do perform a valuable service within the health care system. They have asked for 14 percent, which amounts to almost $17, 000.00.

If you take Into account the volume Increase that they would have, that comes out to an increase of some $20,000, Madam Speaker. Given the various demands on the health care system that people raise from time to time, we think that $20,000 as a total compensation package per doctor is unreasonable, and that rather something in the order of 3 percent is a reasonable figure. We would hope that people act responsibly in response to that. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, inherent in part of the Mini ster's answer, one could detect an Inherent blame on the physicians of this province for an increase in volume of patients seeing doctors, in other words, patients who wish to have this NDP-alleged equal access to quali ty Medicare. MMA - consultation re: health care reform MR. D.

ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, can the Mi nister indic ate to the House, given that the binding arbitration process is no longer in place, the level of consultation with the MMA that this government has undertaken in the last year regarding the reform and innovation in the health care system? Particularly, can the Min ister indicate the level of consultation with the MMA that was undertaken when this government decided to close 111 beds in the City of Winnipeg hospitals? HON. W.

PARASIUK: I would, in fact, be pleased to talk about the level of consultation with respect to the MMA with respect to health care im provements. We indeed have had about three meetings in that respect. One of these, I think, lasted for well over four hours.

We discussed various matters relating to imp roving the health care system because I think it's Important, Madam Speaker, to separate a collective bargaining process, which basically is a negotiation over money with respect to individual compensation, not unlike negotiations that take place between management and the union, and the doctors through the MMA act as a union with respect to fee negotiations. 489 On the other hand, we have had discussions with them and a whole set of other doctors of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, medical directors, the Faculty of Medicine at the university, individual doctors, with respect to imp roving the health care system.

We have, in fact, invited the MMA to formally be part of that process, to sit on an advisory committee to the Min ister, to sit on an advisory committee that in fact would establish studies, implementation plans. That, I hope, will be in fact responded to by the MMA as well as other groups that we are asking to participate in this collaborative planning process.

So I would hope that the MMA would separate the matter of fee negotiations from the larger matter of trying to work with all Manitobans, both consumers and health care providers of all walks, to Improve our health care system and meet the challenges that they raise from time to time, meet the challenges that members opposite raise from time to time, and meet the challenges that we on this side, Madam Speaker, have recognized and want to make sure that we deal with In the future. MMA - current status negotiations MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The Member for Pembina raised what I consider some pretty important questions I'd like to ask. In relation to his response to those questions, there seems to be a substantial difference between what the MMA is asking and what the province Is willing to give in thousands and thousands of dollars. I'm wondering if the Mi nister can inform the House what the current status of negotiations is with the MMA. HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, I think that we in fact made an offer some two days ago. We have not heard yet formally from the Manitoba Medical Association.

I would hope that they would seriously consider that offer. We have indeed only been meeting with the negotiators and the president of the MMA. I believe that this is a matter that's been discussed by their executive.

I would hope that the entire community of doctors in Ma nitoba - and I think there are some 1,8 00 of them - take a very close look at the offer that Manitoba through the Manitoba Health Services Commission has offered to doctors, because $3,800, Madam Speaker, is a very substantial increase in income given the base level of doctors' Incomes in comparison, for example, to what's been accepted by people who earn $1 5,000 a year. A 3 percent increase for those people amounts to some $450, Madam Speaker.

So I think something that Is in the order of $3,800 as a fee increase, plus some $2,000 to $4,000 increase through volume, Madam Speaker, provides a significant increase in income for doctors, one that we think Is reasonable, and we would hope that the doctors themselves In the community of Ma nitoba would consider to be reasonable as well. MR. M. DOLIN: A supplementary to the same Mini ster.

Friday, 4 March , 1988 I'm wondering has the MMA given any indication to him or the Manitoba Health Services Commission about any job action, If this gap is not closed between the offer made by the commission and what the doctors requested . HON. W. PARAS IUK: Madam Speaker, from time to time over the course of this period, the MMA has threatened that it would undertake job action which would entail the withdrawal of services. That has in fact taken place in 1982 as well. There was a rotating withdrawal of services throughout Manitoba.

But given the situation that we have in Manitoba where we have pressi ng needs for health, where I think we've had a very conciliatory attitude on the part of most people within the health care field to accept 3 percent as a reaso nable wage or fee settlement, I would hope that the doctors themselves would not pursue the course of withdrawal of services, and would treat this matter reasonably and responsibly , Ma dam Speak er, because I think they shouldn't be out of step with the rest of Manitoba. Ophthalmic services - Northern Manitoba MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MRS. B.

MITCHELSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My question is for the Minister of Health as well. Dr. Fitzslmon has for 10 years provided needed eye care service to patients in Northern Ma nitoba communities on a fee-for-service basis. He has flown to these communities, Madam Speaker, at his own expense. Under the new policy, Dr. Fitzs imon will not fly at his expense to these communities, but patients will be flown to see the doctor in Thompson at taxpayers' expense. My question is did the Minister approve this policy? HON. W. PARA SIUK: Madam Speaker, I will in fact have to take that particular question as notice.

I know that there had been some differences with respect to ophthalmologist services in Northern Manitoba. I'll have to check out the specific ins tances, because I know that in one instance - there were some ins tances where there was a dispute - an ophthalmologist was going into northern communities and I think charging a fee for service and seei ng some 120 patients per day, I think at a fee charge of some $25, which was amounting to a very, very heavy cost.

We would hope that we would be able to develop this in a reaso nable way whereby a person would go into a community, with our paying the services of that person going into the community and we would pay that person's air fare, we would pay the person 's expenses and we would pay them a fee for that day for seeing people, Madam Speaker. We thought that was a rea sonable approach to take and we would hope that we would be able to work that out. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Madam Speake r, I question who's running the Department of Health.

My second question to the Minister of Health is how much more will this change in policy cost the taxpayers, 490 when ins tead of having the doctor fly in at his expense to see the patients, taxpayers are now going to have to pay to fly each patient to see the doctor? There might be 120 patients who have to be flown out, Madam Speak er. HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, I think that what we are trying to es tablish is someth ing that's reaso nable from the taxpayers' perspective and fees in the order of $3,000 per day. If one extrapolated that fee structure over a year, you would be talking about $600,000.00.

Well, we were in fact prepared to pay the air fare but if in fact the Conse rvatives want to in fact get involved in lobbying on behalf of $600,000 potential fee syste ms, as opposed to one which we think would be fair and reasonable, let them take that position. We believe that there are better ways of doing it and we have said to the doctors that we want to sit down and provide a fair return, a fair fee structure, a fair payment for going into Northern Manitoba.

But I think $3,000 a day, Madam Speaker, is something that if we in fact hired a consultant of $3,000 a day, the members opposite would be on their feet screami ng that we're paying too much for that consultant, Madam Speaker . MRS. B. MITC HELSON: My final supp lementary to the same Minis ter is: My goodness, there are 120 patients being seen In one day by one doctor and are recei ving needed care - and my question is twofold - is this why the transportation costs have been increased by 13 percent in northern areas?

And will this Minister get his act together, rei nstate the 10-year -old method of payment to Dr . Fitzsi mon, and stop rationing eye care services to Northern Manitobans? HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, I would hope that the Member for River East would get her facts straight. Dr . Fitzsimon is a general practitioner who has a degree, a diploma, in ophthamology. He contracted with the Federal Government to go to northern remote Indian reserves to conduct eye examinations.

The Federal Government pays his re turn air fare, his accommodations, his meal allowance and for nursing assistance, in addition to the amount billed by the doctor for the examinations. I believe that the Member for River East said this person was paying all of these costs himself. Madam Speaker, we were inde ed prepared to pay a fee structure for the day, which we have done with other doctors in Southern Manitoba or Northern Manitoba who have indeed gone up on a consultation service into rural Manitoba or remote communities. Madam Speaker, they have tried to be very fair about this.

Groups from Southern Manitoba, including the medical faculty, have gone up into communities like Churchill or Island Lake. They provided needed services. We have respected that, we have appreciated that, and so have the people there, but they have not had this ind ividual fee system that, in fact, could lead to situations where you'd have $600,000 or $800,000 being paid out in fees to one person, as opposed to providing a group service for needed services to Northern Manitobans . That's the approach that we want to pursue, Madam Speaker.

We still continue to pursue that approach and I'm astonished that if we extrapolated $600,000 to $800,000

Friday, 4 March, 1988 for about 1,000 doctors, Madam Speaker, we'd in fact run our Medicare system completely into the hole and that's what . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, ohl MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Yes, Madam Speaker, my final supplementary to the Minister is who pays the travel costs when that doctor goes into non-Na tive communities in Northern Manitoba at his expense? Fine, the Federal Government is picking up their share and their portion.

What Is this Provincial Government doing for this doctor who is travelling Into non-Native areas in Northern Manitoba to provide needed services which are going to be rationed as a result of this new policy? HON. W PAR ASIUK: Madam Speaker , most of the communities are indeed beside reserves - are right beside reserves. We indeed are pursuing contracting with another ophthalmologist or an optometrist to go in and provide those services on a reaso nable fee basis, Madam Speaker.

We think that that's taking the responsible approach, as opposed to taking some thing quite out of context, which is still being reviewed by the committee that reviews these matters when there is a dispute and getting up here and taking, I think, a little bit of a hysterical approach with respect to it.

Madam Speaker, what we're trying to provide, and what I think we've done a pretty good job of trying to do, is prov iding hea lth services into remote communities because there are many doctors who won't go up into those remote communities to live, so we have to provide a reaso nable way of providing those health services to reserves and to off-reserve communities. Abortion - government's position MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have a question, too, for the Minister of Health, noting his concern for cost.

My question is a simple straightforward one to him: Is it the government's intention and policy to pay for abortion-on-demand services at the Henry Morgantaler Clinic? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Health. HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, I believe that we do not have a clinic that is operational and it certainly is hypothetical at this particular stage. Our policy has been quite clear on that.

We have said that we would indeed prefer that therapeutic abortion services , following couns elling which is non directive, after informed decisions do take place, will be done in non-profit community board facilities or hospitals, Madam Speaker. We do have a situation where the College of Physicians and Surgeons has inde ed provided a conditional licence. We will see what transpir es over the future, but I state our preference quite clearly , and 491 that is for non-profit, community-based facilities.

