Manitoba Hansard — 18 April 1991 (Sitting 25, 35th Legislature, 2nd Session)

35-2-25

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Second Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 40 Eliz abeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL XL No. 25 -1:30 p.m., THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 1991 Printed by the Office of the a.-tis Printer. Province of Manitoba ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Polltlcal Afflllatlon NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARR, James CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILU, Marianne CHEE MA, Guizar CHOMI AK, Dave CONNERY, Edward CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHA RME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS,Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY,Neil GILLESHAM MER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin lA THUN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MclNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Ha rold, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack PlOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Con rad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary WASYl YCIA-l EIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington Crescentwood River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage la Prairie Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Riel St. James lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Rupertsland Gimli Point Douglas lnkster The Pas St. Norbert Elm wood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Rossmere Pembina Emerson Dauphin lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Flin Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry St.

Johns Swan River PARTY. libera l NOP NOP liberal liberal NOP Liberal NOP PC PC PC PC NDP NOP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NOP PC PC NOP Liberal PC NOP PC NOP Liberal NOP PC NOP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP PC NOP PC PC PC PC NOP PC NDP PC PC NOP NOP

957 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, Aprll 18, 1991 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Biii 25-The Environment Amendment Act

(2) Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) , that Bill 25, The Envir onment Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la

Loi sur l'environnement, be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time. Motion presented. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, this is another part of The Environment Act which was left out when the previous administration brought in the new act, and very regrettably so in the view of our party. This act does what other environment acts in this country do and what we should have done back when it first came in or since then. It is long overdue in this province.

What this bill seeks to do is to put in place the same protection for workers who blow the whistle on their employers for environmental infractions that they presently have under The Workplace Safety and Health Act and other worker protection acts.

That is a very basic right in the workplace, which is that if you speak out about something that is legitimate, that is done in good faith and that is imposing a hardship on either your safety or your fe llow worker or indeed the en vi ro nmen tal protection which the company is supposed to be adhering to, that you should be protected against retribution from your employer. That is a fundamental right of the workplace. It is su rp risin g to me indee d tha t the former administration, given their espoused commitment to workers and rights in the work force, did not see fit to include this.

It is high time we did, and I call on all parties in this House to put in place this very important amendment. Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon 20 visitors from the Y Women's Group. They are under the direction of Viola Billing. Also with us this afternoon, we have from The Maples Collegiate twenty-five Grade 12 students. They are under the direction of Mr. Boyko. This school is located in the constitu ency of the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon. *

(1335) ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Agriculture Industry Flnanclal Assistance - Federal Mr. Gary Doer (leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, for months now farm organiza tions, Manitobans and western Canadians have been calling upon the federal government to come up with an adequate amount of money so that farmers could get on the fields and know their financi al situation in this very, very difficul t situ ation that western Ca na dia ns are faci ng. Tod ay the fed era l government, just a few short minutes ago, made their latest announcement for farm support and adjustment programs in western Canada.

Instead of getting adequate support in cash that they immediately need, in fact they needed yesterday, we have announcements of red tape, uncertainty and continued crisis in the agriculture community. I would ask the Premier whether he was involved in today's federal announcement in terms of the program the federal government announced for farmers in terms of their suppo rt and whether he sup por ts the ann ouncement of the fed era l government, or if he does not, will he help lead the fight for adequate payments to farmers in this very, very crucial crop year?

9 58 LEGI SLAT IVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA April 18, 1991 Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, this morning for more than an hour or an hour and a half, the cabinet met with the Keystone Agricultural Producers, a meeting that we hold semiannually to ensure that we are in close communication with the farm community leaders, that we discuss items of vital importance to them. I know that we discussed at great length the GRIP program, the potential NISA coverage and other coverages. I know that during that period of time while we were in that meeting the federal government made its announcement.

We were aware that they were going to make the announcement. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) is at the moment assessing the announcement, the effects of it. He is meeting with other grou ps, and he will obviously be responding on behalf of the government. We believe that it is important to put money in the hands of the farmers, the third line of defence. We were dis appointed that it was not more. We continue to work to enhance the GRIP program and obviously to do everything that we can. This budget's commitment to the GRIP program is a very large and substantial commitment.

There will be obviously ongoing commitments as well with respect to the lon g-term pote nti al underfunding of the program that we will be a partner in financing on behalf of the farmers of this province. So we continue to be committed to farmers, to the rural community, to putting as much money as we can possibly afford into their support so that they can withstand the difficult times that they face with the international grain trade war that they are currently embroiled in. Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, but the Premier in his answers stated that the farmers need cash, and we all agree farmers need cash to go on the fields to start the process that is so vital in our province, and this announcement does not provide the deficiency payments and cash that all of us have been calling for in this Chamber day after day and all across western Canada.

So my question to the Premier is: Why will he not speak in terms of the federal government, the Prime Minis ter of the country, and explain to him very clearly that farmers in Manitoba and farmers in western Canada do not need more red tape, do not need more of these bureaucratic programs that the federal government has announced today? In fact, the Government of Manitoba has not even joined the NISA program, which is the entry for the cash payment, and announced today that it has no cash for Manitoba farmers. What will he be doing about it to stand up for Manitoba farmers in this very crucial period? Mr.

Fllmon: Well, Mr. Speaker, rather than just giving them a bag of hot air like the Leader of the Opposition, we put $43 million in this year's budget that was announced the day before yesterday, for the farmers of Manitoba in the GRIP program. That is a major substantial commitment, the largest one that has been made on any single program in this province's history, Mr. Speaker. That is the kind of commitment we are making to our agricultural producers in this province. It is substantial.

The leaders of the farm community, represented by Keystone Agricultural Producers, understand that and support it, because they recognize that in the face of major, major finan cial difficulties, the loss of revenues that we face this ye ar, we continue to stand firm with the farmer. We continue to put our $43 million on the table, the largest single commitment to any program of farm support they have ever seen. *

(1340) Mr. Doer: Well, with the greatest respect, the Premier did not answer the question. Mr. Speaker, we have been raising the whole situation of pressuring farmers to join GRIP for deficiency payments. Now we have a situation that to get deficiency payments, farmers must join NISA. The province has not yet joined NISA. We do not have any cash. We need to getthat announcement. Farmers are in debt, and they have to go in greater debt just to get some of the borrowing available with this program that is announced by the federal government.

All farm organizations have said, the Pools and the farm organizations of western Canada have said, we need $1.1 billion in this crisis situation across western Canada just to stay even. I ask the Premier: What is his government's response to the federal announcement today that puts further pressure on his government, further pressure on Manitobans and tremendous pressure in a crisis situation on all Manitoba farmers? Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, with respect, in my very first response, I told the Leader of the Opposition precisely what we are doing. We are not shooting

April 18, 1991 LEGI SLAT IVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 959 from the lip. We are not just standing up here flailing away at everything that moves. We have the Minis ter of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) assessing the details of the announcement, what commitments it will require from the Province of Manitoba. We have already committed $43 million, the largest single commitment to any program that we have ever made in our history, to the farm communi ty.

We are assessing what are the ramifications of today's announcement, which was just made a couple of hours ago while we were in meetings with the farm community indicating our concern and our interest in their plight and their issues that they face, Mr. Speaker. While we were in the midst of that, the federal government made its announcement. Rather than just shoot from the lip, as the Leader of the Opposition is, we are going to ensure that our response will be a meaningful response and will ensure that whatever decision we make, it is in the best interests of the farm community.

GRIP Program Cost of Production Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, this $43 million that this Premier brags about here today is going to simp ly ensur e that this farmer in southwestern Manitoba is going to lose $36,000 on 800 acres, another one is going to lose $21,000, another one $27,000, another $15,900, another $16,900. This minister is putting his dollars, his $43 million he says he is putting into the program, in a losing program for farmers to ensure they continue to lose money. I ask the Premier of this province-the farmers came in to meet again this morning with the Deputy Premier (Mr.

Downey) and they are going to be meeting with the Premier this afternoon. They want to get out of a four-year commitment, Mr. Speaker, where the government can change the rules year by year. They want to get out of that. They want their cost of production guaranteed. Will this Premier now commit to dealing with the issues that those farmers are putting forward to him at these meetings and to his colleagues, to their MLA, to the Minister of Agriculture and other members of cabinet who have attended some of those meetings ? Will he now address those concerns that those farmers are putting forward? Hon.

James Downe y (Acting Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, let me say that the message has come through loud and clear from the constituency which I represent. Concerns which were brought forward some several weeks ago now have been worked on by the government, particularly as it deals with those farmers who have been factored down because of a drought condition in the southwest corner of the province.

There was a response to those concerns dealing with those farmers who were factored down, and in fact the response was to improve the program so that everyone in that area, not only in that area but throughout the province, would be able to start at no less than what their soil zone area average is on the price side. I believe there has been a response. It may not be totally what the farm community wants, but it is a move that has been made that was requested. Any further action to be taken will have to be worked out as the program advances and develops over the next few weeks and months, Mr. Speaker. •

(1345) Mr. Plohman: The acting minister continues to refer to changes that have been made. He knows they are inadequate; the farmers have told him that. It is still not even going to give them close to their cost of production. I ask this acting minister: Will he now admit that his revised GRIP that has been put in place by his colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Findlay) will only serve to entice farmers to cut corners and reduce production in order to save costs under this program rather than maximize production, that what they are going to have to do so they do not lose more money is cut back on ferti lizer, cut back on chemicals in working the land that is required to get a good crop? Is that not what this program is going to do? Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that there was any intention to fully cover the cost of production for the farm community under GRIP, so let us make that clear.

Let me say as well, referring specifically to the question of the member, that the abil ity to fac tor up through an enha nced management practice was in fact included as well. I will admit, if there is a total drought condition throughout the southwest part or any part of the province this year, there would be a shortfall,

960 LEGI SLAT IVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANIT OBA April 18, 1991 because the crop production side of the program is not included in this change. However, the request initially was for the price side to be covered at area average under GRIP. That was, Mr. Speaker. The factoring up under enhanced management has been included in the program so they can in fact add additional input costs. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, the Premier (Mr. Filmon} talks about $43 million, and he should be honest with this Legislature that in fact he has cut the rest of the Agriculture budget to find that money.

There are no additional dollars for agriculture in this budget. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: In his meeting now with the farmers who have come from long distances across this province, not only in the southwest, from all over the province, who will not be getting their cost of production in this program, will he agree in his meeting today to take their cause to the highest level, to the Prime Min ister of this country, and plead their case, thatthey must get cost of production in order to continue to survive in Manitoba? Mr. Downey: Mr.

