Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 14 (35th Legislature, 5th Session)

35-5-14

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fafth Session • Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker Vol. XLID No. 14- 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, Aprll26, 1994 ISSN OS42-S492

NAME ASHrON, Steve BARRETf, Becky CAURSTJlDRS,Sharon CERTI...LI, Marianne CHOMJAK, Dave CUMMIN GS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR. Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDVVAURDS,Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Trm, Hon. EVANS,Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILM ON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Pollttcal Afftll ation CONSTITUENCY Titompson VVellington River Heights Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-RusseU Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interla ke Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield VVolseley GAUDRY, Neil GllLESHAMMER. Harold, Hon. GRAY, Avis St. Boniface Minnedosa Crescentwood Gimli HEL VVER, Edward R. lflCKES, George KOVV ALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LA THLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Man:el MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOVVAY,Trm MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MAURTIND ALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCORMICK, Norma McCRAE,James,Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. ORCHAURD, Donald, Hon. P ALL ISTER, Brian PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK. Darren, Hon.

REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad SCHELLENBERG, Harry STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. VVOVVCHUK, Rosann Point Douglas The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St. Johns Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Osborne Brandon VVest Assiniboia River East Pembina Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Rossmere Kirk:field Parle FlinFlon La Verendrye Fort Garry Swan River PAURTY.

NDP NJ)P Liberal NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Libeml PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC Libeml PC NDP Liberal Liberal NDP PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC Liberal PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP

- 625 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, April26, 1994 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS RO�NEPROCEEDINGS READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS APM Incorporated Remuneration and Pharmacare and Home Care Reinstatement Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Ms. Friese n). It complies with the pri vileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Yes . Mr. Speaker: 1be Oerk will read. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): 1be petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba, humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS the Manitoba government has repeatedly broken promises to support the Pharmacare program and has in fact cut benefits and increased deductibles far above the inflation rate ; and

WHEREAS the Pharmac are program was brought in by the NDP as a preventative program which keeps people out of costly hospital beds and institutions; and

WHEREAS rather than cutting benefits and increasing deductibles the provincial government should be demanding the fe de ral government cancel recent cuts to generic drugs that occurred under the Drug Patent Act; and

WHEREAS at the same time Manit oba go ver nment has also cut home care and implemented user fe es; and

WHEREAS the Manitoba government paid an American health care consultant over $4 million to implement further cuts in health care. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly urge the Premier to personall y step in and order the repayment of the $4 million paid to Connie Curran and her firm APM Incorporated and consider cancelling the re cent cuts to the Pharmacare and Home Care program s. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Harold Gil leshammer (Minister of Culture, Her itage and Citiz enship ) : Mr.

Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report 19 92- 93 for the Manitoba Centennial Centre Cotporation and the Annual Report 1992- 1993 for the Mani toba Arts Council. Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Spe aker, I would like to table the Annual Report 1992-93 for Education and Training, also the Annual Report for the year ended June 30, 1993 , of The Public Schools Fmance Board, and on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), I would like to table the Annual Report 1991-92 of the Public Trustee. Hon.

Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): I would like to table the Quarterly Reports for Ma nitoba Telephone System for the Second Quarter and Third Quarter of 1993. Hon. Glen Cummings (Mi nister of Environment): Mr. Spe aker, I would like to table the Annual Report 1993 for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation and the Annual Report 1992- 93 for the Department of Environment. • (1 335) INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 203-- The Small Business Regulatory Relief Act Mr. Jerry Storie (Fiin Flon): I would like to introduce The Small Business Regulatory Relief Act, Mr. Spe aker, as the first bill of this session.

626 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Apri126, 1994 Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), that leave be given to introduce Bill 203, The Small Business Regulatory Re lief Act (Loi sur l' assouplisse ment de I 'a ppl ica tion des r�glemen ts aux petites entre prises) and that the same be now received and read a first time. Motion presented. Mr. Storie: As is cust om , I would like to introduce it with a few brief remarks. Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear from this Chamber and outside of this Chamber of the importance of small business in the province of Manitoba.

In 1986, a task force was established to review the impact of business regulation on the su ccess and viability of small businesses in the province . Although there were recommendations in that report, there have not been significant moves to implement those recommendatio ns, and in the intervening years, Mr. Speaker, the complexity of regulations facing small business has increased. Mr. Speaker, there is a need to make sure that business regulations are imposed in a fair and a practical way on small business.

Over the past few months, in discussion with small business and in discussion more recently with the Winni peg Chamber of Commerce, which is supportive of these kinds of initiatives, it has been detennined that this particular legislation that requires the government to predistribute regulations they have plans to introduce over the course of a year, requires government to look at the practicality of business regulation, particularly as it relates to the size of the business. The larger busines ses, Mr.

Speaker, it is clear, can and have the reso urces to assess impacts and to attempt to modify regulations in an appropriate fas hion, and small businesses cannot. This is an important first step, and I hope that all members opposite will support this legislation. Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the Speaker 's Gallery, where we have with us this afternoon Mr. Charlie Mayer, the former member of Parli ament for Lisgar -Marquette , Mr.

Terry Clifford, the fonner member of Parliament for London-Middle sex, and they are accompanied also by Mr. Kan Yuk Lam and Mr. Thomas Wong from the Lamko Group. On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon. Also with us this afternoon we have, from the John Henderson Junior High School, fifty-seven Grade 9 students under the direction of Mrs. Manuella Vieira. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). Also, from the Grant Park High School, we have thirty-one Grade 9 students under the direction of Mr. Nonnan Roseman.

This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray). On behalf of all honourable members , I would like to welcome you here this afternoon. •

(1340) ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Drug Patent Legislation Government Action Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Drugs in Manitoba represent a very high cost in the budget in tenns of the cost of our health care system, both dire ctly through the Pharmacare program and also through our hospitals in the province of Manitoba. In November of 1992, the fonner Minister of Health indicated, Mr.

Speaker, that nine provinces in Canada were opposed to C-91, the imposition of a drug patent law in this country that would have impact on the cost of drugs to the consumer, the cost of drugs in our health care system and also would be prohibitive, in fact contrary to the job investment interests in the generic drug industry with their investment intentions in Manitoba. This - -

- April 26, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 627 is a very important issue fo r both health and investment in our province and in Canada. I would ask the Premier whether he raised this issue. with the Prime Minister when they met on March 2 to get an agreement to reverse C-91, reverse the former Mulroney government's drug patent law and get a program that is approp riate for the people of Manitoba. Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. This government vigorously opposed the fo rmer federal government in its implementation of that bill.

In fact, my recollection is that the former Minister of Health and the form er Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism appeared at the committee hearings in Ottawa that looked into this bill. We remain of the view that that bill did some unfair things, pa rticularly in its retroactive application to particular patents that denied us the opportunity of an expansion of some of our generic drug producers here in Manitoba. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Premier's analysis. I was wondering whether he had raised this with the Prime Minister at his March 2 meeting dealing with Manitoba-federal issues. Mr.

Speaker, the costs are projected to be over half a billion dollars to the health care system in Canada. These are not my words. These are the words of lloyd Axworthy during the last fe deral election. The drug patent companies-an d I think he is right; I think his numbers were correct-now are saying that the retroactive provisional loan will cost the health care system some $2 billion. I would like to know, given the fact that Manitoba was opposed to the changes before, we remain opposed to the changes now, did we raise this issue with the Prime Minister at his last visit with the Premier?

Did we raise this with the lead fe deral minister for Manitoba, Mr. Axworthy, at any recent meetings we have had? What action are we taking now to reverse this law and get investment and good prices for our drugs here in Manitoba? Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite may want to engage in cute gamesmanship.

The member opposite knows that the meeting with the Prime Minister was directed towards pressing issues of the infrastructure agreement, which has since been signed, of the Core Area renewal agreement, which is under discussion at the moment, issues that involve some hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in the province of Manitoba. The issue that he raises is indeed an issue that we will be pursuing. I would say, Mr.

Speaker, that we have remained consistent on this issue, that we do not support the kinds of legislation that were introduced and the negative effects that they have had, both on our Treasury in terms of the escalating costs of drugs in this province but also on the opportunity for some of our generic drug manufacturers to expand in this province. Mr. Doer: During the committee hearings in November and December of 1992, all provinces opposed the imposition of Bill C-9 1 except Quebec at that point. We are now told, Mr.

Speaker, that the fe deral government is very concerned about Quebec's position on this matter and wants to tiptoe this issue past the next pro vincial election in the province of Quebec.

Now, if it is going to cost us in health care costs and ifit is going to cost us in terms of jobs in the other nine provinces, I would like to know what action the Premier will take, maybe at the western Premiers' meeting scheduled a month from now or at other fo rums, to raise the issue on behalf of the other nine provinces that want to change Bill C-91 now and not wait fo r some distant period of time after one prov incial government's election in the province of Quebec. Mr. Filmon: Mr.

Speak er, I would assure the member opposite that our government will raise the issue with the Government of Canada, and we will raise it as quickly and as eff ectively as possible. We can begin, I think, with appe aling directly to the fe deral government through our ministers involved with the process. I think it would be app ropriate if perhaps we got the support of the Liberal Party here in this

628 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 26, 1994 Legisl ature provincially to urge their fe deral colle agues to take some action on this issue. • (1 345) Provincial Judges Early Retirement Package Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister. In the face of historical bac klogs in the Provincial Court that the government now has ap parently spurred on by the resignation of eight Provincial Cour t judges with an attractive retirement package, it certainly baffles Manitobans as to the government's motive in doing this at this time.

Particularly dis turbing is that this deal was app arently done in secret without this Assemb ly's knowledge and app roval as required by law. My question to the First Minister, Mr. Speaker, is: Would he now table any legal opinion that the government has advising that it can conclude this retirement pa ckage without the app roval and knowledge of this Assembly? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite should know that matters of employment between employees of the government of Manitoba and the government of Mani toba are matters that can be dealt with by any administration in power.

If he doubts that, Mr. Speaker, I invite him to initiate a legal action and show his legal expertise . Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Spe ake r, as the First Minister should well know , The Provincial Court Act of Manitoba requires that this Assembly first appro ve any such pack ages that are off ered to judges. My question is: If the minister will not table a legal opinion, will he now table the retirement pa ck age and advise when the Judicial Compens ation Committee last met? Mr. Filmon: Mr.

Speaker, I will take the latter part of that question as notice, but I repeat, if the member opposite fee ls so strongly about his legal positi on, let him initiate action, and we will be prepared to dem onstrate that the government acts within not only the letter of the act, but the spirit of the act. Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, this is not simply a matter of legal positioning; it is a matter of broad socia l in ter est and ec ono mic interest to Manitobans.