We have never been in favour on this side of the House of private, profit-making facilities providing health care. That position is quite clear. We would hope that even ts would evolve whereby you will have a balanced set of services, and we have said that consistently, and I ask people to develop even better counse lling services, Madam Speaker, so that people do in fact make informed decisions.

I don't want to take extreme positions one way or the other, and I think this government has taken a very balanced, reasoned approach on this matter, Madam Speaker, and I would hope we would have the support of all people in this matter . MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, the Minis ter knows very well what the terms of approval are at the Morgentaler Clinic. Would he supply a sim ple straig htforward ans wer to the question: Is the Government going to pay for abortion on demand at the Henry Morgentaler Clinic? Yes or no? HON. W.

PARASIUK: We do not believe in abortion on demand on this side of the House, Madam Speak er. The interes ting thing is that I believe a therapeutic abortion involves a medical decision by a doctor, Madam Speaker, and I believe a doctor would have the integrity , both morally and in terms of his own professional ethics and in terms of the Hippocratic oath, to provide medical care to patients.

If this government wants to be the Big Brother who puts itself into a consultation between a doctor and any patient about anything, be it sexually transmitted diseases, be it mental illness, Madam Speake r, then they can state that position, that they would expect the government to sit in on a consultation of a medical nature taking place between a doctor and that patient. We on this side have always respected that relationship between a doctor and a patient, as we have with respect to a lawyer and a client.

Madam Speaker , we have faith in the integrity of doctors in this respect and in the formed decisions of patients after sufficient and non-directed counse lling. We bel ieve that to be a reasoned position. MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, a supplementary question for clarification. I'd hoped to have only had to ask one question. Is the Minister sayi ng yes, we will pay for abortion on demand at the Morgentaler Clinic, or no, we will not, or maybe we will after further investig ation? HON. W.

PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, this government will not pay for abortion on demand; it does not believe in abortion on demand. lt bel ieves in therapeutic abortions that are based on a medical decision. Tourism Dept.- information restriction MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. E. CONNERY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Tourism. Madam Speaker, one of our researchers was trying to put some information together for us and phoned

Friday, 4 March, 1988 all across Canada to the various provinces getting information on tourism, until our researcher phoned the Manitoba Department of Tourism and was informed that any information would have to go through the Deputy Minis ter . Madam Speaker, I was also given that same ans wer , and that is the first time this has happened. Is this Minister trying to restrict the flow of information to the elected rep resentatives of this House so we cannot adequately advise or chastise the government? Madam Speaker , has this Minis ter muzzled his staff?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Business Deve lopment and Tourism. HON. A. MACKLING: Not at all, Madam Speaker . The honourable member knows that any time he wants information my door is open, and I've invited him to functions. I know that he wants to posture, Madam Speaker, but he knows that my department is free to provide information. He should make the request of information to me so that at least I know what he's see king. Tourism agreement - private sector involvement MA. E. CONNERY: Obviously, he's very sensitiv e.

Madam Speaker, this Minister says the new tourism agreement will lever large amounts of private sector money. Can he tell this House why only three private sector agreements have been funded, and only to the tune of $2.4 million, keeping In light, Madam Speaker, we're nearing the end of the third year of a five-year agreement? HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, the honourable member knows that agreement is for a five-year term. We're about midway In the agreement; we have very significant develop ments that are under consideration.

But we, as a govern ment, are not going to panic or push private entrepreneurs to make substantia l investments without their being assured that those investments are reasonable. We believe in being fair with private entrepreneurs, Madam Speaker . Tourism promotion - cost MR. E. CONNEAY: Madam Spea ker, un less the agreement is extended beyond 1990, funds will lapse. Madam Speaker , this government has cut the tourism budget this year . Madam Speaker, this afternoon at one o'clock, there is an extravagant party the government is putting on at the IMAX Theatre to put their image forth to the tourism industr y.

I'd like this Minis ter to inform the House how much this little party is going to cost the Tourism Department. Madam Speaker, this sensitive Minister, I'd like him to inform me why the Liberal Party was invited to this function but the Conservative Party was not? HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I'm certain I heard the honourable member talking about sensitiv ity, and this member being sensitive to his ques tioning.

I'm delighted that he references the official open ing at one o'clock of our tourism promotions. 492 The honourable member met me the other day and indicated his concern about the fact that apparent ly, somehow, the Leader of the Liberal Party had got an invitation someh ow. I tell you that it wasn't by direction of this Minis ter . He indicated a concern that he'd like to be there, and I have indicated that he would be welcome, and he knows that. I instructed my staff to ensure that . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie, on a point of order . MR. E. CONNERY: Madam Speaker, the Minister said that I was welcome to the function. Madam Speaker, the Minister did not make any comment to that extent. In fact, the Minister said that I wasn't invited because they are very sensitive to the criticis m and the accurate criticis m we've been making of his department. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order ple ase, order please. A dispute over the facts is not a point of order . The Honourable Minister, to finish his answer briefly. HON. A.

MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I indicated to the honourable member that cert ainly, as an honourable member, he would be welcome. He's the critic, and I instructed my staff to ensure that. But I did ask him, as an honourable member , not to poor mouth Manitoba and its tourism promotions when he's there at our invitation. I expect him to do that, Madam Speaker . Cancer Foundation - tabling of internal report MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Gladstone. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My que stion is directed to the Minister of Health.

Last week, I asked him for a rep ort which was prepared for the Cancer Foundation early in 1987. I'm wondering today, as a member of that board, if he would be ple ased to table that rep ort in the House today. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Minis ter of Health. HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, I took that que stion as notice. I don't have the rep ort available, and I'll certainly look into that and re port back to the Hous e next week. MRS. C. OLESON: Last year, I asked for that report. I didn't get it. This year, I'm asking for the report.

What is the Minister trying to hide by repea tedly denying information from the Cancer Foundation? Is it more important to have the NDP elected or is it more important have cancer patients treated ?

Friday, 4 March, 1988 HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, I quite reject the grandstanding of the Member for Gladstone. For me, cancer is a very serious issue. I spent the morning talking with a doctor about cancer, who is involved with the Cancer Foundation. So I don't think the Member for Gladstone should take this lightly. Madam Speaker, I wasn't the Minis ter last year . I was asked the question. There are a whole set of questions and, when I get the information, I'll bring it back to the Member for Gladstone, Madam Speaker. But let me assure people in this province that I've got a particular interest in cancer.

I'll be making sure that things are done within reason to ensure that we have good services not only here in Winnipeg, Madam Speaker, but out-rea ching beyond Winnipeg. That's what I spent this morning talking about, making sur e that we could have cancer services outside of Winnipeg because, Madam Speaker, all of us have close access here but there are many people who have to travel hundreds of miles for chemotherapy or other services, and we want to make sure that is available to people. Special needs education - funds transfer MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin-Ru ssell. MR. L.

DERKACH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Education. On Tuesday last, I asked the Minister if school divisions are now able to transfer funds for special learning students to other institutions? In his rep ly, Madam Speaker, he said that we ought to know that this is a direct res ponsibility of school divis ions.

Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that on January 12, this Min ister's department wrote a letter to superintendents in this province telling them of the new policy with regard to transferring funds to institutions like the Laureate Academ y, will the Minis ter now table the new policy that he based this letter on? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Education. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, of course, Madam Speaker .

As I said at the time, it's a public document. lt doesn't bear the interpretat ion that the member would like to give it. lt says quite clearly what the policy is. lt's a continuation of an existing policy, namely, if a school division decides that there's a program that ought to be provided for a child that is not available in the school division, it can arrange for the transfer of that child to another school division. lt negotiates or contracts with the adjoining or other school division for that to take place. lt's a decision which, in the first instance, is made by the school division.

What the letter says and I will table it - I'm going to table it right now - is that the involvement of the department is a case where assistance from the province could be provided, and the assistance that's provided by the province is in assessing the program and in assessing the child. That is the policy, that has been the policy. lt's a policy which I think has worked well, no problem in tabling it. MR. L.

DERKACH: Madam Speaker, I have been in touch with several superintendents across this province 493 who had no knowledge that this in fact was the provincial policy with regard to transf erring funds to a private institution for services that may not be available within that school division, although there have been in the past transfers of funds from once school division to the other . Will the Minis ter now indicate whether there is a new policy which indicates that institutions like the Laureate Academy are eligible for special learning funds from the province? HON. R. PENNER: it's the same policy.

There is no change in the policy, Madam Speaker, namely that school divisions can negotiate with respect to the transfer of a child who requires a program that the school division is unable to provide . The school division may - and it's up to the school division - arrange with another institution that's a recog nized institution or another school division to transfer the child. lt must then arrange for the transfer of the funds that are received for that child and arrange any negotiations with respect to residual costs.

The Laureate Academy is a recog nized school that concentrates on a certain program with respect to special needs, a limited number . All of the teachers there have to be certified. Its program has to be certified, and it receives general funding as a private school. lt doesn't mean that a school division would be able to transfer a child to a non-recognized school but to a school division or a recog nized school that has always been the policy. Superin tendents who say that they didn't know that this was the policy ought to go back to 'their general manual of adminis tration.

MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance and the proposed amendment thereto of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Roblin- Russell. MR. L. DERKAC H: Thank you, Madam Speaker . I am pleased to rise this morning and address the Budget Speech.

Madam Speaker, it's a privilege that I respect on behalf of my constituents, but I rise today somewhat concerned because of the kind of message that we received from the Budget that was presented last Friday. Before I begin, Madam Speaker, because you were not sitting in the Chair at the time I made my remarks with regard to the Throne Speech, may I wish you well. Although we are into the Session now, may I wish you well, and I hope that you will preside in fairness over the proceedings of this House for the duration of this Session.

Madam Speaker, when the Throne Speech was made to this House, I think that members had a very good opportunity to have their remarks recorded on it. I think there was a consensus that the Throne Speech was

Friday, 4 March, 1918 hollow; it was shallow; it lacked vision. Last Friday, Madam Speaker, we were presented with a Budget that, once again, was marked by hollowness. As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, it was one that - (Interjection)- . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Will the honourable members carry on their private conver sations elsewhere so we can hear the Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell. MR.

