Manitoba Hansard — 1 November 1990 (Sitting 16, 35th Legislature, 1st Session)

35-1-16

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 39 Elizabeth II Publlshed under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL. XXXIX No.16-1:30 p. m., THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1990 ISSN 0542-5492 Printed by the Office of the 0.-ns Printer. Province of A.fllf)/lob•

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARR, James CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward, Hon. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. ORI EDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS,Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY,Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MclNTOSH, Linda MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack, Hon. PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VOOREY, Rosemary WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington Crescentwood River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage la Prairie Ste.

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

Liberal NOP NOP Liberal Liberal NOP Liberal NOP PC PC PC PC NOP NOP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NOP NOP PC PC NOP Liberal PC NOP PC NOP Liberal NOP PC NOP PC NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP PC NOP PC PC PC PC NOP PC NOP PC PC NOP NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, November 1, 1990 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I beg to table the First Annual Report of the Crown Corporations Council and also the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review, the Department of Finance. Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report for Moose Lake Loggers Ltd., 1988-89, and also Channel Area Loggers Ltd. for the same period. Thank you. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr.

Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of Honourable Members to the gallery where we have from the Royal School twenty-five Grade 5 students. They are under the direction of Yvette James. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable First Minister (Mr. Filmon). On behalf of all Honourable Members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Health Care Federal Funding Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): Mr.

Speaker, my question is for the Premier, who made the incredible statement about a year ago that the Mulroney Government has taken some promising steps in health services and health care financing. We now have hard data from the federal Finance Minister, Michael Wilson, showing a steady decline in federal cash payments to Manitoba for health care over the next five years which when projected show the last cash payment to Manitoba will take place in about a decade.

My question to the Premier is: What is this Government's strategy for dealing with this totally unacceptable federal plan which will have tragic consequences for the most valuable service Manitobans have and will mean the death of Medicare if this Government does not act and act soon? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): I will not get into the discussion of the quoting out of context of the statements that I made in Ottawa . Nowhere will you find the quote as you have put it in your press release. It is quoted out of context, Mr. Speaker .

We will not get into that, because in the coverage of my comments at that meeting the story in the Winnipeg Free Press the next day said that the frankest attack on Ottawa was made by my presentation. The Member may recall that the Prime Minister was so angry that he was moved to refer to her former Leader, Mr. Pawley, as a statesman because he had been so much more co-operative and signed the Meech Lake Accord and done all these wonderful things. Mr.

Speaker, the greatest threats of course to Medicare are the lack of funding by Ottawa-and I have put that on the record over and over again--and also the huge debt load that has been left in place by the former NOP administration. Because of the debt load that has been put in place by the former NOP administration, we are faced with $500 million that has to be paid in interest costs before we can spend a nickel on health care.

Each and every year as we open the books, as we start the Estimates, a half billion dollars has to go to interest on the debt that was accumulated by the Howard Pawley Government of which she was a part before we can spend a-- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. •

(1335) Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Mr. Speaker, that the Premier makes light of a very serious issue facing this Government, I would like to ask the Premier if he accepts Michael Wilson's calculations and if he as Premier and Leader of this Government has not arrived at a date representing the last cash payment to Manitoba for health care services and what he is doing about the incredible devastating impact that that will have on Medicare in Manitoba?

625 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 1 , 1990 Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the Member for St. Johns was when the former administration in Ottawa-both the Liberal administration in Ottawa and the New Democratic administration in Manitoba were in place when the cap on equalization payment was put in place. The cap on equalization payment was put in place under the NDP in Manitoba and the Liberals in Ottawa . That is what is reducing our transfer payments to Manitoba today. That is what is limiting our ability to get funds for health care, for education, for social services.

That was put in place under the Howard Pawley NDP and the Trudeau Liberals. I wonder what toadstool the Member for St. Johns was hiding under when that was being put in place. She was working in the Premier's Office and obviously did not do anything about it, and now she wakes up some five years later to the realization of the damage that it is doing in our ability to pay for health care-- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Unbelievable, Mr. Speaker-no projections, no contingency plans.

I think I had better table the reports I am referring to, Michael Wilson's calculations and the projections done by the Canadian Health Coalition.

I would like to ask the Premier, given that he has obviously not dealt seriously with this issue, has no plan to fight the federal cuts, has not been able to convince the federal Government to revise its plans and has shown no contingency back-up programs, will this Government start now before it is too late to do what they promised in 1988, to reform our health care system by moving to community based preventative programs so that Medicare in this province is not threatened by federal cutbacks? Mr. Fllmon: Mr.

Speaker, we have been working on this issue for a considerable period of time because we realized that we had been left in the lurch by the Howard Pawley NDP and the former Liberal Trudeau administration. We realized the cap that was placed on those equalization payments was going to bind on Manitoba very seriously by the late 1980s and into the 1990s. So, Mr. Speaker, at every successive Premiers' conference, Western Premiers' Conference, First Ministers' Conference I have raised the issue of federal offloading on transfer payments.

At every successive conference I have enlisted the support of the other Premiers to tell Ottawa that they cannot do it. We even entered into a court challenge to prevent Ottawa from reducing CAP payments, because in principle it was the same principle that if Ottawa could unilaterally cut its transfers to the Provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario on the CAP payments, they could do the same thing to us on other programs such as transfer payments for health and post-secondary education. We were successful in that challenge.

We took them to court because we believed that they ought to be stopped, but the fact of the matter is that the NDP did not do that when they had the opportunity. Constltutlonal Issues Publlc Consultatlons Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the First Minister. The Prime Minister is announcing a plan to deal with the Canadian Constitution today in Ottawa. We are told that the plan will have a committee to go around Canada and have a one-year time frame to report back to the Parliament of Canada . Given the experience of Manitoba, Mr.

Speaker, of the roll-the-dice kind of timing that we had under Meech Lake and given the great trauma that it created in our country, I would ask the Premier whether he will oppose a specific time line, given that it has probably been established as an election timing rather than a timing for Canadians to develop their own values in this very difficult time. I would ask the Premier whether he will tell the Prime Minister that we are opposed to a time that is time sensitive based on our experience here in Manitoba and indeed Canadians' experience across the country. *

(1340) Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I think, like a lot of things, people put projections on how they think thait public consultation should take place. I would hope, that the Prime Minister would indeed be sensitive to the need to consult as broadly as possible and to listen to a broad cross

section of opinions from the people of this country. I think it is a step in the right direction . I think it is what should have happened before the Meech Lake process. I think we all agree with that. Both the L,eaders of the Opposition Parties and I have consistently said that there ought to be this kind of open public consultation leading to future constitutional discussions and decisions by our First

November 1 , 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 626 Ministers and by the Governments of the provinces and the federal Government. Under all circumstances I think that openness should in fact also be complemented by as much time as is necessary for the process . I would hope that if the process carries on longer than he has anticipated or projected that he will indeed give it the time necessary to achieve that kind of consensus, that kind of national review of constitutional priorities. Economic Growth Public Consultations Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I have a further question to the First Minister. I think all Canadians know that the values of our country are eroding daily. Our economic values are eroding daily with the rich getting richer in our country, Mr. Speaker. Our Medicare values are eroding over the last 10 years. The things that make us strong, economic and social values , have eroded dramatically in the last 10 years.

Will the Premier of the province be urging the Prime Minister to include in any consideration of consultation with the public in Canada the economic and social values in this country that have been eroded and Americanized over the last 10 years and which are leaving us a very divided people and a very divided country? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): I think our values of self-sufficiency have been eroded by Governments like the former NDP administration, who hooked the province on debt, Mr.

Speaker , and made them so totally dependent on deficits and debt that they destroyed people's ability to provide for themselves, that they destroyed the ability of people to be self-sufficient in this province. There are a lot of values that regrettably have been eroded by the ill-considered positions and policies of former administrations like the NDP of Howard Pawley and the present Leader of the Opposition. It is a said legacy, Mr.

Speaker, but I believe the fact of the matter is that I believe there is a forum that I had called for two weeks ago that the First Ministers' Conference on the economy be reinstituted as quickly as possible, that we ought to get the Rrst Ministers of this country to the table to consider the serious economic issues that face us-the high interest rate policy, the high dollar value, the over-valued dollar that is causing havoc for our exporters, our producers, that is very, very badly affecting our economy at the present time-have to be addressed.

Those are major economic pol ides that fall within the purview of the federal Government. We ought to get to the table to negotiate them, and that is why I have called for the First Ministers' Conference on the economy. Constitutional Issues Aboriginal Representation Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, perhaps in terms of values we will look at petty politics as one of the values that we would like to change in our country as well.