Speaker, let me just further add that this government has heard those individuals from not only southwestern Manitoba but throughout Manitoba and have acted in a responsible manner. As well, they have the opportunity to meet with the Premier (Mr. Filmon} and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) this afternoon to further put their case before those individuals. After we hear that, I am sure the Premier will be prepared to respond as it relates to specific situations. School of Psychiatric Nursing Selkirk Closure Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, it was with great regret, I think, that we all learned today that the school of nursing at the Selkirk Mental Health Centre is to be closed. I would like to know from the Minister of Health what studies he has that indicate that we are training too many psychiatric nurses in the province of Manitoba, and what other studies does he have, and will he table them, with regard to the economic improvement that will occur to the province by having only one school? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased my honourable friend brought this issue up.

What is proposed in the budget is the consolidation of the psychiatric schools of nursing to one location, and that location is to be Brandon. There are a number of factors behind that which I am quite anxious to share with my honourable friend. Let me background my answer, Mr. Speaker, by saying first and foremost that the previous two questions or series of questions to this House, in which members of the official opposition have said that there are problems in agriculture, indicate to all Manitobans the kind of difficulties provinces across this country are facing In coming to budgetary decisi ons.

There are many demands on the Treasury. Mr. Speaker, when we make decisions, we attempt to protect essential and necessary services and to make effective use of resources. Over the last two years, we have attempted with the association of registered psychiatric nurses to deal with the education issue in the registered psychiatric nursing profession, because they are going to be highly involved as a profession in the reform of mental health that is going to happen in this next ensuing few years. *

(1350) Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr. Speaker, I tried this afternoon to put a very straightforward question to the Minister of Health, and it is quite obvious that he does not have any studies. Therefore, he has no justification for what he is doing and, certainly, the report of the psychiatric nur sing work ing group does not recommend the consolidation of the two schools.

Can the Minis ter of Health justify the actions he has taken because there are sufficient numbers of psychiatric nurses in the province, or is he prepared to tell this House today that we have too many psychiatric nurses and that, therefore, we can close down one training institution because we have no need of the services of these young people in our community? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, neither statement was made by myself, by government, or by the psychiatric nurses association of Manitoba. The only person making that statement is the Leader of the Second Opposition Party, and I do not agree with it.

Apri l 18, 1991 LEG ISLAT IVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA 961 Mr. Speaker, what was at issue is the emerging role of the psychiatric nurse in a reformed mental health syst em. For two years we have been working around the issue of what will be the educational requirements and environment that we can build upon strengths in registered psychiatric nursing training programs in the province. Let me tell my honourable friend that there is a school of nursing in Selkirk and one in Brandon.

At Brandon University there is a bachelor's program in registered psychiatric nursing, which is recognized as a leading institution not only in Manitoba as the only one with the bachelor's program, but in western Canada. It is the intention of this gove rnme nt, in co-operation and working with the Registered Psychiatric Nurses Association of Manitoba and their professional members, to build upon that strength at the university environment as well as the diploma level in Brandon to enhance the availability of the teaching and the quality of training for registered psychiatric nurses in the province of Manitoba.

Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr. Speaker, what a few years does to a former critic, now the minister. On June 4, 1986, the Minister of Health said, and I quote: It is a wrong decision that was made in correctly, based on wrong information; it is politically motivated. Well, Mr. Speaker, he made these comments in response to the NOP closure of the psychiatric nursing school at Portage la Prairie. Can he tell this House how his decision today in any way differs from the decision that he so eloquently and bitterly castigated in 1986 when he was the opposition Health critic? Mr.

Orchard: I am certainly glad my honourable friend brought that issue up, because the decision today differs substantially from the decision in 1985. I wish to tell my honourable friend the ways in which it differs. First of all, there was no consultation, no work for two years, with the Registered Psychiatric Nurses Association of Manitoba prior to the 1985 decision to close the school at Portage la Prairie.

That discussion had taken place with this government to try and rei nforce and to create a centre for excellence for registered psychiatric nursing in Brandon with building on the strengths of the Brandon University program. My concern in 1985, Mr. Speaker-because my honourable friend should have the courtesy to read a March 12, 1985, question that I posed to the then minister, wherein I asked the very real concern that two schools of nursin g remained, both of them in institutions dealing with mental illness. The one that was closed dealt with children and adults suffering from mental retardation.

It was that part of the program that was lost that I objected to at that time. School of Psychiatric Nursing Selkirk Closure Ms. Judy Wasylycla-lels (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, first let the record be clear that the previous administration, when it closed the Portage school, increased the intake at Selkirk and Brandon schools. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Health a couple of questions on this important issue, sin ce we are not talking about a consolidation of the programs at Selkirk and Brandon.

We are talking about the elimination of an entire program, the loss of jobs, of educational opportunities and of valuable services for people in Manitoba. How can the minister, in the face of studies done by his own department as recently as one year ago today, justify cutting back on a valuable service that provides much nee ded ps ych iatric nu rs in g professional care to people in Manitoba, especially if this minister is serious about moving in the direction of community-based care, which all studies have shown will require more psychiatric nurses than ever before? *

(1355) Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why we spent two years working with this government, the Registered Psychiatric Nurses Association of Manitoba to develop a framework tor decision making on the educational requirements of registered psychiatric nurses for the reformed mental health system in the province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my honourable friend that she is wrong when she says there will be an elimin ation of an entir e pro g ram. Diploma registered psychiatric nurses will be trained in

962 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA April 18, 1991 Brandon, Manitoba. That is not an elimination of progr am, that is exactly, as I have said, a consoli dation of training programs from two facilities to one. In doing that, we will maintain an on-site training capability at Selkirk to balance the training program and use expertise at Selkirk as well. Secondly, Mr.

Speaker, by having it in Brandon we will build upon something that is recognized by this government as the excellence that Brandon University has developed in the Bachelor's Program of Registered Psychiatric Nurses, something that the professional association and this government agree is necessary for the use of registered psychiatric nurses in the reformed mental health system. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Mr. Speaker, we are, on this side of the House, sick and tired of the double talk of the Minis ter of Health.

How can the minister say this when he stood up in the House on November 14, 1988, in response to questioning from this side of the House and said definitively that, no, the school at Selkirk will not be closed? I want to ask the Minis ter of Health: What standards are being broken by the School for Psychiatric Nursing at Selkirk, because if standards are not being broken then this government is breaking

an act which prohibits the closure of the program for reasons other than- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, the same decision is being made today as was made by the previous government in 1986 with regard to the school at Portage la Prairie, only at that time the Portage school was screening registered psychiatric nurses in an en vi ronment of mentally handicapped Manitobans. That was lost to the training program. That is not the case today. Today's case is a consol idation of program and a building on strengths. Mr.

Speaker, let me tell my honourable friend what one of the difficulties is and will continue to be as government reforms the mental health services of Manitoba, moves to a community-based service and moves services outside of our major urban centres. That is going to be an inability, which has plagued the province for years, of attracting psychiatrists outside of Winnipeg or Brandon. Registered psychiatric nurses will fill that gap in a reformed mental health system with the training programs at Brandon University and the school of diploma nursing for registered psychiatric nurses in Brandon.

Northern Health Care User Fees Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, I will leave further questioning on this to my colleague from Selkirk and ask a new question of the Premier pertaining to an area where there is equally a good example of doubl e talk and double-cross.

I want to ask the Premier, after having said on December 6, 1990: This administration is totally and completely opposed to user fees in medicare, how he can justify and let his Minister of Health make a decision to bring in a $50 user fee for people in the North who require cataract surgery, hip replacements or other surgery in order to let them get on with their lives. How do you explain that? *

(1400) Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I regret very sincerely that the member for St. Johns does not know the difference between transportation costs and medical costs. Mr. Speaker, in this province in every jurisdiction people pay for their own ambulance costs, pay a fee toward their ambulance costs. That is when they are brought in even on emergency circumstances. This is elective surgery. This is choice-making medical care. People who drive to the hospital pay for the gas in their own car. People who are from small rural areas take a bus into the closest community.

People pay their transportation everywhere. Fifty dolla rs is a small frac tion of the cost of transportation, a very small fraction. We are talking about a small portion of the cost of transportation which virtually everybody else pays when they come to hospital, even in an ambulance. I cannot believe the lack of understanding from the member opposite. School of Psychiatric Nursing Selkirk Closure Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): My question is to the Minis ter of Health.

April 18, 1991 LEGI SLAT IVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 963 With the clo sing of the Selkirk School of Psychiatric Nursing, Selkirk is losing a 70-year-old institution. It is recognized across Canada for its teaching excellence and is the community's only post-secondary education facility. Why did the minister not consult with town council and town residents before he closed the school? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaker, no one in this government is questioning the excellence of the registered psychiatric nursing training program in Manitoba and the value of those trained professionals in delivering quality mental health services. That is why, in the consolidation of the two training programs at the diploma level to one school in Brandon, we intend to build upon that strength, that excellence and the professional availability to deliver mental health services throughout the length and breadth of Manitoba. Unfortunately for the community of Selkirk, that school is being consol idated into a school at Brandon.

That is not an easy decision for government to make, and it is not an easy decision on the community. I fully respect the difficulties that it has caused to the citizens of Selkirk-a Freudian slip, I was going to say Portage la Prairie. That was six years ago. Mr. Speaker, I can do no more than reinforce to my honourable friend the reason that Brandon was chosen is that the Brandon Univer si ty has estab lished a degree program in registered psychia tric nursing.

That program also is recognized as an emerging program of excellence in training at the degree level, the bachelor's level in registered psychiatric nursing, and we want to build on that. Alternate Facllltles Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): What is going to happen to the 100 applicants, many of whom are out of pro vince? Where are they going to get this valuable education, or are they simply out of luck? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am not certain of the number my honourable friend has put on the record of 100 or where they are making application from out of province.

I simply do not have that knowledge. The announcement was made at this time to give advance notice for two purposes: first of all, to make all students who potentially want to enter the first-year program aware that Brandon would be the location for the first year of the diploma program; and secondly, to give us a window of opportunity of some several months of planning to work with the association, with the schools of nursing to make those detailed changes so that we can assure the greatest level of student entry possible. Selkirk Closure Delay Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr.

Speaker, will the minister not at least delay this closure for a year so we can study the negative effects this will have on our local economy? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Therein lies the problem that I am constantly challenged with in all areas of health care. My honourable friends in the opposition say, well, all you ever do on an issue is study the issue and you never make decisions. We have studied this issue for some two years now. We have a report which recognizes the exce llenc e in Brandon University and its role and the school of nursing role in Brandon.