L DERKACH: As I was saying, the Budget speech gave the Impression that this gover nment was going to take control of Its affairs. lt was going to begin to control the def icit, to control government spend ing. Madam Speaker, it was all nothing but a facade. Again, it was a way of creative accounting, I guess, that this government has adopted over the past few yea rs, and H did nothing but mislead the people of this province, and probably to a greater extent than we have ever seen in the past.

Last yea r's Budget, Madam Speaker, is one that probably took the biggest tax bite out of the people of this province In the history of this province. Only now are Manltobans beginning to feel the effects of this Budget.

I guess, before the Minis ter came In with his Budget, we were all anticipating that, as a result of the high taxes that were Imposed on Manltobans last year, the Increased fees In every conceiva ble fashion that were Imposed on Manltobans last year, would res ult In a Budget this yea r that would rea lly address the deficit, would re ally address government spending, and would somehow give Manltobans the break that they rea lly require. Well, Madam Speaker, we were all disappointed last Friday when the Minister res ponsible for Finance gave his message.

Madam Speaker, I would like to deal today with some of the things that I think are Important in terms of what the government left out of the Budget and in the mess age that the Minis ter gave last Friday. I think his theme or his attempted theme was deficit control, control over government spending. But in fact, Madam Speaker, it was all hypocritical because of the fact that here we have a government that is going to be spending 8.5 percent more than what they should be, as a matter of fact; 4.3 percent more than the rate of inflation. Our deficit is still climbing.

Our public debt on Manltobans is increasing and, if you take a look at the most devasta ting part of the Budget, I guess, it's that $523 million in interest charges, because this Is money that cannot be used to buy programs for Manitoba, whether it's health care, whether it's education services , whether it's assistance to farmers or social programs.

That money, Madam Speaker, Is lost. lt Is wasted as a direct result of this government's inability to handle the affairs in an appropriate fashion. lt took a hundred years, Madam Speaker, to build up half of the debt or the kind of debt that this government has been able to impose on Manitobans In seven short yea rs, and that is incredible. We are going to be paying for it for a long time, not only us but our children and our grandchildren. That is almost criminal that we should be Imposing that kind of a debt on our future genera tions.

Madam Speaker, it appears that this government has been able to bungle every thing that it puts its hands 494 on, whether it's the health syst em, whether it's the education sy stem, whether it's agriculture or whether it's a Crown corporation. At the same time, it continues to surrou nd itself with bureaucrats, with apple-polis hers, with commun icators who do nothing but present an image that this government is the kind of caring government that they are attempting to portray.

Madam Speaker, In the Mi nister's address to the House last Friday, he said that his government has a commitment to defend the right of all Manitobans to live in a just and equal soci ety . We ll, in the last couple of days - as a matter of fact, yesterday- we were given an example of the kind of just and equal society this government is creat ing. Why were the people from Berens River in front of the Legisl ature yesterday? Is it because they are being treated In a fair and just way? Why were the ambulance drivers in front of the Legislature yesterday?

Was it al so because this government is treating them in a fair and equitable way? No, Madam Speaker, they are there because there is an unjus t and unequal way of treating people in our society by this government. Madam Speaker, this Minister also made another commitment. He said, a commitment to create jobs by supporting economic develop ment. We ll, Manitoba is potentially a province that should be attracting business to it.

Winnipeg is the hub of the continent, the hub of the country and, if the climate was right, Madam Speak er, we would be attracting businesses from all over North America to locate here in Winnipe g. But inste ad, what is happening? We are seeing an exodus of busine sses from Winnipeg. We are seeing an exodus of busi nesses from this province. Businesses are avoiding this province like a plague, and there is a rea son for it. That reason is sitting right across from us. That rea son is the present government that we have sitting and governing the Province of Manitoba. lt is not only business, Madam Speaker .

We can take a look at some thing like tourism. Manitoba is a bea utiful province. If you travel across it, you will find that it's probably got the most picturesque scenery anywhere in North America. We have people who love to come to Manitoba, who love to enjoy fishing up in our northern lakes, who love to enjoy the hunting. Many of the people who come here don't come from overseas. They come from other provinces and they come from the United States. But look at the climate that we have developed here through this government, and take a look at what's happening to our tourist industry . lt is going down.

This is a resource, Madam Spe aker , that is one that we could all benefit from, that we could reap benefits for a long time from but, because of the attitude of this government, we cannot. As a matter of fact, they have placed the Minister in charge of tourism who does nothing but sta nd up and shout across at the neighbours to the south, who in fact have been our major tourist people. He stands up in a high school in Manitoba and says that, if the Free Trade Agreement goes th rough and if In fact the Americans might want some energy , they will send the Marines in.

Madam Speaker, is that the kind of resp onsi ble attitude that a Min ister res ponsible for Tourism and Business Dev elopment should have? I think he is a Minister that the Premier should remove immediate ly . But that is not the only area that we have problems with. lt seems that ever ything this government has

Friday, 4 March, 1988 attempted has turned out badly. We can take a look at Crown corporations. This government is very sensitive about Crown corporations. They say that every time we stand up to speak we are talking about how badly they are handling the Crown corporations, and it's true. They are handling them terribly. For seven years, every time this government has put their hands on a Crown corporation or has constructed a new Crown corporation, they have managed to run it into a deficit, to run it into a situation where it's losing money for the taxpayers of the province.

I would say that the Crown corporations in our province right now are the disaster of all disasters. The Minister responsible for Crown Investments last year admitted that, yes, there were problems in the Crown corporations, and it wasn't only the Manitoba Telephone System and MTX, but there were others. This year, he has finally realized that a lot of the debt cannot be paid for, so they have decided to write the bad debts off to the tune of $18 5 million. But what does this mean? What does the $18 5 million write-off mean?

Does that mean that debt is just simply going to walk away? - absolutely not. lt means that debt is put on the future generations of this province. They are the ones who are going to have to pay for it, because this government cannot. You know, Madam Speaker, the Budget can be made to look awfully good if you keep writing off debts like the Crown corporation debts. lt can give the impression that this government is doing something without including those kinds of figures in its actual Budget.

So, if you take - instead of the $334 million which the Minister says is the debt for this province or the deficit, we should probably be adding the $18 6 million to it, which would bring it up to $5 19 million. That is really the actual figure that Manitobans are going to be faced with paying back. Madam Speaker, let's take a look at Autopac. Here's another Crown corporation. In its inception, the Premier lauded this particular Crown corporation as the golden goose.

Now, I think they've just killed that golden goose, Madam Spea ker, because -(Interjection)- They've choked it to death all right, because this year we even find this Crown corporation has lost an incredible amount of money. Why? Why did it lose money? If we go back to the history, let's be honest about it. lt lost money because of political tinkering in that Crown corporation.

This is why most of the corporations have lost money, political tinkering in the affairs of the corporations. lt didn't start this year, Madam Speaker. lt started in 1984 and in 1986, especially in 1986 when we had the election and this government decided no, it wasn't going to have an increase in Autopac because that might look bad in the time of election. So they postponed the increase. Then, all of a sudden, they found themselves in a situation where they had to increase rates in an exorbitant manner.

What was this public corporation doing insuring things like palm trees, and what was it doing in the reinsurance business? lt had no business being there. Manitobans didn't want this corporation to be involved in those kinds of affairs. The responsibility of Autopac was to look after the province's auto industry and the insurance of that, not be to insuring in the space shuttle, and in Bhopal, India and everywhere else. 495 That is why they got themselves into trouble. lt was another kind of affair like they tried with MTX, and it didn't work. Anything they try isn't going to work.

When they realized, finally, that the gas corporation wasn't going to work to their benefit, they abandoned it, and thank God they did, Madam Speaker. Now the Minister is saying that we are going to have increases next year. Why are we going to have increases in Autopac next year? Not so much because of the claims, Madam Speaker, but because we have to catch up to the losses that have been incurred over the last number of years.

But I'm wondering, Madam Speaker, if we were to have an election next year whether this Minister would again tinker in the affairs of Autopac and make sure that there was no increase when the next year's premiums came out. I would suggest that he probably would, and then they'd probably hold back the Annual Report as well. But, you see , Madam Speaker, the Crown corporation losses are not allowing this government to provide the kinds of services that a government should.

One of the areas that some support has been required in has been agriculture and the statistics show that the rate of bankruptcies in Manitoba is higher than anywhere else in the country, and there is good reason for that. The reasons are that this government has done nothing to support agriculture in Manitoba - absolutely nothing. Instead, the former Minister of Agriculture would stand in his place and he would constantly bash the Federal Government for not providing enough assistance to farmers.

Now we have some very difficult economic times in the agricultural area at the present time and we have to support the agricultural industry because it is the backbone of this province. lt Is still the backbone of our country. If we're not going to support them, we're going to see the kind of statistics that have been revealed in Manitoba, terrible bankruptcy rates, not necessarily the fault of the farmers, but because of the economic times that they are going through. What did the Minister do last year to support agriculture?

Well, he came up with two initiatives, one was Bill 4 or The Family Farm Protection Act. Now was that any kind of a program that would help farmers in the long term? We already had a Federal Farm Debt Review Panel that was doing this, but now we had the Provincial Government that said no, no, we can't take

part in anything the Federal Government was doing. After all, they are Conservatives, so we'll set up our own debt review panels because they are really going to do the job. Well, I think, Madam Speaker, the record can show that in fact the panels which were set up by this province have not been doing nearly the kind of work that has been done by the Federal Debt Review Board, and why?

Because the Federal Debt Review Board was set up to assist farmers, not to deceive them, and If this government really wanted to help farmers last year, they could have said okay, we'll augment that program, we'll assist it and we'll maybe lend some support financially to that program to see our farmers through some difficult times. but they didn't do that because it was a political decision and they were wanting to build some points for themselves. So then they came up with another program, and that program was the Farm Start Program. Well, that

Friday, 4 lbrch, 1188 was going to really help the young farmers get into the farming business. I mean, instead of the government or banks supporting the young farmers in terms of loans, instead of MACC support ing these young farmers with low interest loans, now these young farmers were going to get their low interest loans from the retiring farmers. And hasn't this program been a success? I think the Minister is still waiting to have his first application for that particular program, and this Is the kind of Init iative this government comes In with, time and time again, Init iatives that don't work.

