Manitoba Hansard — 95 ISSN 542 (Sitting 35A, 36th Legislature, 1st Session)

36-1-35a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLV No. 35A -1:30 p.m., Monday, September 25,1995 ISSN 0542-5492

Name ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUA Y, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Alben, Hon. DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILM ON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HEL WER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWA Y, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon.

MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEWMAN, David PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. PENNER, Jack PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. RADCLIFFE, Mike REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack, Hon. RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis SALE, Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS, Stan SVEINSON, Ben TOEWS, Vic, Hon. TWEED, Mervin VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosano MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Aff iliation Constituency Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Rob lin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Pembina Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norben St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Ponage Ia Prairie Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescentwood Broadway Kirkfield Park Dauphin La Verendrye Ross mere Turtle Mountain Fon Garry Swan River Party N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. Lib. Lib. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

3251 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, September 25,1995 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Federal Immigration Policies Mr. George Dickes (Point Douglas): I beg to present the petition of Belma T. Marcelino, Narciso M. Marcelino, Marilyn P. Marcelino and others requesting the Government of Canada cancel fee increases and instead institute policies that will encourage immigration to Manitoba Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): I beg to present the petition oflluminada J. Ramos, Rosabella J. Tankeko, Rico J.

Ramos and others requesting the Government of Canada cancel fee increases and instead institute policies that will encourage immigration to Manitoba. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Federal Immigration Policies Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for St James (Ms. Mihychuk), and it complies with the rules and practices of the House (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

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

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

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

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

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

WHEREAS the new $975 fee being imposed on adult immigrants is more than many immigrants make in their home country in an entire year, and will make it even more difficult for people from these countries to immigrate to Canada; WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the Government of Canada cancel these fee increases and instead institute policies that will encourage immigration to Manitoba. TABLING OF REPORTS Bon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister responsible for the Status of Women): I am pleased to table the Annual Report for Manitoba Women's Directorate 1993-94. *

(1335) INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 203-The Winnipeg Jets Funding Agreement Termination Act Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I move, seconded by the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), that leave be given to introduce Bill203, The Winnipeg Jets Funding Agreement Termination Act;

Loi sur la resiliation de l'accord de financement des Jets de Winnipeg, and that the same now be received and read a first time.

3252 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 25, 1995 Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us today Mr. Luiz de Athayde, Consul-General of Brazil. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. Seated with us in the public gallery, we have from the University of Winnipeg Collegiate twenty-five Grades 11 and 12 students under the direction of Mr. Wayne Christianson.

This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Winnipeg Jets/Arena Repayment of Funding Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). Over the last number of months, we have learned of a number of payments that have been made by the provincial government to MEC and the Winnipeg Jets attempt.

I would like to ask the Premier, on May 17, the provincial government forwarded a cheque for $612,000 to the Manitoba Entertainment Complex for a so-called capital works project under the Manitoba Infrastructure Program. Did the Premier authorize that cheque, and is it a repayable cheque back to the people of Manitoba? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, as we have indicated in this House and publicly, to date there has been approximately $7 million spent on the whole initiative of saving the Jets, keeping them in Manitoba and potentially building a new entertainment complex.

There were contributions made by three levels of government, the federal government, the provincial government and the City of Winnipeg, along with contributions by the private sector. A portion of our contribution was an advance from the Infrastructure Program if the project were to proceed. The item that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to is one of those advances to meet some of the ongoing costs as part of our commitment and was and is subject to receipt of appropriate documentation.

As I have indicated publicly, Madam Speaker, as soon as MEC and Spirit of Manitoba have prepared their summ ary financial statements showing all of their disbursements-they are also having that audited independently by, I believe, Price Waterhouse accounting firm-we intend to have the Provincial Auditor go in and review all of the disbursements in conjunction with the City of Winnipeg auditor and even potentially the federal auditor in terms of showing the full and complete accounting of all of the funds. *

(1340) Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the minister did not answer the question directly about whether that money is going to be repaid back to the people of Manitoba under the cheque that he sent. On July 6, a further $520,000 cheque was sent from the Province of Manitoba to the MEC group for so-called, again, capital works claims under the Manitoba-Canada Infrastructure Program. I would like to ask again, given the fact that we have the mini ster responsible for the Jets, for Lotteries, for Infrastructure answering the questions today, did the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) approve these payments and cheques to be forwarded to the MEC group, and why do we not get press releases, as we do on mahy other Manitoba infrastructure programs? In fact, for almost every infrastructure program, we have news releases and signings and everything else so the public will know. Did the Premier authorize this money? Will it be returned, and why did we not have the same kind of notice, in terms of press releases, as we see for other activity?

September 25, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3253 Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, there is nothing new here. It followed the regular process in terms of applying for funding under the Infrastructure Program. We have indicated consistently that the total commitment from the province in terms of private sector notes from the private-sector note fund and in terms of advances against the Infrastructure Program will be close to $3 million out of the $7 million, Madam Speaker. We have said that consistently.

We have said we will provide, as part of the overall report, all of the distribution, where all of the money went, whether it was for preconstruction activities, design, architectural, legal, whatever kinds of work were done, that that will all be accounted for and will be audited both by independent auditors and by the Provincial Auditor. We expect that information fairly shortly.

We have certainly indicated to Spirit that we believe it is in everybody's best interest to provide all of that information as soon as possible for a complete and comprehensive accounting, so everybody knows how all of the money that was advanced from all three levels of government was ultimately utilized, Madam Speaker. Mr. Doer: The minister, in the first answer, or so called answer, indicated that the money was sent subject to the fact that the project would proceed. Now he is indicating the money is lost. Up to $3 million is lost.

I would like to ask the minister, will the money be repaid, because obviously the project did not proceed. Will that money be repaid, or are the taxpayers of Manitoba subject to those losses on top of the losses that were signed away by the Premier (Mr. Film on) in the operating-loss agreement in 1991, a loss agreement that the Minister of Finance and the Premier said in the election would be cancelled on May 1, 1995? Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, advances were made by all three levels of government.

We have indicated the level of advances or commitments from our provincial government toward the project on the basis that everybody was working toward the objective of hopefully proceeding to a positive conclusion. That was not the case, Madam Speaker, and those monies will not be refunded, were never meant to be a part of being refunded. That has happened with at least one other infrastructure program, where some advances were done on the basis of a project proceeding. In fact, it was the Kenaston underpass. An Honourable Member: Another real winner. Mr. Stef anson: Now the member for Thompson (Mr.

Ashton) obviously is not supportive of the Infra structure Program. I know the people in Thompson, through the Burntwood trailer court, are very supportive of the Infrastructure Program. Madam Speaker, as I have indicated, there will be a full, complete, comprehensive accounting of money that came from the federal government, provincial government, City of Winnipeg and the private sector. There is nothing new with this question from the Leader of the Opposition, and we expect that information shortly. Youth Court Sentencing Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My question is to the Minister of Justice.

It was one year ago today that 14-year-old David Frey was viciously attacked in this city by a 17-year old gang member, who was after his skateboard. According to the police report, David was chased on foot, the gang member yelling that he would kill him with a handgun. When he caught up, the gang member put the gun to David's head and struck David on the top of his forehead and twice in the jaw with the butt of his gun until the gun broke.

This left David unconscious with two teeth knocked out, a fractured jaw, a fractured left eye socket, lasting eyesight damage, cuts needing internal and external stitches, plastic surgery, as well as bruising and a disability in his hand. My question to the minister: Would the minister explain to Manitobans, particularly to David and David's mother who is here today, why it is this government's policy that violent youth gang members like this one often do not face consequences for a year?

3254 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 25, 1995 One year later, he has still to be sentenced and will not be until at least November, all the while on bail, Madam Speaker. *

(1345) Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the member has brought forward a very specific case which he clearly says to this Legislature is not at the moment disposed of, so I must be very careful in any comments that I make, that they cannot in any way be linked to a case which is quite obviously, and by the member's own admission, still before the courts. Madam Speaker, we have taken a very active role in dealing with young offenders. We have started with requests for changes to the legislation. We have moved in terms of consequences provided within our own province.

We are working with the chief judge in terms of the court dates. This government has taken the leading position across this country in dealing with young offenders. Mr. Mackintosh: Will this minister then explain why it is this government's policy that sentencing for all five gang members involved in the planning and carrying out of this attack on David should be allowed to take an average of 11 months for these young offenders? All had their charges reduced, and all enjoyed bail, even though three were on probation at the time and two offended again while on bail. Mrs.

Vodrey: Madam Speaker, again, the member has the opportunity to speak very openly about cases which are before the courts, in great detail, which he brings to this Legislature. As Attorney General of this province, I am not able to speak about cases which are before the courts. As the member knows, it is up to the judiciary to determine whether or not bail will be granted to people who are brought before it. If the member wishes to add further, then he will. Plea Bargaining Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St Johns): She has an obligation, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St.

Johns, with a final supplementary question. Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister now admit that despite the horrendous backlogs and the plea bargaining, there is only one permanent prosecutor in her youth court? Will she finally give the needed resources and direction to that court, so that we can have swift and meaningful consequences and safety for Manitobans? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the member knows very well that in our youth courts, it is not an 11-month wait that is there as a result of issues before the court.

The member knows very well, and, again, I want to be careful to be clear that I am not speaking about any case which has been raised today or any cases which are currently before the courts, but there are reasons, particularly on the part of the defence, which require cases to be put over or time delayed before they are brought forward. The member knows very well that there are times and dates available within youth court much, much earlier than I I months and much more likely in the range of three months.

So the member is bringing forward a specific case where he knows that I cannot comment, and he is bringing forward-[inteijection] As usual, he does not want to ever hear the answer, Madam Speaker. This has been typical behaviour from the other side-ask a question and then interfere with the process of the answer. Madam Speaker, I would say on behalf of this government that it is very clear, our position on youth crime and violence. Our position is a leading one across this country. Our position is also a holistic one.

We recognize that we have to deal with the community, we have to deal with the legislation, we have to deal with the court process and we have to deal with consequences. That is just what we have done.

September 25, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3255 Winnipeg Child and Family Services Child Apprehension Policy Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, when children are apprehended in Manitoba, we hope that it is done only as a last resort and only after as many resources as are available can be put into the situation to assist the parents and to act in the best interests of the child. I know that a situation has been brought to the attention of the Minister of Family Services of two children who were apprehended last Friday by Winnipeg Child and Family Services.