When government makes decisions based on some two years of di scussions, I recognize that a decision made by government to consolidate, wherein there are layoffs of instructors, there are not good immediate feelings about it. I want to reinforce to my honourable friend that this decision is good for the province of Manitoba because it will allow the province to be better served by better trained registered psychiatric nurses in the future. The Loan Act Conawapa Dam Project Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

This government has previously indicated that they would spend up to $110 million to construct infrastructure for the Conawapa project before environmental approval. To date, approximately $40 million of this has been spent. Recently the Minis ter of En vir onm ent (Mr. Cumm ings ) rel eased a pr oposal for the environmental assessment of Conawapa saying that the final report would be available approximately 20 months away. That is some time in 1993. Why then, Mr. Speaker, does The Loan Act now ask for authority to borrow a further $500 million,

964 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA Apri l 18, 1991 which the act indicates is required in this fiscal year for the Conawapa and Bipole Ill projects? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, considerable time and effort was put into the development of the $550-million figure put into The Loan Act. It is not the anticipation that that amount of money or any portion of it may necessarily be spent in this fiscal year. As tradition would have it, with respec t to preparing The Loan Act, one has to take into account when the next Loan Act after this one may ultimately be passed.

Indeed, for whatever reason, the legislative session stretched out now, when we come in later than next spring, in 1992, conceivably the 1992 Loan Act might not be passed until late calendar year 1992. That is why the contingency is built in. I can indicate to the member that the request that came in to us from Manitoba Hydro was in the area, it seems to me, of a billion dollars or a billion-five, and we took it down to this level. It may very well be that not a dollar of that is spent, as is the tradition of The Loan Act presentation to this House. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the Mini ster of Envir onme nt (Mr.

Cummings ) has put out a di scuss ion piece which clearly says that the environmental assessment will not be completed until at least 1993. That is two fiscal years away. My question again is for the minister. I do not doubt that Manitoba Hydro asked for over a billion dollars. My question for the minister is: What factors did he consider in coming up with $500 million? Why does he need $500 million for a project that is not supposed to be going ahead until the environmental assessment is done? Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, a major part of the

preamble is wrong. The money that has been spent so far, roughly I believe $40 million, has required necessary environmental clearance. It is in keeping with an early infrastructure leading to of course the facility. If you are going to ultimately develop a facility, there is nothing wrong with the province building a road to that site, as it is our right to do. Mr. Speaker, let us go back to the question. I can assure the member and I can assure all Manitobans that not a dollar will be spent out of that sum unless or until environmen tal pro cesses hav9 been completed, until licences have been received and until the government is satisfied that all has occurred . •

(1410) Mr. Edwatds: Mr. Speaker, The Loan Act word that is used is called "required." That is the word that is used in The Loan Act. I do not dispute the fact that a road was built. The road did not cost $500 million. It did not cost close. My final question for the minister is: What factors did the minister consider in coming up with the $500- million figure? What went into the mix, and was one of the things that went into the mix the potential penalties that are built into this agreement on the Conawapa deal? Mr. Manness: The short answer is, definitely not.

If he wanted to ask the same question of the former government, he would see for instance that when The Loan Act came out with Limestone, there was originally, from recall, a $3-billion entry, and that was two years before any construction started at all. I mean if he also wants to debate now The Loan Act, he may call into question the $30 million that has been set aside for HBM&S upgrading. Again, that is a hard call as to when, first of all, an agreement is going to be signed, and secondly, when is there going to be the cash-flow call on those types of money? These are difficult decisions.

We are expected to bring forward a request to this House to loan money in support of certain programs, but only after certain clearances, in this case environmental permits, have been successfully attained. Northern Health Care Accesslblllty Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, the people of northern Manitoba are used to being abused by Conser vative governments, and they have no reason to be optimistic about any change, but one of the most despicable acts of this government to date has been the decision to introduce user fees to the people of northern Manitoba.

Most people in northern Manitoba find it di ff icul t to un de rstand the thinking of the government, but the First Minister today in answer to a question provided the reasoning. He thinks everyone lives in Tuxedo. My question is to the First Minister. Can the First Minis ter explain to the people of Manitoba who now, to receive treatment in a medical facility like the

April 18, 1991 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANIT OBA 965 Health Sciences Centre, have to travel sometimes more than a day, who have to incur overnight charges, food charges and transportation charges that amount to hundreds of dollars, how he can justify now taking away the very simple principle that medical services are supposed to be accessible to everyone in the province? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, that is the most foolish question that I have heard in a long, long time.

The fact of the matter is that people who live in Swan River, people who live in Gilbert Plains, people who live in Dauphin, people who live in Gimli, in Neepawa, everywhere who have to travel in for el ective sur ger y have to pay the cos t of transportation. Every single one. It does not matter wher e they live- city, provinc e , anywhere . Whether it is emergency by ambulance, whether it is elective surgery, they pay their transportation costs. That is the most foolish question that he has ever put. Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, the ignorance of this First Minister never ceases to amaze me.

People of northern Manitoba pay ambulance costs. They pay transportation costs- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Time is extremely scarce. Order, please. The honourable member for Flin Flon, kindly put your question, please. Northern Health Care User Fees Mr. Jerry Storie (Flln Flon): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Min ister.

Will this First Min ister guarantee that none of the 80 to 90 percent of the people who are unemployed in many of the communities, whom he has just taken a benefit away from, are not going to be denied or not have medical services, perhaps lifesaving, as a result of this cut of $50 from an important service to northern Manitoba? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I recognize my honourable friend is wanting to raise a rhetorical debate over an issue. Let me correct my honourable friend.

We are budgeting for $2.5 million this year to provide air ambula nc e ser vices for those emer gency transportations from northern Manitoba that are life threatening for those citizens that are beyond the 53rd parallel, and that is at absolutely no cost to those users. What we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, in this $50 fee that we are asking to be paid for elective transp ortation, is that there are a number of excluded services. If the person comes to the city of Winnipeg, Brandon or Dauphin for chemotherapy, which is an essential medical service, the surcharge will not apply.

If they come in for anything that is not elective, the air ambulance will bring them in gratis, free at a $2.5-millio n cost to the taxpayers of Manitoba. So, Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is coming to the city of Winnipeg, Dauphin or Brandon to see a specialist by referral for an elective procedure or an office visit to a specialist service unavailable in northern Manitoba. I hope my honourable friend asks another question. Mr. Storie: Mr.

Speaker, the Minis ter of Health does not understand that isolated communities in northern Manitoba, their patients, those patients are forced to pay incredible accommodation costs, meal costs, transportation costs above and beyond what is currently provided by the Northern Patient Transportation Program. My question is to the Minis ter of Health. What guarantees is the Minis ter of Health going to provide to people who cannot afford the $50 because they are on fix ed incom e, because they are unemployed?

What guarantees is the Minis ter of Health going to provide that those people are going to be able to access health care in the province of Manitoba now? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend makes the case that those individuals pay accommodation costs, potentially, or meal costs. The people from the Swan River valley who pay their entire costs of getting to Winnipeg do likewise pay accommodation, pay meals and pay other costs. There is no other program in the province of Manitoba available to any other residents of Manitoba that is gratis, free for elective procedures.

The needed medical procedures that are accessed in Winnip eg, Brandon or possibly Dauphin by residents of northern Manitoba will still continue to be entirely paid by the taxpayers of Manitoba. This is a contribution. Mr. Speaker, why the member is upset and the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) is not asking this question is that some 18 months ago the

966 LE GI SLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANIT OBA April 18, 1991 member for Thompson was complaining about a shortage of specialists and doctors in Thompson. With the efforts of this government and the co-operation with Thompson hospital, there are now in excess of 20. The number of people who can see specialists in northern Manitoba because they are there has increased with this government. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson): If the government wants to give leave, I would be glad to ask a series of qu estions on the in com petence of this government and this minister on northern health. Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to allow the honourable member for Thompson time for a question? No? Leave is denied. ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE Mr. Speaker: Order, please. On the adjourned debate, the third day of debate, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and the proposed motion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Doer), in amendment thereto as follows, standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) who has five minutes remaining. Mr. Jerry Storie (Flln Flon): Mr. Speaker, we witnessed this morning remarks from the Minister of Heal th (Mr. Orchard) and the First Minis ter (Mr. Filmon) that indicate quite clearly why this particular government has no representation from northern Manitoba. The Minister of Health and the First Minis ter, the member for Tuxedo, clearly have no appreciation for the difficulty people in northern Manitoba have in accessing medical services.

Even a community like Flin Flon, which has a relatively large general hospital, sends literally hundreds of patients to the city of Winnipeg for diagnostic treatment, for medical treatment, for tests and services which cannot be provided in that community. What this government is doing is taking away almost 50 percent- perhaps even more in some cases than 50 percent- of the benefits which used to accrue under the Northern Patient Transportation Program, but what is most annoying is that they are doing it under the assumption that this program somehow covers all the costs.

They try and relate it to the difficulties some people have from rural Manitoba in accessing health services. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is no comparison. I have travelled into those communities, and for someone who is looking for cataract surgery in the community of Tadoule Lake, to come to Winnipeg for a simple assessment requires a minimum of three days. Of those three days, Mr. Speaker, none of the hotel bills are covered, none of the meal costs are covered. If an escort is required, part of that may be covered. *

(1420) I have given examples in this Chamber. I have written to the Min ister of Health of a case of a single woman, a single-p arent woman in Snow Lake, Manitoba, who underwent $400 in charges to come to Winnipeg to have a medical assessment. That is with the air ambulance. That is with the Northern Patient Transpo rtation Program. Four hundred dollars to get the kind of medical treatment that anyone in this Chamber could access, on that side certainly, with vir tually no cost whatsoever. -(i nterjection)- The Mi nister of Northern Affairs and Rural Development (Mr.

Downey) shouting from his seat talks about Dauphin and Swan River. I have driven to Swan River. ltis six hours. You can gothereand back in a day. I suggest the Minister of Northern Affairs try and get to Tadoule Lake in a day, there and back. -(in terjection)- Yes, providing he gives a government jet to every Manitoban. It is a ludicrous suggestion. More important, however, is the principle that is being attacked here, and the princi ple is accessibility of medicare, the accessibility of all Manitobans to decent, reasonable health care. It is now being denied on a selective basis to some Manitobans.

It is now being denied to Northerners. Mr. Speaker, let no one in this Chamber believe for a minute that this is not going to have life or death consequences for somebody in northern Manitoba, because not everybody in northern Manitoba can afford the extra $50, not everybody in northern Manitoba is employed in a lucrative occupation. In fact, in many of the communities, 80 percent, 85 percent to 90 percent of the people are unemployed and yes, in communities, even in Flin Flon, there are unemployed, and there are people on fixed incomes for whom this is going to be a hardship.

April 18, 1991 LE GI SLAT IVE ASSE MBLY OF MAN ITOBA 967 This is a selective, a mean-spi rited cut, and the people of northern Manitoba are not going to forgive this government. If the people in southern Manitoba are looking ahead more than a year or two, they can see the agenda writ large on the part of this government. That agenda is to destroy medicare, to introduce user fees in every section. This is the thin edge of the wedge, and they are trying it on Northerners. They are trying it on Northerners because of the callous attitude of members like the Mi nis ter respons ible for Northern Affairs (Mr.