They don't consult with anybody, and If they do, they don't listen to them. I'm wondering who the present Minister of Agriculture is consulting with in terms of assisting farmers. Is he consulting with the CAP? Is he consulting with the canola growers, the wheat growers? Is he consulting with the hog producers, the cattle producers? Who is he consulting with? Last year this government had to be dragged into the sugar beet tripartite agreement. At the last possible moment, they finally said okay, we'll come along, kicking their fee t.

This year we have the same attitude portrayed by a Minister who I thought would know better because he comes from a rural area that is a high grain producing area, a high livestock producing area, people who are interested In maintaining that kind of a livelihood. I thought he would really be sensitive to the needs of agriculture. But all we see once again is the fact that he Is pointing at Ottawa and saying it is their fault that farmers are not getting enough support. Why doesn't he take a look at Saskatchewan, at Alberta, and see what programs are being developed there that are really assisting farmers.

He doesn't have to reinvent the wheel again. All he has to do is take a look at those programs and perhaps modify them so that they would suit the needs of Manitoba farmers and implement something of that nature which is still assisting farmers In Saskatchewan and Alberta. The Minister also indicated that he was going to be coming In with a beef feedlot stabili zation plan. We ll, it's going to be interesting to see this bill come in and this legislation come in. We have been asking for this kind of support program for years, Madam Speak er. Our side of the House saw that the beef Industry was in problems.

We saw that our packing Industry was in a difficult time. We indicated that we were going to lose our beef industry if we continued on the route that we were going. Madam Speaker, the beef industry is just about gone out of this province. The packing houses have closed. We see cattle leaving the province before they are finished. They are not being slaughtered in Manitoba and that means jobs are lost, that means our feed grains are leaving the province. Madam Speaker, why is this happening? Because this government has failed to address the needs of those people.

Now after that Industry Is just about finished, just about killed, this Minister says we are now going to come up with a feedlot plan. Well, Madam Speaker, I hope it's a good one, because farmers re ally need that kind of a plan which is going to be positive and constructive to them. But I have some hesitations about how this government is going to approach that. I mentioned the business climate in the province before , Madam Speaker. I would just like to say that 496 this province needs investment.

We need businesses to develop in this province because they are the people who are going to provide jobs to the many Manitobans who need them, they are the people who are going to pay taxes, who are going to support the programs; the social programs, the health programs, the education progra ms. So ins tead of having an anti-business climate, I beseech this government to change their attitude and take on a positive attitude which is going to attract business into this province. But why don't busine sses come to this province?

We ll, because we have such things as the payroll tax, a very large disinc entive; we have such things as labour legislation which is anti-business; we have a Minis ter who does not believe firmly in private enterprise, who does not believe in businesses being developed by private people to grow; we have a tax scheme in this province that is not working to the benefit of businesses; our compensation program is in shambles. (lnterjection}- Yes, Mr. Minister, it is in shambles, you know it, and you haven't done anything about it.

So, Madam Speaker, these are the reasons why we are not gett ing business being attracted to this province. lt's the same thing with tourism, and I mentioned tourism before. The Member for Portage has stood up on many occasions and has ind icated to this government where the shortcomings are and where they should improve. I'll tell you, Madam Speaker, when you take a look at the federal programs that are made available to this government and you take a look at how they haven't used them, it's a shame, because there are people in Manitoba who would like to take the initiative to go ahead and develop projects.

But it is this bunch that is not allowing them to; it is this Minis ter. I don't know why he is occupying that chair to tell you honest ly, because he really hasn't done anything in this area since he has been made Minis ter. Madam Speak er, another commitment the Minister had talked about was a commitment to protect and enhance health, education and other vital services which improve the quality of life. We ll, Madam Speaker, if I can spend a few minutes talking about health, I could tell you that I come from a rural area, and right now we have a very big problem in health.

I'll get to education shortly and you'll hear about that as well. But in the area of health, Madam Speaker, people in the rural areas are starting to feel the lack of services very drastical ly. There was a meeting held a few weeks ago in our area regarding the shortage of doctors in our areas. We have hospitals there, Madam Speaker, but the doctors are not coming out to our areas . There is a real need for services, health services, in rural areas. And why aren't doctors coming out to the rural areas, Madam Speaker? There are many reasons.

But one of the reasons is that there are no services provided in those rural hospitals. There are perhaps geriatric wards or babysitting areas or perhaps they are just kind of a halfway house for patients to come to before they are transferred to Brandon or to Winnipe g. So, Madam Speaker, there has to be a new approach in terms of the services rural peo ple receive. I received a call just a couple of days ago from a young mother who had to be transferred from my commun ity to Brandon by ambulance, and then from

Friday, 4 March, 1988 Brandon to Winnipeg by ambulance. The mother is unemployed; her husband is unemployed, and they were charged over $600 for ambulance fees to bring the mother into Winnipeg. Now, had they lived in Winnipeg, Madam Speaker, that service would have been provided at a far less cost. I'm wondering whether or not this Minister can take into account the fact that rural people do have to travel large distances to get specialized medical services and that they should not be burdened and that the Minister of Finance should apply the principle of a just and equal society when we talk about health.

The Minister of Health this morning, Madam Speaker, talked about his close affiliation to and feelings towards people who are afflicted with cancer. You know, when we take a look at hospital bed closures, I guess we look at it from a distance and lt doesn't affect us until someone in our own family, someone who Is close to us, requires the services.

Unfortunate ly, I had an experience like that, Madam Speaker, where a family member needed some cancer treatment and he had to wait for four or five weeks before he could get the treatment; but nevertheless, when he did get into Winnipeg to take his treatment he became very Ill, and we had to rush him to an emergency ward in the hospital. As a matter of fact, it was in the Health Sciences Centre, Madam Speaker. For three days this patient lay on a stretcher because there wasn't a bed available for him In the hospital, not that the beds weren't there, they were just closed, Madam Speaker.

And that's when one gets angry. We, as Manitoban's believe that we are paying for a health care system through our taxes that will take care of us when the time comes. But, Madam Speaker, time and time again that is not the case. I had another incident in my community, Madam Speaker. A gentleman who needed heart surgery and he had been scheduled for heart surgery and because of the backlog it was postponed. Then he was scheduled again, and it was postponed once again. Anally, he was about seven days or eight days away from his surgery when he suffered a major heart attack and died.

This is the kind of thing that Is happening throughout our province, Madam Speaker, because this government has failed to address the health care needs of people in this province. In terms of education, Madam Speaker, education Is near and dear to me and I can say a lot about this particular topic. I'd like to start out by talking about, first of all, the funding that is received by school divisions - public school divisions.

The Minister made an announcement on January 15 with regard to support to public schools in this province and he said that public schools would be receiving over 4.4 percent for their operating expenses for the year of 1988-1989, but when the figures were finally filtered through, we found out that some school divisions, yes, would be receiving as much as 14 percent, others would be receiving as little as 0.41 percent. Madam Speaker, I ask the question: Is this what this government means by just and equal?

Some school divisions, because they have practised efficien cy, because they have been effective in the way that they have managed their affairs, have actually been penalized because of the way this government has implemented its funding formula. 497 Those school divisions who have incr eased enrolments enjoy the increases in funding; but what I am saying, Madam Speaker, is that this isn't fair and that whole formula has to be changed. I am thankful that the Minister has finally indicated that there is going to be a review of the Nicholls Report which was never fully implemented in the initial stages.

So we have heard for the past two years, this government is going to - or longer than that, Madam Speaker - move to 90 percent funding for public schools. As a matter of fact, that funding has dropped down, Madam Speaker, to something like 73 percent, and in some individual cases it is even less than that. Education goes beyond that, beyond the funding. lt is the services that we provide to the youth of our province, the future generation that is going to perhaps govern this province and make the many decisions that are needed in this province.

So we have to take a look at curriculums; we have to take a look at programs and the funding for those programs as well. Madam Speaker, we are finding that across Manitoba, school divisions are having to cut back on programming because they are not receiving sufficient funds. School divisions are having to cut back on some of the programs such as music, industrial arts, perhaps languages, and even some of the more Important courses because of the fact that funding has been cut back. They can no longer afford to continue in the way that they did In the past. (Mr. Deputy Speaker, C.

Santos, in the Chair.) Yesterday, we saw a school division come in and meet with the Minister of Education and request additional funding for special needs because In the new formula, in the new approach that the Minister announced, they were receiving, in fact, less than what they require. Although I know school divisions will continue to demand more and more, Mr. Deputy Speaker, In this particular instance, the funding has gone down. There isn't adequate funding to address the special needs, learning situations, of these students. Is this the new approach that this government is going to take?

Are we now going to start negotiating with school divisions on an individual basis as to how much . funding they're going to get? Our education, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is in a state of chaos, our public school education system. We had the High School Review that was begun over a year ago. We are still waiting for the report from the High School Review. Why was the High School Review Initiated? lt was Initiated so that we could review the programs that high schools were offering because those programs were short-changing students. They needed revamping; there needed to be a different approach taken.

We are still waiting for the report. I wrote a letter to the Minister of Education, asking him whether or not in fact he would provide me with a copy of the report or would indicate what the status of the report Is. To date, I have not heard from the Minister as to which way he is going. When we talk about university funding, Mr. Deputy Speaker, something interesting in the Budget struck my eye. That was that the Minister announced an $800,000 Access Fund to universities to allow those students out in rural areas and remote areas, those

Friday. 4 March, 1918 groups of people who may not have had the opportunity to access university education to get proper access to univer sity education. At the same time, in the Budget or in the Estimates, Mr. Deputy Speak er, we find that Student Aid is decreasing by some $400 ,000.00. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker , do you not find it somewhat strange that, when the province is announcing an Access Fund of $800,000, at the same time, they are reducing Student Aid by over $400,000 .00? Is that really allowing equal opportunity for access to universities? I tell you, that is not.

Yes terday, the Min ister of Education in his address to the Budget speec h, said that the Member for River Heights did not have her figures correct with regard to funding to universities and to education. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think it would be wise if the Minister of Education would get a calculator for himself, because in fact the Member for River Heights' figures were closer than the Minister's were when he gave them yesterday. He Indicated also that, although tbe anrolments in schools has dropped, the support has gone up. Well, that is right.