My final question to the First Minister is: In light of the Speech from the Throne that referred only to the priority of Senate reform as part of the constitutional process in Manitoba, and in light of the great number of challenges and unresolved constitutional problems and challenges for aboriginal people in this country, that it became very evident during our period of time in Meech Lake in June and during the period of time since then, in the summer of this year, will the Premier revise the terms of reference that were in the Speech from the Throne to include consultations on aboriginal constitutional issues along with the Senate proposals that he placed in the Speech from the Throne? *

(1345) Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to petty politics, one only need look at the questions of the NDP Opposition Party day after day in this House, and you can find the level of petty politics that has created that kind of backlash and that kind of cynicism that people have for their elected representatives in this Legislature and in every other Government in this country. They exemplify best the petty politics that the Leader of the Opposition talked about. Mr.

Speaker, I have said consistently and openly that the task force that we will set up will be on Senate reform and all other constitutional matters, so that issues such as aboriginal issues will indeed be open to be discussed at the constitutional task force that we set up in this Legislature. The all-Party task force that we set up will include the opportunity for people to speak about all constitutional priorities, including aboriginal issues.

627 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 1, 1990 Economic Growth Public Consultations Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposltlon):Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister today is going to announce or has already announced that we are going to have a cross-country tour of distinguished Canadians. We are going to talk about the future of our country . The future of our country is not the mere wording in a constitution . The future of our Constitution is also the discussion of values. Surely issues like equalization and trans fer payments are part of that value system.

Since the First Minister has decided in this province to use a political explanation, will he now give us a commitment that he will speak with the Prime Minister and ensure that issues dealing with economic distribution in this nation be part and parcel of constitutional discussions? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the principle of equalization is enshrined in our Constitution. The principle of equal opportunities for people across the country is part of our constitutional discussion.

The major concern that people have across the country at not being fairly dealt with in economic terms has to do with the imbalance in our Senate, the fact that we do not have the Senate as a counterbalance to the Parliament, that in fact the Senate mirrors and multiplies the negative effects of having our representation and the decision making in Ottawa concentrated on where the populous regions are, central Canada having the most clout and the most influence on those decisions.

The way in which we can overcome that, one of the ways in my judgment, one of the most effective ways would be a truly reformed Senate with a triple E motto so that the other regions of the country will have a strong voice and a strong influence on economic decision making. That is indeed part and parcel of the kind of constitutional discussions that should take place in the federal one, that will take place in our provincial task force on constitutional reform, Mr. Speaker. Federal Transfer Payments Equalizations Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, as convinced that I am that Senate reform is essential, it is not a panacea. It does not bode well for the citizens of this nation if they are told successively by people that it is a panacea. It will not solve their economic problems and will certainly not solve the distribution problems . The issue affecting Canadians is the distribution of wealth. The distribution of wealth is becoming more and more unfair.

Will the First Minister direct his attention to the issue of the distribution of wealth in this nation so that we do not continue to see the erosion and the distance creeping in between wealth and poverty in this country? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): We are now getting into taxation policy . We are now getting into all sorts of things that may or may not be the subject validly of constitut ional issues.

Issues like regional disparities, equalization and so on are part of the constitutional ambit, are part of the legitimate discussion and the legitimate work of such an all-Party task force, or at least as we have in Manitoba, and the kind of citizens task force that is being set up in Ottawa . I have never been one who said that Senate reform was a panacea. I said it is one of the serious options that should change the distribution of decision making and authority in this country in a positive sense to redress those kinds of regional imbalances and those kinds of inequities that exist.

It is not the only answer , but it should be part of the discussion. I fully believe that it will be, Mr. Speaker. "

(1350) Constltutlonal Issues PubUlc Hearings Membership Mrs. Sharoni Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Can the First Minister tell us today if there is a commitment on the part of the Prime Minister to discuss names of individuals who would make the list of distinguished Canadians, because far too often when we have had these panels in the past there has been far too much representation from Ontario and Quebec and not nearly enough from the West and the Maritimes? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have not been consulted. Residential Schools Public Inquiry Mr. Oscar Lathlln (The Pas): It is with mixed emotions that I want to ask the First Minister this

November 1 , 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 628 question. Yesterday, the federal Minister of Indian Affairs rejected all requests for an independent national public inquiry into allegations of physical, emotional and sexual abuse in residential schools. Will the First Minister request that the federal Minister of Indian Affairs launch an independent public inquiry into this whole tragic part of our history? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier) : Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the specifics of the allegations that have been made.

I think that a good deal of investigation ought to be made into those allegations to determine the breadth and the depth of the circumstances that have been talked about. I believe there is an obligation on the part of all those authorities, whether they be civil or clerical, to look into those allegations and to determine some of the circumstances, how widespread they are. Before we go into major national inquiries I think there ought to be some level of investigation to determine whethe r or not such an inquiry is warranted . We are not in this province opposed to having public inquiries.

I think we are leaders in the country in terms of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, so I would not shirk away from it if there was prima-facie evidence to suggest that the matter is widespread and is pervasive such as to require such an investigation . Mr. Lathlln: I have a supplementary question to the First Minister. In order to have the healing process succeed, it is important that we finally have an independent inquiry . If the First Minister is not prepared to request the federal Minister of Indian Affairs to launch a full public inquiry, will his Government launch its own independent inquiry here in Manitoba?

Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the allegations are made with respect to conduct in schools that were under federal jurisdiction totally, and it is my understanding that no one has contacted the Attorney General to request investigation into such matters nor placed any evidence before him that would become the subject of such investigations .

I would think that until some of these steps are first pursued that we are not in a position to be demanding such a broad and sweeping inquiry until some of these matters are at least brought to the attention of the Attorney General so that we have a basis upon which to make that judgment. Mr. Lathlln: I have a final supplementary. Aboriginal people are not looking for sympathy. We want vindication for the thousands of people whose lives were torn apart by this experience . Will this Government not support such an inquiry?

Does the First Minister not agree that we must expose exactly what went on at the schools to heal the emotional, spiritual, physical scars from those experiences? Mr. Fllmon: I am neither saying we would or we would not support such an inquiry. What I am saying is that it is a step-by-step process in which we have an obligation to have the relevant authorities , whether it be the legal system and others, take a look at allegations, at prima-facie evidence, and so on, and determine the nature of the allegations and whether or not there are grounds for such a broad and sweeping inquiry being implemented. *

(1355) Agrlcultural Assistance Fuel Tax Rebate Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture . Manitoba farmers, who this year are facing low commodity prices, skyrocketing imput costs, are now confronted with increased fuel costs, costs that are increasing because of world prices but also because of the federal Government's decision to reduce fuel rebates. Mr. Speaker, a fuel rebate at one cent per litre amounts to $30 million. If the rebate was reinstated to the full level of 5.9 cents per litre, it would amount to $300 million in the farmers' pockets.

Considering the pressure that farmers and interest groups put on the federal Government to reinstate the interest free cash advance, will this Government join with the farmers to pressure their colleagues in Ottawa to bring back the fuel rebate to its original level, and will this Government take steps to explore the possibility of processing alternate fuels in Manitoba, which could greatly stimulate the rural economy and have a particular effect on-- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put Hon. Glen Flndlay (Minister of Agrlculture): Mr.

Speaker, what the Member has identified is that clearly there are some problems in agriculture. They are very large problems and they relate to a large extent to the international marketplace. The

629 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 1, 1990 Ministers of Agriculture across the country are very aware of this and have for many months been working on a process of trying to find a way to address the big problem of low incomes in agriculture. There is a meeting here in Winnipeg on the 14th and 15th of November where a wide variety of issues, including the cost of fuel, will be on the agenda. I would like to remind the Member that the Manitoba Government does not collect provincial taxes on farm fuel. That saves the Manitoba farmers some $34 million each year.

With regard to alternative fuels, the Minnedosa ethanol plant has rece ntly expanded with assistance from this Government. Clearly the day of ethanol in use as a fuel may be coming into its opportunity in competition with fossil fuels. There is very serious consideration of the issue you have raised. It is much broader than just the cost of fuel. It covers all costs for the farmer and the incomes they receive. That is being addressed in a very aggressive manner by all provincial Governments across this country. Rural Economy Diversification Ms.

Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): My supplementary question is to the Minister of Rural Development. Clearly the grim state of the farm economy is having a devastating effect on the whole rural economy. What specific plans does this Government have to expand the production of alternative fuels and what specific plans does the Government have to diversify the rural economy throughout the province? Hon. Jack Penner {Minister of Rural Development): I want to thank the Honourable Member for Swan River for the question.

It certainly is a concern of this Government as we have indicated on many occasions that the rural economy is in the state it is. It is largely we believe in the state that it is because of the economic policies initiated by the previous administration and the high interest costs that this administration is now forced to pay. If we had those $500 million to be able to invest in initiatives in rural Manitoba a lot of the communities in rural Manitoba would be better off. However, Mr.