My final supplementary is: Would the First Minister con finn that there are eight judges now retiring, that they are to receive a one-year salary at a cost of almost $1 million? In other words, the judges are being paid, Mr. Speaker, $1 million not to de al with the backlog. Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the member, if he is concerned about people accepting significant sums of money from the government, ought to talk with his member for F1in Flon (Mr. Storie) about the money that he is accep ting from the government of Manitob a, from three diff erent so urces. Workforce 2000 GWE Group Inc. Mr.

Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Last October, OWE Group Inc. was awarded a contract or was given a grant by the government of $6 00,000, a fo rgivable loan, as part of their $1. 4-million facility that they are building in Brandon. In addition to that, under the Workforce 2000 program, we have recently learned they were given at least another $130,000-it may be more-f or training. Mr. Spea ker, part of that money, $42,000 of it, is going to a company from Tamp a, Flori da.

The company is named Decision Strategies, and that company has been given this $42,000 contract to train the trainers at this centre . My question for the minister: What are the criteria under Workforce 2000 for giving monies to companies not only outside of this province but outside of this country to train peop le? These are Manitob a taxp aye rs' dollars. What are the criteri a for giving a contract like this of $42,000 to a company from Tampa? - -

- April 26, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 629 Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I regrettably cann ot answer that question specifically with respect to providing funds to organizations which provide training expertise which may be housed outside of our province. But I point out to the member that indeed the Provincial Auditor has looked at these issues and has said as recently as the report that as of May '93, the program objectives are clearly defined in consistence with the program's mandate.

Training act ivities are appropriately or ganized and controlled, performance criteria in place to monitor achievement of results, management decisions are timely and based upon relevant information, and accountability reporting-and I think this is the ess ence of the member' s questio n-o n financial activities undertaken and results achieved is provided Mr. Speaker, that is the outside, third-party endorsement of the principles around this program and the general criteria that are in place as having been judged by the Provincial Auditor.

I say to the member and indeed all Manitobans, who of course are interested in this program, that the highest independent court in the land, this being the Provincial Auditor, has looked at this program and certainly has given it endorsement. •

(1350) Mr. Edwards: Again for the minis ter-and I will look forward to the minister bringing forward the specific criteria as to giving Manitoba taxpayers' dollars to outside individuals, indeed outside of this country-can the minister indicate what criteria were applied to this specific contract, given that there was at least one other company with an office already located in Winnipeg, the Phone Power company, which is a division of Stentor?

Can the minister indicate with respect to this particular grant to this company, which ended up having $42,000 leave the country, what the criteria applied for this training decis ion were and why the company already with an office in Winnipeg was not given the contract? Mr. Manness: I can only again, at this time, and I will take the question as notice, indicate that the introduction of this company to Manitoba and the partnership between ACC and GWE allows for the development of an education infrastructure in telecommunications in Manitoba at Assiniboine Community College.

This will result in an ongoing provincial training capability that will be instrumental in attracting other such businesses to Manitoba in the future. What we attempted to do was put into place a synergy where that type of training could be provided at the community college that is located in Brandon. So, through all of this and through gentle guidance and yet recognizing that criteria of the program had to be met, we were trying to establish within that training facility in Brandon that there would be an op portunity, in spi te of the protestations from the member for Brandon East (Mr.

Leonard Evans) who did not want to see this company-we sensed there was greater opportunity for the community of Brandon, but that would be, of course, aided if indeed there were training capabilities at ACC. Mr. Edwards: The minister uses the wo rds "gentle guidance" which is one thing, Mr. Speaker, but having significant amounts of taxpayers' dollars leave this province and go to a company in Florida is a serious conce rn, I think, for all Manitobans. I will look forward to receiving more specifics, as the minister indicates.

My final question for the minister: Given that the overall cost of establishing this operation is $1.4 million, and with the Workforce 2000 money, the government is paying, in effect, in excess of 50 percent of that, does this represent the government's strategy which is essenti ally to look to outside investors to come in and essentially cover in excess of 50 percent of their start-up costs? Is that going to be the new policy of this government in the coming years as they try to attract business, to pay in excess of 50 percent of the start-up cost?

630 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 26, 1994 Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, the short answ er to the question is no. This initiative, again, is consistent with the government's focus on telecommunications as a priority sector for provincial economic growth and renewal. Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell the member opposite that the telemarketing industry in Canada is about to provide upwards of 200,000 to one million jobs by the end of this decade. The member has to decide for his party whether or not he believes Manitoba should have a place within this important sector. Mr.

Speaker, I say to him at this point in time, if we can support to some extent the training within this industry, and if the member chooses not to accept the thrust that we would like to see within this industry, then all he has to do is stand and say so. This government is firmly committed to trying to carve out for itself, and indeed the people of this province, opportunities within this sector. •

(1355) Bill22 Health Care System Mr. Dave Chomiak (Klldonan): Mr. Speaker, in the health care field, this government continues to act first and then, after they get into trouble, ask questions. They did this in home care . They have done it in Pharmacare. They have done it in home care equipment and supplies. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier (Mr. Film on). By superimposing Bill 22 on all facilities, rural health facilities, personal care homes, community clinics, they have imposed a very unfair burden on many institutions.

I am wondering, in light of the letters we have received from Winnipegosis, from Grandview, from Gilbert Plains and from other agencies, will the government now withdraw its application of that bill-as it has, in a strait-jacket fashion on all faciliti es, that it is affecting patients-and rethink its policy in an area, for example, of hospitals where they have already cut out $58 million? Ron. Leonard Derkach (Acting Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Health, I will take that question as notice. Bill22 Health Care System Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr.

Speaker, my supplementary is also to the Premier. Will the Premier order his Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to ask the department to withdraw its March 28 letter that was directed to all facilities that said Bill 22 must be imposed, because even org ani zations like the Manitoba Health Organization are not certain what the application is, except they have maybe heard something from the Premier in an interview? Will they immediately withdraw that letter and clarify the situation for all those hospitals? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Health is already on record that he will not allow any of the measures that are taken to impair patient care in the hospitals and personal care homes. I further advise the member that the minister has a meeting scheduled with MHO later this week and that the whole issue is going to be resolved as a result of that meeting. Health Care System Layoffs Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my final supplemen tary: Will the Premier now meet with the Minister of Health (Mr.

McCrae) and can he advise this House that the last round of Connie Curran layoffs that we are awaiting from the Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface, will they put those on hold?-because those layoffs are sitting on the desk of the minister. Will the Premier today announce to this House that he will formally put those on hold?-because the system can no longer tolerate any more layoffs by this government. - -

- - April 26, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 631 Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I just caution the member opposite not to try and create fear and anxiety in minds of people. Any of the changes and decisions that will be made in the hospitals will be made by the administration in consultation with their staff, their patient-care people and so on. 1be decisions that are made will be made only under the assurance that patient care will not be negatively impacted by any decisions that are made within the hospital scheme. Work and Social Opportunities Inc. Staffing Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr.

Speaker, last year serious allegations were made about very serious problems at Work and Social Opportunities Inc. At that time I wrote to the minister and asked her to investigate and make changes. The reply from the minister was that they had investigated and everything was okay.

Given that there are still very serious concerns on the part of parents and staff about inadequate levels of staffmg, inadequate levels of funding, inadequate staff training and no training at all for persons in the sheltered workshop, what is this minister prepared to do to ensure that there is qualified staff hired, adequate funding to do so and training for staff and clients? Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question.

It does provide me with the opportunity to put on the record that there are many people with mental disabilities throughout our province of Manitoba that are served very well through over 60-some agencies that provide work experience and work day-program opportunities for over 1, 700 mentally handicapped Manitobans. Our commitment has been strong as a government and we will continue.

Through this year's budget process I have worked long and hard to ensure that there would be increased fu nding for those with mental disabilities so that we could provide more day programming and more opportunity for those with a mental disabili ty. Mr. Speaker, we have been wo rking with W ASO, with the board and with the staff as a result of the very serious allegation that came forward. As a result of our investigation, they will be hiring more staff to deal with the issues around safety and security. •

(1400) Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer of the minister, but I think that the report we heard today is really just symptomatic and what we need is some stability in this organization since 50-what is the minister prepared to do to provide some stability to this organization since they have bad a 50 percent turnover in staff in the last year? Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, we do contract with agencies to provide services through my department on a regular basis. It is the board's responsibility to ensure that appropriate staffing levels are in place.

We do not get involved in a boa rd/s taff issue. The area that we become involved in as government is in the area of safety and security for those clients that are served through the process. When that issue was brought to our attention, we were extremely concerned that appropriate levels of staffing were in place to meet the needs of the clients that are served. As a result of our working with WASO, they have indicated to us that they will be hiring more staff to deal with the issue. Mr. Martindale: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to repeat the question to the minister, because ob viously there needs to be much more accountability to the taxpayers of Manitoba. What is this minister going to do to intervene to ensure that the board carries out its mandate and is accountable to the taxpayers for the large sums of money they get so that these problems do not recur? Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I take some exception to the comments from my honourable friend that we have no commitment or do not care about the mentally disabled in the province of Manitoba , because actions speak louder than words.

632 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Apri126, 1994 I have already indicated that the re is a considerable increase, some $4 million, in this year 's budget in the Dep artment of Family Services to deal with issues surrounding the mentally disabled and their ability to live in the community and to work in the community and to have day program ming oppo rtunities in the community. I have already indicated that a board/staff issue has to be dealt with at the board level, and we do entrust community boards to make decisions around appropriate levels of care.

When an issue of safety or security comes to our attention, as the Department of Family Services we make every effort to ensure that there is that safety and security in place. We have already accomplished that by making recommendations that the board has accepted to put more staff in place to ensure safety and security. Fishing Industry Restocking Program Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, the commercial fishing industry in Manitoba has been in some tough times over the past few years lower prices, higher costs and in most areas decline in pickerel and sauger stock in our lakes.

This has been due to poor natural reproduction, some low water levels in the past few years, poor spawning success and a limited supply of pickerel fry for restocking from this province. My question to the Minister of Natural Resources is: Can this ministe r tell this House and Manitoba fishermen what action is his department taking to correct the situation, and does he have a plan to restore and maintain the fishing stock in our lakes? Bon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer that question.

Everybody that is involved with commercial fishing, of course, realizes that the prices have been dramatically low, not in Manitoba, not in Canada, but on an international basis. As a result of that, it has created a lot of pressure on our commercial fishing people as well as the fact that the last number of years have not been good years for catching fish. This is common knowledge. I have had the occasion to meet with various groups of the commercial fishermen, and we are looking at developing the possibilit y together with communities to develop fish hatcheries.