The support has gone up by over 20 percent over inflation, but he didn't mention the costs that have gone up. He didn't mention the new programs that were established, which create additional costs. He didn't mention any of that. All he Indicated was that their funding had gone up by over 20 percen t. · Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we talk about funding - (Interjection� yes, and I'd like to - this government stands up In the House and it says that the Federal Government is not llvtng up to Its resp onsibilities in terms of funding to universities.

I would like to just quote something that the Premier of this province, the now Premier of this province, said in 1981. He said: " 'The Manitoba Conservatives' policy of dependence on Ottawa contains the seeds of financial crisis,' according to the Opposition Leader, Howard Pawley, who said, 'The diversion of provincial funds must stop.' He also said, 'lt is essential to again make a genuine commitment to the universities, rather than combine provincial restraint with dependence on Ottawa. The diversion of provincial funds must stop.' " Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what do we hear now?

We hear them get up in the House, and what do they do? They blame Ottawa for not funding universities In this province. They blame Ottawa for not funding the hospitals, the health care system of this province. Why do they do that? To try and deflect the responsibility that they are supposed to have from themselves. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that isn't working with Manltobans anymore. Manltobans know where their responsibility lies. They know who is at fault, and they are not going to take 1t for much longer. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, during the election campaign of 1986, the Minister of Education, at that time the Member for Logan, filled her Santa Claus bag and went around the province and announced new building projects. There were thr ee building projects she announced during the election campaign In my own area. Well, we have seen two of them. One of them we're still waiting for. lt was announced, but we're still waiting for lt. At that same time, during that election campaign, the Minister also made an announcement with regard to a new library at Red River College.

She said, "A 491 new resource centre at the college has been badly needed for some time. The present facility was designed to serve less than half the number of students presently enrolled at the college and the new centre was made a top priority and will become a reality in the near future." Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Red River Community College Is still waiting for Its library, they have not even seen the sod turned yet, and this was going to be a reality in the near future. it Is true, Mr. Deputy Speaker , that that facility Is far outdated, it Is far too small - they need a new library.

Where is that library? Where is that promise that was made during the election? Where is that? Are we going to see another bag of goodies in the next election when the Minister of Education will dress himself up and traipse around the province and make a whole bunch of announcements again that they will not live up to? When will this library become a reality? - (Interjection� Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have the Member for The Pas making comments with regard to education. The Mi nister would do well to keep his nose in an area which he has respon sibility for instead of bungling that area.

He has bungled that badly enough for the people of this province. He doesn't need to stick his nose into other jurisdictions. Mr. Deputy Speaker , this Is the way this government has been handling Its affairs from the beg inning. Whether it's Crown corporations, whether it's the health system, whether it's agriculture or whether it's education, the approach is always the same. lt's always someone else's fault; they fail to take the responsi bility. Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the last few days we have raised the Issue of special needs In this province.

Special education and learning disabilities of students have surfaced because of the bungling of this Minister, the bungling of the former Minister, the Inability of this government to take hold of the situation. There is no policy with regard to what Is happening in special needs. There are students who are falling through the cracks of the system . Why? Because there is no direct policy, there is no line of attack, there is no re sponsibility on the part of this government. MR. L. DERKACH: So, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , our educational institutions across this province are not getting the attention that they requ ire. We can't keep calling for more and more funds all the time, but what we have to do is make sure that the resources that we have are spent more effectively and more efficiently . Regardless of what area of the Budget we look at, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the commitments that were made by this particular Minister are not, In fact, being looked up to. As a matter of fact, the Budget was nothing but a hoax, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it has deceived the people of this province. Thank you very much. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Employment Services and Economic Security. HON. L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I'd like to add a few words to the debate on the Budget and review parts of the performance of our department, review the economy of Manitoba, and make some general observa tions on the Budget itself.

Friday, 4 March, 1• But before doing so, I couldn't help but hear the remarks of my friend, the Honourable Member for Roblln-Russell, talk about the Brandon University library. He is talking about a subject that I'm very familiar with and I want to advise him that the funding of the Brandon library is part of a $7 million capital projects program that has been approved by the government through the Grants Commission.

This particular approach to the capital funding is based on sev eral months of discussion between the Brandon University administrat ion, namely the Board of Governors, and also the senate of Brandon University - a proposal that they made to the government to assist them with the problem that they particularly have, and that is the Inability to pay off the balance of the music building.

So they had, unfortunately, accumulated a large $2 million debt. h was at the request of the university that we provide, in advance, from the library grant to which we've committed, $5.5 million to the university at this time to help them out. This was their request and we acceded to their request. This Is a plan, a rational approach. The university Is doing an excellent job In fundraising. They've got over $1 million already in pledges and cash, as I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and they're very confident that they're going to be able to raise the balance to have the library bulh in plenty of time.

When I say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should say to have it built on schedule, because no matter how much money we have at the moment at Brandon Univer sity, they cannot proceed with the music building until a new steam plant is put In place. The existing steam plant does not have the capacity to provide the heat for a library building and that Is the physical fact of the matter - you just can't do it.

So the proposal is that we proceed forthwith to assist the university , and the Minister of Education and the government has committed that $1.5 million to a steam plant and that construction will begin to take place in this year, 1988. Hopefully, the completion date will be earty 1989, and at that point, the university should have raised the balance of the money so that it's ready to go with a new library - a $5.5 million library. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the fact Is I know the member wasn't an MLA at the time, but I was in the Opposition at the time and I could tell him that the university was very saddened at the time. When you talk about letting down the institutions of higher learning in this province, I'll tell you Brandon University was very sad. In fact, they were very upset , and at that time, the students were demonstrating right in front of this building for a library. There were bus loads of students right In front of the Legislature here demanding, of the Lyon Conservative Government, some action on a library. Mr.

Deputy Speak er, there was absolutely nothing forthcoming from the Conservative Government at that time. In fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker , nothing happened at Brandon University in the way of new facilities. There was no music building, there was no students' union building, which we financ ed partially through the Manitoba Community Places Program. They have a beautiful students building there now. A lot of it comes from students raising money through fees, etc., but we did contribute some very important seed mone y.

So you've got a music building - a beautiful music building 499 - you've got a students' union building, you've got a commitment now to build a steam plant that is needed, and the monies are available to build a library. Compare that with what happened in 1977 to 1981: not one brick was put in place, not one nail, not one board, and the students were demanding action in front of this building - talk about demanding action - not to speak of the faculty and other people involved at the universi ty. Not only that, what disturbed me, Mr.

Deputy Spea ker, was the fact that when you looked at the operating money of Brandon University and you took into account the Inflation by the end of the Conservative Government in office, Brandon University had less real purchasing power, less real dollars to run that institution than they had when the Conservatives came In office In 1977. So that's what the Conservatives did to Brandon Univ ersity . They, in reali ty, cut their abilit y to - (Interjection)- lt is true.

In real dollars, when you take the Consumer Price Index, you see what's happened to inflation in real dollars because I remember doing the research on that some years ago. The university had less ability to fund and operate its programs of higher education. As I said, if they were waiting for the Conservatives to build a music building or help them, they'd be waiting forever because there was absolutely no way that they could have had a music building under the previous government because there was absolutely nothing promised.

This is a fact because I was very close to the students at the time because they were giving us their concerns. The faculty was expressing their concerns; the admin istration was very concerned. There was discussion of how they may build a music building, but you know it was mission impossible. The formula that was proposed, they would have never ever been able to build a music building. lt was just mission impossible. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'm proud of the fact that we have not only helped that university , in terms of needed facilities and maintaining programs, but we've added to the programs.

We've approved a Bachelor of Nursing Education Program and that costs a lot of money. lt costs several hundreds of thousands of dollars. But now in Western Manitoba a person can get a Bachelor's Degree in Nursing Education. This was brought in a couple of years ago and has been announced by our government and the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education. We're now on the way to launching a rural development institute, a major institute at Brandon University, that is welcomed by all members of this House, I'm sure. At any rate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I really hadn't planned to talk about this.

I'd like to get on and make some observations about the Budget. I think we've proposed, the Minister of Finance has proposed, a fiscally responsible Budget, a Budget that is trying to cope with the debt and the deficits and at the same time mainlntaining our health, education and social services, indeed, enhancing these social services, enhancing health care, enhancing education in this province. The figures are there for us to see that the rev enues per capita, which I guess when you look at rev enue per capita you're reflect ing the tax burden, but we're the third lowest of the 10 provinces In terms of reven ue

Friday, 4 March, 1988 received per capita. So I would suggest that we're certainly not out of line in how much money we receive from the citizens of Manitoba. In terms of the national average, we're well below the national average in revenue received from Manitobans per capita.

As the Budget document itself ind icates, if you look at various categories of income, people who are tax filers and earning $20,000 per year; this is a tax filer with a spouse and two children, that person in Manitoba, relating that person to the other 10 provinces, can see that he or she is paying the second lowest level of taxes In the country. Of the 10 Canadian provinces, Manitoba Is the second lowest. In terms of a tax flier with a spouse and two children having an income of $35,000, that person could see that he's paying or she's paying third lowest of the 10 provinces.

Similarly, when you go up the line at $50,000, even at $50, 000 we're paying below six other provinces. we're below Quebec, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotla, Prince Edward Island and Ontario. The deficit per capita Is mid-range, fifth lowest In the country, sightly above the Canadian average, but nevertheless when you take it compared to the other provinces we are somewhere In mid-range. I think the Budget gives the people of Manitoba a clear direction of where this government Is going.

We're trying our best to balance with the limi ted resources that we have, and at the same time we want to protect our health care system which I believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker , Is the finest you'll find anywhere in the world. we want to protect it, we want to enhance it. I know a lot has been talked about the bed closures and so on. The fact is, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is a challenge to us In Manitoba today. Because of our limited financial resources we have to be more efficient In terms of delivering health care In the province. Health care takes over approximately one-third of our total spending.

I know everybody gets very upset when they talk about bed closures or reductions In beds. But as I und erstand it the experts are telling the government, telling the Minis ter of Health that frankly, when you compare us with other jurisdictions we are well endowed with the number of beds per thousand people or any ratio you want to take.

In fact, an argument could be made that we have too many beds, and that we're better to direct the resources, not to having X number of beds, but to have better technology to enhance the technology that we have, and to make sure that we can deal with the new diseases that are coming along; that we should spend more money on health care prevention, more money on community health care services, so that as Manitobans we can maintain and hopefully improve, as a matter of fact, the quality of health care within our limited budget. I go back to again using an example in Brandon.