Speaker, I want to say to you that we have in the last year taken significant initiatives in establishing a department, a stand-alone department for Rural Development, which the previous Government never even considered. We are in the process of developing programs and initiatives that will address to a large extent some of the problems that communities in rural Manitoba are encountering. Ms. Wowchulk: I am pleased that the Minister does have some plans, and we would like to know what those plans are.

In particular, I would like to know what plans the Minister has for the Parkland area and the Swan River area where people have been promised jobs through the Repap deal, but these jobs have never materialized. We need diversification in that area. Some Honourable Members: Oh, ohl Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. I will recognize the Honourable Minister of Rural Development. *

(1400) Mr. Penner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that the Honourable Member for Swan River is relatively new and that she has not been following the issues in her part of the world during the last two or three years. We did in fact take the initiative to create substantial jobs in that northern region. We got rid of a money-losing company, and by doing that we received assurances that a new company, a new lumbar or forestry industry, would be developed in that area, a billion dollar investment in that region, which would have and could have created a substantial number of jobs in the Swan River area.

However, it is very apparent from responses that we have received from the Opposition Party that they want abs;olutely no involvement in any new initiatives in that area. We are looking forward to the day that Repap will be able to in fact proceed with the expansion that they have indicated and create the jobs in the Swan River area that the Swan River people are looking forward to. Industrial Technology Research and Development Mr. Nell Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism.

This Government has continually paid lip service to the importance of research and development to Manitoba's economy, yet it is only lip service. Manitoba's commitment to research and

November 1 , 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 630 development is a shameful 0.9 percent of the GNP, less than half the national average and well below Alberta's 3.6. ls it any wonder that Manitoba's economy is feeble? Would the Acting Minister explain how the $340,000 budget cuts to industry and technology and the health industry development initiative will enhance the Government's research and development in Manitoba? Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): I thank the Member for St.

Boniface for that question, and I will take it as notice for the Minister. lndustrlal Technology Research and Development Mr. Nell Gaudry (St. Boniface): Of the $18 million cash received from the sale of Manitoba Data Services, this Government has boasted of $2 million for business venture development, but what about research and development? What commitment will the Minister make to adequately fund such necessary initiatives and raise them to respectable levels of support? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the Member asks a good question.

I can assure him that right now there is the development of a committee to try and direct that allocation of funding towards research and development. It is being done in conjunction with certain people from the university. Indeed we want to see that money spent, as I do know the Member does also. Mr. Gaudry: To the same Minister, would the Minister state what further plan he has in place to ensure that Manitobans remain competitive in the areas of health, industry, technology and industrial technology? Mr. Manness: Mr.

Speaker, the Member has been in the House now for five or six days when we have been debating the budget. The whole thrust of that budget was to ensure that Manitoba is in a position whereby indeed it can provide attractive returns to investment capital that will create jobs. It is about deficits. It is about tax regimes. It is about proper management of Government affairs. Women's Crisis Shelters Funding - Rural Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake): My question is to the Minister of Family Services .

On Tuesday, the Minister of Family Services stated in this House that the Lundar, Erickson and Ashern wife abuse committee ended last year with a surplus. I understand that the Honourable Minister may have not read through the budget of LEA very carefully and may have missed the fact that the surplus he mentioned was in fact not core funding for programming from his department, as he implied, but was actually money provided from the Jobs Fund specifically for a contract position.

My question is: Will the Minister now agree that LEA does not in fact have a surplus as he implied to the House, that this money is not available for the provision of services? Will he explain how LEA can expect to provide programming with the current inadequate funding? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, the Members of the NDP are constantly calling for more funding in this department. I would point out to them that this budget shows an 8.2 percent increase in funding for Family Services.

I would also say that if we were not in a position where we are paying some $500 million on deficit a lot of new initiatives could take place in all departments. I would point out to the Member again that the Interlake crisis local board, who make local decisions-and I believe that I put correct information on the record when at the end of the last fiscal year they did show a profit. I think that certainly they have to examine management practices and fully understand why they have moved from that position into a deficit position. Mr. Cllf Evans: I have a supplementary question to the same Minister.

Will the Minister now assure this House that if his Government is really committed to funding and working with women's resource centres as he has stated, he will meet with the LEA wife abuse committee and he will now guarantee that his department will provide adequate funding to meet their programming needs? Mr. Gllleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I would indicate to the Member that in meeting with officials at Osborne House the other day they indicated that we have the best funding formula in Canada for wife abuse shelters.

The funding formula not only has core funding for operation but also a per-diem funding to take care of volume increases. Certainly, in respect to the question, my department is at the disposal of

631 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 1 , 1990 that community committee and would be happy to meet with them over their issue. Mr. Cllf Evans: To the same Minister as my last question, can the Minister justify to this House the extravagant expenditure of more than $400,000 over two years to the Government's Round Table on the Environment, a mere public relat ions exercise, when women in the Interlake are being forced to go without services because of inadequate funds to the LEA wife abuse committee? Mr. Gllleshammer: This certa inly confirms the commitment of the NDP toward the environment.

I have already indicated that this department received an increase of 8.2 percent this year. The Member and the critic are asking that we take money from other departments to add to this department. We have already given this department the largest increase. I have indicated as far as the committee is concerned that my department would be happy to meet with them. Economic Growth Royal Bank Forecast Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Seine River): On this side of the House we continually listen to the gloom and doom predicted by Members on the opposite side of the House, Mr. Speaker.

Certain Members in this House have called into question the province's economy, forecasted rate of real growth in 1990. My question is to the Minister of Finance. Can the Minister of Finance share with this House the latest forecast of the Royal Bank? Some Honourable Members: Oh, ohl Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. The Honourable Member for Seine River has posed a question. I believe she would like an answer. *

(1410) Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am just absolutely delighted at that question, only because I thought that maybe the Member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) would not be asking it tomorrow. I want to indicate that officials of my department were yesterday or the day before with the economist one Alex Thomson, one of Canada's senior economists. He is the vice-president of the Royal Bank.

At a meeting where indeed he forecasted the growth in the Manitoba economy-and I know three years is important to the Member for Brandon East-he indicated that Manitoba's economic growth would be this year 2.1 versus the national average of 0.7. Next year our growth would be positive at 0.3 percent versus a negative number for Canada. The third year for '92 our growth would be 2.5-again , well above the national growth. Also, he said that tho mood in Manitoba is cautiously optimistic, so much different than other parts of Canada. Crime Prevention Government Initiatives Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr.

Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Today is the first day of Crime Prevention Month, 1990. This is the third Crime Prevention Month that this Minister of Justice has presided over. Every year he has talked high and mighty about his commitment to crime prevention and then he has done nothing.

Is this Minister of Justice planning to repeat his performance of prior years, dragging out the same platitudes and then putting them back in the drawer for another year, or will he now commit to showing real leadership on this issue in establishing a crime prevention council, which is the necessary first step for this Government to take in showing leadership on the area of crime prevention and coincides with the resolution presently before this House from this Party? Hon.

James Mccrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Similar to the day before yesterday, we have questions trotted out by this Honourable Member which hark back and are brought forward repeatedly in this House and do not really take usI anywhere. All they do is give the Member an opportunity to engage in a little rhetoric in this House. The Honourable Member's support-questionable support-for our impaired and suspended driving countermeasures was appreciated even though we were not sure if it was really there or not. We know, Mr.

Speaker, that crime prevention measure has had the effect of saving lives in Manitoba. We hope that in other measures that we will be undertaking in our department we will have the support of the Honourable Member and his Party when it comE,s to domestic violence and other issues of impo11ance in the area of crime prevention. The budget of this particular Department of

November 1 , 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 632 Justice has increased dramatically since this Government took office, thanks to the support of my honourable colleagues in this Government and no thanks unfortunately to the words of encouragement that we never seem to get from the Honourable Member for St. James . Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. SPEAKER'S RULINGS Mr. Speaker: I have two rulings for the House. -(interjection)- Order. Order, please. On October 29, during Question Period, I took under advisement the point of order raised by the Government House Leader (Mr.

Manness) about the words "potentially racist attitudes reflected by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Neufeld)", which were used by the Honourable Member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett). I thank the Government and the Opposition House Leaders for their advice on this matter. Having reviewed Hansard and researched the matter I find that the word "racist" has been ruled out of order in the House of Commons, and that in 1987 in our own House the phrases "smacking of racist" and "it's almost a racist assumption" were voluntarily withdrawn by the Member who spoke them.

I would therefore ask the Honourable Member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) to now rise and withdraw the unparliamentary language , without qualification . Some Honourable Members: Oh, ohl Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please . *** Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, there is an error in the ruling. I believe you have taken under advisement comments made by the Member for Radisson (Ms. Carilli), not the Member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett). I would ask perhaps that a corrected ruling be brought back in- Mr. Speaker: Hansard will-I thank the Honourable Opposition House Leader (Mr. Ashton).