I would like to ask the minister if the parents in this particular situation, and I know she cannot discuss details, but in this situation, is it like other situations where the parents should have been-in this case, were they advised that apprehension was considered, and were they told this in advance so that they could ask for additional resources? *

(1350) Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for the question and also for inclusion in his

preamble about my ability not to speak about individual cases. As I think all members of this House would know if they had heard any of the media reports today, Keith Cooper, who is the executive director of Winnipeg Child and Family Services, has undertaken to do a complete and thorough investigation to ensure that, ftrst and foremost, of course, the needs of the child and the protection of the child are met but also that there was a sensitive handling of the family situation. Mr.

Martindale: Madam Speaker, will the minister, in addition to requesting the CEO of Winnipeg Child and Family Services, take a personal interest in this case and assure herself that all of the options other than appreh ension were investigated and shared with the parents before the apprehension took place? Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, indeed, I take a very personal interest in all of the issues dealing with my portfolio, and I would not want to see a family circumstance or something happen within a family that should not happen.

A lot of the focus over the last few years in the Department of Family Services has been on family support, family preservation and family responsibility. I think that the dollars and the resources that have been flowing to the agencies throughout the province have shown that we have placed a focus in that area, and that is indeed what we are trying to do. We are trying to ensure that, wherever possible, the child remain with the family or extended family, because I do not believe always that alternative placement is the right answer. Mr.

Martindale: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for taking a personal interest in this situation and ask her if she would meet with the parents involved and explain to them how the process is supposed to work and assure them that all of the proper procedures were, in fact, followed in this particular situation and work towards an agreeable solution. Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, indeed, I will be awaiting the response from Keith Cooper this afternoon.

I believe he was going to investigate expeditiously and ensure that the proper procedures were followed and that there was sensitivity used in dealing with the family and with the children. I anticipate that report and will then determine what steps need to follow. Emergency Physicians' Strike Government Action Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, last week, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) took as notice a number of questions about a letter written by the head of emergency services at Health Sciences Centre, Dr.

Ludwig, who indicated at the time that there was an impending crisis in the emergency rooms at Health Sciences Centre. My question to the Minister of Health is, given that the minister has allowed the strike to occur in the community hospitals and has appeared to have lost control of the process, what steps are they putting in place to ensure that we do not ftnd ourselves in another

3256 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 25, 1995 crisis situation faced in the other hospitals like St. Boniface and Health Sciences Centre as a result of government inaction and in light of the letter written by Dr. Ludwig saying that the Health Sciences Centre is in a position of crisis? *

(1355) Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the honourable member for Kildonan raises issues related to emergency services in Winnipeg, and they are always relevant but certainly very relevant at a time when there is a work disruption in progress. The work done by the people at Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface General Hospital during the past disruption is something that ought not to go unnoticed by the people of this province and the people of this city.

The nursing and medical staff at those places have been magnificent in the sense of the challenge placed before them, and it is always appropriate for us to call attention to the very, very good work they have been doing to ensure that Winnipeggers who need their services have those services at a time like this. The honourable member uses an opportunity like this to raise issues and talk about crises and all that sort of thing, which really is not very helpful at a time when Winnipeggers are genuinely concerned about the level of services available at a time like this.

I hope that he will keep that in mind, but I tell him that the contingency plan that we have had in effect has been working in a way that people who need services are able to get them, albeit in some cases after some considerable wait which we regret. Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, I join with the minister congratulating all those people who are undertaking their work in those hospitals under very trying conditions and add to the minister that we should not be in this situation but for the government of Manitoba imposing cutbacks on the hospitals which attempted to negotiate contracts.

My supplementary for the minister is, can the minister indicate to the House today whether or not the government is at the bargaining table, who is negotiating on behalf of the government and whether or not there is any flexibility on the part of MHO regarding negotiations, since it is this government that imposed the cutbacks on hospitals that have resulted in the strike? Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, the honourable member likes to attribute everything that ever happens to something that is entirely within the control of the government.

He forgets not only the record of the government that he supported in the years that they were in office, but he also forgets that there are minor little details such as hundreds of millions of dollars being taken from Health budgets across this country, including Manitoba, by the federal government in Ottawa. He very carefully forgets to mention all of that.

So I do not think it has anything to do with reductions in funding for hospitals that a group of physicians should be coming to the negotiating table asking for a 15 percent increase at a time when other health care professionals in Manitoba are accepting a minus two. I do not think that has anything to do with reductions in budgets, Madam Speaker. It has to do with a negotiating strategy on one side or the other, and the honourable member again draws his own very narrow and partisaq conclusions from those. The government has been asked to have someone at the bargaining table.

The government has complied with that request on the understanding that the Manitoba Health representative is there on the basis of a resource to the process and not as a participant in the negotiations. Mr. Chomiak: My question for the minister is, does the minister not recognize that it was the head of the Health Sciences Centre who wrote the letter saying that the emergency room was in crisis, and will the minister not explain to this House how it is that the $19-million cut to Health Sciences Centre, the $20-million cut to St.

Boniface Hospital and the $2-million cut to Seven Oaks Hospital is not a factor in paying these doctors and is not a factor in the strike, because it has been

September 25, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3257 government cutbacks that have imposed the restraint on hospitals? Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, is it not interesting the honourable member should refer to these alleged reductions at Health Sciences Centre when it is Health Sciences Centre upon which we all rely right now, and St. Boniface Hospital emergency rooms, to look after a system that is facing increasing pressure because of a work stoppage.

Those two hospitals, Madam Speaker, are managing to provide the services that Winnipeggers need, so I do not know precisely where the honourable member is corning from when he talks the way he does at a time when both those hospitals are taking far more patients than they usually do and are managing to cope. Emergency Physicians' Strike Government Action Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question, too, is for the Minister of Health.

Two days ago, a man experienced a great deal of pain after hurting his hand, went to Grace Hospital, and the preliminary diagnosis was that it was probably fractured, and he was told that he would have approximately six hours to wait, then went to the Health Sciences Centre and virtually gave up because of what appeared to be unbelievable waiting lists and ended up travelling out to Winkler, Manitoba, in order to get his hand looked at and X-rayed.

My question to the Minister of Health is, will he, today, agree and acknowledge that there is a need to put this strike to an end and bring in back-to-work legislation? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I certainly can acknowledge that there is a desire on the part of this government to bring this dispute to a satisfactory resolution. *

(1400) Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, when is this government going to be putting the patient first and prevent individuals from now having to look to rural Manitoba in order to get some hospital treatment through emergency services? Is emergency services a part of the core essential health care services from this government or is it not? Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, it does the patient no service and, indeed, a disservice to take action which would be seen by all of the health providers, I suggest, in Manitoba as an action which would lead to further disruptions.

But for the dispute we have with the Manitoba Medical Association over the emergency situation, we have enjoyed and want to continue to enjoy a positive working relationship. Madam Speaker, the honourable member is suggesting by taking precipitous action, that we should do that, and my suggestion is that if you did not need to do that and did it anyway, as the honourable member is suggesting, you create a climate that you do not need to have at a time of change in the health sector. Mr.

Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of Health is, under what conditions is this Minister of Health prepared to look at the possibility of bringing in back-to-work legislation? How long is he prepared to let this strike go? Mr.

McCrae: Madam Speaker, I can tell the honourable member that on a daily basis we monitor the situation in emergency services in the city of Winnipeg, that we want to ensure that the contingency plan that was put in place in response to an action which we do not support, that being doctors withdrawing their services-that contingency plan has been in place and, as I say, thanks to those people who are making it work.

If the honourable member wants to co-operate to the extent of sharing with me further information about the specific case that he brings forward, I would be happy to look into that further and to bring it to the attention of those who are running our contingency plan to ensure that those who need emergent or urgent services are provided those services within a reasonable period of time, and those who require other services are directed to appropriate places.

3258 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 25, 1995 Winnipeg Jets/Arena MEC Proposal-Investigation Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, the lawyer for MEC, Mr. Kormylo, stated in his submission of April 11 which we tabled last week, and I quote: The financing proposal described herein reflects the terms and conditions of matters that have been agreed upon and with respect to matters not yet finalized, reflects the anticipated terms of agreement which are expected to be fmalized in the very near future. He goes on to say, we would be pleased to provide you with further details on any of the matters set out in

Schedule A and copies of the agreements and other documents referred to therein at your request. My question is for the minister responsible for the Manitoba Securities Commission. Madam Speaker, in light of the great gulf between the very specific statements which I just quoted and the words of the Premier (Mr. Filmon) last week, will the min ister responsible for the Securities Commission cause an investigation to be made under

Section 22 of that act to determine whether the submission, to quote

Section 136, makes a statement in any material, evidence or information that either states or omits to state a fact which makes the statement misleading? Will the minister cause an investigation to be made? Bon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, the Manitoba Securities Commission is a quasi-judicial independent board. It operates under its own legislation. They receive hundreds of applications annually to be dealt with, and I do not see any of them. They are an independent board and deal with the matter under their own legislation. Mr.

Sale: Madam Speaker, will the minister responsible for the Manitoba Securities Commission meet with the commission and direct the commission specifically to detail and make public the dates of and attendance at the, quote, numerous meetings held between MEC and the government in the period December to Aprilll, 1995? Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, ifl were to meet with the Manitoba Securities Commission and direct them to do anything, members opposite would be the first to jump up and down and claim political interference. They are a quasi-judicial independent board.

The members of the board are there to operate under the legislation and within the param eters that they have to operate, Madam Speaker, not with political interference but on their own to do their job. Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, the minister is responsible for this commission. Will he direct the commission to ascertain and make public the, quote, in-principle commitments of support made by the province and referred to twice in the document, and in particular the commitment to provide $43 million in grants which are referred to in

Article 21 of this document? Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, I do not think the member for Crescentwood heard my response to his earlier question. This is an independent board. The government does not direct independent boards, quasi-judicial boards, to do anything, Madam Speaker. They will choose to do or not do what they will under the terms of their legislation and under the operating guidelines that they operate. Manitoba Student Aid Computer System Ms.

Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, on August 10, I wrote to the Minister of Education expressing my concerns about the failure of the new computer system at Manitoba student aid. The minister replied that it was the university's fault and that student aid had been, and I quote, obliged to move its student aid computer service from the University of Manitoba system.

My question to the minister today is, would she now correct that statement, acknowledge that it was her government which through the Universities Grants Commission withdrew two years ago the support for that student aid computer system at the university, and will she take responsibility for introducing an

September 25, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3259 inadequate system at a time most likely to cause disruption for students? Bon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the member, having asked the first part of her question, obviously must know the second part that she chose not to ask, for obvious reasons when the answer is given, and that is that the new computer system, even though there was the delay for which no one particular person can be blamed-there was a computer breakdown. The computer breakdown was repaired.

The students ended up, at the time that they would have normally been meeting deadlines, ahead of the time line they would have been at had the computer system not been there. That is due, in part, to a number of things, not the least of which is the dedication of the staff who worked overtime, who worked weekends, to ensure that once the system was up and running, that the material was fed into it quickly. So there was no ultimate delay. In fact, at the appropriate moment, they were ahead of where they would have been the previous year. Ms.

Friesen: Madam Speaker, could the minister give us today a deadline, a commitment once and for all, when those over a thousand Manitoba students who still have no notification of their assessment, when will they know whether they can pay for their books and register for their classes? Mrs. Mcintosh: Madam Speaker, I would indicate to the member that the time line has been caught up and surpassed, so that as the decisions are made in due course, they will come down similar to the time lines they had in previous years and hopefully a little bit ahead. Ms.

Friesen: Madam Speaker, can the minister confirm that the cost of this new computer system is close to a million dollars, and will she tell us whether the contract enables her, enables the government, to recover losses incurred by universities, by students and by the Department of Education as a result of a failure in the system? Mrs. Mcintosh: Madam Speaker, I will take as notice the exact amount of money that the system cost. I will also, however, at the same time reiterate to the member that despite the delay that occurred in mid summ er, the

schedule was picked up and surpassed, in terms of speed, over other years. * (1410 ) Disaster Assistance Crop Dama ge-Flooding Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, the flooding last spring below the Shellmouth Dam which was the result of mismanagement by this government has resulted in a loss of income for many farmers. In fact, close to $28 million has been lost by farmers.

I want to ask the minister of disaster assistance why there is a delay in settling disaster assistance claims and what other compensation we can expect for these farmers, since it was a result of government mismanagement that they have lost their crops. Bon. Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): As far as the flooding situation and the disaster compensation issue is concerned, the claims are currently being investigated. In terms of the overall number of claims, we had over 700 private claims, and all of these have been inspected to date.

About 400 have been fully evaluated, so there are about 300 remaining to be evaluated, which should be done in about the next two or three weeks. Ms. Wowchuk: I want to ask the minister of disaster assistance, since the crop losses are not covered by disaster assistance funding, what steps is this government prepared to take to cover the losses of farmers, close to $28 million, which was the result of mismanagement by this government when it came to regulating the water flows out of the Shellmouth Dam?

3260 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 25, 1995 Mr. Pallister: I think all of us, certainly on this side of the House, understand the difficulties faced by those who have been flooded and understand, as many of these people are farmers, the problems that are faced by farmers every year and the risks they assume when they put a crop in. Oh, that it were so simple as the member outlines, you know, that it was the government's fault that there was a record amount of rainfall, snowfall and water in that basin.

Oh, that it was the government's fault, so that the government could stop it from ever happening again, but such is certainly not the case. The member talks about additional compensation for farmers who were not able to put their crop in. This is something that has never been covered by disaster assistance in any province in this country. There are certain types of insurance available for situations where land is uncroppable through the Crop Insurance organization. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) could elaborate on that in more detail. Shellmouth Dam Irrigation Projects Ms.

Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I would like to table an

article from the Russell Banner in which there is a statement that the farmers in the Russell area feel that they are being sacrificed in order to build a water supply for irrigation projects further downstream. I want to ask this government if it is a fact that the water was held back at the Shellmouth Dam in order to create more water for irrigation projects downstream. Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, totally irresponsible statements. I am surprised that the member would put those on the record in this building here.

The operations of the Shellmouth Dam have been done by professionals for many years. Nothing has changed in that regard, and there is a system in place as to how it is being regulated. I would ask the member that she apprise herself of some facts before she makes these kinds of statements here. McCain Foods Expansion Impact on Water Resources Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): The announcement of an expansion of production at McCain in Portage last week will result in increases in pressure on the availability and usage of that area's water supply.

We must consider the sustainability of this project in terms of our water resources to ensure long-term, value-added jobs and the diversification of Manitoba agriculture. With this in mind, can the Minister of Natural Resources assure this House that the amount of water drawn from the Carberry aquifer will not exceed the amount of water replenishing this aquifer? Hon. A:lbert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, it was approximately two years ago when a group from the Pembina area made an application to draw water from the Assiniboine River.

At that time, environmental hearings were held, and a process was brought forward in terms of letting the public speak out. During the course of those hearings, there was a delay put on the project. At that time in my department, we established what we called the Assiniboine River Advisory Committee made up of all the shareholders or stakeholders along the Assiniboine River. They have been working on this project now for over a year, and they will be advising my department, myself and this government as to how much water can be drawn out of the Assiniboine River Valley for irrigation or for other reasons.

Madam Speaker, they have had a hearing process. Everybody is entitled to go and participate in that, and I would suggest that some members of the opposition would have availed themselves of that opportunity and participated and found out what is going on. Mr. Struthers: Can the minister then table in this House a study or a report of any independent body that can show there will be no ill effects on the current users of the Carberry aquifer or the current users of the Assiniboine River water? Table it.

September 25, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3261 Mr. Driedger: Before any permits are going to be issued, there is going to be consideration given as to the requirements of everybody along the river, and we have people, the Assiniboine River Advisory Committee, who are formulating the statements basically that are coming forward and that will be followed up on. Mr. Struthers: Can the minister assure the House that all additional water for this project will be drawn from water retention projects and that no additional water will be drawn from the aquifer or the Assiniboine River? Mr.

Driedger: Madam Speaker, I would hope that the members of this Legislature here would view this as a very positive development for Manitoba because we, through this project that was announced, will be the second-largest potato-producing province in Canada. The economic impact for Manitobans and the jobs it will create for the people around Portage are dramatic. I want to assure all members here that we promote this, and we will work together with the people in conjunction, making sure that there is adequate water because this, as far as I am concerned, is only the tip of the iceberg.

We will be having more of this kind of development, and in conjunction with that announcement, there are also going to be undertaken water retention programs. This is going to be a very exciting time for all Manitobans as we evolve this whole program. Highway Construction/Upgrading Wabowden Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Flin Flon, with one very short question. Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): My question is for the Minister responsible for Highways.

How long did it take the government to recognize the problem with the failed paving project north of Wabowden, and why did the government not immediately notify the public? Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, as I told the member the other day, the night of the incident, staff were out there with gravel and sand trying to cover it up to prevent the incident from getting worse than it already was. There is a process of assessing where the blame is, so that it does not happen again in the province of Manitoba. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired.

Speaker's Ruling Madam Speaker: I have a ruling for the House. On June 29, I took under advisement a point of order raised by the honourable government House leader respecting words uttered during Question Period by the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). In his point of order, the government House leader stated that the honourable member for St. Johns had made allegations and accusations and raised inferences which were unfounded. In his point of order, however, the government House leader did not identify which of the words spoken by the honourable member for St.

Johns had prompted him to rise on a point of order. I have reviewed Hansard carefully, as I said I would. The honourable member for St. Johns and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik) were apparently both present at a media serum on June 28. The exchanges between the honourable member and the honourable minister on June 29 apparently were based on each individual's perception or recollection of what was said during the media serum on the 28th.

Beauchesne's Citation 494 points out that "It has been formally ruled by Speakers that statements by Members respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be accepted." and also makes the point that "On rare occasions this may result in the House having to accept two contradictory accounts of the same incident." In this case, we have two differing perceptions of the same event, those of the honourable member for St.

3262 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 25, 1995 Johns and of the honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. I am therefore ruling that honourable government House leader did not have a point of order. Committee Changes Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: Thompson (Mr. Ashton) for Wellington (Ms. Barrett); Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) for Transcona (Mr. Reid); Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) for Brandon East (Mr.

Leonard Evans), for Tuesday, September 26, 1995, for 10 a.m. [agreed] NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS Rosh Hashana Mr. Dave Chomiak {Kildonan): Might I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Kildonan have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, I believe that all members of the Chamber would join me in wishing a very happy and prosperous new year celebrating Rosh Hashana for all Manitobans of Jewish background and faith.

This is one of the holiest times of the year, and I would, on behalf of all members of the Chamber, like to wish best wishes for a new year of happiness and peace, of health and prosperity for all. I also would like to add, Madam Speaker, I think it is very fitting that during the time of Rosh Hashana some further steps towards peace in the Middle East are being taken, as we speak, in negotiations that are undertaken in Israel today, and since the theme of Rosh Hashana is peace, we wish that whole process will be continued and will be furthered. *

(1420) University of Manitoba Agriculture Students' Annual Bed Run Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): May I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Swan River have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, I would just like to take a moment to congratulate the Agriculture students from the University of Manitoba who did their annual bed run from Brandon to Winnipeg this weekend, on their efforts to make people aware of the activities in rural Manitoba.

In particular, I would like to congratulate them on contributing the funds that they raised to the rural stress line. Many times people who leave rural Manitoba, particularly young people, are told that they forget about their rural roots and are very quick to migrate to the city. In this case these young people have continued to remember their people in rural Manitoba, and they recognize the need for services. I want to congratulate them on their efforts for contributing funds to the rural stress line. Snow Lake Mine Opening Mr.

Gerard Jennissen (Fiin Flon): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a nonpolitical statement. Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Flin Flon have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] Mr. Jennissen: I rise today to congratulate the people of Snow Lake for their perseverance in sticking together after the mine closure a couple of years back and working together for the good of the community. Tomorrow is the official opening of the new Photo Lake Mine at Snow Lake, a major step forward for the community. Something that all members will support, I am sure.