The fact is that there has never been a cutback in the budget of Brandon General Hospital. Every year the General Hospital In Brandon gets more money. There has been no freezing of hospital funding. In Saskatchewan last year health care funding was frozen. There have been no freezing of funds at Brandon General Hospital. There have been large Increases in funding at Brandon General Hospital. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'd like to carry on with my speech. I use the Brandon General as an example, too.

What has happened In Brandon General Hospital? 500 Brandon General Hospital today has ultrasound services that have been proved two or three times. They have a dialysis unit for people with kidney disease that they didn't have before. They have a day surgery; they have not-for-admission surgeries it's called. There are other services that have been put in place in that hospital. Of course, most lately, there's been a brand new CAT scan put in place in Brandon Hospital. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I, along with the Min ister of Health, was at the official open ing.

I heard the representative of the company that installed the CAT scan; he told everybody there he wanted you to know that you're not getting some second or third-rate machine. He said to the people gathered there, this is the top of the line, this is the same kind of machine, same kind of device that they use in the Mayo Clinic in the United States, the same kind they use in the Henry Ford Hospital, the same kind that you get in the best facilities in Toronto, Vancouver and so on. So we're getting the best.

So that is a great deal of money. it's well in excess of $1 million, hundreds of thousands of dollars extra to operate it. So I'm saying that's the way to go. We need a CAT scan, let's make sure we have the monies. But if we find that we've got excess beds, we have under capacity utilization of beds. Well, for goodness sakes, why are we spending money keeping X numb er of beds that we don't necessarily need? As a matter of fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker , the Interesting thing Is while they have reduced the beds in the Brandon General Hospital, the waiting list has also shrunk.

There are fewer people on the waiting list for elective surgery and so on, today than there were a year or so ago. So I said there's a clear direction in the Budget. We want to maintain and improve health care services, simi larly with other social services; day care, I guess, Is simply one example. There are examples in my own department where we're trying to Improve the social assistance program. Of course we have many employment programs that we're very proud of, that we want to continue to provide training, counselling, and to bring people off of welfare, to bring people into the work force.

But it Is difficult to be in government today. it's difficult no matter whether you are Federal or any Provincial Government. Let's face it, it is difficult. There are great expectations out there, and while everyone can say well, cut back and be more efficient, when it comes to their particular area, when you are starting to maybe squeeze a bit, then people don't think that's such a good idea. So it is a very difficult thing. There's the challenge of meeting those expectations, but that has to be put alongside our ability to pay. So it is a difficult time to be in government.

I wonder where the Opposition is coming from though and where exactly are they going. I think I know, because I know they always express concern about taxes and they think taxes are too high. Believe me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, no government likes to increase taxes, although there's been no significant tax rate increases In this Budget. But nevertheless, no one likes to see taxes rise, whether you're in government or whether you're the taxpayer. But the Opposition have become very exercised about the tax structure. They continually harp about what they refer to as the payroll tax, the health

Frldey. 4 Merch, 1118 and education levy, and many other taxes. And at the same time, they're concerned about the deficit, they're concerned about debt, and I gather then that their solution will be to cut programs. Now I know they continue to talk about well, we'll be more efficient, they'll be more efficient at running Crown corporations. They will have no communi cators. I have to remind members across the way that they had many communicators when Mr. Lyon was the Premier of Manitoba - plenty.

But the fact is that you could elimin ate all commun icators; you could have no deficits on the part of any Crown agency. I might remind members opposite there were a lot of deficits of Crown agencies, such as CFI or Manfor, when they were in government - lots of deficits. The fact is you can do all those things and you'll still have major problems in trying to pay for the various services the Provincial Government of this province offers to the people.

And so, unless you cut programs, and I gather and I guess that Is the message that the Conservative Government, if and when it ever becomes Government of Manitoba again, will cut programs. As a matter of fact, I guess the Leader of the Opposition hinted at that in his reply to the Budget last week when the Member from Tuxedo said that Mr.

Kostyra, who made some reference to some reductions in certain areas, said, and this is what was quoted in, I guess it's in Hansard, "Just imagine what a real Conservative Finance Mini ster could do, what a real government Cons ervative could do, a hell of a lot more than this bunch ever could." That's from the Leader of the Opposition. In other words, that will be their approach. They will do what we're seeing right now in Saskatchewan and in Alberta. In Saskatchewan , in education last year, they fired 142 technical institute instructors, or community college instructors we'd call them here.

The school divisions had an absolute funding cut of 1 percent. The Gabriel Dumont Institute had a 20 percent cut; the University of Aegina operating grants were froze n; the student bursary program was eliminated and replaced with a form of student loan program, and over 1,000 technical institute spaces were abolished. In terms of health care, as I ind icated previousl y, hospitals' funding was frozen The community clinics' funding was also frozen. In Alberta, to the west, a Conservative Budget last year meant that education was cut by 3 percent for special funding, special funding to school divisions.

We talk about special funding in this House - well, they cut it in total by 3 percent. They cut 3 percent to post secondary education; they cut general grants to Alberta schools by 4. 7 percent; they cut community schools funding by 50 percent, and the loans, grants and scholarships for un iversity and college students were cut by 9.5 percent. They cut grants to accute care hospitals by 3 percent. I repeat, we have not cut back on grants to our accute care hospitals. We have, every year, increased the money. We have put more money on the table for the running of our hospitals.

Operating grants for extended treatment hospitals, there was no increase, and at the same time, they have health care premiums there, a flat-rate tax. They increased those flat-rate premiums, that type of tax, 501 by 28 percent. So I guess that's the Conservative approach and I guess that is something the people of Manitoba will have to decide on. Do they want a party that will go in and reduce the size of government and reduce programs and reduce services? One could argue, from a philosophical point of view, that that is a legitimate philosophic al point of view, that governments should be shrunk.

That was the view and that is the view, I believe, of the former Liberal Premier of Manitoba, D.L. Campbell, a gentleman whom I respect , a very fine pers on, and one who's given great service to the Province of Manitoba. But Mr. Campbell, although a big "L" Liber al, is really a small "c" fiscal conservative, and I believe he takes the view, and I say it's a legitimate view, that governments should be smaller rather than larger. There should be fewer programs rather than more programs, so I'm not knocking the phi losophical approach. I don't agree with that approach.

I don't agree with the policy approach, so there's got to be legitimate differences between one side and the other, and I presume that's what it is. So the leader of the Conservatives has given the clue that they will do a lot more in terms of cutting programs and cutting jobs in the government service. As I said, this approach is a balanced approach - no major tax increases, but enhancement and maintenance, as much as possible, of certain required programs.

I'd like to talk for a moment about the economy because again the speaker who preceded me, the Member for Aoblin- Auss ell, talked about his concerns with the economy of Manitoba. I had mentioned this in the past because it's only the comparison that proves. it's a comparison of what's going on in Manitoba with the rest of the economy in this count ry, the other provinces, that gives us some clues as to where we're going. Because we are subject to the national business cycle, if there's a national economic reces sion, we will get hit in Manitoba.

We can't escape it no matter who's in government; you just can't escape it. You're part of the national economy. As a matter of fact, we're part of the North American economy; we're part of the western economic sy stem. So we've got to look at how we compare with what's going on in other provinces.

If you gather the statistics of our overall economic growth - and this is measured by Real Domestic Product, this is the indicator of your overall economic performance - and you look at what has happened in terms of economic growth, since we've been elected to office in the end of'8 1, the beginning of'82, right till now, and then you compare that with what happened in the L¥on years in government, when the Conservatives were last in office in this province, you will see - and the figures are available to anyone who wants to look at them from Statistics Canada or the Conference Board.

I guess the Conference Board is easier to get because they've put them together on a nice, comparative basis to be able to look at very easily. But when we were last under a Conservative Government in Manitoba, our rate of economic growth was the third lowest in the country, far below where we are now. We are fourth in the average - this is the average of economic growth. Since we've been in office, we rank fourth out of the ten provinces. When the Conservatives were in office, we ranked 8 out of the 10 provinces.

Friday, 4 March, 1988 MR. D. SLAKE: Oh now, come on, let's be fair. HON. L EVANS: I am fair. This is the Conference Board. I'll be glad to share the reports with my friend, the Honourable Member for Minn edosa, a bank manager who knows how to read some statistics and so on, a good man, good man. In terms of investment, simila rly, what's been happening to total capital investment? In our period in office - we're not at the top - but we're fourth from the top. We're fourth in average percentage growth in total investment, total capital expenditure. When the Conservatives were in office, we were No. 10.

We were 10th, we were at the bottom of the totem pole in terms of capital investment - that's total. You might say ah, but that Includes public investment. Let's just look at private investment. Well, even under private investment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Manitoba has been doing better In terms of our ranking among the provinces than we did in the Conservative years. I can read all these num bers and so on, but we're far along the scale. We were sixth highest in terms of private capital spending In this period of time in office. Under the Tories, we were number 8 out of the 10.

So, even with private investment spending, we rank hig her in comparison to the other Canadian provinces. In terms of public Investment we've been No. 1. Partly because of hydro development and so on, we're top of the rank. Under the Conservatives, we were the lowest; we were 10 out of 10 for public investment. As a matter of fact, from 1978 to'8 1, we were in a negative position. lt was minus 4 percent. The average rate of investment spending under the public sector was actually negative. But that's in keeping with that philosophical approach, but that is the fact of the matter.

What's happened In terms of job growth? Again, in Manitoba we're not at the top of the heap, but we're not at the bottom of the heap either. In the period of government of the Conservatives '78 to'8 1, Manitoba ranked 10th out of 10 in terms of job creation. Our performance in this economy - we were the lowest on the totem pole in terms of job growth. In the case of unemployment, we've tended to be third lowest or among the third lowest in the country, historically, and indeed, when the Conservatives were In office, we were third lowest. However, during our period in office, we've been second lowest, on average.