I thank him, and Hansard will show that it was actually the Honourable Member for Radisson (Ms. Carilli). I would ask the Honourable Member to stand and withdraw the unparliamentary remarks . Ms. Marianne Cerllll (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the words. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the Honourable Member for Radisson, *** Mr. Speaker: On October 29, during Question Period, I took under advisement a point of order raised by the Government House Leader (Mr. Manness) concerning the content of a question directed by the Honourable Member for Inkster (Mr.

Lamoureux) to the Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Neufeld). The Government House Leader's point of order was, and I quote, "that the purpose of Question Period is to direct questions to Members with responsibilities within their own spheres." I thank the three House Leaders for their interventions in this matter.

The following citations from Beauchesne's 6th Edition, I believe, apply in this situation: 409 "A brief question seeking information about an important matter of some urgency which falls within the administrative responsibility of the Government or of the specific Minister to whom it is addressed, is in order." 409(6) "A question must be within the administrative competence of the Government.

The Minister to whom the question is directed is responsible to the House for his or her present ministry and not for any decisions taken in a previous portfolio." 412 "A question may not be asked of a Minister in another capacity, such as being responsible for a province, or part of a province, or as spokesman for a racial or religious group." Additionally, the Speaker of the House of Commons in 1986 noted that" ... it has always been a fundamental rule of questioning Ministers that the subject matter of the question must fall within the collective responsibility of the Government or the individual responsibility of one of its Ministers.

This is the only basis upon which Ministers can be expected to answer questions." In the matter of the October 29 question , I am ruling based on the authorities cited that it was not correctly framed. The Honourable Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) could have directed a question to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) asking what action the First Minister had taken or intended to take about the matter. It is not proper, however, to ask during Question Period a question of a

633 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 1 , 1990 Minister unless it relates directly to that Minister's departmental or Crown corporation responsibilities. I believe that if Members take care in putting their questions, we can avoid similar situations in the future. Also, I would note that later during the same Question Period, a question was placed by another Opposition Member that essentially made a similar point but was framed in such a manner that it did relate to the responsibilities of the Minister in question. *

(1420) NON-POLITICAL STATEMENTS Hon. James Mccrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek leave of the House to make a non-political statement about Crime Prevention Month. Mr. Speaker: Is the Honourable Minister asking for leave to make a non-political statement? Mr. Mccrae: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it will be non-political. Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Minister have leave? Leave. Mr. Mccrae: Mr. Speaker, I thank all Honourable Members for granting permission to make this comment today. Today, as pointed out earlier by the Honourable Member for St. James (Mr.

Edwards), is indeed Crime Prevention Month in Manitoba. Today, being Day One, it is an opportunity for me to say thank you to all of those people throughout Manitoba who take

part in activities that have the result of reducing the incidence of crime in our province. Very briefly, thanks should be extended to, among others, volunteers associated with the Manitoba Society of Criminology and Project Prevention, Citizens for Crime Awareness, those involved with Neighbourhood Watch and Block Parents and Crime Stoppers, our Youth Justice Committees throughout the province and our honourary probation officers.

All of those people including members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the City of Winnipeg Police, the Brandon Police, and representatives of other municipal police forces in Manitoba, ought to be thanked today and this month for helping to create awareness about the importance of crime prevention in our province. They are helping us all to keep our neighbourhoods as crime free and as safe as possible. I wish them well in the corning year, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Paul Ed1Nards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, i would ask leave to make a non-political statement. Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Member for St.

James have leave? Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to add my comments and the feelings of my Party to those of the Minister of Justice with respect to Crime Prevention Month, 1990. Let me add my congratulations to the many volunteers who through their efforts have been working on such programs as Neighbourhood Watch, Block Parents, the Citizens for Crime Awareness, the offices around this province, and have done a marvellous job in the past. Let me ah30 add my congratulations to the organizers for this coming month and the events which will be taking place in this month.

It is, by all accounts, going to be another successful Crime Prevention Month. I look forward tomorrow morning, I believe, to meeting, I am sure, with the Minister of Justice and probably a representative from the New Democratic IParty at the annual kickoff Crime Prevention Breakfast. I am sure that will be an evident which will be meaningful to the community at large and tell Manitobans the importance of crime prevention which we all share in this House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Dave Chomlak (Klldonan): Might I have leave to make a non-political statement? Mr.

Speake1r: The Honourable Member for Kildonan, does the Honourable Member have leave? Mr. Chomlak:: Mr. Speaker, I join with all Members of the House in concurring with the comments of the Minister of Justice and my honourable friend from St. James. There is probably no Member in this House, nor no Member's constituency, where people have not been touched unfortunately by the scourge of crime. It is unfortunate we have to have a Crime Prevention Week , Mr.

Speaker, or a Crime Prevention Month, but I certainly join in and support and the Members of this side of the House join in support of the organizers and all participants during this month. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

November 1 , 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 634 HOUSE BUSINESS Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I have some committee meetings to announce. Tuesday, November 6, Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet at 10 a.m.

If required, that committee will also meet in the morning, Tuesday the 6th, to consider the 1988 and '89 Annual Reports of the Manitoba Telephone System; and Tuesday night that same committee to consider the 1988, 1989 and 1990 Annual Reports of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission; Wednesday, November 7, Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources, in the evening, eight o'clock, to consider the 1987 and 1988 Annual Reports of the Manitoba Data Services; and Thursday, November 8, Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources, convening at 10 a.m. in the morning to consider the 1988 and 1989 Annual Report of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.

Mr. Speaker , I want to serve notice to the House that I will table a listing of the departments of Government that will be reviewed. Their Estimates will be reviewed later today. I want to serve notice so that the first two committees that will be considered by the House are Executive Council in the Chamber and the Department of Finance in the outside committee room. -(interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Did you want to finish something? Mr. Manness: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to add that by all appearances Estimates review will begin on Monday.

Mr. Lamoureux: On House Business, I would ask the Government House Leader, just for clarification, if it is his intention to ask the House Leader of the Th ird Party in the future prior to announcing committees, or if he is planning on consulting before actually making the enunciations? Mr. Manness: The Member brings forward a good point. I apologize to him, and I can assure him that for the week following, when there are a number of committee hearings that I am thinking of, I will certainly share that information with him. ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE Mr.

Speaker: On the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs), the amendment thereto, standing in the name of the Honourable Minister of Consumer and Co-operative Affairs who has 40 minutes remaining. Hon. Edward Connery (Minister of Co-opeatlve, Consumer and Corporate Affairs): This will be the second quickest 40-minute speech of my life. I was astounded-and I had in my notes to speak today.

I have a lot of notes, but because the time frame is short where I will not be using all of my time. I had planned on speaking a little bit on the environment, because we hear so much about the environment from the NOP. I cannot express how astounded I was at the comments of the Member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) on his condemning of the funding of the Round Table on Environment. I can see why his Leader right now is talking to him and saying, my gosh, if you do this again, at least vet it through the process so at least we know what is going on. -(interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please.

Point of Order Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there has been some impugning of motives. I want to make it very clear that I totally support the Member for Interlake. His position was a comment about environmental public relations versus environmental policy. I totally support his comments and his questions raised today. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A dispute over the tacts is not a point of order. *** Mr. Connery: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the sensitivity of the Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), the Leader of the NDP Party.

When they were in power, of course, there was no Environment Department. There was a name . There was a Minister assigned to it, and they did absolutely nothing. We hear now the rhetoric and the comment, especially from the Member for Radisson (Ms.

635 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 1, 1990 Carilli) who speaks now so eloquently on what should be done on Environment. Really, if she would go back into the books and find out what has been done by her Government, she would realize that it was a disaster. When I took over the portfolio of Environment, I got my first briefing book and I said, what has been going on for the last five to seven years, and the comment was, not very much. I said, We have got issues here that are five years old. What are we doing about these issues? They said, well, the Minister wanted to study it again.

I said, well, how many studies does it require to make a decision ? Well, the NOP did not want to make a decision on anything environmentally. -(interjection) - *

(1430) The Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) says, what about Manfor? When we took over, Manfor was an absolute environmental disaster, an absolute mess. There was oil and there were contaminants in the soil, in the water. We were working with the company to bring it in line, because there was a high economic cost. This is carrying on at this very moment. The little things, Mr. Speaker, that are so important to the environme nt-The Member for Concordia (Mr.

Doer), who criticizes the fires that have taken place in the solvents and so forth, forgets Gravure Graphics who were, for years under the NOP, allowed to accumulate barrels of solvent in a field that had dry grass and everything else around it, did nothing about it. When we took office, we had that mess cleaned up in a very short period of time, working collectively with the company. (Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) Talk about the Domtar creoso te yard in Transcona, the Member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) is here.