We are in the process of having those discussions right now and, hope fully, we can bring something forward together with the communities to address that concern. Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Speaker, the commercial fishermen of Fisher River, Waterben and Lake St. Martin submitted such a program to this minister just 10 days ago. Has this minister bad a chance to look at the proposal? Will he support this proposal? What is his department going to do with this project? Mr. Driedger: Mr.

Speaker, I just answered the question to some de gree saying that we are talking with the various commercial fishing groups, that one of the priorities that I like to establish is we will take and do a lot more of the fish raising, fish hatcheries, together with the communities. The fact that an application was made 10 days ago and the member is asking me what kind of action are we taking, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about changing the whole concept of fish stocking and we are in the process of doing that. Northern Freight Assistance Program Reinstatement Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr.

Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister: Will this minister re-establish funding to the Northern Freight subsidy? Since funds were cut in a previous budget that have caused financial stress to our northern fishermen, will he at least bring the subsidy back to the level it was before? Bon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, when my colleague the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) was Minister of Natural Resources, I think the subsidy was in the area of $300,000 to $400,000. My immediate predecessor the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enos), - -

- - Apri126, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 633 when be was minister, that gradually escalated up to $500,000. Two years ago, the decision was made to limit it at $250,000, and that program is still in effect there to tty and assist the northern people. It is prorated based on distance, and it is still there to assist some of the commercial fishermen. Literacy Programs Funding Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education.

The cost of illiteracy to the province is very high and at one point in time we felt somewhat optimistic that the government was in fact going to address the issue of illiteracy and try to do something about it. The reason why I felt that was false expectations I guess more than anything else. I want to quote from the government throne speech in 1991: "Our education system will aim at increased levels of literacy and other basic skills .. . . " This is what this government said in the throne speech of 1991. At the same time, what did we see in the most recent budget?

My question is: How does the gove rnment demonstrate its commitment to increasing levels of literacy by cutting back on literacy programs and continuing education? That appears to be a bit of a conflict, Mr. Speaker? Ron. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, the question of literacy today is on the minds of most people involved in public policy.

I can indicate to the member that the councils that have been put into place, literacy council that was put into place by this government and which fostered the development of many volunteer groups throughout our communities, has worked extremely well. It is a model that is being followed throughout Canada because, indeed, this literacy question is not a government reserve. Indeed, it is not only the opposition parties that are interested or any formal government group. It is a community issue.

In the province of Manitoba, we have had many fostering groups throughout our communities which have taken the lead and who have reached out to those who would want to have higher levels of learning. Mr. Speaker, that model has worked extremely well in our province. It is on that basis that we are able, through the volunteer efforts of so many Manitobans, to do a much better job in outreaching. As far as within the public school system, that is the essence of the whole education reform that we are embarked upon at this time. Access Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr.

Speaker, the minister talks in terms of what it is that he feels that he is doing in order to facilitate more access to literacy. I would ask the Minister of Education, can the minister tell us today that this government will ensure that more people will be able to gain access to literacy courses this year over last year? Will he make that commitment? Ron. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, in the sense that we have a stable level of funding for that, I can.

I can also, though-the question probably should be directed more so to all Manitobans, those of us who have skills, and to the extent that we are prepared to share in a volunteer effort with those who do not, the answer is quite obviously, yes. Mr. Lamoureux: I hope that the Minister of Education will be very receptive in terms of what it is that we will be proposing this afternoon. Mr. Speaker: Question, please. Private Sector Involvement Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Will this minister acknowledge that in order to increase literacy, we need to get the private sector and the local communities involved?

New Brunswick, in fact, has a model in which they have seen tremendous response, where we see approximately 2,900 people applying in one year. That is almost triple the size of the province of Manitoba, fairly close to it.

634 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 26, 1994 My question to the Ministe r of Education is: Will he make a commitment to adopting a model similar to what is being accepted in the province of New Brunswick in order to really do something- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question. Bon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, New Brunswick does not have the lead in this issue. The province of Manitoba has the lead and the model. The member 's colleague was in attendance with us when we opened the Winkler educational centre and jobs finding centre.

That is the model. Indeed, it was one of the few openings of an educational facility that I was at where there were more people from the private sector there than there were bureaucrats. So the issue is, as the member says, the business community. But that is not provincial dollars, that is the community itself rallying to the su pport. The model is here. The model is in Manitoba, and it is the one we will build upon. •

(1410) VIA Rall Rallex Purchase Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): On Friday, the Acting Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger) said that reports of an offer by U .S.-based Railex to purchase VIA Rail and lay off all its employees in western Canada were rumour. Given that the fe deral government has now admitted that it has received an offe r, can the Minister of Highways and Transportation tell the House today what action he has taken to protect VIA Rail jobs in Manitoba and the routes in Manitoba? If he has not taken any action, why not? Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr.

Spea ker, it is my understanding that Transport Canada has received offers in the past for services of this nature. I understand that they have received another offer. We will be communicating with the minister. We have a council of ministers meeting in July, and this is one of many issues that will be on the table for discussion. We have corresponded with the Minister of Transp ort's office, attempting to get a meeting on a variety of issues-clearly, this is another one of the issues on the list-and they will respond as they deem ne cessary, according to the offer in front of them. Mr. Reid: Mr.

Speaker, if we wait until July, it could be too late for the jobs and the services in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, Railex made an offer to buy VIA Rail over a month ago, and I would like to table press re leases from Railex dated March 16 this year. Railex believes that restructuring VIA Rail is immin ent. Is this government considering subsidizing Railex for a Winnipeg-to-Cal gary service, or any passe nger services in Manitoba, since Railex has indicated that is one of their items of consideration? Mr. Findlay: No. Mr.

Reid: Since Railex suggest in their proposal that certa in co mmun ities will suf fer full curtailment of passenger services, Mr. Speaker, is it the policy of this government to accept selling our vital northern passenger services? Mr. Findlay: Mr. Spe aker, the fe deral go vernment held hea rings on VIA Rail in Manitoba. I appeared there and made presentations that the services to those isolated communities must be maintained. Manitoba Hazardous Waste Corporation Financing Agreement Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment.

At the announcement of the prelimina ry agreement bet ween Indus trial Ecolog y Incorporated and the Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management Corporation on March 24, the minister stated that the financing had been secured for the $15 million to $20 million private investment. - -

- - April 26, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 635 Can the minister confirm this today and tell the House what the de actline is for this agree ment to become a final agreement? Did we meet the 30-day deadli ne, which would have been this past Sunday, Apri1 24? Bon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, we are expecting finalization next week. Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House what has to happen to turn this preliminary agreement into a final agree ment so that we can see the construction begin this summer that was committed at the announcement of the pro ject? Mr.

Cummings: Mr. Speaker, the conditions of closure for the first part of this agreement is that we receive a $250, 000 deposit. Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us where the $15 million to $20 million invested from lEI is coming from? Mr. Cummings: No, Mr. Speaker. We will wait for that confirmation when they put their deposit down. ACCESS Programs Funding Reinstatement Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, there are continuing co ncerns over this gover nment 's cuts in term s of education, pa rticul arly in ter ms of New Careers and ACCES S. These cuts are already having an impact.

It is impacting on the ability to recruit students, impacting on the ability of northern aboriginal students to relocate, and particularly Metis students. My question for the Minister of Education is: When will the minister recognize that when he talks about equality, Mr. Speaker, not everybody has equal access to education in this province ? That is why we had the ACCESS programs. When will he reinstate the 20 percent cut to ACCESS programs in the province of Manitoba? Bon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, a little history.

Since we have been in government, we have accepted offloading from the fe deral government to the tune of, I believe, $4 million a year within the ACCESS program, and we have acknowledged our responsibility with respect to providing opportunities for those who are disadvantaged in our community. When we looked in greater depth into the program , what became obvious was that there were some students under this program who did have means beyond what many other students within our province did.

Consequently , to put everybody onto a fa irer level, particularly those who graduate from this and are almost guaranteed with certainty a job, we sensed that it would be fairer if there was a call upon those who were chosen to be part of this program to also borrow and have some indebtedness with respect to the first tier of Canada Student Loans. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, when will the minister recognize that we are talking about people from remote northern communities , not Tuxedo?

When will the minister re cognize that he cannot talk about true equality without having the type of ACCESS funding that has been in place and that this government is now cutting? Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, the member can try and make this a class struggle all he wants, but he is going to lose. An Honourable Member: Oass? Mr. Manness: An economic class struggle . He will lose, Mr. Speaker, because the evalua tions show that there were sizable numbers of people who had means, No. 1, and beyond that were guaranteed employment.

All we are saying, in being fair with all of the people who will try and access Canada Student Loans, certa inly there should be some expecta tion that they might have a small part of student debt like indeed many, many Manitobans. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, how can this minister talk about a class struggle? They have increased private school fu nding by 8 percent and cut ACCESS by 20 percent. My final question is: When will this minister understand that the criteria for ACCESS are based on need and that he cannot talk about those

636 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 26, 1994 students having the m eans? Mr. Speaker, they do not. This government is strangling the ACCESS programs by funding cuts of 11 percent last year and 20 percent this ye ar. Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. There will be no reduction in intakes. For those who do not have means, obviously the status quo will be in place. The reality is, there are those that do and they should be accessed and directed into the same student aid fin anci al support that everybody else has. That is the fairer policy. That is what is in place. That is equity.

Bill 22 Health Care System Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speak er, Bill 22 will continue to impact on patient care, particularly in the rural hospitals. We were told this morning that with the Morden and Wmlder hospitals, because government home care workers have to take off Fridays, patients, rather than being discharged on a Friday, have to wait until a Monday or a Tuesday. Can the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for Bill 22, tell this House today, what are the real costs of Bill 22, given that there are extra costs attached to this Bill 22, particularly in the case of hospitals and home care? Ron.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite was obviously not listening to my response or to the responses of the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) when this issue was raised previously in the House. First and forem ost, we will not tolerate a situation in which there is a diminution of patient care in our institutions. Secondly, the minister will be meeting later this week with MHO, which represents these various institutions, to seek a resolution to their concerns regarding this issue, but any resolution will not impair patient care in the hospital.

Obviously, we are not going to seek a solution that adds costs to the system. Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE (Fifth Day ofDebate) Mr. Speaker: On the prop osed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government and the proposed motion of the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) in amendment thereto and the proposed motion of the honourable Leader of the Second Opposition (Mr.

Edwards) in further amendment thereto, standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. Ron. Donald Orchard (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, this is a great day to be speaking on the seventh great budget that this gover nment has prese nted to the people of Manitoba because Apri126 was the first day of the election of this gove rnment-a proud day for Manitoba, Sir. My honourable friends are anxious about the budget vote, and I am anxious to see them stand up and vote, but the budget is the most important document that is presented to a Legislature at any sitting.