September 25, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3263 I am very honoured to be the representative of such a dynamic community, and I am looking forward to the opening and the mine operating for many years to come. For those who have never visited Snow Lake I highly recommend that you do so. There are a variety of recreational opportunities at Snow Lake from superb fishing to golfing, along with some of the friendliest people in Manitoba. I am also pleased to note that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) will be joining us at this opening, along with the honourable member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik).

I welcome them to the North and look forward to showing them some of the highlights of this vibrant community. Thank you, Madam Speaker. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you call Bill 2, Bill 27, and then the balance of the bills as listed in the Order Paper. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS BiD 2-The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 2, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.

Stefanson), The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur l'equilibre budgetaire, le remboursement de la dette et la protection des contribuables et apportant des modifications correlatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed] Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, I would like to speak on the lure of balanced budgets, of debt repayment and taxpayers' protection. An Honourable Member: Do you support it in your heart?

Do you support it like the rest of Manitoba? Mr. Santos: It will appear in due time, Madam Speaker. These are very alluring ideas, very enticing ideas. The principle of balanced budgets, the principle of debt repayment and the principle of taxpayers' protection-they are like three enticing bottles of perfume, which give Manitobans pleasures to behold and to smell but if they swallow it, it will be deadly for them.

I shall try to show why this is so, by doing a calm and logical analysis of the distinctive features of each of these three principles of balanced budget, debt repayment and taxpayers protection as they are legally structured, as they are craftily and cleverly transformed into the vices of political expediency in the brutal context of the current and prospective financial, economic and social setting in Manitoba First let us look at the principle of balanced budget. Before we can do so intelligently, we have to have a working definition of what a budget is.

Before we can say it is balanced, we have to know what it is. A budget is a financial plan for a period of time in the foreseeable future, consisting of proposed expenditures and of estimated revenues to sustain those expenditures. Put simply, a budget is a plan of income and expenditures. If the income is greater than the expenditure, there is a surplus. It is called a surplus budget. If the income is less than expenditure, there is deficit. It is called a deficit budget. If income is equal to expenditure, there is the so-called balanced budget.

So a balanced budget is simply a situation where the prospective income of the government and the plan of expenditure are balanced, are equal to one another. Now how does this Bill2, this proposed legislation, how does this legislation define the statutory balanced budget requirement? The proposed legislation mandates, it orders that, subject to certain qualified exceptions, the government of Manitoba is prohibited to incur a deficit for the fiscal year commencing on April 1, 1995, and ending on March 31, 1996, and for each fiscal year thereafter.

The government of Manitoba is required by this legislation to have equality

3264 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 25, 1995 or balance between its revenue and expenditure every year. That alone is an unrealistic requirement, because no one can forecast exactly how much revenue would be coming. There is always some kind of discrepancy between forecasting of quality, even in the estimation of revenue, even in the estimation of expenditure. So this statutory requirement puts the government of Manitoba in a Procrustean straitjacket, depriving it of all flexibility and all discretion in trying to respond to the demands of the circumstances of time and place.

What is this concept of revenue with which we must balance whatever is the proposed expenditure? In the field of study known as public fiscal administration, the concept of revenue simply means collections, inflow, that is, all amounts of money received by a government from external sources other than from issue of debts, other than the liquidation of investments or as agency and private trust transaction. The idea excludes noncash receipts in kind. In accounting terminology, the idea of revenue represents an increase in assets or a decrease in liabilities. *

(1430) Now is the integrity of this definition of revenue, the integrity of this accounting concept of revenue, is this preserved or is this definition of revenue dishonestly destroyed by the practices of this Progressive Conservative government which is the party in government? This Tory government either by negligent ignorance or by deliberate design included in the category of revenue, whether past, present or future, the proceeds of any sale of Crown corporation assets, which, being a liquidation of investment is not and ought not to be included in the concept of revenue.

So wa could see that something which is not revenue is directly called revenue or indirectly by first putting it in the Fiscal Stabilization Fund which is a cushion reserve account, and by that manipulation would also convert something which is not revenue into something they call revenue. That destroys the integrity of the concept and that destroys, therefore, the integrity of the idea of balanced budget. What is the result of such crafty, clever but dishonest manipulation of legitimate accounting concepts such as the idea of the concept of revenue?

The result is that what in equality and in principle is a deficit budget can be presented and is made to appear as a balanced budget. Now why do I say this? Do I have any proof that this has been done before and will be done again? Has there been any positive proof of such dishonest manipulation of the financial definition of accounting and budgetary figures and concepts? Do I have any specific proof of such manipulative accounting cover up which creates a false and misleading presentation of what factually was a false representation of the figures and the facts?

I have to quote from a actual textual quotation of CBC 24 Hours comments of a media personality whose name is Diana Swain. Quote, how do you budget your cheque books? Well, the Provincial Auditor does not like the way the provincial government keeps its books. She says-this is the Provincial Auditor-that in 1992-93, the province reported a deficit of $4 70 million, but Carol BeHringer says it is properly accounted for. The number was over $800 million. According to Len Evans, approximately $890 million, the highest deficit ever rung up by a Manitoba government.

Now, if this Progressive Conservative government can cover up what is clearly the highest budgetary deficit ever incurred by this province by any party in power in the history of Manitoba, can we logically project-of course we can-that it would do it again in some dishonest and dishonourable act like placing some accounting smoke screen and resorting to some financial trickery to misrepresent and mislead the people in believing that a budget is a balanced budget when in fact it is a deficit budget?

Does even the good principle of public finance, like the principle of the balanced budget as they are developed and expounded by the classical and neo classical economies in the hands of the unscrupulous, can they be sacrificed to political expediency, retaining its name and its form what is popularly perceived as a good principle of balanced budget but essentially changing its meaning and its content to something undesirable to something which is detestable? Are we to marvel at this kind of misinformation? No, not at all.

September 25, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3265 If in some organized religion there are some false apostles and deceitful workers transforming themselves into apostles of Christ, similarly, in some organized party government-! am not saying who-there might also be some unscrupulous and dishonest people who do not tell the truth but transform themselves as proponents of the principle of balanced budget but who in fact are seasoned practitioners of deficit budgeting.

No wonder, for even if Satan can transform himself to an angel of light and his ministers can also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness but whose ends will be according to the works, therefore we should not marvel if any head of any political party anywhere in Canada can transform themselves into a premier of fiscal prudence and his ministers into ministers of balanced budget, even putting on the line their salaries as minister but whose pretensions would be revealed and in due time their big lie would be uncovered.

There is nothing covered that shall not be revealed and nothing hidden that shall not be known. The classical and neoclassical economists such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill and others favoured balanced budget because any kind of unbalanced budget tends to expand governmental activity, inviting irresponsible spending on the part of government and because unbalanced budgets can also easily lead to inflation, either because the government adds to the level of demands or because the pattern of continuous annual deficits accumulated as debts can add to the money supply.

It could lead to some inflationary tendencies and pressures. That is what they call the balanced budget, balanced budget in name and in form, but devoid of substance and, in fact, a deficit budget because they had considered as revenue things that should not get into revenue and therefore logically are not part of revenue, and therefore something which is not balanced is made to appear as balanced. Now let us examine the second conception that is intermixed in this rather omnibus legislation, Bill 2. The second principle is debt repayment.

There is a system of debt repayment that is set up in the proposed legislation. It is, of course, good policy to pay your debts on an individual level. If you pay your debts, you maintain your integrity. If you do not pay your debt, you lose your credibility. On a group basis this probably is also widely believed among the people, but let us place the debt repayment system in its proper context. This Tory government in 1989 created a contingency fund which is called a Fiscal Stabilization Fund. The total value of that Fiscal Stabilization Fund in its original creation was not specified originally.

It was open ended. This proposed legislation, Bill 2, now would amend this open-endedness of the Fiscal Stabilization Fund. This legislation requires the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) to set the total value of the Fiscal Stabilization Fund which it must maintain in reserve to a level of amount equal to 5 percent of the expenditures of the operating funds, which means that there will be a revenue transfer to the Fiscal Stabilization Fund of approximately $250 million, an unrealistic assumption that there will be surpluses in the operating account.

It is so unrealistic to assume that there will be surpluses in the operating accounts. What is this scheme?

After the Fiscal Stabilization Fund minimal reserve of about 5 percent of the expenditure of the operating funds, that is, at the $250- million level, then the surpluses would then go to and be credited with the so-called Debt Retirement Fund, which this proposed legislation would set up as a system intended to eliminate the net general purpose debt of the province, which to date is approximately $7 billion, but this is not of course the entire indebtedness because it excludes the debts now being carried by Manitoba Hydro. * (14 40) The deposits that are to be made to the Debt Retirement Fund coming from the general revenue will become mandatory by April 1, 1997, which is the beginning of the fiscal year 1997-1998.

Thus, the Minister of Finance, beginning with fiscal year 1997- 1998, shall deposit to the Debt Retirement Fund an amount equal to the sum of an amount equal to the greater of$75 million, and 1 percent of the amount of the general purpose debt of the preceding fiscal year, plus 7 percent of all amounts transferred from the Debt

3266 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA September 25, 1995 Retirement Fund to the operating fund in the preceding fiscal years. To the uninitiated, these are very complex operations. Hardly could anyone understand what is going on here. Note that at least once every five years the total accumulated value of the Debt Retirement Fund is to be completely transferred to the operating fund.

Now since the proposed legislation mandates that for the fiscal year commencing April I, 1995, and ending with March 31, 1996, and for each fiscal year thereafter, the government of Manitoba, subject to certain exceptions, is forbidden to incur any kind of deficit, if the current Fiscal Stabilization Fund were to be fully established to keep in reserve $250 million, that amount that is just saved would be enough just to cover one year's shortfall of just about 5 percent of the current budget. Therefore, after that, government services either had to be cut, or else revenue had to be found and to be increased.

Now what are the flaws, the defects of this scheme No. 2 of the Debt Retirement Fund? First, in order to finance both the Fiscal Stabilization Fund and to make the Debt Retirement targeted amount, previous surpluses had to be assumed, but such surpluses do not now exist, nor can foreseeably be seen to exist. Second, the impending cuts to the Manitoba transfers for health and education in the forthcoming federal budget, which would be substantial expenditure cuts in the Manitoba budget expenditures, would be inevitable.