Does he remember when all they had was a run-down snow fence protecting the children and the people from going into that Domtar yard? When we came in, I met with the people in Montreal, and I spoke to them and said, look, this is not acceptable to our Government. There are people at risk, there are young people that can be playing in there. There is now a chain link fence around it. They are also doing some work to get rid of the creosote that is in the ground. That is what we are doing. The NOP stood by and talked about the environment and did nothing. What about PCB?

PCBs were around all through the time that the NOP were in power. What did they do? Nothing. We brought in the strictest regulations on PCB storage that there are in the country . We brought those PCB regulations in; the NOP did absolutely nothing. They had the car, in Transcona, in that Member's constituency, sitting there. His Government knew that they were there; they did nothing about it. We had it moved out of Transcona. His own Party would not move those PCBs out of Transcona. We removed them, Madam Deputy Speaker . Talk abut lead in water, which there is concern over school children drinking.

Part of the problem with lead in water is because of the lead solder that is being used to solder the pipes. The NOP sat idly by while they knew it was there. We put in a regulation banning the lead solder; very simple, it just took a little bit. When you take a look at the increase in the budget, and I go back to the year before when I was the Minister and we got one of the largest percentages of increase in the budget to environment that has ever been. This year again, we have a big increase to the budget.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, when the Members opposite talk about environment, let them review what their own Government did and it was nothing. Who are they going to put in charge, the Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) who was a Member of that Governme nt, who was on the front bench with them. No, he was not, he was in the last bench, but he was in Cabinet. Absolutely nothing, now they come in, and they talk about environment, but they are criticizing the round table. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it is a disaster. It is a shame that the Member for Interlake (Mr.

Clif Evans) would be critical of the foundation of environment t hat we are trying to build here in Manitoba. In the sense of time and that other Members may have an opportunity to speak today, and we are going to be winding the debate up today, I would conclude my remarks. Thank you. TABLING OF DOCUMENT Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker , I only want to stand to table an item, that is all. It will only take me a second. Madam Deputy Speaker, in accordance with the provision to Rule 65(6 .1 ), the sequence for consideration of Estimates in various Government

November 1 , 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 636 departments by each

section of the Committee of Supply has been established as follows, and I have a listing here, and I will table it. BUDGET DEBATE (Cont'

d) Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I am pleased to be able to take

part in the debate on this provincial budget, which was released last week . The massive deficit of $383 million that was announced has caused me some great concern, particularly over the mounting debt load for this province . I consider myself to be a fiscally responsible person, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have great concern for the way in which this Conservative Government has let the people of Manitoba down. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have all heard the fable of how astute the Conservat ive Members opposite are supposed to be when it comes to managing the economy.

It is very evident when one views the economic havoc wreaked on this country and this province by the policies of the Governments intent on satisfying only the bottom lines of their balance sheets of their friends, that these policies are a failure. They are leading this province and this country into ruin. It is my belief that Government cannot leave the controls of our economy on automatic pilot and expect it to find its own way. This is a sure fire way to invite disaster .

I believe that Government, particularly in time of recession such as we are in the midst of now, must take control of the direction that the province is headed in and make investment to stimulate our economy. Madam Deputy Speaker, this investment must be in people and not so much in the bricks and mortar. People are the foundation of this province, and it is investment in people that will move the province out of the recession.

We must concentrate our efforts on several main areas such as: the quality of our health care , environmental protection and enhancement , and the creation of full-time manufacturing based jobs, amongst other important programs. I would like to talk now briefly about job creation. We have seen the reduction or the loss of 12,000 manufacturing jobs in this province over the last few years, particularly I believe as a direct result of free trade and deregulation.

Deregulation has had a significant impact on the transportation sector of which I was a member until I entered this House and was elected by the people of Transcona. We have seen the loss of thousands of jobs, particularly in the railway industry, where when I started in the railway, we had over 100,000; we are now down to close to 30,000 employees across this country. That is a significant impact on good quality jobs in this country, I believe, as a result of deregulation .

Free trade is going to continue as well to have a large impact on the jobs that we have in this country ; good quality jobs that are going to be lost to free trade to countries like the U.S. It is important that we move away from a Free Trade Agreement in my estimation so that we can get back to doing what is right for our province and our country. I believe, at the same time, that we must make alterations in this particular province to the minimum wage.

We must increase it to a level that maintains a decent quality of life, and then we must fix that minimum wage to the cost of living so that we can maintain the standard the living for all Manitobans. Seniors' home care: we have seen through this budget, Madam Deputy Speaker, reductions in the home care, although the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) had denied that there are any cuts. I believe that there are cuts to this program.

You cannot deny the cuts that have taken place in the community, such as I have seen when I have gone and talked to the residents of Transco na, and they have told me that they were on home care programs and had their service taken away from them. This is a disgrace. I have seen, in the community of Transcona , where people that require this type of home care service have applied for it and have been rejected.

These people, usually single women, elderly women, trying to live in their own home but unable to meet all but their own basic needs require this support service to enable them to remain in their homes so that they do not become a "burden" as they call it upon the other members of our society. Yesterday, we had Members opposite that talked about the Grade 2 students in the anti-smoking campaign. I believe it was the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) that talked about that. That, to me, since I am a non-smoker is a worthwhile campaign for the Government to be taking

part in, but at the same time I saw that the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) would not deal with the situation in my own community of Transcona where there was an environmental concern that was causing the same

637 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 1, 1990 type of problems with the families and the youth in the community, children of the families that have asthmatic conditions that are now being severely affected by the dust that is coming from a particular manufacturing plant in Transcona. •

(1440) If this Government is truly committed to the health and well-being of the people in these communities, then they must take charge of what is being put out and produced into the environment by these plants. If all Members opposite were concerned, then they would deal with this situation that has been going on for well over a year and take steps to ensure that the quality of life for these people is affected no longer in a detrimental fashion.

We have seen decisions made by this budget where there appears to be-and I am sure there is-a reduction in the monies funded for the environmental department, that the hazardous waste funding will be cut back. This could have serious consequences for the people of Manitoba. The environment is very important, particularly to the people of my community, as I am sure it is to the other residences of this province, and that funding should be there to ensure that hazardous waste is being dealt with not in the future but now. I would like to briefly talk now about transportation policy and strategy in this province.

We have seen, as was announced yesterday, that VIA Rail, one of the most economic , environmentally sound means of transportation in this country, is going to have their services freed so they can slash and hack away the services that do not meet their own needs.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that it is important to have good quality transportation, public transportation in this province and in this country, and that means using the services that present the most economical means, and that means utilizing the resources that we have in this province, such as electricity, of which we have an abundance and creating an electric railway system in this province and in this country to meet the needs of the people so it will lessen our depend ence on fossil fuels.

There are many areas of which I touched on briefly through the Throne Speech Debate, and I will not go any further into them at this time. When we get into the Estimates process, we will be dealing further with some of the issues of which I have many questions. One question that I would like to raise right now, and it causes me great concern, is that when we were in Government, when the NOP was in Government in this province, we had $50 million a year in cost-shared programs for the economic regional development agreements .

I see by this budget that has been released, that there are no agreements, zero funding, Madam Deputy Speaker, taking place to develop the northern and remote portions of our province. To me that is a disgrace. When we get into the Estimates process, I will be asking questions further of the Minister responsible to find out what developments are taking place and why we do not have these agreements in place. This will not help the northern and remote areas of our province to dE1velop unless we get these type of agreements and these people and their quality of lives will be severely affected .

I will conclude my remarks now, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank you. Ms. Marianne Cerllll (Radisson): I am pleased -(interjection)- good, that is one thing I am going to say. I am pleased to add my remarks to the debate on the budget. I am glad to see that the Members opposite will again listen attentively, as they did in the past, as I provide an examination of the budget in my critic areas. I appreciate their special attention during my last speech. I am sure most new MLAs would also appreciate such attention in the press.

I think it is intemsting that, though the Premier gave me such attention, that was one of the most noteworthy and newsworthy things about his speech. It is ah3o odd that although he could refer to what I said, he was not willing to quote me. We have seen that when I find something objectionable about what a Member opposite says, that I will quote it, and I think that the words will speak for themselves in the public eye. Unfortunately, the Premier does not do this. I also would think that the remarks that I made are what is a recipe for sharing .

I think that the Premier knows that if he actually quoted this, that the public would not take too kindly to his attitudes. I think that it is surprising that he does not believe in sharing which is what I was referring to when I said that we want to have a more fair society. I would also like to add that the references that I made have also been made by a few other Members that have sat in New Democrat groups and that is Stanley Knowles and Tommy Douglas. They have wanted the same things that I do. They want policies

November 1, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 638 that are going to make our society more fair. They want systems that are going to give people more control over their lives. Under this Government, workers bargaining for fair contracts will be less secure, since organized workers are what they would think not attractive to investment, neither does a decent minimum wage, pay equity or affirmative action seem attractive in their minds. Environmental law enforcement is also bad for business in the same way.