Downey), Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that this budget is replete with attacks, some small, some sub tle and some not so su btle, on northern Mani toba. We have seen an attack on the economic opportunities in northern Manitoba. The regional developmen t corporations are bein g attacked. The tourism organizations are being attacked. The undertakings of the government to cr eate a northern econ omic deve lopm en t commission are being attacked. Mr. Speaker, this government has no interest in the economic future of northern Manitoba.

They see it only as a reserve for mining tax revenue and other revenue from our resources in northern Manitoba. The attacks go deeper than that. The attacks are also on the young people in northern Manitoba. We have seen the elimination of the Northern Youth Corps, which for some communities is likely to be the only sou rce of employment, Caree rStart cutbacks. The list goes on and on. Mr. Speaker, I kn ow that othe r no rthern colleagues are also going to get a chance to talk about the ineptitude of this government, and its effect on northern Manitoba. I thank you for allowing me this opportunity.

Speaker's Ruling Mr. Speaker: Yesterday, the Deputy Speaker took under advisement the subamendment to the budget motion, moved by the honourable member for River Heig hts (Mrs. Carstairs). I have reviewed the subamendment and find that it is in order. Therefore, the question before the House is the subamendment moved by the honourable member for River Heights, seconded by the honourable member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock): THAT the motion be further amended by adding thereto the following words: And further regrets that: (

a) this government has failed to adequately invest in Manitoba's home grown businesses and has failed to provide incentives to encourage private investment in Manitoba's economy, which are essential to drive Manitoba's economic engine; and (

b) this government has failed to provide for rese arch and development as a long-term investment for the economic prosperity of the province; and (

c) this governmen t has fai led to meet its obligations by offloading its responsibil ity for among other things, roads and engineering and water management to municipal governments; and (

d) this government has failed to adequately support post-secondary education to ensure access to career and skills training for Manitobans; and (

e) this gover nment has failed to maintain career-oriented work programs in order to retain our youth in this province as exemplified by its freezing the CareerStart and the elimination of the Northern Youth Corps Summer Employment programs; and (

f) this government has failed to provide adequate funds to allow for development and refocusing of community-based mental health care delivery; and (

g) this government has failed seniors in Manitoba by dein dexing 55-P lus, in creas ing per diem personal care home rates 9.7 percent, reducing gerontology funding in health care, and by otherwise ignoring their special needs; and (

h) this government has failed to fulfil! its promise to support women's health care including providing for a breast cancer screening program and giving such promises mere lip service by renaming the existing Maternal and Child Directorate and cutting its budget; and (

i) this government has undermined universal access to health care ser vices for northern Manitobans ; and (

j) this government has failed to provide for aboriginal education and health care needs; and

968 LEGI SLATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MANIT OBA April 18, 1991 (

k) this gove rnment has failed to sup port preventative health care programs to ensur e Manitobans of quality of life; and (

I) this government has failed to show concern for the future of natural resources in Manitoba by slashing 231 positions from the department and by further cutting funding ; and (

m) this government has failed Manitoba farmers with its shortsig hted approach to funding the agricultural sector and for cutting services that help make Manitoba farmers productive and competitive; and (

n) this government has failed to support the programs necessary to promote quality of life in rural Manitoba. * * * Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (lnkster): Mr. Speaker, it is almost with pleasure, I guess, to be able to stand here and speak, or at least add my words, to this particular government's fourth budget. It is good in the sense that the government is getting back on fiscal track. We have been able to get back on fiscal track in large part because of co-operation from both of the opposition parties. I think that is a positive.

I think there are a few things that are positive, and I hope to touch upon those few things in my speech. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk about the 1990 election and what had happened previously. We can all recall back when we were a minority government, and at the last budget before an election was called, I in fact had quoted from a letter that was sent out to all of the Conservative Party members who would be interested in contributing to the Conse rvative Party. I wanted to quote from that letter something that this government has completed.

So I am sure they will be sending copies of speeches from different Conser va tive backbenchers to those who contributed, because in fact they have done what they have said in their letter dated February 7, 1990. As I say, it is addressed to the supporters of the Conser vative Party, and in the third paragraph, it reads: Without a clear majority, the next and more difficult phase of the PC program to restore a much needed probusiness envir onment in Manitoba cannot be effectively implemented. Mr. Speaker, this, I had argued at the time, was what the Conservatives' real, true agenda was.

Time after time we had then government ministers and backbenchers stand up and say that the real agenda is the agenda that is before us now, that there is no hidden agenda. We countered with things such as the letter, such as the quotation that I have just read. I believe that those of us who said in essence what the letter had pointed out were quite correct in their assessment of the Conser vative Party, because during the election we never heard of any of the things that are before us here today in the form of this budget.

Had the government been more straightforward with the public at that time during the election, prior to September 11, I would argue that in fact they would not have a majority government right now, that we would in all likelihood be looking at another minority government at best, and that is not to say which party of course. -(i nterjection)- This is in fact 57 Liberals. Mr. Speaker, this is a Tory budget, and if we look at philosophy and we take a look at classic capitalism, in classic capitalism that is where the market will cure all ailments.

There is no doubt in my mind that a good number of the Conservative caucus takes that approach when it comes to Manitoba's economy. That is that the private business capital, the market is best guided by capitalism. There are some costs in having that belief. Economic power can become centralized through economy of scale, whether it is large monopolies, banking, and so forth, which tends to concentrate power in certain areas. I think that is a negative aspect. You get an unjust dis tribution of the country's wealth, and this is really one of the things that this budget has done is complement the federal budget. *

(1430) That is the direction that I believe we are moving into as we see cities such as Vancouver and Calgary, Edmonton to some degree, Toronto to some degree, getting and receiving all of the capital power, and the future prospects look quite well. Then we go into a command social economy which is completely oppo sit e of the classic capitalism where we find that there is never enough government, albeit that it is easier for government to have more of an influe nce in terms of the macroeconomic systems or economies, that there are very strong negatives to that in terms of private development and private initiatives, and something

April 18, 1991 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 969 that we have to, I believe, stay away from. That concept that government can never do enough, that government should continue to go into all aspects of society. Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party believes that the government has an economic and social role to play in our econom y. It is important in terms of monopolies. If we are going to have a monopoly on a particular industry such as a utility, telephone, it is best operated by the government where taxpayers benefit the most.

It is better in the sense of nation building that if you have government action in different sectors of the economy, the government is better able to control the direction on how it sees the nation-o r the direction that it believes the nation should be moving towards. That is something that has been very lacking both at the national and at the provincial level. Mr. Speaker, in Keynesian theory, it talks about how government should be spending dur ing recession and during good times governments should be saving and possibly paying off debts that would have been accumulated during recessions.

In short, during economic growth, governments should be spending with constraint, and during recession governments should be spending more money so that it minimizes the effect of the recession to prevent the whole boom-versus-bust cycle, to level it out. I believe government does have a role to play when it comes to that. That is really, I guess, where we di ffer from the Conser vative Party. The Con servative Party is sticking to its beliefs that the private sector or capitalism-the whole classic capitalism theory is applicable in times of this nature, Mr. Speaker, and that is where I disagree.

We can only hope that those who are more moderate in the Conser vative caucus, like the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Connery) , bring the Cons ervative Party a bit more to the left, because in fact this is a right-wing budget. (Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) Mr. Acting Speaker, in Manitoba we have a number of parties that represent all spectrums of the political scale, some getting more powerful than others. No doubt the Con servatives will be looking over their shoulder at the Reform Party as the Reform Party approaches very high in the polls.

I am somewhat worried about that in the sense that they are a bit further extreme. Some of their policy initiatives are very scary, and it worries a great number of people. Then we have the Conservative Party, and then in the middle we have, of course, the Liberal Party that has been able to run the country on the national level at least for the better part of a century. The NDP have been in some provinces; in particular, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and B.C. have had governments, and now we see them in Ontario.

I believe that their approach is just as wrong as the Conser vative approach when it comes to governing the province. They are quick to con demn the government of the day, but had they been more responsible in their spending or their appetite to spend money during what were good times, we would not be in as bad a shape as we are today. Manitoba has been fortunate in the sense that we -(in terjection)- but I guess the bottom line is that you cannot hide forever the opinions. Everyone is looking over at the New Democratic benches and asking the question why there are only two members.

I do not know why people in the Chamber are surprised; Mr. Acting Speaker, that is quite well. I have seen it when they are down to one in this Chamber. Their priorities are not to be inside this Chamber. l'.hat can be seen every day inside this session, unless 1Hs Question Period, when they feel somewhat obligated1o have at least 50 percent of their caucus here. When it comes to the governing of the province and listening in terms of what all parties have to say, they are somewhat delinquent. I did want to comment, Mr.

Acting Speaker; I was saying that the bottom line is that they cannot hide forever what each political party believes in. If we look at the budget that has been introduced just a cou ple of days ago, you will see the strong Cons ervative leaning in that budget. I will go into detail on some of those. If we look at the previous NDP budgets, you will see the spending during good times, so we go from one extreme to the other extreme. The Conservatives listen to a few elite, business. They cater to certain individuals -(in terjection)- well, it is true.

As I pointed out, I read out the letter-not all Manitobans were sent this letter; just a few select individuals were sent that letter in order to raise funds. The NDP listened to a few, and I stress a few, of the un ion leaders in terms of closest to that

970 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA April 18, 1991 command socialist theory. They do not really have any principles. In office, they say one thing; out of office, they say another thing. Mr. Acting Speak er, I wo uld say that the Con servative Party, on the other hand, does not have the conscience other political parties do have, that we do see the right-wing agenda coming out far too often than I would have liked to have seen.

Because we were in a minority government, they had to watch themselves a bit more carefully, so we did not see that right-wing aspect, for example, the laying off, the cutting back on government expenditures would not have happened had there been a minority government. One has to call into question who the allegiances are of the two parties. I made reference to the corporations. In terms of the NOP, I could speak for hours in terms of who contributes to the New Democratic Party. Mr. James Carr (Crescentwood): Leave. Mr. Lamoureux: The member for Crescentwood (Mr. Carr) grants me leave to do so. Mr.

Leonard Evans (Brandon East): It is the members of the party contributing. ..

(1440) Mr. Lamoureux: The member for Brandon East (Mr. Evans) says members from the party pay. Mr. Acting Speaker, I could show figures that show unions that contribute well over $100 ,OOO to the New Democratic Party. I could table documents that show the contributions to independent MLAs, such as the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) or, as some would like to prefer him, the member for Edmonton, where all of his contributions are from unions in Edmonton. Like the Leader of the New Democratic Party, $5,000 from the MFL, and those were the hon est ones that campaigned.

Most of the contributions, including the member for Brandon East, put zero on their election returns. Instead, they had the money go through the party so that we could not tell who was donating to their campaigns. Mr. Acting Speaker, I digress somewhat, and I do want to get back on in terms of the whole question of philosophy and what philosophy would serve Manitoba best. The Liberal Party has called for a panel of representation from labour, management, education and government to look at our economy, and that is needed. That should be acted ori by this government.