The budget presents our fiscal policy, it present s our taxatio n policy, it presents our funding levels to the various organizations and departments and, probably as important in today's envi ronment , Sir , budgets signal to outside observers the general directi on that a government is going to take. That general direction is observed, Sir, by financial markets, the business community and, more importantly, the investment community.

The Budget Debate in general, as I said earlier, is our most important debate because it gives time for opposition parties and individual members to lay out their concerns about the initiatives in the budget, to concur where they believe initiatives in the budget are appropriate and good for the Province of Manitoba and good for the people of Manitoba, but more importantly, it gives members of the opposition parties an opportunity to suggest alternative courses of action. I must say that this Budget Debate is particularly important in that latter regard because this may - -

- - April 26, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 637 well be the last budget that is pres ented to the House prior to the next provincial election. It is certainly incumbent upon the opposition parties to indicate to government what they would do differently. What they are against, we know, but it is incumbent that opposition parties tell us in this Budget Debate what they stand for in terms of taxation policy, fiscal policy, level of funding to different organizations, institutions, as well as to what they would do about the deficit. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I want to background my remarlcs by saying that no one in this House would disagree with the statement that the province of Manitoba, the nation of Canada, North America as a continent is facing a globalized economy. More and more, our economic activities are of relevance not just within the jurisdiction of Manitoba or the country of Canada, but they are very relevant in terms of a global market. Canada has been a trading nation, and Manitoba as a province has been a trading province. We have cr eated our wealth in terms of trading our resources to world markets, to North American markets particularly.

When we sell and when we export from the province of Manitoba, we create wealth that is used to invest in the economy, is used to create jobs for the employment of our citizens and our youth. It is used to tax that creation of wealth so that we can provide for social programs and the amenities that we believe we have come to expect from government. But, Mr. Speaker, government policy in terms of taxation and budget, taxation and our budgetary approaches, is very much an important factor in the cost of production of those goods that we wish to trade into a globalized market.

All of us must recognize in this House, whether we are Liberals or whether we are New Democrats, that taxation levels affect the cost of production of all of the goods that we wish to trade into the world and globalized market, and that regul ation does the same. That is why this budget, Sir, is terribly important because, once again, we hav e a number of initiatives which are very, very important to the taxation levels of our major businesses, designed specifically to lower their costs of production, to make their goods mor e tradeable and more competitive in a global market. Why do we do that, Sir?

We do that because without that kind of competitive taxation environment, our industries, our business es cannot sell their goods into a very competitive global market. So, again, we are sending a clear and unequivocal signal to those observers in the investment community that Manitoba understands their needs in terms of the global market and their ability to participate in it and to compete in it from a production base in Manitoba. We understand, Sir, as no other party in opposition understands, that businesses must earn a profit.

If businesses do not earn a profit, they will not be there creating the jobs and the investment in the future of this province. Now, as for my honourable friends in the New Democrats and the Liberals, I have never heard once in the time that I have been here since April 26 in any of the sessions, any of the members oppo site acknow ledge that profit is a ver y important component of the business environment. It is simply not in their vocabulary. Point of Order Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if the minister responsible for whatever it is- Mr. Speaker: Energy and Mines. Ms.

Barrett: -the minister is responsible for now would take a look at at least my speech on the Spee ch from the Throne, he would realize I did in fact say that businesses had a legitimate role to play- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order. That is clearly a dispute over the facts. ••• Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I ap preciate my honourable friend's immaculate conversion, but then that begs the question, why is she voting against a budget which allows companies to profit

638 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Apri126, 1994 in Manitoba? It again follows that my honourable friends the New Democrats and the Liberals are rather inconsistent in what they say and what they do. Important to that business community is a consistent climate where government does not do about-faces, sharp turns in policy, abrupt changes in taxation, abrupt changes in approach. That is the importance of this seventh consecutive budget in which we have not raised, in fact we have lowered, a number of taxes that affe ct our business community. I will deal with them later.

The important question I think, Sir, at this juncture is to ask ourselves as MLAs in this House, is the signal that Manitoba is a good place to inve st, to create wealth, to employ Manitobans and to sell products into the global marlcet, is that message and that signal to the outside investment community a good signal or a bad signal?

I think it is fair to say that without exception everyone in the investment community, in the financial advisory community, in the business community, even in the labour and academic communities acknowledge that we are leading Canada in terms of ability to understand the nece ssary ingredients of a growing economy, and they say that our recor d of budget ing in the Province of Manitoba is the best in Canada. That is said not by us as members of the current governing party, but that is said by financial houses in Canada and in the United States.

That is said by financial editorial writers like Diane Francis and others. That is somewhat confounding to my honourable friends in the opposition, but without exception they endorse the goals that we are attempting to do through seven consecutive budgets. Who supports this approach? Well, it is kind of interesting to look across the House. This is where my Liberal friends-and I know they will read my urgings in Hansard.

My honourable friends the Liberals have voted against every single budget in the Province of Manitoba since we came to power, every single budget, and they have announced their intention to vote against this budget. Mr. Speaker, my honourable friends the New Democrats have a somewhat different record in voting for budgets . There have been times when they have supported our budgetary measures, to their credit. When they have supported our budgets in 1988 and 1989, guess what happened?

They went from the dirty dozen to the current 21, proof positive that if you support good policies the people of Manitoba will support you. •

(1430) The Liberals, in opposing every one of our budgets in '88 and '89, went from 22 seats down to the curre nt seven. I urge my honourable friends , just with that one piece of logic to vote for this budget. It would be good for you to do that. Mr. Speaker, a checkered record from the NDP, a consistent record of being against every budge tary me asure in the Liberal Party of Manitoba, and then of course our public sector unions without equivocation have always opposed our budgetary measures.

They are opposing these current ones with a new flurry of ads from the nurses ' union and from other public sector unions in anticipation of an election at some point in time. Now, Mr. Speaker, when we have the Liberals voting against every single budget that this government has brought to the Legislature, which has lowered taxes, which has lowered the deficit, which has created a business environment and an investment environment that is good for the creation of wealth and investment in jobs, we must conclude that when the Liberals vote against those , they would, should they govern, spend more.

They would tax more , they would borrow more , and they would drive away our competitive advantage in the province of Manitoba. To give one brief example of that, Sir, since we have been in office six years now-we have en joyed six months of fe deral Liberal government. What have we got with six months into their mandate? We have a dollar that has dropped three cents . We have interest rates that have gone up two percentage points. Now, I wonder how many home buyers and people borrowing to sust ain their businesses are thanking Mr. Chretien and Mr. - -

April 26, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 639 Martin for their wonderful economic policies that they are now governing this great country of ours with. (Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) So I say to my honourable friends the Liberals, we do not know exactly what Liberals in Manitoba stand for, because they sort of are on all sides of the issues, and depending on what time of the day or day of the week, you may or may not get a consistent position from Liberals.

But one thing we do know is what prov incial Liberal governments do in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the Province of Quebec. They reduce spending. They increase taxes. They increase deficits. They take pay increases away from civil servants. They take pay increases away from teachers, nurses, doctors. We know that Liberals in provincial governments do those sorts of things. We do not know whether a Liberal adminis tration, Heaven forbid, in the Province of Manitoba would emulate that, because they have never consistently laid out a position.

Madam Deputy Speaker, my honourable friends the New Democrats say, what about Tories? I openly admit tha t we have approached the government and budgeting from the expenditure side, not the taxation and borrowing side. I openly admit that. We are emula ted in that goal by provincial Liberal governments and provincial New Democratic Party governments. Now I wa nt to deal ju st briefly wit h my honoumble friend the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), my dear friend the member for Elmwood. My friend the member for Elmwood periodically cautions that we have not done a very good job of controlling the deficit.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will acknowledge that the deficit is higher today than I would like it to be, and, to every member on our side of the House, the deficit is higher today than we would like it to be. But let us consider the genesis of that deficit and let us understand what is driving the deficit in the Province of Manitoba today. I offer to my honourable friend the member for Elmwood, in 19 8 1-82, if he goes to the consolida ted accou nts of the Province of Manitoba, he will find the annual interest payment that we paid after 11 0 years of government was $79 million.

When we came into government in 1987-88, when we came into government six years ago, do you know what the debt had grown to under Howard Pawley and the NDP? It was $552 million per year. An Honourable Member: Interest. Mr. Orchard: That was interest alone, but it was interest that was cleverly hidden by the New Democrats because in 1987-88, of course, we paid $62 million in rental to Manitoba Properties Inc. to whom the NDP sold our public buildings and then ren ted them back to hide their borrow in g requirements of almost $600 million.

Madam Deputy Speaker, today the interest bill in this budget that we are asking concurrence on has grown to $567 million. That is $15 million more than the last year the NDP governed in Manitoba, $15 million more. The point I make is every single dollar of increased debt load in the Province of Manitoba since we have come into government is interest on Howard Pawley's debt. Only that and nothing more, to the tune of $473 million in seven consecutive budgets of additional interest costs of Howard Pawley and the NDP.

The interesting thing is-I want to draw to my honoumble friends that I am going to table these two pages from the Estimates book. In the fiscal year ending 1989, it was estimated that we would pay just about $62 million of rent to Manitoba Properties Inc. in that ill-fated scheme to sell our public assets to private corpomtions, to private investors to hide our deficit and our debt. Today that same rental is now $34 million. Why is that? It is because this government under Premier Filmon and the Progressive Conservatives have bought back our buildings that the NDP sold. I table these for honoumble friends.

Madam Deputy Speaker, let us deal with a couple of other issues while we are at it. Let us deal with some of the statements made by the Liberal

640 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 26, 1994 Leader in his address to this budget. My honourable friend the Liberal Leader, when in doubt about what to do with this budget, I think it is fair to say that he fudges and, indeed, my honourable friend the Liberal Leader even stretched the truth slightly. My honourable friend the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) said on page 527 of Hansard-this is what he said about the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Mr. Botting. Mr.

Edwards , and I will quote, said: "They say" -they being the Canadian Federation of Independent Business "they say tax cuts across the board for everybody is fair. Of course they want less taxes. They say no to sectoral tax cuts, to saying this particular industry, that particular indus try, this small group of companies, that small individual company, they say no to individual grants and tax cuts, and they have said that every year." That is what the Liberal Leader said about the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Let me quote from the Winnipeg Sun.

Dale Bo tting, executive director of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said: I guess you could call this a birthday cake budget. We are celebrating those things which help small business. He furthermore goes on to say-this is Mr. Bot ting-there are a lot of things that are not big-ticket items: phasing out the sales tax on electricity in mining and manufacturing, reducing the railway fuel tax and continuing to cut the small business corporation income tax which will help stimulate small busin ess, said Botting.