Filmon's team has already shown that whether it is environment protection or immigration, it is the profit motive that rules. There are no moral principles in their policy, and there does not seem to be a sense that there are some things that a Government should do just because it is right. This Government continues to espouse an ideology of minimizing fair corporate taxation, just environmental and labour legislation, in an effort to lure industry to come and set up shop.

Meanwhile, with their tenuous majority, they are too afraid to tax and generate revenue to pay for needed education, health and community service budgets. So under the guise of reducing the deficit, they are going to starve out those who are least able to cope with a recession. Well, they cannot carry this on for a full mandate. Eventually, they are going to have to raise some revenue and start cutting services, I would think, like the true Conservatives that they are. If this is not enough to tell us that we are in trouble , in defending the record , the Filmon team is comparing us to Newfoundland.

I have no offense in this statement, but there is no secret that this really means we are in trouble. Everyone knows the country as a whole is in a recession, thanks to six years of Tories in Ottawa, so it is no consolation when we are doing a little better than the poorest province in the country. I never buy this type of Canadian economic rationalization that pits one province against another, but particularly now as we are in Canada, comparing our unemployment rates while the Americans are signing another trade agreement and buying the whole country like one big business merger. Well, when Mr.

Manness (Minister of Finance) said that in his budget speech that they would have to start cutting non-essential services to protect the essential programs, he must have been referring to youth programs. Over $1 million, it seems to be, were non-essential for youth programs in this budget. Over half a million was cut from youth employment services; almost $400,000 was cut from regional employment services.

Rural areas in Manitoba have lost enough young people, so it seems that it is an evacuation because rural economies can no longer support jobs for young people in rural Manitoba , so they may justify this to say that there is no longer a need for youth programs for employment in the rural areas. They have also cut $150,000 from Job Training for Tomorrow, which will mean that there will be fewer young people moving from social allowance and have a chance to work for wages.

Other cuts that will affect youth are to Inner-City Initiatives , Seven Oaks Youth Centre, Post-Secondary Career Development, northern community colleges, and this shows such a lack of this Government's understanding of the dire needs of youth. *

(1450) This Government has blamed its losses, and the fact that it is increasing the deficit, on inadequacies from the federal counterparts. The cuts in transfer payments will be felt again by youth as they once again pay higher tuition fees. The sign to young people is that Manitoba Tories are about to practise the same policies as Mulroney in Ottawa. Now all of these things are serious, but there is another area that has not been increased. Child and Family Services will not be providing shelter and services to the ever increasing number of homeless , abused, neglected youth and children.

Even though caseloads at Child and Family Services have increased over the last number of years by 100 percent, and social workers are not able to provide the care and service that they want to, this Government refuses to hire more staff. Young people, 16 to 18 years old, will suffer most in these situations and with this practice-because only violent situations affecting youth will be handled-what this does is ensure that situations that may have been intervened with to prevent violence will escalate so that there is violence, and then they will be dealt with, maybe.

It seems that this Government is hoping that young people will turn 18 before they have to do anything. What we will have is more young people ending up in more serious home situations that

639 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 1, 1990 require Child and Family Service intervention, and there will be fewer staff to do this intervention . With the Tories, the economy will not be able to support the integration of young people into the work force., and they are refusing to help with youth in crisis. Their attitude is crassly, tighten your belts, and pull up your socks. Well, Mr. Filmon, I would like you to realize -(interjection)- An Honourable Member: The Member from Tuxedo. Ms. Cerllll: I would like the Member from Tuxedo (Mr.

Filmon) to realize that young people on the street have no belts to tighten and no socks to pull up. We have also seen, with this Government's attitude, it is unclear which programs would be the first to cut as Mr. Manness says they go back -(interjection)- An Honourable Member: The Member for Morris. Ms. Cerllll: The Member from Morris says, we will cut back to essential services. It will be interesting to see what they think is a more essential service, programmings for youth or multicultural programs. We have seen how the Filmon Cabinet is divided on multicultural policy.

The criticisms they have suffered this last week from ethnocultural groups showed they do not have the confidence of all Manitobans . The Minister claims increases in funding these organizations and the development of the need of the secretariat. The Minister of Culture and Heritage has said that these things will happen. Well, what about the Manitoba lntercultural Council which exists? It is a nationally recognized structure which is being frozen out in this budget.

It has not received the funds it needs to provide the ongoing co-ordination of the ethnocultural communities that they need to access their Minister. All of the new functions of the Government's proposed secretariat could be provided by MIC. Instead, this Government is dismantling this democratically elected council and replacing it with an office of bureaucrats. MIC does not know what their relationship will be with this new secretariat. Will it become as paternalistic as this Government tends to be?

The Government must involve the different groups as it tries to address racism in Manitoba, racist attitudes that are so close to the surface as we have seen this week. -(interjection) - No, no. This Government does not value the legitimate work of the groups that are working in this area if it does not maintain a democratically elected group to address the Minister. Oftentimes what happens with cultural groups is in fact that they are doing services which should be provided by immigration and settlement. Criticism that multicultural groups are not needed is unvalidated.

There are some things that are important to the economy that are tough to put a price tag on. How much do we lose when we are closed-minded and protectionists? How do you put a price tag on cultural identity? The problems this province has with accreditation of credentials from outside of Canada are important. I was surprised by the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) comments thatt we should be more concerned with allowing only certain types of immigrants into Canada. Rather than going shopping for new Canadians, we, should welcome those that want to make Canada their home.

I believe that money to cultural groups serves other functions as it helps bring more understanding and acceptance of differences. If groups need that organizational assistance to help create more equity to educate us as to their culture, any Government that is striving for equity must help cultural groups do this. I look forward to Estimates when we can look more closely at other services like the Immigrant Access Centn3, English as a second language program, affirmative action.

The cuts to ACCESS and BUNTEP programs, the tenuous situation for the Core Area Agreement and Winnipeg Education Centre make it clea r this Government has no commitment to changing the stratification in the work force. It makes the multicultural secretariat look like window-dressing. They are cutting the programs that they say that the secretariat would co-ordinate.

This Government, in the same way, has also tried to paint itself green and, as the public becomes more politically astute, it will see that issues like multiculturalism, racism and environment protection do have a political slant, and they do not cross all-Party lines. This Government keeps blaming previous NOP Governments, and saying New Democrats want to spend public money and they should see it as not theirs. I would like this Government to remember

November 1, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 640 that when they are dealing with public land. Wildlife management areas are protected under the law, and we are beginning to see that environment protection under the law has no meaning for this Government as they are selling the public land at Oak Hammock Marsh to a private company. They are selling a wildlife management area so that a private company can put up an office building. Public and environmentalist groups are outraged. They are organized and they are informed, and they want a Government that will listen.

Unlike this Government, they know what needs to be done to stop the destruction of the environment. This Government, rather than consulting these groups when they are needed, is spending $200,000 a year on a public relations campaign so it looks like they are doing something in the environment. Consultation is great, but I expect a political Party to have environmental policy, an economic policy that will not destroy the environment when it is elected.

I do not think they should be using public money while they are in Government , and stalling on responsible environment management, in the meantime conducting business as usual: damming rivers, clear-cutting forests, not replacing trees, allowing indus try to pollute, and not pressing charges. The same is done with the Institute for Sustainable Development , this $800,000 that they are spending here in this budget.

It is a fine grant and I support the chance for this Government to address international environmental problems, and I would encourage them to go after their federal friends, so that they would put their share into the Institute for Sustainable Development. Let us not try to fool the public into believing this is an increase in Manitoba's environment budget. *

(1500) Hazardous waste is a Manitoba problem where we have been working toward establishing a treatment and storage facility which would be a solution. One would think that the Government would be moving full ahead to pursue this solution, but instead they have cut $500 ,000 from the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation budget. Either this Government does not understand the importance of the corporation's current process of education and consultation for democratic citing, or they really do not want this facility, which is causing some concern.

Where is the funding for increased environmental cleanup in co-operation with community groups, and where is the funding for individuals participating in environmental assessments as intervenor funding? We will not see that kind of progress from this Government. We get promises, promises , promises. As for sport, there has been only a small decrease in the money estimated of around $100,000 .00. It will be interesting to see where these cuts come from. I noticed that the Fitness Directorate has been moved from the Department of Health.

Attention to personal fitness is part of any preventative health plan, and I would hope thatthis is not a philosophical move away from this. We have a long way to go in making sport accessible and equitable. The fact is that people who most need the healthful addition of sport or fitness in their lives can least afford it. The focus of many sports events also contributes to the acceptance of violence and competition in our culture. Especially for young children, sport must encourage participation, not discourage it or restrict participation by structures that are elitist.