If you take a look at the economy, all signs are indicating in fact that we are going down. It is a panel that is long overdue. The unemployment rate in Manitoba from October of 1990 at 6.1 percent to now where we are in the double digits at 10 percent. People are scared. They do not know what lies ahead of them in terms of purchasing major items, whether it is a house, whether it is a car, appliances or the basic necessities of food and shelter.

I believe the unemployment rate would be higher, had it not been for the number of people that are leaving the province of Manitoba. -( interjection)- The member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) says, call a quorum. He still has two members in the Chamber. It is amazing. When we look at the employment, the actual unemployment in Manitoba in March of '91 was 481,000. Out of that, 100,00 of them are part time. The part time has stayed somewhat consistent from March of 1990 at100,000,

whereas the full-time jobs were at 498 in March of 1990. So we are losing good full-time jobs. Even though the government has been successful in creating some jobs, those jobs have been, in large part, part-time jobs. Those are not the same. That is not what people are in fact looking for. As I point out, many Manitobans are choosing to leave Manitoba because they do not see the jobs in the future.

The government is not doing anything to demonstrate that they are willing to provide, in any fashion, whether it is through grants, incentives to business or any initiatives that are coming out from government to demonstrate the will to create the jobs that Manitobans feel that are not here. So as a result, we lose. I had read in the Globe and Mail when they had some statistics come out in regard to overall jobs in comparison of this session to the last session. Mr. Acting Speaker, in March of 1990 to March of 1991, Manitoba lost 15,000 jobs.

In the recession of June '81 to June '82, Manitoba lost some 6,000 jobs. That is 9,000 jobs that have been lost in this recession over and above what was our last recession back in 1981-82. That concerns me, because what it is saying is that Manitoba is no longer as diversified as it was in the past, that the whole question of the boom and bust cycle is starting to affect Manitoba that much more. That has to be addressed. The only way that can be addressed is if we have actions from the

April 18, 1991 LE GISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 97 1 provincial government and in part from the federal government, to diversify our economy, so that when the business cycle approaches us that we are better equipped to weather the storm, if you will. Last year, in fact in Manitoba we had a net loss of 8,836 Manitobans. Mr. Acting Speaker, what is the government doing? The Car eer Start progr am had been decreased by some $2.8 million, the youth special employment program cut in half to $3.5 million. The government is doing the opposite.

It is not trying to show incentives or bringing things to show that there is movement towards the creation of new jobs. It is cutting back programs that do give hope for people who are feeling obligated to leave the province, because they do not have any opportunity. They would just as soon stand at the borders and wave good-bye to the individuals who are leaving the province. Bankruptcies are higher than ever. In 1990, 417 busin ess bankrupt cies ; in 1982, we had 373 busin ess bankruptcies. I find them to be very in teresting figures to compare to, Mr.

Acting Speaker, because in fact it was a very deep recession that we were into during that time, and Manitoba, even though hurt, weathered much better through the '81-82 recession as opposed to the recession that we are now well into. In terms of personal bankruptcies, in 1990 we had 1,890, and in 1982 we had 1, 114, a significant increase. I believe it is significant enough that all members of this Chamber should be concerned, and all members should be asking in terms of what type of things we should be doing in Manitoba to try and reverse the trend that we are currently going into. The Minis ter of Finance (Mr.

Manness) says that we are heading out of the recession, but does not give us anything that we can look at to prove in fact that we are heading out of the recession. In fact, Mr. Acting Speaker, the GDP prediction for the province of Manitoba for 1991 came out by two banks in terms of growth. The Royal Bank had .1 percent in terms of growth. In turn, the T.D. Bank came out with a negative prediction of minus .5 growth. When I was a student in economics, this would have been a classic case of stagflation.

Stagflation occurs when ther e is zer o growt h and an accelerating inflation rate while at the same time we have an increase in our unemployment. Stagflation is something that is very serious and has to be addressed, and the government of the day has not even acknowledged the fact that we are in a stagflation period and is doing nothing really to get us out of it. *

(1450) If we take a look at some of the more recent shutdowns or layoffs-of Paulin's where we had 290 employees affected; we had the Burns in Brandon of 145 employees; Campbell Soup of 167. Even the deals that this government is reaching with the private sector-in terms of Repap, what has happened to Repap? We were promised hundreds of jobs when that sale was made. Mr. Acting Speaker, we have not seen any indication at all that Repap is going to be living up to their commitment. What is the government doing to ensure that they do live up to the commitment?

This government does not feel that it is necessary to kick-start the economy. Once again that goes into that whole classical capitalism theory where they feel no matter what the economics-or certain members of the caucus feel-it does not matter what the economics are like, whether it is stag flat ion, whatever it might be, that the government's best role is to have no role in the economy. That is what is winning out on this particular budget. Mr. Acting . Speak er, the pr ivate sector is collapsing as our small business in which everyone in the Chamber I would hope would admit is the engine of our economy.

It employs the largest numb er of peo ple, small and medium- sized business that is. Once again there is nothing out there for them as we have seen programs cut. Manitoba's future is fairly bleak if we take a look at what the Conservatives in Ottawa are doing and the Conservatives in Manitoba are doing. We take a look at the whole question of the Free Trade Agreement, the Free Trade Agreement that was entered into by Canada and the United States. It was agreed upon from all political parties and all different interest groups that there will be a lot of job displacement.

What is the government's commitment to find new jobs for those who have been displaced as a result of the free trade deal? The provincial contribution is less than two cents per worker, per job. I would suggest to you that in fact is not a commitment.

972 LE GI SLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA April 18, 1991 What surprised me is that they have increased minimum wage. That kind of counters to a certain extent some of the thoughts of classical capitalism but it is encouraging to see. When I look at a chart across Canada, Manitoba is right around the middle now with that increase upto$ 5 an hour. I give credit to the government for acting on it and bringing it up.

I do believe that it has to be reviewed on an annual basis, that we should not be waiting two, three years and then whenever the government of the day feels it is appropriate to increase it, whether it is for political reasons, whatever it might be, that they go ahead and do it. It is one of those things, Mr. Acting Speaker, that should be done on an annual basis in terms of whether minimum wage should be increased. That is not to say that it has to be increased every year, but it should be reviewed every year.

We should be at the very least maintai ning, even during a Conser va tive government, I would suggest, in and around the middle one compared to the rest of Canada. Hopefu lly that will happen. I wanted to touch upon the revenue to the govern ment. In goin g through the revenue Estimates, Mr. Acting Speaker, one of the things that come up time after time whenever I get an opportunity to speak is in regard to the Fiscal Stabilization Fund. I have spoken on a number of occasions regarding the Fiscal Stabilization Fund -( interjection)- The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) says the great rainy day fund.

The fund itself would not have been that bad of an idea had it been created with a surplus of funds from previous years of the past. Then I might be inclined to say the Fiscal Stabilization Fund was a good idea, but we have to look back a couple of budgets to find out why we have the Rscal Stabilization Fund. We have the Fiscal Stabilization Fund not because of good management from this government, it was more because of good luck. At the time, the equalization- Hon. Harry Enns (Mi nister of Na tural Resources): It was precious little good management that we inherited from the other .... Mr.

Lamoureux: I will not debate that with the Minis ter of Natural Resources, but the reason why we have the Fiscal Stabilization Fund was because of a windfall of revenue that the government received. That windfall of revenue came from basically three different areas.

The equalization payments were higher than expected; the mining tax was higher than what was expected; and what I really enjoyed was what this government had to say when the former Minis ter of Finance, the honourable Eugene Kostyra, brought in the 2 percent flat tax, every one in the then Cons ervative opposition benches stood up and said that this was a gouge of the taxpayers of Manitoba, that they were robbing from the taxpayers of Manitoba. The Minister of Natural Resources still holds that opinion. Mr.

Acting Speaker, what did they do with that revenue that they received from the former minister, Eugene Kostyra? That, too, was used in part for that so-called rainy day fund. An Honoura ble Member: You were against that. Mr. Lamoureux: Darn right, I was against the Fiscal Stabilization Fund. The reason why, Mr. Acting Speaker, we are against the rainy day fund, two years ago we should have had a surplus budget. We should have had between $45 million to $50 million surplus budget. What did the government choose to do?

Rather than showing a surplus budget, they chose to borrow $150 million, take the surplus and create a debt and a Fiscal Stabilization Fund. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) At the time, Mr. Speaker, I said that the reason for the creation of the Fiscal Stabilization Fund was to make the government look better in the up and coming years by reducing the deficit. That is in fact what has happened, but you borrowed money, you increased the deficit in order to make this deficit look better. Mr.

Speaker, I am sure that the accountants in the Conser vative caucus would have to agree with the Liberal Party's opinion on the creation of the Fiscal Stabilization program. I look to the member for Rossm ere (Mr . Neufe ld) who I know is an accountant. That is something that I will never understand in terms of how they could justify it, but equally I was ver y su rprised that the New Democra tic Party wou ld su pport the Fiscal Stabilization Fund then and now they are criticizing it. Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): You want to spend it.

April 18, 1991 LE GISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 973 Mr. Lamoureux: The Min ister of Finance (Mr. Manness) says, we wanted to spend it. Well, that is as I say, we do not believe in classical capitalism. We believe government does have a role in terms of getting the economy going. Using a Fiscal Stabilization Fund to kick-start the economy, Mr. Speaker, will do a lot more in keeping Manitobans in the province of Manitoba than doing what the government is doing. Mr. Speaker, I do not que stion what the government is saying in terms of the concern of the deficit.

I, too, am concerned about the deficit. -(i nter jection)- The Minis ter of Fin ance (M r. Manness) says, baloney. I am concerned about the deficit, but there is a time to be concerned about the deficit, and I was about to say that there is a time not to be concerne d . We should always be concerned about the deficit, but during a recession the concern on the deficit should not be our first priority. Mr. Speaker, what should be our priority is the state of Manitoba's economy and how we can best serve the economy.

We have to get that whole classical capitalism, put it to the side and do a lot more moderate thinking when it comes to tackling the economy here in Manitoba. As I point out, we have to address the whole question of stagflation. Part of addressing that question means that we could have used the Fiscal Stabilization Fund. I would argue we should have used it much earlier, but we could have used that to kick-start, to bring in programs that would give in centives for small bus iness, mediu m-size business, to create jobs, to provide the jobs that are necessary in order to keep Manitobans here. *

(1500) Then, Mr. Speaker, during good times, we can shift priority No. 1 from the economy to the deficit, if that would make the Min ister of Finance (Mr. Manness) happy, but that is what we believe has to be looked at. During good times you can afford to do some of the things that the government is doing. During bad times, during recessions, you have to be able to minimize the recession, and the government is not minimiz ing the rec ess ion . They are worsening the recession. -(in terjection)- Well, the Mini ster of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) and I disagree on that then, but we will have to leave it at that.