Therefore, it will not be able to meet the targeted amount envisioned by the Debt Retirement Fund even during the fiscal year 19 97- 1998. It is known at this time that the federal budget will have systematic cuts in its federal transfer payments to this province. How can this province expect then that it will have surplus to satisfy both the Fiscal Stabilization Fund requirement and the Debt Retirement Fund targeted amount?

Therefore, all we can anticipate from the so-called debt repayment fund are the following: There will be more property tax credit cuts because they have to somehow manipulate to produce some revenue which is not real revenue because they are not receipts or collections. There will be more offloading to municipalities of expenditures that are normally provincial expenditures, and there will be more user fees for essential government services. They have to somehow produce the amount in order to balance the budget which is mandated to be balanced year after year. Let us examine the third principle.

This is called the taxpayer protection principle. The taxpayers are purportedly protected by requiring taxpayer approval by means of province-wide referendums of any and all proposed increases in health and education tax levy, in retail sales taxes, in provincial taxes on utilities such as electricity, gas and coal under

Part I of The Revenue Act. However, even under the present taxpayers' protection scheme, no referendum is required in order to increase provincial taxes resulting from changes in federal taxation laws, which is necessary to maintain provincial revenue or from the restructuring of taxation between the federal government and the provincial government of Manitoba or from a tax increase to restructure the tax burden which does not result in an overall increase in revenue.

For example, without any referendum, this party in government could and probably would reduce business taxes, then offset it by an equivalent amount of increase in personal taxes, in which case there would be no need for a referendum, because it is an example of one of the exceptions. Also, it could and it would probably, when needed, increase the sales tax base. It could be broadened and all the property tax credits could be reduced in order to increase revenues. And this can all be done without any kind of referendum. So where is the taxpayers' protection?

The taxpayers' protection is an illusion, because there are ways that are nonreferendumable ways of increasing taxes that are not covered by the so-called tax protection mechanism. Referendum is the practice of repairing a question to the direct vote of a people as an exercise of direct democracy. Perhaps in the olden days when the city states were small and the population were few, it was practicable to ask directly the people to make direct decisions affecting themselves, their lives and their property.

September 25, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3267 There is somehow a populous and popular appeal of referendum. This is undeniable. In fact, that is perhaps one of the explanations of the sudden emergence of the Reform Party in this country, their idea of presenting crucial questions in the form of referendums to the people. Now, the question is, why are referendums unwise to use in order to decide controversial issues that call for the deliberative process of discussion and debate, that call for reasoned exchanges of arguments in legislative and other bodies like this Legislature?

First, referendums militate against the representative form of government. If ref erendum becomes a routine way of deciding and settling whatever issue may arise, there will be no need for Parliament; there will be no need for this Legislative Assembly; there will be no need for electing the so-called representatives of the people; there is no need for representative government. We will be abolishing all institutions of Parliament, Legislative Assembly, City Council, school board, because everything can be decided directly by the people.

What is the point of paying all these representatives when the people themselves can decide the issue? In that way we can save lots of money. Maybe we can get out of the deficit if we abolish Parliament, if we abolish this Legislature, if we abolish City Council, if we abolish all kinds of representative bodies or institutions in this country. But that is absurd to say that there will be orderly discussion of issues in a most logical and reasoned way if we do such a thing like that.

Secondly, referendums are unwise to use because usually the referendum questions are so complicatedly presented, sometimes a double negative statement of the issue, of the question, that it exceeds even the reading comprehension of even college students. The questions can be manipulated such that the one who proposed the ref erendum can achieve the desired response.

Of course, we have examples such as the way the present Parti Quebecois had formulated the separation question, in fact, the manner as to leave the impression that separation would be unpalatable and that if separated they will be still enjoying all the rights and privileges of Canadian citizenship, which is not the case. * (1 450) Thirdly, referendums are very expensive to under take. It will entail the involvement of the voters at large.

Even if it is undertaken during a province-wide election in conjunction with the general election, when it is done and the issue is settled and there are certain unwanted or unexpected results that come from the decision, nobody could be held responsible for those results. For example, we have experienced across the border, in the United States, in California, you have heard about the famous California Proposition 13. This Proposition 13 is a device in the form of a referendum which limits or limited the maximum tax rate of 1 percent on the market value of real property at the local level.

Because that was very popular, one of the unwanted consequences, the unexpected consequence of such limitation of revenue in the state of California was the closing of the Los Angeles County Medical Centre which was the largest hospital for the poor in the country, and no one could be held accountable or responsible for such unexpected and unwanted results. There are no representatives you can hold accountable because this is the exercise of direct democracy of the people. So we could see that they are alluring and attractive in principle.

They are accepted historically by the economists, the classicists, and even modem economists, a balanced budget is good; it appealed to everyone's taste. The normal individual will think about his own finances. If his income flow is short of his expenditure, that is his idea of a balanced budget. It is good; it is part of our family values. What you earn, that alone you spend. If you spend more than what you earn, you are in a deficit situation. Thrift is good. Waste not, want not. All these kinds of values in here, in the individual psyche, and in the value of the family.

That is the reason why the very notion, the very wording of balanced budget is attractive to the people in general. But then, as we have pointed out, they can

3268 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 25, 1995 preserve the form of the principle and yet so redefine its component elements in such a manner that is no longer the principle we are talking about as when this government tried to add the proceeds of the sale of assets like McKenzie Seeds corporation and included it as income when it is a liquidation of assets. That is not revenue. That is not income. That destroys the integrity of revenue, and revenue as a component of balanced budget is no longer true.

Therefore, the conception of balanced budget, while attractive in name, is like the perfume, nice to smell, nice to look at, but do not ever, ever swallow it. It is poison; it is deadly. In conclusion, we can say, Madam Speaker, that these three delusions distorted by that principle, the balanced budget principle, the debt repayment plan that assumes nonexistent budget surpluses even in the impending federal cuts in our health and education apportionment to the Province of Manitoba, this populously popular but destructive of representative government idea of referendum, they are all enticing the voters.

They are like bottles of perfume, nice to smell, nice to look at, but deadly and fatal for Manitobans to swallow. (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) All these schemes are indicative of unrecognized crises that will �e known only when it is too late to correct, when, in order to balance this budget, this government, in the future fiscal years, will have to start cutting left and right all the essential government services in this province.

Then the people will realize that they have been deceived by the attractiveness and enticing allure of the so-called principle of balanced budget but, in substance, devoid of its original content. Mr. Deputy Speaker, there will be ways by which nonreferendumable types of raising taxes will be resorted to. There will be reduced tax credits. There will be horrendous program cuts in essential government services, and, until these things happen, the people will only say and realize: attractive the balanced budget it may be, but it is fatal for us to swallow. Thank you. Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to put a few comments on the record regarding Bill 2. I feel, and I know members on this side, all members of this Chamber feel, that this is one of the more important pieces of legislation that the government has brought in this session. It states very clearly and highlights very clearly the hypocrisy of this government, a government that over the past seven years could have during that period brought in a surplus budget. They obviously were the government in power at that time, and for the last seven years they have not brought in a balanced budget or a surplus budget.

In fact, this government over the past number of years has run excessive deficits and, in fact, increased the debt load of this province by over one third. Since taking office, it has taken the total debt of the province from $10 billion up over-as the present case-to $14 billion. I think it is not a record of sound fiscal management, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Instead, it is a record of mismanagement.

One would only have to look at the Mulroney government or the government in Saskatchewan, the Devine government there, to know that with Conservatives in power they have a terrible record when it comes to issues of fiscal responsibilities. We on this side of the House believe that we must review this balanced budget legislation in the context of how all of us run our own family finances. In a family, we pay for our day-to-day expenses and we invest for long-term assets whether it is a house or a car, a farm or a business.

We believe that if we as Manitobans were to apply the restrictions put forward in this legislation, only the very richest of Manitoba families would be able to function, would be able to purchase that home or that farm or invest in a business here in this province. Manitobans work to balance their budgets, and we believe that governments should as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, we do not believe that this legislation is in keeping with running our governments like we do with our families.

Again, as I said, only the richest, only the most affluent of Manitobans would be able to buy homes if the restrictions in this budget were applied to our daily finances, because only the richest would be able to not borrow money for a home, for

September 25, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3269 example, only the richest of Manitoba families would be able to have shelter without the use of a mortgage. * (1 500) In fact, if families were to operate, if families ran like this bill proposes, we would see families having to sell their house or their car or their assets to purchase the basic necessities of life such as food when their expenditures exceeded their income. In fact, the proposals in this legislation that was brought forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Stefanson) would not allow Manitobans to balance their finances in a reasonable manner. So we feel that this legislation labelled cynically in terms of its title, we feel it does not pass the test of honesty and integrity of long-term investments here in this province. We know the government brought forward this legislation just prior to the past election. They used this legislation as one of their key election planks in their platform, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

We know that, in general, I would think that Manitobans would find the concept of a balanced budget a good one, as we do in our own homes, but we see many, many faults in the legislation. The member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) pointed out many of them, as did several of my colleagues in the past, and I hope today to once again reinforce· some of the positions taken by this party. Let us talk a bit about some of the aspects of the bill and particularly one of the things that troubles me, and that is the way the government will be dealing with Crown corporations.

In families, we do not sell our long-term assets to pay for everyday expenses. We do not sell our car to purchase food. We do not sell our clothing to pay our hydro bill, as it were. The member for Broadway raises in his speech earlier that the government sold McKenzie Seeds, which is a money making Crown corporation. They manipulated the sale of that corporation, and they put the proceeds against the 1995-1996 expenditures of the government, which has been pointed out by different agencies that that is an irregular accounting practice.

A special Lotteries slush fund was established, as we know, and was drained just prior to the election, so the government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) can stand up here when he presented his budget and stated that after running seven years of deficits, some of them-one of them, I am afraid to say, was the highest deficit in the history of the province, $760 million or $860 million. The government used the sale of McKenzie Seeds.

They used, I believe, close to $200 million which they had built up in a slush fund because of their rapid expansion of gambling here in the province that they are able to accumulate that fund. They applied that to the deficit so that when they are able to stand up here they are able to present to Manitobans which would look like and would appear at face value to be a budget that is balanced, and in fact they are projecting a modest surplus.