There is a need for regulations to make sport more broad based using a more developmental model. This will not take more money, but we must then change our attitudes and the procedures and the way that we are spending the money. I would like to think in these times of increased violence, of individual isolation and disparity in affluence that all Government policy and spending would be geared to reducing these societal problems. We cannot take for granted the impact of sporting events. Thank you very much. Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take

part in the Budget Debate. It is a budget that has some good points, but it also has some disappointments. Madam Deputy Speaker, before I get into the budget I would like to share a few of my observations as a new Member. During the debate on the throne speech, we heard people speak about having different political views, having different ideas on policies, but they also spoke about respecting one another's opinions and working for the betterment of all of Manitoba. Madam Deputy Speaker, we heard the Members in this House speak of the First Minister (Mr. Film on)

641 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 1 , 1990 as a great statesman and a Leader who represented Canada. Well, I was somewhat disappointed in the First Minister when he made his closing remarks on the throne speech. He chose to ridicule Members on this side of the House for their left political views. Is this not a democracy? Do we not have the right to express our opinions? I say thank goodness that there are people who have ideas that are left of centre. For these ideas over the years have developed into policies that have benefited all Canadians.

I would be far more concerned if everyone was on a right-wing agenda because throughout history we have seen what has happened to countries where the agenda has been on the very right extreme. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have heard comments about changes that have taken place in eastern Europe, and I think everyone here is pleased about these changes. Many of us have families and friends in those countries, and I am particularly pleased because I am now going to have the opportunity to visit the village of my ancestors.

Opposition Members seem to imply that because eastern Europe is going through a change, social democratic governments are somehow a thing of the past. I doubt that very much. Many countries have very successful economic growth under socialist governments. We see countries under socialist governments with low unemployment, excellent health care systems and solid growth, such as Scandinavia. We have also heard Members from the opposite side of the House blame the Ontario NOP for the deficit when they have only been in Government for a very short time.

On the other hand -(interjection)- Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Swan River has the floor. Please let her continue her debate. Ms. Wowchuk: On the other hand, they choose to blame the NOP for the deficit in Manitoba when they have been in Government for two and a half years. Madam Deputy Speaker, you cannot have it both ways. The Opposition Members can try to blame the NOP for a lot of things, but they cannot blame the NOP for the deficit that the federal Government has at the present time, Liberal and Tory deficit, a deficit that takes one-third of every dollar that goes through.

As we look at the budget, this is not a budget that plans for the future. It is a budget that will not stimulate our economy. We have been criticized for our Jobs Fund and we have been criticized for running a deficit, but that Jobs Fund was an investment in our children, an investment to keep people in the province throughout low economic times. Quite frankly I am quite disappointed that there is not money set aside in this budget for job creation that will enable our young people to stay in Manitoba, because once they leave it is very hard to get them back. *

(1510) We hear people say that we should reduce the deficit. Yes, we have a deficit, but we do not have to reduce it by cui1ing services to those who need it the most. We hear hence, that we are going to have to tighten our belts, and I believe that this budget is only the beginning of the belt tightening that we are going to see in the next budget. Madam Dep,uty Speaker, I have some concerns with the impact of this budget on Manitobans. I would like to address those concerns in relationship to my critic area and to my constituency.

This Government made an announcement on rural development, on water and sewer, a commitment of $90,000, an initiative hopefully to attract development to rural communities. However, there is no program to encourage economic developments in other parts of the province, in particular as I have said earlier in the Swan River area, that has been waiting for jobs to materialize, in the Lake Winnipegosis area where fishermen are needing diversification. This Government has neglected this part of the province and should have negotiated a development agreement that would look after rural Manitoba and northern Manitoba.

Most of my constituency is an agriculture community and I would like at this time to commend the Government for urging the federal Government to reinstate the interest-free cash advance. This is very much appreciated by the farming community, however, I am concerned that in order to get this cash advance, bankers are also involved, bankers have to sign the agreement. This takes away from the flexibility of the farmer to make decisions on his or her own operation and I urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) to work towards getting that agreement changed.

When you look at the Agriculture budget it looks like a very large increase, however, the Estimates were high on the last Agriculture budget and it was

November 1 , 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 642 underspent and I hope that will not happen again. There would appear to be cuts in staff in various departments such as the Soil and Water Branch and the Vet Branch, services that farmers need during these difficult times of change, also, large cuts in the Communication Branch and Educational Programs. It appears that there are no programs to help farmers through the short term . Farmers and fishermen are in need of jobs to carry them through.

I am also very concerned about the cuts to northern communities, because much of the Swan River constituency is in a northern community . Cuts to BUNTEP and ACCESS, programs that allow rural and low-income people to get an education in their own community rather than have to go away to school. Those are cuts that will deeply hurt the people in my constituency, programs of extreme importance to rural people. Other areas that are cut that are of concern to me are cuts to the 55 Plus program and the CRISP.

CRISP is a program that people in the rural area have been able to take advantage of during this time to help them through. We see cuts to health care and the dental program, again a program that has been very beneficial to rural people, cuts to children 's programs, and the cuts to the air ambulance and the ambulance service is also a disappointment to rural people. Yes, I am disappointed in the budget. This Government with a high rural representation has not addressed the immediate needs of the rural community and has offered very little to stimulate diversification.

The cuts of education, health care services, will have a negative effect on all people, because as you cut services to the rural community it makes it very difficult for us to attract people to invest in that area. People are not going to come to an area where there is not a high standard of education or where there are not the proper services. The rural community will suffer from these cuts. I will close with that, and I look forward to the Estimates process when we can address these issues on a more specific impact. Hon.

Gary Fllmon (Premier): It is a pleasure for me to rise and address our Government's third budget, the third in a series of budgets that work toward the establishment of a strong economy and sound provincial finances. Just before I enter into the text of my remarks, I wanted to just point out one of many examples of the misunderstanding of elements within the Estimates that are being called out day after day by Members of the Opposition. In fact, this is one I think that they have sent out news releases on to northern Manitoba. The Member for Swan River (Ms.

Wowchuk) just repeated the error again in which she said that we had made cuts to the air ambulance service in Manitoba. The reality is we have done nothing of the sort. There will be no cuts to the air ambulance service in northern Manitoba and, indeed, if only they would wait until the proper process of asking questions during the Estimates debate, they will get the full information. You cannot just take a sheet of paper and make extraneous comparisons without understanding what goes in to the information within those Estimates.

For example, just so that the Member knows what I am talking about, we have an air ambulance. It is a very expensive jet aircraft, a Cessna Citation. From time to time, there are major repairs needed in order to keep that particular piece of equipment airworthy. It so happened that last year there was budgeted for a major overhaul that included an engine replacement to that aircraft. That is not necessary this year because it has been overhauled after about six years in service, and so it brings it back to state of the art and airworthy state.

So you would not put in an amount of $250,000 to replace an engine when you have just done that. That is the kind of silly budgeting that the NOP might do. That is the kind of ignorance that the NOP might put into their budgeting, but we do not believe in that. The people of Manitoba do not believe in that. The people of the North will not get any reduction in service; in fact, they will now get air ambulance service, safe and secure air ambulance service, because we put the money into that investment to keep it.

Now that is the kind of thing that I think does not do a service to the NOP, and does not show them to be caring. Well, maybe it shows them to be caring people, but it does not show them to be knowledgeable people, and it shows the kind of foolishness that resulted in the huge deficits and debt that we had under their administration. By now it should be obvious to everyone that we, as a province, have some major financial challenges before us. This budget addresses the difficulties that

643 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 1 , 1990 we face as we are hit by the combined impact of a recession nationally, debt servicing, and federal cutbacks. Those are the major elements that form the backdrop to the decisions that were made in this budget that was introduced a week ago in this Legislature. Today I want to talk about those challenges, and about how we can meet them as a province. From our first days in office, even in a minority situation, our Government has consistent ly taken the long-term approach to the economy and to the province's finances.

We recognize that real economic growth cannot be created overnight with quick-fix programs where the only lasting impact is a green sticker on a vacant office, and $10 billion of debt, Madam Deputy Speaker. We cannot have that kind of a short-term, quick -fix approach to Government any longer in this province. I have watched the Opposition, as all of us have on this side of the House, squirm every time we mention the debt, Madam Deputy Speaker. They squirm and they say, do not blame us for your problems, the NDP have not been in Government for the past two years.

That is the message that they keep saying every time we mention that debt. The problem Is that Manitobans cannot forget about that debt, nor can members of the media because the reality is that debt has built in a factor that affects every single decision that we make, and will continue to affect every single decision made by any administration in the future of this province until we get rid of a significant portion of that debt. That is, that every day we are in office we pay interest on the debt.