Mr. Speaker, we look at other revenues, the retail sales tax. Once again, that demonstrates that consumer confidence is low. We have had a decrease in revenue. That, in itself, tells you that consumers are not spending as much as they were last year, that the recession is, in fact, continuing. If we take a look at the corporation income tax, which has decreased from $173 million to $91 million, in part for the reason that there are fewer businesses, and in part that profit itself is down. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the transfer from lottery reve nues of $20 million.

The government, I believe, has said that it is a one-time thing, but my concern is that this one-time thing is going to become more of an annual thing, that the government of the day wants to shift the lottery revenues into the general revenues. I think that is a bad thing. What is really necessary is that the lottery revenues should be used for one-time projects that do not necessarily require ongoing costs, so that those projects, if you will, and ini tiatives do not have to rely on future lottery revenues being stable or, in fact, increasing to take into account cost of living increases. Mr.

Speaker, the gover nmen t layoffs are something else that concerns a great number of Manitobans. Once again, the government has shown, in an uncompassio nate way, how one releases employees, and it is somewhat unfortunate and sad to see people being watched over, desks being cleared out within hours of notice, but we have seen that in · terms of the whole question of decentralization. Nine hundred and fifty-eight direct jobs are going to be cut from the government and what was very interesting was the Natural Resources, where we see 231 jobs.

If you look at Natural Resources and where the people are employed, I would ask who are these people that they are cutting? The government talks about decentralization and getting more government in rural Manitoba in order to help out the rural economy, but the decentralization plan- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired. Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Sl Norbert): It is my privilege to stand before the House today and add my comments on this year's budget for the record. I would like to begin by recognizing the efforts of the Minis ter of Finance (Mr.

Manness), the Treasury Board and the numerous staff persons involved in

974 LEGI SLATIVE ASSE MBL Y OF MAN ITOBA April 18, 1991 preparing one of this province's most difficult and critical budgets. The fiscal realities facing Manitoba require strong leadership and a pr ac tical commitment to the vision of our future. I believe this budget clearly addresses that reality. Manitoba's fiscal challenge is a result of a number of factors. Time and time again the people of this pr ovince must pay for the eco nomic mismanagement of the past. Tough decisions must be made today because of irresponsible decisions that were made yesterday.

Manitoba's debt load and the resulting interest costs are devastating to the futu re of this prov ince and completely unacceptable. As incredible as it may seem, we in Manitoba are facing a total debt of almost $11.5 billion. The interest costs are staggering, $550 million or 45 cents out of every dollar Manitobans pay in personal income tax. The remaining 55 cents of every dollar must be prudently spent in order to ensure the quality of our services, and as a result decisions regarding priorities must be made.

We can no longer afford to increase our debt, a debt which stands at $10,47 4 per Manitoban, man, woman and child. Manitobans, indeed all provinces must also contend with a serious national recession. Though Ma ni toba's position is relatively positive in comparison to other provinces, we suffer the effects of reduced transfer payments and programs and offloading. While we recognize that the federal government is also facing a considerable economic burden, we will continue to seek fairness from the federal government for the benefit of all the provinces.

It is clear now more than ever that the financial control is the key to economic well-being. A provin ce con sumed by debt and saddled by excessive taxes is in no position to attract new investments so necessary for long-term renewal. Anyone can see that creating a dynamic and challenging climate for industry, establishing a competitive economic sector, and maintaining the quality of our social services under our current circumstances, is a daunting tax indeed, yet that is what this government is committed to doing and that is what this budget is designed to accomplish.

In the face of one-half of 1 percent growth in revenue, I commend the honourable minister's new approach to government spending. In order to ensure that our priorities in health care, education and family services continue to receive a level of funding which maintains their high quality of service, we must redirect a portion of our tax dollars. Internal reform will ensur e that more of the average Manitoban's tax dollar will go towards actual service rather than administration. It is not with pleasure that we reduce administration and executive level supp ort.

However, the dollars saved through in itiative service delivery will ensure that we meet the needs of Manitobans. To the end of maintaining priority spending I am pleased to support the new Estimates process. Any one who has had any budgetary experience, be it on personal or business level, knows full well the importance of assessing costs and setting priorities. We have all faced the fiscal constraints of a mortgage or some other substantial investment, and have had to deal with prioritizing the remaining dollars to maintain the quality of life for our families.

The province also has substantial commitments, namely the taxes, the deficit and the overall debt. We must ensure that the remaining dollars are spent on our priorities for it is not just the quality of life for an individual family, but for families throughout Manitoba, which are at stake. •

(1510) In these times of fiscal responsibility, when many Manitobans are expected to be realistic in their demands, it is only fair that the public sector wage be moderated as well. Salaries continue to be one of the largest costs in most areas of government. Limited government revenue dictates that these costs must be kept at a reasonable level, a level which does not detract funds from other priorities or induce settlement-driven layoffs . The two-year contract offered to the MGEA is an attempt at a fair wage negotiation and should not be viewed with pessimism.

At this point it is a pleasure for me to remind our critics of our commitment to fair taxation. For weeks I have been listening to the dire warnings from across the way concerning harmonization and potential tax increases. Perhaps they can think of no other way to deal with our economic situation than to raise taxes. One need only look at the number of increases between 1982 and 1986 to evidence that point.

April 18, 1991 LE GISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA 975 This government is a little more original. We have reversed that legacy of yearly tax increases and maintained our commitment to hold the line on personal, retail and general business taxes. This year's budget also does not harmonize the provincial tax with the GST. A taxation system should not overburden the average taxpayer, nor should it discourage investment and possible job opportunities. Even though we are facing revenue constraints this government is confident that its taxation initiatives are a positive step towards Manitoba's future.

While taxes are not raised in some areas, fair and necessary increases in other areas provide us with a much needed $32.5 million in increased revenues. Tax incentives also play an important role in this government's attempt to achieve a strong economic foundation and business climate. We want to keep Manitobans' investments in Manitoba. We want our employees to improve employment prospects by garnering ownership positions in their companies, and we want to encourage employee training, investment owner ship training. All have been enc ouraged in this budget through taxation incentives.

All are vital in ensuring that Manitoba has a strong and competitive economic future. We intend to be proud of our taxation policies. Fi scal resp onsibi lity as wel l as fiscal accountability has been stressed throughout the whole of the budget speech. Keeping in mind that we no longer bear the burden of high overheads and administration costs, our government, through early retirement, attrition, work force adjustment, deemed it necessary to reduce the provincial Civil Service. Severance assistance will be provided to those individuals affected by the proposed layoffs.

I canno t stress enough that we will take the appropriate steps to reduce the minimum impact of these measures upon civil servants and Manitobans generally. In order to maintain quality services the people of Manitoba have become accustomed to, it was deemed necessary to reduce grant levels in certain areas. We must, as a province, prioritize how the tax dolla rs are spent. We must fiscally be accountable to the people of Manitoba. We cannot afford, especially during tough economic times, to rep eat the mistakes made un der past administrations.

Although some agencies will receive increased funding, certain agencies will remain the same, and unfortunately there will be some agencies that will have their funding reduced. Again let me stress fiscal respo nsibili ty as well as accou ntability. Resources are not endless. In order to maintain certain spending levels, let us remember that no tax increases were introduced into this budget, a move which can bear no criticism. As a government, it is important that we look to the future, a stable future for the upcoming generations. Responsible fiscal management of our province cannot be stressed enough.

Under previous administrations, the debt increased measurably. We now face the task of trying to control this deficit. By doing this, we will enhance our ability to provide services on an affordable basis. Limiting of tax increases says to the people of the province that we are committed as a government to Manitobans. Transfers from the lottery revenue as well as from the Fiscal Stabilization Fund will increase overall revenues. We need to stimulate the economy, and this is the budget to do that.

It is tough economic times, and where federal transfer payments are reduced and rising interest costs on past borrowing are high, it will be a difficult task to stimulate the economy, but we are doing it and we will continue to do it. We have the mandate and are carrying out that mandate. Our. government is leading the rest of Canada in fiscal responsibil ity and is demonstrating that Manitoba is a strong province ready to lead this country into the next century. As a government, we will not allow our difficult economic situation to deter our comm itment to strengthening rural Manitoba.

As much as $43 million is being made available to help Manitoba farmers deal with the low market prices as well as the years of drought they have experienced. Community Places grants will be extended to assis t lo cal organizations in commu nity improvements. A substantial amount of money, more than $100 million, has been allocated for highway construction improvements. We have also committed funds to sewer and water infrastructure and droughtproofi ng. These initiatives, along with other measures, will ensure that sustainable economic and social development in rural Manitoba will continue at a cost-effective

976 LEGI SLAT IVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA April 18, 1991 level for this province. This government does not believe in isolation and abandonment. Before I close, I would just like to stress a few of the points I have made. I reiterate the need for fiscal responsibi lity and account ability. These are essential in order for us to guide Manitoba through this recession. Prioritization is a key to proper fiscal management, close examination of how we spend limited tax dollars still ensuring that the services are readily available to all the people of this province.

We cannot afford, especially during tough economic times, to repeat the mistakes made under the past adm inis trati ons. Mani tobans have all the government they can afford. Resources are not endless. Therefore, we must be accountable to everyone. We must look to the future of the province, a future we want to be proud of. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a part of a government, a government which is taking the measures necessary to ensure a strong, competitive and socially responsible Manitoba.

It is without reservation that I say to my constituents and the people of the province that the 1991 budget is part of the solution, part of the long-term strategy and part of our future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today to speak to the budget. Before I begin, I would like to make some comments on one of the speeches made by the previous speakers, the member for lnkster (Mr. Lamoureux), when he went on at length about the record of the previous government and made some comments, in fact, about the attendance of our members in the House.

I want to point out at this point that our members are currently meeting with the National Farmers Union and the members of KAP, Keystone Agricultural members right now. We feel it very important to meet with the delegates who have come in to talk about agricultural issues. It is out of order for the member for lnkster to be making aspersions about our lack of attendance here, particularly when those members are doing something very important at this point in time. I must admit, they were aided and abetted by members of the government as well, so they were certainly not guilt-free in this exercise.

A few other comments from the member for lnkster (Mr. Lamoureux) deserve some attention. He once again brought up the issue of th& election contributions that were declared by the members of our party. It should be pointed out at this point that we have a different method of accounting than his party does. All of our contributions are declared to the central party. Lists will be made available. They are public lists. They are available to anybody who wants them. The diffe rence is that the other two parties evidently file their election returns based on contributions to individual candidates.