Home builders and renovators will also be happy because of rebates and grants to homeowners and first-time buyers. I would suggest that the Liberal Leader did not exactly tell the House honestly what Dale Botting and the Canadian Federati on of Independe nt Business thought of this budget And I understand that because the Liberals do not know how to handle this budget and to be consistent in their approach. They want to hide from the real issues. They want to duck what they would stand for and what they believe in, because I do not think they know for certain what they believe in yet.

The Liberal Leader goes on to say in his remarks that we need a regional capital formation, that we need to have this Lloyd Axworthy idea of a western capital market as one of the original ide as. Now I asked the Liberal Leader in the course of his rem arks , well, if you want local capital empowerment, then how do you like Grow Bonds that you voted against? We ll, he said he kind of liked Grow Bonds which help small business form capital. I asked him, how did you like HydroBonds and Builder Bonds? He said, well , I kind of like those even though we voted against them.

Then I asked him later on, well, how do you like the Vision Fund which provides entrep reneurial risk capital to new ventures? Well, he had not thought about that one. •

(1440) I asked him, how do you like the Crocus Fund which allows employees to invest in their future? We ll, he had not really thought about that. Madam Deputy Speaker, I use that because the Liberal Leader says, we need to have capital market formation. I name you five programs brought in by this government, all helping business to formulate capital, to borrow money to invest in the future of Manitoba. Where has the Liberal Leader bee n? He goes on to say that we need to learn a lesson. This is what the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) says. He says, and I quote the member for St.

Jame s: Let us learn the lesson of retention of our own inve stment capital in people that Quebec learned 10 years ago. They have successfully done that. This is the Liberal Leader who is supporting the Quebec policy of their auto insurance company with no-fault insurance putting significant capital for reinvestment in the Quebec economy. The Liberal Leader is a lawyer voting against no-fault insurance for the people of Manitoba. This individual does not have any consisten cy, Madam Deputy Speaker, because when you do not know where you are going, any road will do. [inter ject ion] That is the problem with my - -

April 26, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 641 honourable friends, the windsock Liberals, and I want to thank my honourable friend for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer). Madam Deputy Speaker, let us taJk about the member for F1in Flon (Mr. Storie). I have to be fair in this debate. I cannot just pick on the Liberals. My honourable friend the member for F1in Flon, and bear in mind he represents a constituency that has Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, that has Granduc mining gold in Lynn Lake . It has High Ri ver Gold, the TVX Gold joint venture to produce gold in Snow Lake.

He says, and I will quote the member for F1in Flon: We will take the mining tax breaks, for example. They have some superficial appeal , but the bottom line is, and I would invite the member for Portage (Mr. Pallister) to check out the facts, 1994-95, what is the net impact on the revenue of the provincial government of the tax changes in mining? He does not know. The answ er is zero. It is a gimmick. It is a joke, like the budget I rest my case . The member for Flin Flon, representing a mining community, says our mining tax breaks are a joke.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to point to the Wmnipeg Free Press , Friday, April 22, a Mr. Dale Powell, who is vice-president of Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting in F1in Flon. He says that because the FJ.lrnon government delivered plums instead of bombs as far as the provincial mining industry is concerned, his worrying about the provincial budget was all for naught. Plums and not bombs, says the vice-president of Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, and he goes on further to say, Mr.

Powell says: Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting has had several expansion projects under consideration for some time, but has not undertaken anything yet because of the costs involved. This is what Mr. Powell, Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting says. He goes on to say: "But he said that on a $50- million capital works project, the tax deduction under this new provision would be $3.5 million." That is the 7 percent capital investment tax on new mining projects . Quote from Mr. Powell, "When you've got those kinds of things coming into play, these projects start to look very interesting, " Powell said.

"If it was dicey before, it may not be so dicey anymore." Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for F1in Flon (Mr. Storie) says these mining tax initiatives are not good for his constituency, his people and his community, but people who invest in it, who work in the industry, say they are . Who represents F1in Flon, the current MLA, who ought to leave because he does not understand his constituency, or members of Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting? I suggest members of Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting. I want to get down to some specifi cs in this budget.

Everybody in this House will agree that jobs and the creation of jobs is the No. 1 issue. I do not think anyone will disagree. We all agree, maybe for different reasons. I agree jobs are the important initiative because I want our youth to have an opportunity in this province. I want them to be able to create wealth that will make this province a better place to be, and all of us agree, I think, that small business is one of the best ve hicles to create that new investment, that new wealth, those new jobs.

Owners of small business are probably people who make less than $60,000 or thereabouts in terms of their annual income. I want to refer my honourable friend to a provincial income tax comparison which has shown how those small business owners with the benefits of our budget since 1987, if they are a family of four, with a $40,000 income, pay $413 less income tax because of our budgetary measures. If they are a family of four, with $60,000 income, they pay $376 less provincial income tax. Now, of course, the Liberal Party has voted against that every time.

They do not want those small-business owners to have those kinds of personal benefits so they make the choices as to how they spend their hard-earned dollars. But, Madam Deputy Speak er, this goes even further. Let us talk about this budget and the

642 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 26, 1994 specifics for the small-business community. There are a number of measures. First of all, small business corporate capital tax rate will decline as a result of this budget from 10 percent to 9.5 percent this year, and to 9 percent in 1995, a reduction in the corporate smal l busin ess tax rate . My honourable friends the Liberals will vote against that. The corporation capital tax exemption is expanded from $1 million of capitalization to $2 million of capitalization, tax relief for the small business community.

Madam Depu ty Speaker, Bu siness Start program is extended for one more year, helpful again to the small business community. Manufacturing investment tax credit is extended, help ful to small business communi ty. Sales tax relief on electricity used in manufacturin g, a benefit to our small manufacturing community. . Now, these measure s are built on top of relief of the payroll tax that we brou ght in place through a number of budgets, our Grow Bonds and all of our other instruments for small business to fonnulate capital to make investments.

My honourable friends in the Liberal Party and my honourable friends in the New Democratic Party consistently vote against those measures. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, when they say they believe in jobs, why would they want to vote against measures which will help the small business community create those jobs? I want to deal with four members from the New Democratic Party: the member for F1in Flon (Mr. Storie), the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) and the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson).

Those four MLAs have in their constituencies the wealth creators of Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, Grandd uc mining, High River Gold, loco in Thompson. In the constituency of The Pas, we have the potential of significant mining investment at Cross Lake in the titanium vanadium deposit. We have Falconbridge exploring a major discovery of nic kel . In Rupertsland, we have Rea Gold ref urbishing, recommissioning, the old San Antonio Gold Mine. The member for Rupertsland wanted that mine to go ahead. He is interested in mining according to the letter he wrote me shortly after his election last fall.

Yet the member for Rupertsland is going to stand up and vote against a budget which helps that mining industry employ his constituents. How can my honourable friend the member for Rupertsland in his new role in this ouse, stand up and vote against jobs in his cons tituency? I can understand the Liberals voting against mining incentives. I can understand that, because they have no hope of ever holding a constituency in which there is mining taking pl ace.

For the members of the New Democratic Party to vote against sales tax relief on electricity used in mining and smelting, to vote against the new tax credit of 7 percent on new investment in mining, new mines and new mining process, to vote against, as the New Democrats are going to do, the doubling of the processing allowance from 10 to 20 percent of new processing equipment used in the mining industry, to vote against the reduction of the special tax in The Mining Tax Act from 1.5 percent to 0.5 percent , how can my honourable friends the New Democrats vote against these when they employ their constituents?

I guess what even further boggles my mind is, those are unionized jobs. Those are hard-working union members in F1in Flon, in Thompson and in other communities that supposedly are represented by the New Democrats in this House. Their jobs are going to be made more secure, and more of them, with this government and our mining polici es, and New Democrats are going to vote against those measures. Some representation that my honourable friends the New Democrats are doing for their constituents, voting against this budget. •

(1450) The member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) has as a major employer in his constituency, Selkirk Rolling Mills. They are going to bene fit significantly from the sales tax relief on the electricity they use. He will stand in his place and - -

- - April 26, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 643 vote against those ste el worker jobs in Selkirk. Who is he re presenting? He is representing the ideologues in the New Democratic Party, because common sense would tell you that the member for Selkirk would use his ability to think and vote for his constituency and vote fo r jobs at the Selkirk Rolling Mills. Well , he kind of waves his hand saying I am not sure. I know how he is going to vote . He is going to vote with the herd. He is going to vote against that benefit for his constitue nts. The member for Brandon East (Mr.

Leonard Evans), well, we know that he does not like jobs. He has been against GWE jobs since they were announced He is going to vote against sales tax relief on electricity used at Simplot chem ical. He is going to vote against the sales tax relief for electricity in Canadian OXY, a major employer in his constituency. He is going to vote against that same sales tax relief for Ayerst Organics . I want to tell my honourable fri end from Brandon East to read the Wmnipeg Sun, Thursday, April 21. Jim Schultz is chair of the Manitoba Industrial Power Users Group. Mr.

Schultz is the plant manager for Canadian OXY in Brandon. He describes this budget initiative of relieving sales tax on electricity used in his plant and by similar industries that he represents in Canada; he is tickled pink by those initiative s, rather excited, rather supporting. Guess what the member for Brandon East is going to do to those employees at Canadian OXY, those employees at Simplot, those employees at Ayerst Organics, those employees at GWE. He is going to vote against budgetary tax measures to save their jobs and to add more jobs in this community. I say that is shameful.

Madam Deputy Speaker, let us deal with the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). The member for Transcona is the railroader in the House. We used to have the member for The Pas as our railroader, but now our resident railroader is the member for Transcona. He supp orts the rail industry. He is going to stand up in this budget and vote against reduction of the railway diesel tax payable to the province. He is going to vote against jobs in the railroad industry. What is even more conf ounding to me is that the rail industry is very important to support the grain farmers in the member for Dauphin 's (Mr. Plohman) area.

It is very important to, for instance , Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting because they rail concentrate down to Flin Ron, and a reduction in the cost of operating in the railways through a reduction in railway fuel tax, paid to the Province of Manitoba, is going to significan tly help keep them competiti ve. But the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), he is going to vote against the union jobs in the railway shops of Transcona. He is going to vote against those jobs as represented by tax relief to diesel fuel.

Now my honourable friends, both the Liberals and the New Democrats, are going to vote against jobs in the construction industry because they have all stood up and said, we do not want first-time home buyers in Manitoba to have up to $2,500 of sales tax relie f on the purchase of their first home. My honourable fr iends the New Demo crats probably want to go into those tenement houses like the Britis h government just sold. They do not want people to own anything. They do not want first-time homeowners to buy their first home because they are voting against that measure in the budget.