One of the reasons that they were able to do so was because of the only economic initiative of the members opposite, and that of course is the fact that we now have 5,300 VL Ts pumping away night and day in this province. We have casinos, three of them here in the city. We have virtually unchecked expansion of gambling from the members opposite. Even that, even the history when it comes to that is rather deceitful, I would suggest.

When they originally introduced VL Ts, the VL Ts were introduced only to rural Manitoba All the money from the proceeds of VL Ts would be put back into rural Manitoba to support economic initiatives in rural Manitoba. They quickly broke that promise to Manitobans, and then they introduced VL Ts into the rest of the province. Now we have them virtually everywhere in this province, and the government uses that as its only economic initiative over the past number of years.

In fact, the government now suggests that VL Ts and gambling solves crime here in the province as was demonstrated last week when the minister responsible for gaming finally tabled the annual report of the Lotteries Corporation. We look forward to dealing with that issue more when the committee finally comes forward to a legislative committee. Dealing with the issue of the sale of Crown corporations, we expect to see more of the same-we certainly do not hope to see more of the same-and that was the desperate sell-off of our province's resources,

3270 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 25, 1995 whether it is our telephone company or hydro company or our public insurance company, so that the government opposite can balance their budget. We see this with our telephone company. One of the most recent announcements within the telephone company, MTS, is that they have decided to break the company up into four smaller ones. We feel that this is simply the beginning of the government opposite privatizing MTS, perhaps using that money to deal with any economic revenue shortfalls they may have as the years .g o by.

So we cannot support any legislation that promotes the sale of our Crown corporations for the short-term gain of the members opposite. It may help the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) balance his books or bring forward a budget that demonstrates a surplus, but over the long term I do not think it is in the best interest, and we do not think it is in the best interest, of Manitobans to be selling Crown corporations, agencies which time and time have proven their worth to Manitobans, especially to rural and northern Manitobans.

As I mentioned, the same practice of selling long term assets is not only unacceptable to us; it is also unacceptable to the rating agencies, as the government found out during the election, when, to the Dominion Bond Rating Service, Manitoba's boast of a balanced budget was really a deficit of $96 million. That happened just during the election campaign. Rather than a surplus, the agency comes forward and says, oh, I am sorry, it is actually a deficit of $96 million.

Last month the Canada West Foundation points out, and I would just like to quote from that article: A disturbing, confusing part of the Manitoba budget is that the province is reporting a surplus this year, but the Dominion Bond Rating Service reports that the tax supported debt of the province will actually grow this year by $141 million, over $1 66 for each single Manitoban. No explanation is given for this budget, yet the goals of fiscal clarity clearly demand one.

So the prediction of a surplus by the members opposite was nothing more than creative accounting to help the government to slide past the election. This legislation, I would suggest, promises more of the same deceit. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was just announced last week where the Provincial Auditor confirmed that the Minister of Finance was half a billion off in his deficit projections of three years ago. In the minister's budget, he forecast a deficit of 330, nor was it the 550 that the government admitted. It was closer to 819 .

The difference is composed ofthe $15 0 million in pension liabilities and $10 3 million in improper accounting of the members opposite. So we know that the government has a poor record when it comes to dealing with the deficit. They have demonstrated that time and time again with their budgets. They pretend to be great fiscal managers. * (1510 ) We know right now there is a mood across the country to move towards, whether it is this legislation, a shift in public opinion to the right. The federal Liberal government has promoted that shift. We know the members opposite have jumped on the bandwagon.

It is the flavour of the month. But we feel that this does not do a great deal of good for Manitoba in the long term. It may help them win their election. It probably did not hurt their most recent victory here in the province, but we feel that this legislation, if accepted by this Legislature, would hurt Manitobans in the long term. That is why we are asking the government to withdraw the legislation, to table it, to do what is in the best interests of Manitobans in the long term, not just simply to help the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) create this so-called surplus.

Now, a point that was raised by my Leader (Mr. Doer) and a point that was raised by other speakers here is, who actually decides whether or not the budget was a surplus or balance? Is it the government opposite when they make their projections or is it the Auditor, who does the audit of the accounts and brings forward that figure sometimes quite a bit later on? Now, who is the Minister of Finance going to rely on, or the government opposite, when it comes to the slashing of their salaries by 20 or 40 percent? If their minister's projections opposite demonstrate a surplus or

September 25, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3271 a balanced budget, yet the Auditor comes back with her report and demonstrates that in fact it was a deficit, will members opposite, ministers opposite be taking their cut in pay? Will they be taking a cut in pay of 20 percent as promised in this legislation? That is an unanswered question and, I know, a question that Manitobans are deeply concerned about. The Filmon governmenfs record on deficits, I think, as I said, it is nothing but over the past number of years, it is a record of deceit.

In fact, in 1988-89, they inherited from the NDP a budgetary surplus of $58 million. Both the Provincial Auditor and the Dominion Bond Rating Service confirmed the surplus, and that level has not been matched yet. In 1992-93, the province reported the highest deficit in its history at $742 million, according to the Provincial Auditor. Now, that may even be higher according to some of the reports that I have seen recently. In seven years of government, they have not bettered the achievement put forward by the NDP in the '88-89 fiscal year.

As I said, the government takes a short-term view on the future of this province. Long gone, unfortunately, is the vision of Duff Roblin or Ed Schreyer when you see that a timely investment now could save many more dollars in the future. No better example of that, of course, is the floodway, or Duff's ditch, as it is called. It was Roblin who said: Who can say what the monetary costs are of a building, of building a road, a school or a hospital?

We know, and I am sure many members opposite, especially those members who have constituencies where the Red River meanders through, would recognize the incredible value of the floodway to our province, especially to the City of Winnipeg. It has virtually saved the taxpayers of the province millions of dollars, a long-term asset that could not be constructed under the limiting legislation brought forward by this government in this Bill 2. It was the Schreyer government who were prepared to invest in schools and personal care homes.

So now these assets not only benefit us, but they will benefit our children and they will benefit our grandchildren. As I recall, in 1974, when I graduated from high school, I graduated from a brand-new high school just constructed in Selkirk. It was constructed by the Schreyer government. I know there was a similar one constructed in Dauphin as well. Those are still assets that are utilized by my constituents. I know my nephew is there now, and my nephews and my other nieces will be att ending that school soon. It is an asset that will be enjoyed by Manitobans for years to come.

The members opposite do not seem to recognize the long-term value of such assets to Manitobans and the long-term assets of different capital projects to our children and to our grandchildren. The last number of years he has also borrowed money to create The Forks, for example, a Forks project here which has been recognized across this country as a true asset to our province and to this city. It has created jobs. It is a major tourism destination. It is a chance for Manitobans to reclaim our heritage, and it will be there for years to come.

Unfortunately, if this legislation was in place at the time, we would not have that. It would owned, I assume, by the railways, and we would not be able to enjoy the great natural assets that we have in that particular area. Not only that, in the future, what if we wished to invest in, say, the Churchill spaceport. We cannot do that.

We recognize the spaceport as very, very important to the future of Churchill and in fact the future of the North, but, because ofthe inflexibility of this legislation, Manitobans would not be able to invest in the future of that particular project, I would suggest, because of the government opposite's lack of vision both on that and the railway to Churchill and other issues related to the North. It is not only that, the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) once again raised today the dismal state of the roads in northern Manitoba.

Will the government be able to invest in those northern projects whether it is the roads or in the spaceport? Unfortunately, I am afraid not. We are seeing the decay of infrastructure throughout this province. Of course, I can cite the No. 9 Highway between Winnipeg and Selkirk as another example of an infrastructure that is in need of repair. I raised that

3272 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 25, 1995 here with the Minister of Highways in the past, and I will just put it once again on the record, that those projects are in serious need of rebuilding. The problem is, will we be able to do those. Will we be able to invest in long-term assets because of the restricting nature of this particular legislation. It has been suggested and I do agree that it would be very difficult, in fact, impossible to do so. In fact, here is an example that I think the members opposite may find interesting.

They all claim to be the great supporters of small business or business in general and I assume-1 think that many of them opposite probably are. Those who operate their own farms are small business people, and we have some members here on this side of the House. I know that I come from a farming background and lived on a farm all my life, but I also recognize that without the ability to borrow money, a lot of farmers or small businesses would not be able to grow and expand. They borrow money for capital improvements and expansions, capital improvements which, of course, create employment.

I think that all Manitobans recognize the value of small business, that all recognize the value of our agricultural industry to this province. Many farmers, and I know that this has happened in my own ease-l know that my father, for example, had to borrow money in order to purchase his farm, but he was able to, over the years, repay that back now and it is an asset to our family. Of course, even according to the government's task force on capital markets, and I just want to quote this: The majority of small businesses usually require some debt financing.

The report goes on to say that debt financing is used to purchase capital assets, buildings, equipment and so on. All these assets that the province has, we will not be able to expand upon them because of the restricting nature, as I said, of this particular legislation. In fact, even businesses here in the province, they do not operate under the rules that this government proposes in Bill 2. *

(1520) It has been suggested that the value of the assets in the province relative to our debt-this was done by Professor Clarence Barber in 1993, and at that time he said that our assets at that time were over $9 billion and against those assets was $6 billion in debt. So clearly at that time-and I would suggest that since then that ratio has been constant, and I would suggest that the value of our assets far exceeds the value of our debts.

Look at a number of our hospitals we have here in the province, our school system, the literally billions of dollars, I suggest, in infrastructure, whether it is our roads, whether it is our sewer system or our parks system, these are literally billions of dollars worth of assets, assets that all Manitobans now enjoy. As I said, unless a family has been able to inherit a large amount of money, it must balance its income against its expenses. Now Manitobans balance their interest, food, clothing and other bills with their income. At the same time, we take out a mortgage if we wish to purchase a home.

If Manitobans had to operate like this legislation proposes, or this government proposes, they would not be able to buy a home or any other asset. In fact, the inflexibility of this legislation, this Bill 2 means that our services will not be able to stand any minor fluctuations in the economy. This was the case I believe a number of years ago in the community of-let me just see, I have it here some place. Anyway, as I said, there are minor fluctuations in the economy, whether it is a drop in mineral prices or a reduction in equalization from the federal government, we know that these are coming along.