On the other hand, we have for years filed ours on the basis of contributions to the central party. It is an accounting practice; it is acceptable to Elections Manitoba. It is something we have been doing for years and something, I suppose, we will continue to do. To have the member for lnkster (Mr. Lamoureux), aided and abetted by his colleague there, the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Connery), spouting all this nonsense on a continuous basis really has to stop, because it is not accurate. It is not accurate at all. There is nothing wrong with the way the party is filing the financial statements. *

(1520) Now, Mr. Speaker, I just cannot let some of the comments that the member for ln kster made concerning the responsibility of the Liberal Party or lack thereof over the last couple of years go unchallenged. I think that pretty well every member in this House can attest to the fact that in the runup to the last election, the Liberal Party was on record as promising an incredible $700 million in expenses. That was before the election was called. Then, when the election was called, they went on their merry way promising another perhaps $200 million in expenses. Absolutely irresponsible.

The fact of the matter is that we saw what happened in the election. I mean, obviously, people believed that that was an irresponsible position for them to take, to be promising so much when people realized that we did not have the resources that they were making it out to be. The NOP in that last election, if you take a look at our campaign promises, will recognize that our promises did not add up to an awful lot in terms of financial commitments. We did not promise to spend buckets full of money, such as the Liberal Party promised in the last election.

Now it is interesting to note how the Liberal Party has moved over the last three or four years. They started out on the left and they gradually moved over to the right as they got closer to power. They started sounding

April 18, 1991 LEGISLAT IVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 977 like Conservatives actually, you know, espousing the lines of the corporations. The election is over, the people have expressed their will, now the Liberal Party is trying to purify itself again, trying to move to the left again. They are trying to head back to the left, they are trying to suggest that they are identifying with poor people in the pro vince. They are trying to di sta nc e themselves from the corporations, all except their Finance minister. There seems to be a split in the seven-person caucus over there.

The Finance critic seems to be off on a road by himself, and the Leader and a couple of others seem to be on the other track because just the other day, as a matter of fact Monday, April 15, was that not just two days ago? The 15th of April, that was just this past Monday, on the Peter Warren show, their Finance critic, the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), said: I must confess that I have to support what he is doing-in reference to the Minis ter of Finance.

While I am in opposition, I still think he is taking a very cautious approach in ratc heti ng down the cost of government, and I think that is the right thing to do. Now Peter Warren, a very reserved, conservative sort of individual, his response was, that is an incredible statement coming from an opposition Finance critic, saying that the current minister is on the right track.

Well, of course, at that point the member I guess realized the error of his ways and backed off a little bit, but not before he said that he agreed with the government's attempts to reduce the level of public expenditures and he thought that he would support him.

Well, that is the member for Osborne, the former heir-appare ntto the Finance minister's job, agreeing with the current Finance minister, and then the Leader of the Liberal Party, 48 hours later-it is a two- hour sp eech-saying the exact opposite, basically back to the old spend, spend, spend philosophy that we saw in the Liberal Party just prior to the election campaign. I can give you an example of where their movement from one side or the other was even more compressed in time.

I remember a bill that they were addressing last year, I believe it was The Business Practices Act, where in the space of one afternoon, in fact just one speaker after another, the Liberal Party changed from taking a supportive role on the bill from the one speaker to a role of being opposed to the bill by their very next speaker. Evidence there that even the critic and the next speaker could not agree or had not communicated on what the Liberal Party's position is. Once again, that is all part of the growing pains of the Liberal Party, and, of course, that book is still being written.

I imagine that we will still be here talking about this a number of years from now. The member for lnkster (Mr. Lamoureux), if he is still here, will still be making his speeches, but I wanted to get into the whole question here of the budget and how I feel that the Co n servative government is finally beginning to show- the leopard is finally beginning to show its spots. The government is finally emerging as its true ideological-it is really starting to develop into its true ideological commitments that we have always said it would finally accede to.

This government for a couple of years had to pretend it was a moderate government. It declawed that pussycat from Pembina. It moderated that pussycat, and it has spent a little bit more money but, basically, it was all image. Of course, they won the election- just barely, just barely fluked a win and- Point of Order Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member for Elm wood has just made some unkind remarks to me again. I simply want the House to know that he has voted for me for the Lady Byng Trophy of this session. Mr.

Speaker: The honourable minister did not have a point of order. *** Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker, well, you know that is proof that the honourable member has taken direction well. He is a quick study, and he basically did what he was told in that minority government situation sufficient to moderate the image of the Conser vative government and to get it just past that election last September. They just about did not make it. I mean, the rainy day fund was running out of money, and they just got under the gate before the gate closed. I mean, that was an awful close call.

That was a very, very close call for this government, but give them credit,

978 LE GISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANIT OBA April 18, 1991 they made it just by one seat. Now, the true agenda will star t to sur fa ce, and we will see the Conservatives as they really are. The real ideology is going to start to show itself particularly in the next couple of years. I believe they feel that they have the formula down now where they are going to try not to make the same mistakes that they feel Sterling Lyon did. After all, Sterling Lyon fired a civil servant and called a press conference. They realize that there was a lot of smoke there, so what they want to do is try to put a different face on it.

They are, in fact, going to exact more cuts, more firings, than Sterling Lyon even dreamed of, but they are going to try to couch it in a very, very moderate approach. That is to the credit, I guess, of their spin doctors, or their media people who they have, who are hired to basically keep the people like the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) under some sort of control, moderate his image and keep the government looking as humane as possible. The fact of the matter is that we know here in this House, the hackers and slashers are out riding the range again.

There are members here who were here back in 1981 who learned, who studied, under Sterling Lyon, and they do not want to make the same mistakes that he did. They are going to try to have the same effects as Sterling Lyon, to do the same things as Sterling Lyon, without having to pay the consequences, which of course will ultimately result in the demise of the government, if in fact they get that far. This whole question of the road that they would take is in fact in our minds sort of predetermined.

I do not think there was any question that this is the road they would take, but they tried to, for a couple of years anyway, convinc e people that they had changed, that they had changed their approach. The fact of the matter is they are pretty much in lock step with the federal government on fiscal matters. It did not take any amount of imagination to be able to assess what this government would do based on what the federal government did just a couple of months ago.

Their attitude is let the markets govern themselves and basically absolute slavery to market forces and wring your hands and not accept that there is anything you can possibly do to alter the course of the market. As a matter of fact, their belief is that the free market, unfettered as it is, is the best type of economic system to have. That is fair ball because that is their philosophy. *

(1530) Well, the federal government came down with a budget a couple of months ago consistent with that philosophy. So it should come as no surprise to anyb ody in this House that this partic ular government should follow suit and that we would have a similar type of laissez-faire approach. Now these approaches, historically, have worked in some instances but at great pain to the people who are especially at the lower end of the economic scale who are subjected to the effects of the budget, but they work only because the economy inevitably recovers.

We have had, over the last couple of hundred years, a cyclical form of economic activity whereby we have a recession and then we have good times and then we are down to a recession again. What a Con servative government does is basically tries to let the market take its course. Ther ef ore when the market di ps and the unemployment levels are high, they say, well, you know, there is no role for the government here. We have to keep our hands off. We have to h�ve a hands-o ff approach. Let the market solve its own problems. Meanwhile thousands and thousands of people are put out of work. They are on the streets.

They are lined up at food banks. Social services are chopped because in their views they are only something that can be sort of as an accessory to the capitalist system, something that you can have only when you have excess money, but when times get tough those are things that get slashed.

There is no recognition that perhaps efforts are required in a recession to nurture the economy through it, to help the economy through it a little bit and perhaps speed the growth, because what happens is that if you follow a Conser vative approach through recessionary times it is sort of like a domino effect or a house of cards. When you lay a thousand people off, or a business goes bankrupt-and over 400 businesses in Manitoba have gone bankrupt in the last year, and in fact, over 1,800 individuals have gone bankrupt.

Those are statistics, and it is easy to fail to recognize what they really mean in human terms.

April 18, 1991 LE GISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 979 When a bus iness goes bankrupt, when an individual goes bankrupt, there is a lot of misery there, and there are a lot of repercussions that occur, because when the business goes down, it oftentimes takes other businesses with it. When an individual goes bankrupt, there is often a marriage that goes with it, and other serious problems develop, which, in the end, end up costing society a lot more in terms of social costs. After all, when a person is unemployed, they must go to the unemployment insurance system or they must go to the welfare system.

They cannot possibly feed their families properly, so medical costs go up because people get sick because of it. Crimes increase because people when they are unemployed resort to alcoholism and drug addiction and other vices. That presents a lot of negative effects on a society and costs to the society because you cannot kid yourself. In the end, the society, the taxpayer, the one taxpayer that the Conservatives constantly refer to-that one taxpayer is caught footing the bill for all of those costs.

I do not believe, I never have believed, that you can restrain an economy into prosperity, but that is the basic tenet of Conservative philosophy. In fact, historically, a lot of this amounts to just talk though even from Conservative governments. If you look at Conservative governments over the period of time in Canada, a lot of them talk a good line on restraint and so on, and some of them practice it, but in actual fact they leave terrible records behind them of deficit reduction. I have not found Conser vative governments anywhere that actually do what they say they are going to do.

After all the pain of living through a Conse rvative governmen t as han dlin g of a recession, you would think that you would have something to show for it. You would think that at least atthe end of it you would have a surplus budget to show for it. That has never happened. It seems that whenever the Conservatives do get in on a program of reducing the deficit and running a more efficient government, what happens is they end up leaving it in worse shape than when they started. I mean, look at Sterling Lyon. He left us with a much better situation.

As a matter of fact, in 1981, I remember talking to architects and engine ers during the election campaign. These architects and engineers wanted nothing to do with the Conser vative government of the day. As a matter of fact, they would tell me one after the other that they were not NDPers, that they had never voted NDP-in fact, they did not really like the NDP-but they could not stand the Conser vatives. They felt forced to contribute money to the NDP, and they felt forced to vote for us because what the Conse rvative government of Sterling Lyon had done was basically shut down the economy.

There was no building construction going on. The architects were unemployed. The engineers were unemployed. This is the sort of misery that was brought upon these professionals in Manitoba. A lot of them left the province. They went elsewhere to find new opportunities. A lot of them got involved in the NDP, even though, as I said, they had never supported the NDP before. They did so only as a reaction to what they saw this Conservative government doing and the lack of action that they saw from the Co ns ervative government. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.

Enns) knows full well, because he was here during that period, what happens when the economy starts to crumble and one business takes down another, and you have this whole domino effect, and then the government pulls back and does nothing. He knows what happens once a situation like that starts to dev elop. It is not a very pr etty si ght. -(in terjection)- Well, the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) wants to know what my solution is. I have to draw his attention back to his former member for Niakwa, Mr. Kovnats, when he was in opposition, and this is a very famous quote. I guess it bears repeating again.