They are also voting against achieving up to $1 ,000 of support for major structural changes in their homes through the construction industry, through the second program brought in this budget. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I fi nd that baffling. New Dem ocrats and Liberals used to support young famil ies trying to buy their first homes, but they are going to vote against the measure that is going to help them do that in this budget. That is bad enough, but what is even more confounding is, how could they vote against the jobs in the construction industry?

And how can they vote against that program because , if you think about it and you do your macro-economic modelling, you will find that stimulation of the

644 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 26, 1994 construction industry does more for the Manitoba economy than most other forms of stimulation because more people are involved in supply, in jobs. It is a good industry to stimulate. My honourable friends the Liberals are going to vote against that industry and vote against young families buying their first home. I cann ot believe that. Now, what is the alternative? I will be fair. Madam Deputy Spe aker, I am going to be absolutely fair to the member for St James {Mr. Edwards ), the Liberal Leader. He did offer a suggestion.

He said that we should eliminate the sales tax for a period of time, and that would stimulate buying. Do you know, he is right? That would stimulate buying. It would stimulate people to buy cars quite likel y, stimulate them to buy major appliances, possibly electronic stereos, VCRs , et cetera. And think of the number of jobs that would be created in Manitoba manufacturing those cars, those fridges and stoves and those stereos. Of course I jest, because we do not manufacture any of those in Manitoba. [interjection] The member for Inkster {Mr. Lamoureux) said, why did we do it?

Because we thought it was a good thing to do when we did it in 1978. If we had to do it over again, we would do exactly what we are doing today, providing tax relief to first-time home buyers to focus your sales tax relief on the greatest job creation in the province of Manitoba, not some silly giveaway that you suggested without too much thought. Does that answer my honourable friend the member for Inkster's question? The idea as advanced by your Leader will not work. It will not provide the kind of employment stimulus that all of us want to see, but you are going to vote against a measure that will .

I find that, Madam Deputy Speaker, quite shameful. Madam Deputy Speaker, where does this lead us all to? I mean, we know that members opposite are going to vote against new investment in the mining industry, development of new mines in Manitoba and the jobs that are associated with them. We know they are going to vote against those. We know that New Democrats and Libera ls· are going to vote against increased production at Canadian OXY in Brandon and the wealth that stems and flows from that, increased production at Selkirk Rolling Mills, expansion opportunities with Dow Coming, for instance, at Selkirk.

The member for Selkirk {Mr. Dewar) is going to vote against that. We know that all members in the opposition party are going to vote against first-time couples buying their first new home. We know they are going to vote against that. We know they are going to vote against $5, 000 worth of renovations, major structural renovations to homes across the length and breadth of Manitoba employing workmen, carpenters , Manitoba industries supplying those construction industries. We know they are going to vote against that.

What we do think from time to time is that maybe our honourable fri ends from the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party might tell us what they stand for. You know, it is almost as if they do not stand for anything because we do not know of a single alternative that they have offered that works. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been more attentive than most in trying to hear these alternatives and these new suggestions. I listened for five and a half years as Minister of Health and heard none.

I have to conclude after listening intently to speaker s on both sides of the House in both opposition parties, and I regret to have to say this, but my honourable friends in opposition engage in duplicity . I regret to say that. My honourable friends in opposition, they say they want jobs and then they will vote against measures in this budget to create jobs. My honourable friends in opposition complain about deficit, but yet every question in Question Period they want more spending. My honourable friends say they represent Manitobans, and they bring every vested-interest narr ow group issue to this House.

They demand vision from go vernm ent, yet they wea r blinders. My honourable friends, they cry tax breaks to small business yet say they are their fr iends. My honourable friends claim to have ideas but fail to - -

- - April 26, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSE:M:BL Y OF MANITOBA 645 produce them. My honourable fr iends claim compassion for the disadvantaged but would founder the only system of support for those dis advantaged, namely the private sector. I want to caution my honourable friends that no longer can today's compassion be tom orrow's taxes. We have for 20 years mortgaged the future of our chil dren. This we must stop, and regrettably , I must conclude that both opposition parties are living in the past and they are afraid of the future.

They de mo nstrate this by voting against a progressive budget for the people of Manitoba, for the cre ation of we alth, for new jobs, for investment, for stability, for a future for our children. They have voted against such budgets for the seventh year in a row. Madam Deputy Speaker, all I can say is shame. Thank you. • (15 00) Mr. Conrad Santos (Broa dway) : Madam Deputy Speaker, there was a couple who visited an exotic restaurant. The husband was looking at the menu and asked the wif e, what is this escargot, my dear? Well, that is the slow-moving snail, said the wif e.

Oh, I will not recognize that, said the husband, I always eat fast fo od. As slow as the sna ils, our economy in Canada is slowly recovering from the deepest recession we have ever gone through, the longest one so far within my knowledge. We are coming out of it slowly, but we still have lots of problems. Our ec onomic development is very negligible compared to the rate of economic growth in Asia and particularly in China where economi c growth can be as high as 10 percent -15. In general, in southeast Asia the rate of economic growth now is 7.5 percent.

According to a survey of the United Nations, globally, the rest of the world, including the industrialized nations, have an economic growth only of 1.8. An Honourable Member: Why the diff erence? Explain to me the diff erence, Conrad. Mr. Santos: Because we have saturated our potential as part of the industrialized world. We have still high-rising unemployment in this country. It is very critical to many of the young famil ies that the members have been talking about that should acquire a home.

How can you acquire a home if you are unemployed and laid offl How can yo u undertake home renovations if the minimum amount that you have to spend is $5,000 before you can get a grant of $1 ,000? You do not even have that money. You cannot parti cipate in a program that is directed to a segmen t of the population that is relatively wealthy and affl uent. It is simple logic. Their program is directed to the pri vileged and wealthy class in our society. The thing that bothered me the most when I look at the statistics is the mounting national debt in this country.

This is mentioned by the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard), but he fa iled to cite what the figures are . The total debt in Canada is approx imately $700 billi on. Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot imagine a billion. A billion is how much? Is it a thousand million? That is just one bill ion. It is $700 billion, and how much of that is owed by Canada from outside of the country? It is about 40 percent of that amount. What does it mean when we owe somebody else other than our own citizens? It means that the interest payment to those outside creditors leaves the country.

What is the interest payment that we are paying to this outside creditor every year on a national accumulated debt of $700 billion? It is approximately $25 bill ion. I cannot figure out how big those amounts are . How much of this debt is provincial? It is approximately $200 billion, out of which Manitoba owes as a national provincial debt, $14 billion, 25 percent of which is owed also to outside creditors . Manitoba 's latest addition to this accumulated provincial debt is the deficit of $460 million in the fiscal year 1993-1 994 contributed by the present government.

What is the political significance of a mounting national debt? What does it mean other than paying a huge amount of interest charges on those debts? If our creditors are outside the country, they can tremendously intluence our internal prior ities. These creditors will dictate how we shall do things, because power resides now in the creditor, and theref ore the debtors will have to do what the

646 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 26, 1994 creditor bids them to do. That is the political significance of having debts, particula rly if a significant portion of that debt is owed to outsiders. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, with all these tremendous problems in our midst, not to mention the escalating violence in our society, the lack of discipline in our youth, the inequalities in educational opportuni ties , notwithstanding all of this, what are we to suggest that the government should be doing? I would like to elabo rate on at least three basic pro positions.

First, in the bu dge tary proce ss, a goo d government -and if this government wants to be called a good government, they must do this must consider human needs first before human wants; second, the government must app ly justice and equity and mercy in promoting the interests, not of the selected privileged fe w, nor the boisterous many, but the interests of everyone eq ua lly.

The third prop osition is that the government must promote mutual concern and beneficial co-operation, not cutthroat competition, as a basis for human interaction in a just and morally directed society. • (1510 ) Let me go to the first proposition, Madam Deputy Speaker. How does a government perfonn its role in the economy of any society including our own through the budgetary process? What do we mean by the economy of the soci ety?

The econom y of any society is simply the sum total of all the human activities in making choices about scarce human resources like managerial talents and skills and knowledge and labour, as well as the capital productive resources like land, machinery, mines, to produce commodities like wheat and beets and sugar and corn, or manuf actured goods like ca rs which are noncon suma ble or manuf actured consumables like pizzas, as well as servic e s like haircu ts , by ef ficient ways, distributing such services and comm odities equally among the citizens.

The me ans of production, the output of the economy, the manuf actured goods and serv ices are then exchanged among all the participants in the economic system through the use of money or equivalent , like credit cards or electronic transf er of funds , in order to obtain maximum satisf action and utility, in order to satisfy human needs and wants in our society.

But my first proposition, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that the human needs should take precedence over human wants , that the government should first look after the basic needs of people before they look after the ones who are motiva ted by man 's natural tendency for accumulating things they really do not need.

On the production side , economists will look at the problem in our society since our prod uctive human capital as well as natural capital means of production are by definition limited and because choices have to be made as to which commodities or goods or services the society may want to produce and fore go other kinds of goods and services. They usually depict this through the use of what they call the production possibilities curve. It is the econom ists' way of portraying and describing to us how they make choices in the production of goods , commodities and services .

The production possibilities curve is simply a vertical scale with a range of values or quantities of some typical capital goods on that side of the scale and a horizontal scale with a range of values or quantities of consumable goods . Then they will draw a line between the two scales which they call the frontier of possible production. Anything within the capacity of society as justified by the resources it has in its possession will be within the possibilities curve and those outside will be outside and unachievable . An Honoura ble Member: How does that interface with demand? Mr.

Santos: I am describing the possibility curve, not the scale of supply and demand. Also, on the consumption side, society will determine how much of these resources they will consume today and how much of this they will - -

- - April 26, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 647 leave for tomorrow, for the future, for next year. This is still part of the budgeting process. An Honourable Member: How do we decide how much? Mr. Santos: How is this decided? According to the best priorities they set up for themselves, the decision makers, the long-range priorities of the government in the case of the public budget.

Since budgeting is basically a choice of alternative ways of producing and alternative ways of distributing public and private benefits as well as advantages and also allocating burdens and disadvantages, it fo llows that the government as the decision maker in public budgetary process must know what revenue or money is coming in, what revenue or money is going out and what kind of program priorities they will have to put on all the things that they want to do.

They shall order this scale of activities like a good steward and guardian of the public interest for the present as well as the future well-being of its being. The Douglas government, when it started the CCF government in Saskatche wan, never incurred any deficit. They always balanced their budget. That is a good example for any government to fo llow. The first pr oposition I put forward, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that the government as the chief decision maker in the budgetary pr ocess must first consider human needs before human wants. Why? How do I distinguish between the two?