So even there we've improved sligh tly. If you go to population growth, which is an overall figure in a sense and reflects a lot of things, I will be the first to say the reason people left Manitoba was because at that time there were a lot of opportunities In Alberta, Saskatchewan and B.C. That's the truth. There was a boom and people were sucked out of the province; that is a fact. They were sucked out of Ontario, attracted to Alberta and so on. But, In addition to that, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, what happened, particularly in the first couple of years with the large cutback or restraint, exercise of acute protracted restraint of the Conservatives at that time, exacerbated the situation and added to the dampening relative economic situation that we had here. In a relative sense, it made things worse so that what happened In '78 to'81, Manitoba - and on average, one year or two years were very, very bad, but on 502 average, it was negative. Our population growth shrunk. Right now I'm talking about the actual level of the population.

There were fewer people in Manitoba at the end of the Conservative's period of office than there were at the beginning. I say, and I admit, we don't live on an economic island unto ourselves. We live in one big, national North American economy.

But, just recognize - people don't want to recognize that government spending does stimulate the economy.- (Int erjection)- Listen, the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal - the issue is not free trade, because we all agree on free trade.- (Interjection)- Well, you know, just as an aside, I really don't want to get off - but my friend from Lakeside. lt still boggles my mind where the National Conservative Party - and forget about the provincial level - has changed its philosophical position, because in this country, traditionally - the party of Sir John A. Macdonald, of Robert Borden, the great protectionist.

I was qui te proud of Sir John A. Ma cdonald, the National Rail way, the National Immigr ation Policy and the National Tariff, the three pillars of economic development -(Interjection)- That's an anomaly too; that's very strange, too. We weren't around, so we don't have to explain. But you know, I'm still trying to understand this switch in positions. it is a conundrum. lt is a switch in positions, because we are not living in the tradition of the National Conservative Party. In fact, old Sir John A. Macdonald would turn over in his grave if he really understood A MEMBER: And John Diefenbaker is. HON.

L EVANS: . . . and John Diefenbaker is, because John Diefenbaker, too -(Interjection)- At any rate, I just wanted to go on and talk about - we've got a lot of other figures. I don't want to bore you with reading all the num bers, but I tell you that the figures generally show that - and these are the facts, they're not my figu res, they're from Stats Canada; Conference Board reports them as well - Manitoba's economy has done better during our period in office than in the previous Conservative Government's period in office. If you look at all the major ind icators, those are the facts.

A MEMBER: We had a drought, we had a flood, and we had a national recession. HON. L EVANS: Well, whatever you had, that's beside the point you see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I said we're talking about the relative position of the province. As a matter of fact -(Interjection)-it's a relative position. I'm talking about only the relative position, because you could argue we've got more unemployment today than we had in some years you were in office, and that is true, but we've got more unemployment all across Canada. That's the fact, so let's be rational about this. Let's look at the data.

A comparison proves, and a relative position or a comparative position is that we have been better off in the last five or six years ·of this government than we were during the preceding government. Those are the facts, that is what has happened. While I recognize there are many economic factors that impact on the economy of Manitoba, the role of

Friday, 4 March, 1988 government is still one of those very important factors, a very important instrument, you might say, in terms of what happens to the economy, what we do with our spending, who we tax, and how we distribute the money, and generally what our investment policies are. I'd like to spend a moment on the employment situation in the province and tell you that - and I'm not going to read all these figures. They've got so many figures here, we could spend days and days analyzing the data.

But generally speaking, in '87, we had an improvement in our labour market situation that's been the fourth year of impr ovement since the'82 -83 recession. Last year, our average unemplo yment was 7.4 perc ent, which ranked as third behind Ontario and Saskatchewan. Ontario was 6. 1 percent; Saskatchew an, 7.3 percent; we were 7.4 percent; the national average was 8.9 percent. This is the year as a whole in 1987. So ther e's been continued impr ovement in the unemp loyment rate. There's been an increase in the number of people working in Manitoba.

Between '86 and '87, we created 4,000 more jobs on ave rage, and tha t's the fifth consecutive year that jobs have increased, that we've had employment growth in the province. There are areas of weaknesses. I guess the weakest area - and that's no surprise - is the agricultural sector where emplo yment declined by 5,000 in 1987. On the other hand, the non-agricultural employment sector expanded by 10,000, which was faster than the long term annual average between '75 and '87.

I might observe, however, that the weakness in agriculture in this province wasn't as great as in our sister provinces to the west, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Perhaps that's understandable, because agriculture is still probably more significant, particularly in Saskatchewan, in a relative sense than it is in Manitoba. lt's important in Man itoba, but we have a more diversified economy than either Saskatchewan or Alberta. We have been trying through our department to do our share in helping to reduce une mployment.

Particularly , we're zeroing in now on people who are on welfare, people who are on social assistance. We have had a cooperative effort with the Federal Government under an agreement that we signed a year ago, and we're hoping that there may be some expansion in that area. I think it's maybe too early to judge totally about the success of the program. lt's $6 million a year, each government putting In 50 percent, for a two-year period, a total of $1 2 million. But we are zeroing in on people who are on social assistance under that program, helping youth, helping the disabled, and helping single parents.

I'm hoping that when we get some reports in the next month or two that those reports will reveal some of our early impressions are correct, and that is that we are indeed helping people to get off the social assistance rolls. Having said those nice things about my counterparts in the Federal Government, I do want to express a concern about a cutback in Canadian Jobs Strategy funding in the province. I've said this at Federal Provincial Ministers' conferences and we are not alone.

Other provinces have been cut back as welL But the fact is that the actual spending by the Federal Government under the Canadian Jobs Strategy funding 503 umbrella has actually declined quite substantially in the last few years. · The actual expenditures in Manitoba decreased by over 20 percent betwe en'84-85 and '86-87. That's a 20 percent decrease, Mr. Deputy Speaker, while in Canada as a whole the decrease was only 7.1 percent. Maybe it could be argued well, that's because your unempl oyment situation is not relatively that bad. To some extent it's true.

But it does make our job at the provincial level much more difficult when we have these cutbacks. So

whereas in'84-85 we had an allocation of $92 million in Manitoba, it looks like this year the allocation will be down to $60 million. That's a lot of cheese sandwiches, $92 million down to $60 million approximately , in terms of allocation. That means that there is less money for the colleges; that means there is less money for private emplo yers to have various training programs. While we appreciate all the money that is being spent, the fact is we have less money being spent by the Federal Government on job training and job creat ion today than we had in 1984-85.

If you look at the community colleges there is a planne d cutback , a 39 percent cutba ck. Flora MacDonal d, the Min ister, advised the Provincial Ministers about three years ago in Ottawa when she was Minis ter of Employment and Immigration, and indeed they've carried that out. So that in 1985-86, Manitoba received - I'm going to round this off - $24.8 milli on funding dir ect purchases by the Federal Government in our institutions, namely, the community colleges. Today we're down to an allocation of $1 5 million. We're dropping from $24.8 million down to $1 5.2 million. That, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, is a serious cutback. How are we supposed to maintain our community colleges? How are we supposed to maintain these kinds of institutional training programs with this kind of shrinking Budget? Other provinces have been cut back as well. But I'm saying we've been cut back in an area that's been, in my judgment, vital to training the young Manitobans, old Manitobans training in the skills that they need to fulfill the occupational requi rements of our indus tries that are public institutions . Mr. Deputy Speaker, I see my time is coming to an end, so I guess I will close on that note.

I'm hoping we can persuade the Federal Government to change its position. We have good arrangements on a one-to one basis with Mr. Bouchard and so on. I'm not suggesting there isn't coopera tion. But nevertheless there is this shrinking Budget and it does make it more difficult on the part of all the provinces to try to maintain the job training programs which I believe are essential for economic growth. Thank you very much. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: the Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORC HARD: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr.

Deputy Speak er, I attempted to listen and because of my laryngitis over the last several weeks I've listened to a lot to debate in this House. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker , I can't tell you how dismayed I am at some of the justifications that come from the New Democratic

Friday, 4 March, 1988 front benches and back benches of the abysmal mess they have made of governing this province in the last seven years. The last speaker, the Member for Brandon East, took the Hon. D.L. Campbell as an example of a fiscal Conservative who ran the province on a balanced budget as if that was a horrible thing to do. I remind him that during the years of the Hon.

Duff Roblin, as Premier of this province, the Budget was balanced, it was in surplus position, and as a result of that we have the Winnipeg Floodway; the Disraeli Freeway; we have the Asessi ppi Dam; we have schools; we have highways; we have hospitals; all built by Duff Roblin and his administration on a balanced budget. Now these people on that side of the House, the New Democrats, are now sa ying that we have to now deficit finance everyt hing in the Province of Manitoba.

And the man that's looking at me from the loge over there, the Member for Flin Flon, I will never forget in 1982 when I sat two seats down and he sat behind me, as Deputy Speaker of this House, when this incompetent regime came into power with a $500 million deficit . I turned around and I asked the Member for Flin Flon, "How can you do that?" And do you know what his response was to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker? He said, "A $500 million deficit is manageable." Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what it's down now - even NDP's are recognizing they can't run deficits.

That man obviously learned a lot or has no say in Cabinet because the deficit is gone down because it isn't manageable. His economic theories, when he was a fresh MLA in this House, have been proved totally wrong to the desperate fate of Manitobans. And for the Member for Flin Flon, I'd like him to justify to his father , who farms in Southwest Manitoba, that a $500 million deficit is manageable. His father would give him a rather brutal lesson on economics.

He might even take him out to the woodshed and give him a sw itching. (Madam Speaker in the Chair.) To my honourable friend, the Member for Brandon East, when he talks about Conservatives hacking and slashing programs, sir, you are part of a Cabinet and government that is hacking and slashing at health care and other social programs because you have so financially mismanaged this province that we are close to rack and ruin. You, as socialists, are cutting health. You have cut beds; you are rationing services.

In Northern Manitoba, people will not receive the same level of eye care service because of your change in policy because your deficit is too high and you can't afford to carry on with normal service delivery that was going on for 10 years in the case of the eye doctor in Northern Manitoba. I simply ask my honourable friend from Brandon East, who is so wont to give us statistics from time to time: Is there not an obligation on governments to introduce programs that they can fiscally afford and that are within the means of the taxpayers of this province? Is that not an objective that we should all seek out?