It has been repeated many, many times over the years. He had said, when the Conservatives were in opposition and the current Minis ter of Finan ce was up at his desk cringing as his backbenchers were constantly demanding that more money be spent on this road and that bridge and this project, and the member for Niakwa said, that when you are in opposition you can have it both ways. That is what he said. You know, he said (interjection)- Well, no, I was anticipating that the Min ister of Health would say that I am saying that.

I am telling you what the member for Niakwa said when the Conser vatives were in opposition and they had three-qu arters of their caucus demanding the expenditure of all sorts of money, and the Minister of Finance was trying to put a reign and put some

980 LE GISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANIT OBA April 18, 1991 respon sibility on the caucus to develop a coherent and consis tent sort of line on the financial side of it. I think the Minis ter of Health will agree that we have shown some restraint, that we have shown consistency on our side both in the election and in the House. You have not seen a whole lot of demands for enormous amounts of money. Whenever we have promised something or we have asked for something, we have been careful to cost it out and take into account what that costing would do, unlike what the Liberals have been doing in the last couple of years.

We would suggest that they take a leaf from our book and perhaps be a little more responsible in what they promise. *

(1540) So the new hackers and slashers are in the saddle here, and it is going to develop for them. Perhaps they feel they are in a different sort of environment now than they were back in 1981. There was some suggestion that in fact people are more willing to accept cuts now than they were in 1981, that people who are unemployed today are going to accept it a little more than they did then. I do not believe that that will be the case. I think you are going to have big demonstrations here in front of the Legislative Building such as we had back in 1981, such as we saw with the Autopac demonstration back in 1987.

Maybe we will be seeing demonstrations that will be large enough to rival those. The hay wagon will be out here, and the cassettes, or maybe a CD player now, will be playing "We're not Going to Take it Anymore" or the equivalent of the day. Maybe a rap tune now -( interjection)- Twisted Sister, the Minis ter of Health (Mr. Orchard) indicates. I am sure that the people who will be out there will have that in mind and will come up with the appropriate song for the day and the appropriate method of handling the government and the Mini ster of Health.

That is all part of what one accepts, though, when one accep ts the du ties of government. That is why it is not my job to be giving the government its alternatives. We will certainly provide those where possible. By the way, the Minister of Health should be aware that we have had now only three speakers up on this debate, but I believe all three of our speakers have commended the government for at least two or three elements to the budget.

We have said that their movement on the credits for people on social assistance, to spread those credits out and give them to people on a monthly basis, is a very sensible thing to do, and that is applaudable. The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) applauded the government for that, and I believe our Leader did as well. The governmen t's move on the beer can question, the major, major issue of the day, the NOP supports what they are doing in that, so let not the minister think that we are totally negative when we make comments about the government.

We are not even totally negative when we make comments about the pussycat from Pembina, not entirely. He should not take that as exclusively negative comments. In any event, the Conservative government, in their trickl e-down theory, is going to have a devastating effect on our economy. One of our members just the other day was telling me that it is easy for the Conservatives to be in government because they really only have to keep the top two-thirds of the population happy, the group with all the money. They do not really concern themselves all that much with people at the lower end of the scale.

They can get away with cutting grants, such as they have to all the community organizations, and by the way, that is going to lead us into a lot more job cuts. We are looking at 800 jobs that are being eliminated; 300, 400 people are actually going to be laid off. We are probably looking at an equivalent number of people who in fact are going to be laid off throug h the rela ted organ izations that the government grants money to. It has no control over how many people are hired there. It basically has control over the grant money.

By cutting the grants to all these external organizations, what in effect is going to happen is that these organizations are going to have to lay off. For example, in the Sports Federation, they are going to have to lay off most of their work force, I would imagine. In fact, that department has been cut down to almost nothing. I do not know what the minister is even doing there any more. It is probably just an appendage to another department now. In fact, the grants to the Sports Federation and many others are going to result in a whole bunch more, perhaps another thousand layoffs throughout the system.

What you are seeing is sort of a doubling of the layoff position. In any event, the whole matter of the Conservatives' trickle- down theory and their having

April 18, 1991 LEGI SLAT IVE ASS EMB LY OF MAN ITOBA 981 only to answer to the upper part of the populace is worthy of some examination because they really only have to cater to the people with money. The people who have money, the people who have jobs, the people who are in a position of power and influence in the society are the people who vote for them and are the people who have the power and influence to keep them elected.

They control the media, they control various organizations, and so it is easy for them to go, and if they have to cut, to cut at the lower end of society, the people who earn minimum wage, the people on welfare, because those are not their constituents. Those people do not vote for them to start with, so as far as they are concerned that is fair game in terms of cuts. It is also an area where there is a tremendous amount of money being spent.

So that is a way for them to cut without cutting any of their core support, without alienating their own people, and that is why I believe they can maintain relative popularity. On the other hand, when the NDP is in power, when we do things that try to equalize the taxation system and spread the wealth around, we are in fact taking money from those who have, and because they do not like to share as much as they should, at least a lot of them do not, they fight back.

They kick, and they fight back in various ways, and one of the ways is they pack up and take their money to Florida, or at least they threaten to do it. That is a threat that they have always had over our heads. If we do not do what they want, they threaten to leave, and certainly they threaten to do things to manage to get us defeated. They have certainly ganged up on us before and done stuff like that before.

So it is much harder in a way for a left-of- centre government or an NDP government to govern the province, because we are constantly fighting battles on all sides almost, and it is quite a battle, but it is worth it in the end, because those of us on this side know that we are working for the betterment of poorer people in our society who are not going to get a fair shake necessarily from the free market system. It is an illusion to think that somehow-we try to tell people that every little kid, you know in the north end of Winnipeg or on a reserve up north, you too can be the Prime Minister.

You know, in theory that is correct, but in practice that does not happen, Mr. Speaker. The chances of a poor black boy or girl from a suburb in a city in the United States becoming the President, you have to admit, is rather remote, but yet that myth in a capitalist system is there, that you too can do it.

It is sort of continued by the whole philosophy surrounding the casinos and the lotteries and all the other sorts of illusions that we try to conjure up in people and try to in effect sort of buy them off, fool them into believing that somehow they too can make that million dollars, they too can be the President or the Prime Minister and so on, when in fact it is just a dream. You know, it is just another soap opera. •

(1550) I believe that, without being too boring, we should try to di scou rage that sort of get-rich-q uick philosophy as much as possible. You know, it is nice to have goals. It is nice to sort of have dreams. It is nice to have dreams, but let us make them realistic. That is a big part of our problem in society, that the realism is not there to the extent that I think that it should be. I think it can be done.

There can be a sort of a moderate course taken whereby people can be a little more realistic in their dreams and that, but not be totally discouraged because, after all, the converse of this is that people get so depressed. You know, they commit suicide or run and put their heads in the sand and jus t do not invol ve themselves in the system. (Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) Now this governmen t, Mr. Acting Speaker, complained about the federal government and its offloading on the province. We have heard a lot about that lately.

We believed it, too, until we looked at the budget information here which would indicate that in fact, from the federal government, the province is actually getting more than it did last year. The federal government is in fact giving the province, I believe, about $84 million more, perhaps it is $99 million, but it is in that vicinity, so I guess the government has just lost another argument here. It was trying to blame the federal government, fed bash, as they used to say when we were in government. They used to accuse us of that pretty regularly.

Now they are getting pretty used to the fed bashing because, I guess, it works for them. They tried to spin this story that somehow the federal government was offloading a lot of things

982 LE GI SLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA Apri l 18, 1991 onto them and that was the reason why they had to offload onto the city and so on. I wanted to draw your attention, Mr. Acting Speaker, to page 15 of the Manitoba budget speech where in fact the governmen t says, federal offloading is adding to pressure on Manitoba's expenditures while reductions and entitlements to major federal transfer programs are restraining Manitoba's revenue growth.

Then they go on to say, however, the solution lies in co-operati on, in cost cont ainme nt and in setting appr opriate priorities, not shifting the burden indiscriminately. Well, I think someone should tell the cities and the municipalities about that, because that is exactly what this gover nment is in fact doing to the municipalities in this province. One of the things that it is doing is, it is turning over, I believe, 2,000 kilometres of rural roads and highways to the -(in terjection)- The member for Crescentwood (Mr. Carr) tells me that it is a $6 million expenditur e- turns it over to the local districts.

Now is that an example of offloading or is it? This is the very thing that they decry in their budget books here, saying how terrible a thing it is that you should offload, and in fact they are doing the same thing, as blatant as can be. On the one hand, they are saying you should not be doing it; on the other hand, they are doing it themselves. Now, the member is not within eyesight of me right now. I wish he were here because I always like to have him around when I am making a speech. He is sort of a sense of support for me. You know, when the Min ister of High ways (Mr.

Driedger) is not here, I feel kind of cut adrift and a bit lonesome, but the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) is here, so he is sort of a friendly substitute. The Minister of High ways (Mr. Driedger), you know, two or three years ago, did he or did he not promise to privatize the highways? He said he was looking at a plan to sell the highways. Can you imagine? He is going to sell No. 1 East to one friend. He is going to sell No. 1 West to another friend.

They are going to break it up into little sections, you know, maybe one lane, until they run out of Conservatives, until they run out of good Cons ervative contributors. Hig hway 75, I do not know what he is going to do with that one. I understand he was going to triple lane it, but his toll road plan got reined in real quick. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) hauled him in and said, you know, Albert, you cannot talk like that. In a minority government, we do not talk like that. We do not talk about toll roads. The minister came out of the woodshed, and we have never heard another word.

Not another word has been spoken by that minister about toll roads. As matter of fact, if you ask him and you try to find out when he is going to do it, maybe put in dibs on a couple of miles or two here or there, he does not want to talk to you about this. I can see that perhaps things are changing, perhaps we are getting to the point where that toll road idea will be coming back in the government's mind, because they are turning over the highways. They are turning over 2,000 kilometres of provincial roads, of road construction and maintenance. They are offloading it to the local governments.

Let us look at the area of education and training. Look what we have had here. The Premier appears-- those are the appearances-to have it in for the community colleges, and he appears to be strangling the community college at the expense of private colleges. He seems to want to privatize the education systems in our province so that his friends in private industry can own these colleges, can own a public education system- The Acting Speaker (Mr. McAlplne): Order, please. The hon ou rable member's time has expired. Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.

Acting Speaker, I am pleased indeed to rise and speak on the budget presented a few days ago by the honourable Minis ter of Finance (Mr. Manness) , but before I speak on the budget, I have to comment on a few comments made by the previous speaker. Let us dispel once and for all the myth that the NOP are somew hat more caring than the Conservatives. We are just as caring. We happen to have different ideologies. I think he should recognize that the free market system may well work.

Their friends in eastern Europe, who tried the other system for 45 years and in some areas for as long as 73 years, have come to the realization t

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-2-25
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 2nd hansardpdf 25.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b9aaaf060c9a6a12569ecaa5e2141825d48a40a6

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