What do we mea n by huma n needs as distinguished from human wants? Human needs are the things that are necessary in life. What are the things that are necessary in lif e? They are called necessiti es. That is why they are called necessitie s-ne cess ary, hence the derivative word .. necessities"-bread fo r example . Wants, those are convenient, good, sa tisfying, but you can get by without them, because they are simply additions to your basic nee ds. While your needs are determinable in terms of a particular culture, in terms of your physical requ irements , wants are unl imited.

There is no limit to what one can want or desire , virtually unlimited. That is why they go beyond control. Some peopl e are so wanting -[interjection] The economists would say that the demand for necessities would be inelastic. That is economic terminology. What do we mean by inelastic? Inelastic means that if there is a change in the price , the outcome will be a change in the total revenue in the same direction as the change in the price . So if you increase the price , you increase total rev enue. If you decrease the price, you decrease total revenue .

That is what it means by having an inelastic dem and or inelastic relationship . Why is that? Be cause the quantity dem anded changes by a smaller percentage compared to the change in the price. The wants that we have in lif e are beyond what we really need. They are simply for personal convenience or maybe fo r achieving some status in any kind of particular culture. People want sirloin steaks, for example . That is a status symbol. It sure is good, but it is expensive, and you do not really need it Besid es, it bas some disadvantages.

If we are deprived of our needs, we risk our health, and we risk our lif e ultimate ly. If we are deprived of our wants, we fe el unh app y, but it does not threaten our physical health, nor does it risk our loss of life . • (15 20) Dema nd for luxuries are described by economists as elastic. Again, we have to under stand what they are talking about It means that a change in the price will result in a change in total revenue in a direction opposite to the change in the price, which is the opposite direction. If the price is decreased, the total revenue will increase . Why is that?

An Honourable Member: Beca use they sell more . Mr. Santos: That is right, because if the lesser price per unit is sold, a greater amount will be demanded, more units will be sold, and ultimately you will increase your total profit. Even humans needs are many dif fe rent kinds and many diff erent kinds of levels. I talk about basic economic needs like food and shelter and

648 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 26, 1994 health care . Yet we still as human beings at the individual level also have some other needs . An Honourable Member: Just like man cannot live by bread alone? Mr. Santos: The basic needs. That is right. Man does not live, and by man I mean men and women, human beings, they do not live by bread alone. We also have some social needs as human beings, the ego needs, for example. You want to be recognized in your work. You want to work to be app reciated by other people . There are also other needs in re lation to other people.

You have a need for companionship , you have a need for friendship. These are essential needs . In addition, you have some moral needs as well. You have a need to have some freedom of choice in the thi ngs that you do in lif e. Too often we get caught up in a slot in the economic system we cannot get out of. We are so unhappy about the environmental condition of the workplace. We cannot do anything about it. We are unhappy. That is a difficult situation that does not satisfy the basic moral nee ds of human beings. Even at the individual level there is another level of human needs.

This is at the group level, the collective need, the societal need of human beings living together in communities with one another. For example , we have a need for safety in our community. That is why the government provides law and order. They institute police to maintain enf orcement of our laws, our rules and regulations , so there will be security of persons as well as security of property in our society . These are basic needs.

It is on this kind of need that the government must first focus its attention when they are allocating the resources of society, the human resources as well as the material resour ces. They must first look into the basic needs of human beings. Would a government, in onier to save money, without mercy fire people and nurses? Would you call that government a just one? Would you call that a government satisfying the basic human needs? No, it is a cruel one, in onier to save some money or achieve some efficiency. It is written, no one can serve two masters.

Either you hate the one or love the other, or else you hold onto the one and despise the other. If we so love the material savings of money and funds and neglect our concern for fe llow human bei ngs, we are serving Mammon, we are serving money, we are idolaters worshipping material things and forgetting the finer things in lif e. No government should be so insensitive as to oppress the poo r and the helpless and the disadvantaged people in our society.

The moment you cut those patients of their basic needs, particula rly those who are hopele ss, and they can no longer pay what they need in onier to achieve a sense of healthy living , you are op pressing them and you have departed from the true mission of a good government.

The second proposition is that, in addition to looking after the needs of human beings, before their wants, the government must also apply certain standanis in their choice of alternatives in their decision making, in bow they allocate the human and material resources in order to produce the basic goods, commodities and services that we need in our society. These are the basic standanis of justice and equity especiall y in our materialistic economy which is described by many as a mixed econ omy. It is a mixed econom y.

A mixed economy consists of a private sector segment as well as another sector called the public sector. The private sector economy is that segment of our economy where the pa rticipants individually own their property , and they are motivated by nothing else but self-int erest. They exchange values with one another through what they call the market mechanism, the private market. The doctrine the private market operates they call laissez-f aire which is the French term for let it be. This is simply the law of the jungle , the survival of the fittest. It is social Darwinism.

The stronger you are in the econom y-and they want the government out as the umpire. They want to get - -

- - Apri1 26, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 649 the most of what they can get under that system. So the rule is that the best fonn of government is the least form of government. If they can only get rid of the government, they would; but, if they get rid of the government, you know what will happen: society will break down. You can no longer protect your proper ty. There will be no police department to protect you.

So you cannot push it to the limit. • (15 30) The moment we sta rt privatizing what is essentially basic social services we are getting worse in our social system, because that is the only area; the public sector, where those who have less power and less resources will have almost equal access from all those benefits and services off ered by the government. Now, let us look at the public sector. The public sector is that segment of the economy which is supposed to be for the public, all of the people. The public are all of the people. Not just a few.

All of them, opting to the government which virtually own the properties and make collective decisions through a cent ralized planning in which the business firms are either government owned-and we have those, like the Crown corpor ations, whether they are pr ovincial or federal-or government-con trolled c01porations owned by the state. The workers are assigned, in a certain extreme version, occupational roles.

The products of capital goods used to produce other goods are allocated by central, decision-making, planning bodies that specify the long-term priorities, and whatever goods and services are produced are distributed to all of the citizens. Our Canadian economy is best described as a mixed economy, but it is leaning more toward the private sector economy, although we have a very active gove rnment role in the public sector economy, producing goods that either will not be produced by the private sector or, if produced, will be underp rod uced.

The public sector basically operates under a doctrine of economic socialism, which means that, although the bulk of business activity remains in private hands, the government is deeply involved in achieving economic stability and in redis tributing income in Canada here in a lesser de gree compared to other socialist countries like Sweden. Remember, property ownership is still in private hands, but the benefits are di str ibuted and redistributed evenly as much as possible , equally accessible almost to everyone in a truly democratic socialist society or economy.

This is according to the principle of social and economic justice. Social and economic justice is a basic principle, a good one to follow because it states basically that the existing resour ces, benefits and advantages must be so re arran ged so that the greatest benefit should inure as much as possible to the least advantaged. In other words, the less benefits you presently enjoy, morally you are entitled to a little bit more. Why?

Because those who already have the most have a moral obligation as part of humankind to uplift those who are deprived and destitute and in poverty and in need so that they may be lifted up a little to a level of living which is consistent with dec enc y and human dign ity . That is the rationalization and justification for this doctrine of economic and social justice. Why is that? Because this is the implementation of a still higher moral and divine law which says, thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

If you do not want yourself to get hungry, you should not do things that make your fellow human beings hungry. If you do not want yourself to be deprived, you should not do things that shall make your fellow human being deprived, particularly of those basic necessities in life. Why do some governments do such things that cannot be justified under this moral principle when they cut, for example, publicly assisted programs, wh en they cut help and assistance to single moth ers, when they cut dental programs to children? How can this be justified on the basis of human needs?

Now let us analyze the private sector and the public sector in a layman's view, not the economic terminology which is so confusing. Private sector economy is primarily a competitive market. As we have analyzed, it operates under laissez-faire-do what you want to do, ther e shoul d be no government regulation, no government control,

650 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 26, 1994 very little if at all possible. On the other hand, what good do private companies then do? Although the nature of the market in the private sector is basically competitive, the cotporations, the private cotparations, the business finns, they try as best as they can to be monopolistic. They may not succeed because of existing legislation against anti combination and antimonopolies law. They at least become oligopolistic. Again, I am talking economic terminology which is difficult to understand.

A competitive market is simply a system of exchange of values, where there are so many numbers of sellers and buyers, suppliers, and consumers , where any individual participant cannot exercise any significant control in the setting of the product prices because its finn, its business participant, produces a very minute, small percentage of the total output. It is basically governed by what they call the natural law of supply and demand. Therefore business finns must adjust to what the market price was decided by that law called supply and demand.

They must adjust to the market price, and they are called price takers. Because there are so many firms and so many participants, consumers and producers, buyers and sellers, it is easy to get into any industry or any line of activity and easy to get out if it becomes unprofitable. There is, therefore, a tendency for products to be sold in such a competitive market to be similar, homogenous or standardized products, and hence there is no reason for nonprice competition on the basis of quality or on the basis of sales promotion or advertising.

Contrast that with another kind of market called the oligopolistic market. There are very few finns, ranging from two to seven, could be homogenous kind of product like the big steel industries, big in' the auto m obile indust ry, or it could be in depreciated kinds of products like automobiles. They are mutually interdependent; they collude with one another to set the price. A great deal of nonprice competition takes place there in that kind of market They will describe one automobile as having these extras and the other automobile having that extra and all kinds of nonprice competition.

Then there is the monopolistic market with only one finn . There is a unique product There is no close substitute. There is impossible entry by any new finn where the one existing there is the price maker. Whoever that monopolist is, he sets the price. Why is the public sector economy primarily monopolistic? Why cannot the government allow any kind of competitor? Because the government as the decision maker in the public sector economy is dealing mostly with what they call public good and services as well. •

(1540) Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired. Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise again and speak to the budget. It is a different feeling, though, this time around. Let me say, though, that before I move to my formal remarks, I, too, would like to congratulate those new members who have accepted the incredible high calling of being a representative of the people. May they sense through their years to follow that they are contributing at a high level.

May they always stay in close contact, if not direct, certainl y in thought proce ss, with their constituents. May they enjoy their period in this Legislature. I would also, Madam Deputy Speaker, like to acknowledge the le adership provided by our Speaker. From time to time I question how difficult that role must be. Obviously, it takes one with a great asset of balanced views and reading, if not words, certainly types of expression and mood swings and all of the other factors that an umpire must do. I say to my colleague and friend, the member for Gladstone (Mr.