We know that it could be as high as $200 million. Programs will be cut by this government opposite. Of course, they are taking great glee in that, I believe. They are kind of looking forward to that when they can do that. We know that they have done that so often in the past. They do so with such enthusiasm, it is clear that they enjoy doing that. We know that the federal Liberal government is- well, they are causing severe reductions in the level of funding that they should provide to this Legislature and to this province to help fund a number of programs. It is expected, and it could be as high as $200 million.

September 25, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3273 Now this bill and the proposal brought forward by this government does not deal with those types of issues. What if all the VL Ts were to break down one day here in the province? What are they going to do then with that lack of $200 million that they gain each year from all those machines out here in this province? The problem is that the cuts that this government would be unfortunately forced to bring in is nothing but a vicious circle; more people on unemployment, then unfortunately that would mean higher welfare costs, lower taxes.

And the cycle continues, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I said, we must look at the broader issue here. We have our debts and our assets when assessing the overall financial situation of our province. Our debt servicing costs are amongst the lowest in the country. I believe it is around 11 cents on the dollar. In exchange for that we have all the schools and the roads and the hospitals, power plants and provincial parks in this country. We are, relative to other provinces, in very good shape.

It is the federal government, which I believe their debt servicing costs are 34 cents on the dollar, that is in serious, serious trouble at the moment. Of course, that is the history of both the Liberals and the Conservatives in government. That is the history of those two levels of government, the history of those two political parties. That is the history of those two political parties in government, that we are now paying 34 percent of all the revenues brought in. All the revenues that are brought in from all the different revenue sources, 34 percent of that goes simply to service the interest on the debt.

Here in the province of Manitoba it is considerably lower. Again it is around the 12-cent mark. I am saying that, in a growing economy, I think we must be able to sustain our debt servicing costs, and we should be able to do that at the present level. We are not as bad off as some of the other provinces across this country. Some are paying as high as 17 percent, 18 percent of their revenue simply to service and pay down-well, simply to service, to pay the interest costs on their debt.

When it comes to the taxpayer protection part of this legislation, the hypocrisy of the government opposite is quite clear when you consider their record. In 1992 the government opposite raised taxes by $400 per family. I did vote on that budget, yes, and we did vote against that increase in taxes, but I do not recall anyone else across the province, other than the MLAs in this Chamber, who voted on that increase in those taxes. None of my constituents voted on those. That was a $400 grab by the members opposite that would not be covered by this legislation.

In fact, right now not one of those taxes would be subject to a so-called referendum. In the Premier's own briefing notes, he said that these increases were the equivalent of a 5.6 percent increase in sales tax. We also know the tax credits were reduced by $75 per homeowner. The sales taxes were broadened. Fuel taxes were increased. None of those things would be covered by this referendum.

When the government introduced the widespread gambling across this province, there was no referendum for that, no referendum for the 5,000 VL Ts or the $200 million that this government brings in each year from its gaming revenues. Nobody voted on that. We never even voted on that here in this Chamber. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are showing the hypocrisy of the members opposite when it comes to this legislation and their own record when it comes to taxation here in this province. It is clear that this government is intent on doing the same.

They may not, but they can increase user fees, they can decrease tax credits, and they can offload more costs onto the municipalities. They have a record of doing that, whether it is the City of Winnipeg or the R.M. of West St. Paul or the Town of Selkirk or any other town or community R.M. across this province as well as, as the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) mentioned, the different school divisions. So what they will do is they will simply offload onto the R.M.s. The R.M.s will then, if they wish to maintain the same level of service, have to increase their taxes.

So we will see an increase in taxes unfortunately. We have witnessed this over the past number of years from the members opposite, and this legislation will simply allow more of the same. So we know that this

3274 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 25, 1995 legislation is not necessary. I believe it was even the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) who said that the government does not need legislation to reduce the debt. They do not need that legislation if the government has the political will to do so.

They are simply bringing this in as a gimmick to try to give the impression that after seven years of deficits-some of them hitting record levels-all of a sudden they are concerned about the issue of debt and deficits here in the province. * (1 530) They have absolutely one of the worst records across this country when it comes to this particular issue. They know that they brought it forward prior to the election to help them with their election chances. We know that this was one of their major-1 could say-planks in their campaign.

Despite what this government has promised, despite what the election has promised-and we are seeing those election promises are very hollow now-one of the major ones was that the government opposite promised $10 million for the Jets, no more, $10 million for a professional hockey team. Time after time and forum after forum, the Premier would stand up and say, oh, $10 million, no more. Yet it has been proven by this side of the House that, in fact, the government had committed significantly higher amounts to the operation of that hockey team, as high as $40-odd million.

He also promised, the Premier, in very slick campaign ads where he promised that he would maintain health care here in this province. He said, count on me, I will save health care. They flooded the airwaves a week or so before the election with those ads, very good ads, I might say, saying that the Premier will defend health care. We know how hollow that promise was, as has been proven time and time by members on this side of the House, as we were able to demonstrate that to Manitobans. [interjection] As the member for Broadway (Mr.

Santos) says, the government's promises are simply promises that they intend to break. We are concerned that despite what the government has said on this legislation, this is simply a Trojan horse for them to come in, to make more cuts to our vital public services here in the province, services that Manitobans need, services that Manitobans expect, and services that unfortunately may not be there when Manitobans will need them the most. It is clear that unless there is a revenue loss of $250 million, there will be no exceptions to the balanced budget requirement.

The result, according to all economic models, is that we lose jobs and we lose services. We know that this is not the way that Manitobans run their families and we feel that this is not the way that we should be running our governments as well. So they have proven to us that their promises are hollow ones and we expect to see more of that as the session progresses.

We have witnessed that, whether it is with their commitment to save and preserve our health care system, whether the promise was on the Jets of $10 million, it is clear that they have upped that considerably during the campaign, proven once again by our side. The government has in the past made projections about deficits way off the mark, some as high as half a billion dollars at times, $762-million, $862-million deficits over the past number of years. Every single year they ran a deficit; now they have projected a surplus. So what happens next year if this projection by the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Stefanson) is in fact proven by the Auditor to be a deficit? Will the members opposite then stand up and take 20 percent of their pay cheque and return it, I suppose, to the government? What will they base that on? Will they base it on the projections of the Minister of Finance or will they base it on the Auditor's Report? That is a question that has been unanswered by members opposite. Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): It will be done fairly. Mr. Dewar: The Deputy Premier says that the thing will be done fairly.

Well, there have been a number of things that we have been able to raise which I think point out the unfairness of the government over the years, so this, we feel, will be of great concern to us as the years go by.

September 25, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3275 Once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we believe that we must look at this issue of balanced budget legislation and how we run our family finan ces. We finance our families, we pay for our way, and we invest for long term assets. We feel that, because of the restricting nature of this particular legislation, we will not be able to invest for the long-term assets and the long-term interests of Manitobans. In conclusion, I would just like to add that it will be a great pleasure of mine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to vote against this Legislation. Thank you. Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand here today to put some words on the record on a bill that has a great deal of substance to it. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Let me start off by saying the concept of balanced budget legislation is something which the Liberal Party supports, and we welcome seeing this bill brought into the Chamber. Mind you, it is interesting in one sense that balanced budget legislation is not a new idea.

In fact, I believe the first administration to bring it in was out east from the Atlantic coast, from the province of New Brunswick. In fact, we have had a government that has now been in office for over seven years [interjection] You said Liberal, not I, but you are right. It was a Liberal administration. This is a government that has been in office now for over seven years.

They have finally seen some light, I guess, in terms of recognizing that they have not been all that great at managing the deficit in the province of Manitoba over the years, and now they are bringing in legislation to try to assist them in the management of annual deficits. It was interesting listening to the remarks from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns). I was developing the feeling that this minister, in principle, likely would not support Bill 2.

The reason why I believe he is going to be voting for it is not only because he is a part of the Film on team and because of that has to support it, and he is in fact a minister of cabinet, but in listening to him very carefully, I was starting to become of the opinion, the reason that he has justified it in his mind is not because of this particular government but, Heaven forbid, if the New Democrats ever form government sometime in the future, that they will in fact have the opportunity to prevent that irresponsible socialist-type government from spending tax dollars, raising tax dollars and so forth.

I found that is kind of an interesting justification in order to support the legislation, but one only needs to look at this government's track record on the deficit, and I call into question in terms of just how this balanced budget legislation-b ecause there are, in all likelihood, a number of flaws, but there is one that I really want to point out, just how this balanced budget legislation is actually going to be reported on.

I brought it up the other day in Question Period, and I based it on personal experience, where I have seen this government and the way in which this government in the past has managed its budgets. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may recall, and I believe at the time-in fact, you might have been a local city councillor for the area when this government brought in its first budget. I remember it well. In fact, I remember making many comments both on throne, no doubt, on budget, and I do not believe there is a budget that I have not commented on in which I have not made reference. I could be wrong.

There is always the possibility. But I remember that budget, and this is what really comes out about that budget. That was, this is a government that actually had a surplus, could have had a surplus budget back in 1988-89. They had a surplus of somewhere around $50 million. [interjection] $68 million the New Democrats are pointing out, and they are right. Well, I do not know about the actual amount, but they are right. There was in fact a surplus, okay. * (1 540) Now, what did this government in its wisdom do? [interjection] Clayton's old sock? Well, no, I refer to it as the Manness illusion, if you like.

The Minister of Finance at the time decided no, no, no, no, no. It is too premature for us to have a surplus budget. In fact what we need to do is we should create this fund, this slush fund as we in the official opposition then had termed it.

3276 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 25, 19 95 In fact they brought in legislation known as the Fiscal Stabilization Fund. I, with great pride, voted against that piece of legislation. They did have the support of the New Democratic Party at the time, but I am sure, had the New Democrats known at the time what they were actually planning with the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, maybe they would not have supported that particular fund. But what happened was, they had a surplus budget. Instead of having a surplus budget, they borrowed in excess of $15 0 million in order to create a $200-million slush fund.