Because that is what great Premiers and administrations of this province like the Hon. Duff Roblin, like the Hon. D.l. Campbell, did. They spent within the taxation means 504 of this province. They built the infrastructure and foundation of this province that NDP administrations, for 17 out of the last 20 years, have squand ered on the people of Manitoba. Now, Madam Speaker, they are saying that Conse rvatives are going to hack, cut and slash. They are hacking, cutting and slashing right now.

When socialists have to do that, that tells the people of Manitoba how in dire straits the Schreyer administration and the Pawley adminis tration have put the financial viability of this province over their incompetent terms of government. Madam Speaker, I want to put a small quotation on the record. This is from none other than the Leader of the Opposition, a statement by Howard R. Pawle y, February 23, 1981.

I'll preface this statem ent, Madam Speaker, by sayi ng that these people now in government are saying that the Federal Government is the problem in Manitoba because the Federal Government is reducing their funding, which is not a factual statement, but every problem in health care, education, highway spending is the Federal Governme nt's problem. Do you know what one Howard R. Pawley, Leader of the Opposition, said on February 23, 1981?

He said, "The Manitoba Conservativ e's policy of dependence on Ottawa contains the seeds of financial crisi s." Yet they are coming to us and saying to us today the Federal Government should give us more money when that same Leader of the Opposition, now Premier, said dependenc e on Opposition contains the seeds of financial crisis. What a difference seven years makes, Madam Speaker. What a difference seven years makes.

Madam Speaker, little did we know what the hidden message was in the Leader of the Opposi tion's statements, now Premier's statements, of 19 81, because what he was really saying is that the Conservative administra tion, under Sterling Lyon as Premi er, was wrong in that we cut income taxes to the people of Manitoba. He was saying that we were wrong because we froze the hydro rates to the benefit of every consuming Manitoba in this province. He was sa ying we were wrong to reduce the enormous deficit we inherited from the Schreyer adminis tration in 1977.

He was saying we were wrong to have opened many hospital beds, many personal care home beds, from new construction compared to today's record of closing both personal care home beds and hospital beds in the Province of Manitoba. He was saying that we were wrong to bring in SAFFR AND SAFER, the rental support programs for seniors and families. He was saying that we were wrong to increase the property tax rebate to our senior citizens of Manitoba. What the Premier was saying in 1981, as Leader of the Opposition, is that Manitoba should be taxed more.

That was the hidden promise in his sta tement, and Lord how they've delivered that promise, Madam Speaker! Madam Speaker, I was incredibly angered by one chart in this financial statement put out by the Finance Minis ter. it's contained on page 2 of the Financial Statistics, and I refer it to all Manitobans and to some of the members over there who obvsiouly don't know what's in the Budget. The chart shows Manitoba rev enue by source, and the objective of this is to point out, to the revulsion of

Friday, 4 March, 1988 Manitobans, that the Federal Government, through transfers, is providing lesser money to the Province of Manitoba. lt's a skillfully hidden, deceitful chart, Madam Speaker, that hides the truth because percentages mean nothing. Real dollars are what tells the truth. Madam Speaker, I want to give you the real figures. Contrary to the implication from that chart, on page 2, that federal support to the Province of Manitoba is down, it's indeed up, Madam Speaker. lt's up from $834 million in 1980-81 to $1 .273 billion in '88-89, an increase of 52 percent.

But you see, Madam Speaker, again the hidden message from the Premier of this province, as Leader of the Opposition in 1981, comes through with the other two areas that are contained in that chart; namely, Manitoba income tues, namely, Manitoba collections. Madam Speaker, again I say the Premier delivered on that hidden promise of taxing Manltobans more because income taxes in'80-81 were $524 million and today are $1 .273 billion - a 142 percent Increase to Manitobans.

Manitoba collections - if you think that is bad - have gone from $614 million in'80-81 to a whopping $1 .652 billion this year, an increase of 169 percent in the Pawley administration's term of office. How true they were to keep their promise of increasing Manitoba taxation. Madam Speaker, this chart - and I used to have a lot of faith in the credibility of the Finance Minis ter. We had no faith in the former Mi nister who was wont to bafflegab, distort, and do everything but tell reasonable figures to the people of Canada and the people of Manitoba.

I used to have some faith in the present Min ister of Finance until he developed this chart. What that chart proves, Madam Speaker, is that age-old adage that figures can lie, and liers can figure. That's an age-old adage, Mada m Speaker , and I'm not accusing anyone of anything, in case you wish to get up and call me to order. But I'm simply pointing out that that old adage is very much true and is proved in this chart. Madam Speaker , I listened to the Min ister of Education the other day and he talked about the deficit not really being so bad.

I remind my honourable friend, the Member for Flin Aon, again what he told me in 198 2 in this House that a $5 million deficit was manageable. Well, Madam Speaker, what do they mean? -{Interjection)- Oh, the Brooklyn Dodger is not even in his own seat when he is talking, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, the interest costs from 1981 to 1989, what have they done on this man ageable deficit, according to the Member for Flin Flon? What have the interest costs done? In 1981, the last year of a Conservative Budget in Manitoba, the interest costs were $94 million.

Today, if we use the figures given by the Min ister of Finance, they are allegedly $523 million. But again that old adage of figures can lie comes In, because that's not a truthful number in terms of the Interest costs. But even If we use his figure, the increase is better than five-fold of interest costs. But If we add In Manitoba Properties Incorporated, and we add in the Hydro Rate Stabllization Interest Subsidization, the increase in interest costs is over $530 million in a seven-year period of incompetent government by the NDP; $530 million In increased interest costs.

I simply want to tell you, in seven years, in seven short years, Madam Speaker, these people have taken 505 interest out of the pockets of Manitoba ns, interest that would pay for the entire Medical line, in other words, every fee for service for every doctor in Manitoba. The entire Personal Care Home Program would be paid for by that interest cost increase in seven years. The entire ambul ance service would be paid for, and the entire Pharmacare Program would be paid for, and we'd still have money left over to run Business Development and Tourism, and the Department of Corporate Affairs.

That's how massive an in crease in interest costs because of your mismanaged spending is denying Mani tobans programs today. Two years from now, Madam Speaker, the interest bill by this Pawley admini stration will equate to the entire funding of every single hospital in the Province of Manitoba. That's how much the increased interest cost will be for Manitobans. The entire hospital budget of $750 million, and this is the manageable deficit that the Member for Flin Flon told me was qui te appropriate at $500 million in 1982. I mean fools can speak, but seldom do they make sense, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, one of the things that I want to draw my honourable friend's attention to, and I did this last year, and I want honourable members to bear with me because I truly and sincerely want the Member for Brandon East, who is so quick to bring up his statistics, to look at the 1981 Budget Address. Madam Speaker, from time to time my honourable little friend from Flin Flon attempts to interject with nonsense, and I think now he has to admit it was nonsense when he said that $500 million deficits were manageable in 1982. He speaks nonsense, Madam Speaker.

I simply want to take my honourable friends to a couple of pages in the Budget documents. Go to the 1981 Budget, and it is in the financial statistics, and what it demonstrates for Manltobans is the amount of refinancing of provincial debt that is required over approximately a 25-year period hence.

Take that page - and I beg the Member for Brandon East to do it before he leaves this House in ignominy - because If you take a look at that and you compare it, for instance, to the identical chart produced on page B-11 of last year's Budget and you compare it to the same chart - I will quickly find it in this year's Budget - page 9 of the Financial Statistics - take a look at those three charts.

What you will find - and here's the interesting num bers and I want you to bear with me as I give them to you and I want you to think seriously about them - in the 1987 Budget, the last Budget of this Finance Mini ster that he presented to this House, the amount of debt to be refinanced from the year 1999 to the year 20 17 in last year's Budget was $971 million.

Look at the statistic in this year's Budget, one year later, and includes only one additional year, namely from 1999 to the year 2018, and you will find in one year the amount of refinancing required by future Mani tobans has risen to $1 .446 billion, a $475 million increase in one year - 49 percent year-over-year. Madam Speaker, we have the Min ister, the part-time Attorney-General, tell us that the Free Trade Agreement is not good because it binds future generations and he says we should not go for that.

How has that incompetent $2 billi on-bonzo Min ister of Finance justify the tying down of future generations by, in one year, the amount that has to be refinanced by yet unborn Manltobans, an increase of 50 percent in one year?

Friday, 4 March, 1988 But, Madam Speaker, those aren't the frightening figures. Let me take you back to the 1981 Budget. My honourable friends will be interested in seeing that. In the 1981 Budget, the time period from 1990 to 1994 - at that time some 10 years to 13 years out - the amount of refinancing on the debt incurred by all governments in 11 0 years of government was $600 million in 19 81. Do you want to know what it is today in this most recently tabled Budget?

I want my honourable friends to listen to this, because in the time period now, 1990- 1994, we aren't going to refinance and reborrow, on behalf of Manitobans, $600 million. No. We are going to be forced to reborrow $2.158 billion, 3.5 times the amount in seven short years of fiscal mismanagement by the NDP.- (Interjection)- Yes, my honourable friend from La Verendrye says, "How do you blame the feds for that?", and that is an Interesting question. Madam Speake r, let me just develop one more statistic from the 1981 Budget because it is even more shocking.

The 1981 Budget, the amount of money to be refinanced from that time period, 1995-1 999, was $310 million as a result of debt incurred by 11 0 years of government in this province. · What is the comparable figure for the 1988 Budget? I had to do one thing. I had to add in one figure and that was the previous year's figure for 1999, because that particular period is lumped Into a five-year group now. Madam Speaker, in 1981, we had to refinance $310 million. In 1988, for that same time period of 1995-1999, we have to refinance $1 .892 billion, a six fold increase in the amount of refi nancing.

Now, Madam Sp eaker, do honourable members opposite unde rstand what they have done to founder the future of this province in their seven years of administration? And I lay the blame entirely on the former Minister of Finance, the man who gave us $500 million-plus deficits per year, and even had to have the Provincial Auditor tell the people of Manitoba that he even cooked that figure and it was too low. My honourable friend, the Member for Brandon West, calls him, "Dr. Debt." I'm not as kind.

I call him the "Two Billion Dollar Bonzo," because that's what he has saddled future generations of Manitoba with, in terms of debt which costs us $200 million every year, the entire cost of operating every personal care home fo

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-3-17
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 3rd hansardpdf 17.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9862b5bd45291de947fbb62844c7c8b3573faf89

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