Rocan), well done over the years, and, hopefully, this session will be of that nature. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a privilege to speak on the budget and not have to rebut some of the opposition members who, of course, have to - -

- - April 26, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 651 attack it. Our government has brought down now seven budgets in six years, and having been the author basically of six of those and listening to the representations made by members opposite during the course of budget debates, I always fe lt obliged to stand in my place and try to explain why it is we took certain actions or why it is we made the changes that we did.

It is not that I am going to do an awful lot diff erent this time, but I think at least I am going to allow myself the leeway to share certain insights with members opposi te, because in listening to their contributions to date, particularly coming from the opposi tion benches, what has struck me is that some things have not changed. Some views have not changed, and the members can say, well, your budget has not changed, and I will explain why.

I will explain why our budget has not changed and why I stand here today as proud as I have ever been, Madam Deputy Speaker, with respect to any of the budgets that have come down, because we are on the right course. We are in the proper pl ace, and I would welcome, of course, a reaction to, as I have over the course of budgets bef ore this, those members who would try to put into place their view of the world.

It is so easy, it is so simple , to pull out that expenditure booklet; and, when you cannot talk about the parameters around the fiscal reality or the assumptions or, indeed, have any vision of where the world is going, it is so easy and comfortable to pick up the expen diture booklet and see where there has been a reduction of 5 percent in one year over the other. My goodness, a six-year-old could do that.

Indeed, listen to the tenor of the remarks that come from the opposition benches, the fo cuses of the questions every day, they do not deal with the substance of the budget They do not deal with the underlying assumptions. They do not deal with the vision of where the world is going and where Canada and Manitoba fit. What do they deal with? Simple arithmetic, line over line, the old political way, the old politica l way, Madam Deputy Speaker, because if there is more to spend on the people, the people want more to have to be spent on them.

Of course, people are happier, and they are going to tend to vote fo r you-the old way. So, what have we done? I review only very, very quickly, but as I reiterate, I am as convinced as I ever was that we are on the right path, more so today than I was maybe even four years ago, with a certainty, with respect to decisions that have been made in developing the budget. Madam Deputy Speaker, let us try and recall from where we started. No revisionist history can alter the fact that we did not inherit a sur pl us.

All the commentary coming from the NDP benches, all the writings by my friend Frances Russell in the Free Press cannot change the fact that Jim W aiding voted against the budget that had a $300-million deficit Nothing can change that fact. [interjection] Oh, of course not, but you know the truth. If you are truthful people, you know it, and that is the truth. Now, some can say, well, you lucked in. Well, now, that is a diff erent issue. [interjection] Well , ha, ha, ha is the call that comes from the member for Inkster (Mr.

Lamoureux). [interjection] That is right, and some can say, well, there was a 2 percent net income tax put into place by Gene Kostyra in the 1987 budget. That is the truth. Yes, we had the full benefit of an annualized level of income, and it was there. Yes, mining revenue happe ned to be pretty good in '88. As a matter of fa ct, I would pray for the time when it would be half that good again in the '90s. Thirdly, we had this so-called windfall revenue coming from Ottawa by way of transfers. What was the essence of that windfall?

Members know it, if they understand transfers at all, we were not doing as relatively well as the average in the nation, so there was an expectation, a fore cast, that Manitoba would receive so many hundreds of millions of dollars. In a relative sense, our economy did not produce as well, so we got more. Exactly the reverse of what is happening today-exactly. We had those three areas, and some would say, well, you lucked in, you had this windfall. We came into office because the people of Manitoba wanted us to be in office. We opened the books, and on the revenue side, we found this. I

652 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 26, 1994 could spend 20 hoUIS standing here and telling you what we fo und on the expenditure side and the hor rors that we had there, but let us not -[interjection] Now the member says, you could have had a surplus budget. He is right, but we chose not to because, if you are a good practitioner of finances, you tend to have set aside some savings. What we promised the people was we would not buy votes with it, and we were in a minority government at the time.

If there was ever a compunction to want to buy votes with this surplu s, it would be during the time that you were in a minority government We chose not to. As a matter of fa ct, for five budgets, we drew from that, and just this budget, our present Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) indicated it was now all gone. It was exhausted. Madam Deputy Speaker, we set up the budget stabilization. The NDP supported it. They saw the wisdom, and I give them credit, to their credit. The Liberals have been against it from Day One because they do not believe in saving. They never do, never have.

As a matter of fa ct, if you want to loo k at the root problem in the nation, you can draw it right back almost to the Liberal years, not Atl antic Canada Liberals, but certainly fe deral Liberals. Nobody should be spared from this attack. I know there are Conservative administrations across this land that have been proliferate spenders to the same degree as fed eral Liberals.

I understand that, but the reality is, when we took over government, we knew we had to set a diff erent course because, in spite of what might have looked like a few dollars then, we knew--it has become abundantly obvious to myself , who has been leading Treasury Board decisions and discussions over many, many budgets. What became obvious is, when you rank our social program ming as a province, in all the fields , whether you want to look in the Justice areas, Health areas, or you wanted to look into Education areas-and I could be specific. • (15 50) I could talk about the area of da ycare.

I could talk about Pharmacare. I could talk about medicare. I could talk about municipal support procedures on fee schedules, equity training. If you wanted to rank Manitoba as-the program they have and the resources needed to support it vis-�- vis the other pro vinces, we invariably ranked in the top two or third place . In very few were we the top, but in none of them were we fifth or lower.

I dare say, if you could do a weighting of all the social program s, you woul d come to the undeniable conclusion that there is no province in Canada that had a greater social safety net than the province of Manitoba, without reference to our standard of living, without reference to our ability to create wealth, without ref erence to our income. That is an undeniable, indisputable fact-no thing wrong with it, I suppose , if we were able to afford it, when you rank all of our programs and you give them weight. So what did we find? What do we know?

We know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that without hesitation, we had probably the most, the greatest social-welf are-oriented province in Canada It is part of our history. It is part of our political reality. I am just pointing that out as a fa ct. Yet we knew business was leaving, entrepreneurship drive was eroding, and people 's ambition was growingly becoming to draw their livelihood from the public purse. That is the reality-[interjection] No, this speech has never been given.

The member can say this is the same speech, but this speech has never been given, not by me; maybe it has been given, but not by me, because it will be a much diff erent speech. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we were going to support this. We knew we could not allow this drift, this drift of wealth potential outside of this provi nce. So what did we do? Well , we knew we had, obviously, to take control of the taxation side.

We knew that we had to do something to try and convince people that within our means once again we would try to put into place a taxation regime that was friendl y, friendly to people taking risks, friendly to people turning a profit , friendly to people trying to create jobs . - -

- - April 26, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 653 And another thing we had to do, of course, was look at the expenditure side. We had to know very quickly, we had to decide very quickly whether or not we could begin to reduce some of the levels of expenditure, bearing in mind obviously that some people were going to be impacted, obviously that some people would no longer be able to draw their livelihood from the public purse, and, all in all, trying to bring some bala nce as between expenditure and spending, and taxes and revenues.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we began to reduce taxes where we could, 54 points to 52; that has been well documented. We provided increased tax relief to low-income families of parents who were working, and I do not expect to get credit from people here, but the first budget we brought down, we know that we had to provide some type of additional relief to those people who were only earning income in the area of $20,000, $25,000, that we had to do what we could. If they looked and saw the alternative of not working and still doing relatively well, we knew that the incentive would disappe ar.

In the budget so far in the taxation area, we took a taxation system which was skewed in support-this was the NDP's doing, no problem with that-and we enhanced it to the extent that we could. I am talking about the child tax exemption credit. Madam Deputy Speaker, that is what we tried to do to bring forward a balance . We provided tax relief to business.

Of course, that has made the opposition benches irate , and for those sectors that would respond by increasing production and employment and ultimately wealth, and, more importantl y, give them some sense of confidence that this is a government that would be stable minded in the sense of not changing rules around radically. More importantly , it would not attack them for their endeavour s of trying to create wealth. Madam Deputy Speaker, we did this during a recession. Some would say a depression. The word is never used in this House. I do not think I would use it, but many have.

We have done that during a period of recession. We did this with a small majority, but we did it consistently within the bounds of princip le. We tried to be as fair as we could across all sectors, and we tried to share whatever pain there was as broadly as possible so that the pain would be minimal . The result, I say to you and I believe in an honest way, is that we have gone from the highest tax regime to basically the second lowest; some would say the third. We have established Manitoba as a place to invest and to be considered as a place for future investment.

Yet we have maintained intact the social safety net. Some may argue that, but we have. It is in place. Some would say, wel l, it is kind of cracked, but I dare sa y, Madam Deputy Speaker, the difference between socialists and ourselves basically is that where they will-and this is the irony of it, the most ultraconservative people in this Chamber are the people sitting to the left of the Speak er-the most ultraconservative spelled with a small "c". Who wants to protect all of the programming that has been in place for 20 years? Who wants to protect all of the jobs that have been in place for 20 years?

Who wants to protect all of the existing programs from any of the winds of change? The members who sit to the left of the Speaker. Why is that? An Honourable Member: Not all of them . Mr. Manness: Not all of them , fair enough, but the reality is when I hear the questions coming from the Liberal benches in most cases, not all, but in most cases, I dare say, most of them are critical of the changes . So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we, in many cases, have done evaluations of the programs that have been in place for the last 20, 25 years, and some of them are wanting. Some of them are calling for change.

If you believe in priorities at all, and I hear comments coming from the other benches with respect to priorities , you are always told why you should put your money here instead of there. We ll, we have been doing some of that, and every time we have done it, we have been criticized. So be it; that is politics, but I dare say that is old-fashioned politics and it is not being practised any longer by

654 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 26, 1994 democratic parties in other parts of the world. It still is in Manitoba, unfortunately. Madam Deputy Speaker, so just to tell you the result of the many budgets, in my view, we have established our province as a place to invest. Yet I find it strange that the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) stands and says: Look at the unemployment rate. Look at the fact that the budget is not balanced as yet. Your plan has failed. Instant gratification. That is what the members, of course, are expecting. Instant results. Old think . Old politics.

Of course, buy jobs. Old politics. Create false hope. Old politics. Do not tell the people the truth. Old politics. The way the members would have it, the members across the way. (Mr. Speaker in the Clair) Yet I think it is important that all of us draw upon our other understandings as to where the world is going, what is the 21st Century going to look like , how are we going to position Manitoba and our nation to be part of that. I had the great fortune of being with the Premier (Mr. Filmon) at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. It was almost the highlight of my calling to public lif e.

I sat with futurists, philosophers, visionaries from around the world. Everybody thinks it is

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-5-14
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 5th hansardpdf 14.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9de9b48947d49d516b874b80f8c38b3a451fc429

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