At the time, I argued that the real reason behind that fund was to be able to borrow money in the future in order to pay down future debts. I remember the circumstances quite well in terms of what allowed them the opportunity to generate that surplus. This could have been an administration that would have done like no other provincial administration or national administration in recent time and brought forward a surplus budget. They had that opportunity. I often wonder if the former Minister of Finance has not reflected on that at all, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the past. We have seen that.

We have seen in budgets that have followed where this government has tapped into that particular fund, where government has actually played up the size of that fund, where the Provincial Auditor, on several occasions, has said, look, you are reporting your deficit inaccurately. In fact, just the other day in committee the Provincial Auditor reinforced that you had a substantially higher deficit in '92-93 fiscal year than you reported that you had.

That is the reason why last week when I posed a question to this government that Manitobans do not necessarily have faith in this government's numbers and what they have portrayed the deficit really is, for that reason, we articulated as to why it was necessary that the Provincial Auditor should have the final say.

I would argue today that in fact the 20 percent of ministerial salaries that would be reduced if in fact the government does not come forward with the balanced budget legislation, if they were sincere in terms of having any form of penalty whatsoever, then why not allow the Provincial Auditor to have the final say? When we say the final say, it was the Premier (Mr. Fi lmon), I believe it was the Premier or possibly the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Stefanson) says, well, the Provincial Auditor does in one sense have the final say, because she can comment, or he, if in the future it is he, can comment in terms of the legitimacy of what the government has said is a balanced budget. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if the government has confidence in its bill and has confidence that it will do what it preaches, then they should not have any problem with the Provincial Auditor having the authority to be able to invoke the penalty.

I would strongly encourage, in fact, that the government look seriously at including or incorporating the Provincial Auditor's office into this particular piece of legislation. Another aspect that I found was somewhat interesting was-and again the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) is the one that kind of intrigued me into this area-the one of , how binding is this legislation? Ultimately, legislation can be introduced.

This particular piece of legislation could be withdrawn at some point in time in the future, but this act actually does what it can to ensure that if in fact this bill is repealed that there is going to be a process in which whoever might be in opposition will have the opportunity to be able to prevent, to a certain degree but not entirely, the legislation from going through. So in fact, the legislation is not as binding as one or as the government might try to portray to the public. They have definitely made it more difficult in order to withdraw the legislation. (Mr.

Mike Radcliffe, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) Mr. Acting Speaker, when I think of the deficit and the overall management of the economy, there is something that in the past I have commented on that comes to mind. This is something in which the government is saying, look, we want balanced budgets, we want them on an annual basis and, if that is not the case, there are going to be penalties and other ramifications to referendums and so forth that will take place.

September 25, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3277 I in essence believe very firmly in Keynesian theory, if you like, which in a nutshell says, look, if the economy is doing exceptionally well, governments have a responsibility to cut back on expenditures. That in fact provides the opportunity to be able to provide governments the ability to save money. In bad times, the way in which government can assist individuals or that social fabric, if you like, governments have a responsibility to help fuel the economy. Well, Mr.

Acting Speaker, this does not take that into account really to any degree whatsoever, and that is unfortunate. I guess I would be a bit more supportive if in fact there were some clauses that were built in to take this into account. They could ultimately argue the 5 percent revenue decrease and so forth, so they have not been completely ignorant of it. But the overall approach that this particular balanced budget legislation addresses, the business cycle, just really is not there.

I find that that is most unfortunate because to a certain degree, as the New Democrats have pointed out, you are tying the arms of future governments, or making it awfully difficult for them to be able to address the economy, if you like, into the future.

This is something that I think that governments should at least give more consideration to, because, as I said at the very onset, the concept is something, a balanced budget legislation, which we support, but we do believe very much so that the government has to reflect on the legislation that it has brought in and be sympathetic to listen to the public during public hearings and allow for some form of amendments to be accepted and preferably even for the government to bring in.

When we talk about, again, the economy in providing social services and incentives and so forth as a government and the government's role, there is no doubt, Mr. Acting Speaker, that the public is tired of tax increases. I think that they have expressed that time and time again, but government's choices are somewhat limited. You can either increase taxes or increase borrowing or you cut back. We have to be very sensitive to those three options.

When we talk about taxes, the government likes to say, look, we have not increased personal income taxes over the years; we have not increased corporate taxes over the years, or the provincial sales tax. * (1 550) But government revenues have increased and they have increased substantially since this government has been in office. There have been different forms of taxation that has been collected. The most successful, of course, from the government's point of view has in fact been that of the gambling tax.

It is sad in terms of the neglect that has been given to those social costs of that gambling tax and the amount of resources and time and effort that this government has put in in terms of trying to address some of those social costs. Other taxes that one can easily make reference to of course was the property tax where at one time we were receiving a higher property tax from the provincial Treasury. Well, that property tax credit has been reduced by this government. So it is not fair to say that this is a government that has not given taxes to Manitobans.

In terms of borrowing and that was the second option-[interjection] The print is way too small from where I am standing right now to read that. Mr. Acting Speaker, when it comes to borrowing money, again and these are all approximate numbers; I do not want to say that they are a hundred percent accurate, but they should not be too far off.

In '88-89 approximately $141 million; '89-90 $14 2 million; '90-9 1 $291 million; '9 1- 92, $334 million; '92-93, and this is one of those really controversial years where it is $560 million, give or take, and it is likely take an extra $200 million; '93-94, $430 million; and '94-95, over $200 million. We are not too sure in terms of what is actually going to be happening in this fiscal year. So once again the record is fairly clear in the sense that, as I have indicated earlier, this government has not really been that successful when it comes to balancing the budget, or not relying on borrowing.

But that is the second issue. The third one is the issue where I would like to spend some time, Mr. Acting Speaker, and that is the whole area of cutbacks. The way in which governments

3278 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 25, 19 95 conduct cutbacks really demonstrates whether or not the government has heart, if you like, or is insincere in terms of wanting to provide better services [interjection]. The member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) says, I should check with my federal counterparts. Need I remind her to look at some of the cutbacks that were put in place in Ontario with the NDP administration, so no one should be necessarily pointing fingers.

I would rather try to provide some constructive criticism in this area for the simple reason that I do believe that government should be very sensitive when it is looking at having to cut back on funding for the many different departments. Time and time again we hear from this government that the three priority departments are Health, Education and Family Services.

I would like to concentrate some time on Health because this is an issue that I feel very fmnly and very strongly on, and would like this particular government to review and to be very careful with the ways in which they are changing the manner in which health care is being administered and the whole question of funding levels. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair) I sat through numerous hours on health care, and I often talk to constituents. One of the primary issues we talk about time and time again is that of health care.

One of the examples that we talk about is that if you take a look in virtually any hospital and particularly, let us say, in the city of Winnipeg, no doubt you would fmd seniors who are in that particular hospital who do not necessarily need to be in a hospital, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In fact, if you had services that were there to be provided in personal care homes, they could, quite frankly, be in a personal care home. Ultimately, and this is something in which the former Leader of the Liberal Party, Mrs.

Carstairs, received some flak on, especially from the Deputy Premier and others, it was the whole idea that within our personal care homes, if you enhanced services to seniors in their homes or looked for alternative living arran gements, in fact you could have some seniors that are currently in personal care homes living in a better surrounding or a better atmosphere. Mr. Deputy Speaker, these are all things I would ultimately argue in which we can provide better quality health care services at no extra cost, because it costs less to have a senior in a personal care home than a hospital.

It costs less to have a person in a home care service scenario in their own home than it does in a personal care home. Yet we have not seen this government take actions that signal to the public as a whole that that is in fact what they are prepared to do. We have seen areas in which they are prepared to cut, and it is somewhat mind boggling and one has to question in terms of why it is that they might be cutting in some areas.

There are some areas in which-and to talk about the emergency services in which Manitobans feel very strongly on and are frustrated in terms of government's inaction to resolve the issue, the government can demonstrate, as I indicated, how compassionate it is by showing Manitobans just what it is that is on their real agenda, and the so-called hidden agenda.

I think to a certain degree, depending on ministers and maybe quite possibly their own personalities and in many cases the civil servants that are around them that support them, the message has to be sent out from the Premier's Office that in fact, look, if we have to cut back in a particular department, that what we want to be able to do is to first and foremost look at ways in which we can deliver comparable or a relatively comparable level of service while at the same time being able to save dollars. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I believe, particularly in the Department of Health, that there are many different examples of just how government can do that. I made reference to numerous examples when we were in the health care Estimates. One that comes to mind right offhand was labs. Right now there is discussion on private versus public labs, what is in Manitoba's best interest. I have had presentations, and I am sure the Minister of Health (Mr.

McCrae) has had presentations on this whole issue, and we are somewhat disappointed in the sense that why it is that we are not seeing action being taken on such a very important issue in which we can see money being saved and, again, services being enhanced.

September 25, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3279 The Minister of Health talks quite positively about the whole concept of the health care card. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I recall, again, in early elections, I believe actually my first one was in '88 where Mrs. Carstairs had brought in the suggestion of - Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. As previously agreed, the hour being 4 p.m., it is time for private members' hour. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have 16 minutes remaining. This matter will also remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett). *

(1600) PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS Res. 11-Aboriginal Justice Inquiry Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): I move, seconded by the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), that

WHEREAS the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry found that the justice system has failed Manitoba's aboriginal people on a massive scale; and

WHEREAS the AJI report released on August 29, 19 91, is the most comprehensive study of the justice system ever done in this country; and

WHEREAS the AJI report made 306 recommendations and only a tiny fraction of them have been acted upon by the provincial government; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has not released its studies and analysis of the recommendations; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has also not released an action plan for implementing the recommendations of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry. THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request the provincial government to release all studies and analysis of each of the recommendations of the AJI report; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly request that the provincial government immediately consider commencing work with aboriginal organizations to implement the recommendations of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly request that the Minister of Justice consider releasing publicly an action plan for the government on implementing the recommendations of the -AJI. Motion presented. Mr.

Robinson: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am honoured to move this resolution. I am asking for all members to support this very, very basic resolution concerning the lives of aboriginal people in this province and the recommendations that the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry mad

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-1-35a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 1st hansardpdf 35a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c368d09711d1bde1c33a8ef748444a100cc43576

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