The difference is that the amount of interest we are paying today is something in the range of $580 million a year , between $560 and $580 , as compared to $114 million when Howard Pawley took office. That difference of $450 million is the legacy of Howard Pawley, and it does not change no matter how you cut it, no matter how you try and forget about it, bury it. It is there and it has to be dealt with in every single priority decision that we make as a Government. •

(1520) That debt simply will not go away. It is not a student loan that you can ignore. We cannot appeal to the federal Government to forgive the interest because we have been having some hard times. No, Madam Deputy Speaker, every time this Government sits down to plan its budget, we begin by setting aside over $500 million to pay the interest on the debt. More than half of that debt was created in just six years by the Members across the aisle under the Pawley adminstration.

Even the Leader of the Liberal party noted in her reply to the budget, and I quote: "The writing has been on the wall since the days of the huge deficits run up by the previous NDP Government of which the Leader of the Opposition was a part." She continued, and I will quote again: "We must not forget the conditions for this Government were laid out by the previous NDP Government." Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, we understood that right from the start, right from the day that we took office.

That is why we have always taken the long-term approach, an approach that recognizes that every single dollar that we spend as a Government must come out of the economic activity of our province and its people. Last week I ispoke to this House about our plans to spur economic growth in our province. I talked about building an economic climate that will foster investment and job creation, and our approach is working. I have, seen many of the results myself in the past few weeks, even since the election campaign .

I have gone to the Boeing plant for the opening of their expanded facility, an investment of over $30 million, an investment that they assured us, as part of the support that was given by federal and provincial Gov13rnments, was to carry with it 274 additional jobs. That is the assurances they gave in order to get federal and provincial support. I can tell you that they announced at that opening, just a couple of weeks ago, that they have increased their employment by over 300 jobs. They have exceeded the target even as they opened the new expanded facility.

There are over 300 additional jobs in this province all within the past year and a half or so by Boeing. I attended the sod turning, along with the Member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), of the new pilot plant that Dow Corning is building in the Selkirk region adjacent to the thermal generating station of Manitoba Hydro in East Selkirk. Now we do not know whether the Member for Selkirk supports that plant because some of his colleagues have suggested that we ought to be doing more for environmental protection and so on. Madam Deputy

November 1 , 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 644 Speaker, the fact of the matter is that there is a new pilot plant there, that that new pilot plant is creating a considerable number of jobs and Dow Corning officials indicated their optimism that the pilot plant would lead to a full-scale plant that ultimately will result in approximately 500 direct and indirect jobs in this province. That is good news and that is directly attributable to the kind of economic climate we have been striving to achieve and the use of our resources to create economic opportunities in our province.

Just last Friday morning, I participated in the opening of Digital Equipment's new office here in Winnipeg. These are all world-class facilities creating new and better jobs here in Manitoba because they are welcome here once again. These companies could locate anywhere in the world and they would take their jobs with them, but they are choosing Winnipeg and Manitoba as the place that they want to grow and expand.

Yes, we are in a recession in this country, and Manitoba cannot exempt itself from that reality, but we are also well under way to building the foundations of a stronger economy that will support new and better jobs, and world-class industries that will be able to help maintain our tradition of economic stability . We are faring better in this recession than most other provinces. While it is the Opposition's job to criticize, there are other groups that must take objective assessment of how we are doing compared to the rest of the country.

"Manitoba to outshine rest of the nation." That is the headline in the business

section of this morning's Free Press. Of course, if it had been bad news it would have been on page one. It would have been on page one and it would have been the subject of their questions in Question Period, but this is good news and so it gets buried in the business

section and ignored by the Members opposite during Question Period. -(interjection)- No, I am addressing my questions to the Members opposite who ignored it during Question Period today. This story goes on to say, "Manitoba's economy will out-perform Canada's this year and again in 1991, the Royal Bank of Canada's chief economist predicts." That is one objective observers are saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, but we must look longer than just the next few years, we must look to the strength of our economy for years to come. We, in the Legislature, have the power to do something about it.

The greatest threat to this province's future is the spending decisions that we make today. I was somewhat surprised, but I was thrilled to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) begin his reply to the budget by expressing his concern about the size of the deficit. I thought that our preaching and our concentration on the deficit had perhaps struck a responsive chord because it concerns me very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. But I was startled after hearing him refer to the size of the deficit, to then go on and advocate new and greater spending. I was not alone in my surprise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Brandon Sun was so shocked by that attitude and approach that they wrote an editorial headlined, "Mr. Doer's rhetoric." The editorial began by saying, "It is the job of the opposition to criticize government policy. But when the leaders of those parties speak out of both sides of their mouth, they should be the subject of the same criticism normally levelled against the party in power. As a result, NOP Leader Gary Doer should get a collective raspberry from everyone-including his supporters-for his machine-gun approach to criticizing this week's provincial budget." That is what the Brandon Sun editorial said.

It went on to say, "The opposition leader says the government should be involved on job-creation initiatives-perhaps the most costly programs a government could undertake. Such programs would only add to the deficit. On the other hand, he is telling us that the government should be more fiscally responsible. Mr. Doer can't have it both ways-even in opposition." That is good advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I remember the Leader of the Opposition, when he was the president of the MGEA and what he said about those job creation programs of the former New Democratic administration of Howard Pawley.

He said that their greatest contribution to job creation was the signs that they were putting up. They had to send out crews to put up signs throughout the province saying • Jobs Fund has contributed to this project," and that was the greatest creation of real jobs that he saw, because the rest of it he said was the work of white-wine socialists. Do you recall when he said they were white-wine socialists and how he said that those people did not have the courage of their convictions, and that their principles were all wrong? Well, let me add that

645 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 1, 1990 these short-term quick-fix Government job creation programs end up killing the real jobs in the private sector in the long run, because higher spending means higher taxes and higher taxes means fewer jobs 10 times out of 10. No question about it. We cannot afford to be all over the map as we come to grips with the economic challenges before us. We have to focus our efforts on one goal and one goal alone, and that goal must be long-term economic health in our province. This Legislature can take actions that will have a direct impact on whether our economy moves forward or slips backward into decline. •

(1530) Chief among the tools at our disposal are taxes. I am particularly proud that once again we were able to avoid any increase in personal income taxes this year in the budget. I am committed to fulfill our pledge to keep taxes down throughout our term in Government. You know, I heard the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) on the radio not too long ago saying it is cynical to promise to keep taxes down. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is only cynical if you do not intend to keep that promise. That may be the view of the Leader of the Liberal Party, but we intend to keep that promise.

The only cynicism we are seeing in this House is from those who fail to recognize that Manitobans are already paying too much in taxes, from those who call for fiscal responsibility on the one hand, yet come to Question Period to demand we spend more, and more, and more money every day in this House. Over the past two years, we cut taxes for families and for business, and we must continue to work to keep them down. We must look at the long-term impacts that all of our decisions will have, and we must do so in every area that Government is responsible for.

Just yesterday in my capacity as Chair of the Manitoba Round Table on Environment and Economy, I announced the release of our document entitled, Towards a Sustainable Development Strategy for Manitobans. The title, Towards a Sustainable Development Strategy for Manitobans was chosen very deliberately. It is the result of hundreds of hours of work from the round table members as well as our staff in the Sustainable Development Secretariat. This core document presents a vision for Manitoba, as stated by the Manitoba Round Table, that will carry us in into the 21st Century and beyond.

It is the long-term view of what we ought to be doing for our environment and our economy in combining those interests. I guess I should not have been surprised at the comments that were made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer). I should not have been surprised that he rejected it, that he belittled it, that he referred to it as being just simply fluff.

I should not have been surprised at the fact that he attempted to compare the long-term strategy that we are putting forth for all future economic and environmental decision-making in this province with what he thought was the cheap trick of comparison to the Repap Clean Environment Commission decision.

In making those comparisons what he was really bringing attention to, was the fact that he as a Leader of the Opposition, as a Leader of the New Democratic Party, did not have any plans, did not have any principles, any framework for decision-making, that combined environmental and economic thinking when he was in Government. Manfor, as it was then constituted, the pulp and lumber operation at The Pas, was dealt with on a totally ad hoc basis. It had no environmental licensing during the entire 20 years that it operated in the public sector.

It was allowed to get away with such drastic negative practices as dumping bunker fuel oil right onto the ground, which ultimately soaked into the substrata, which ultimately polluted the ground water in the area.

They followed a practice, Madam Deputy Speaker, that when they were doing some repairs, some system repairs that did not allow them to put their process effluent through the process it was supposed to, to clean it up from contaminants before it was put into the river, they just simply had an outflow pipe that diverted the flow directly into the river without any treatment, for periods of time that lasted as long as 48 hours while they were doing repairs to the system within the plant. Incred ible, incredible . That was the environmenta l consciousness.

That was the long-term view that was taken by the NOP in their operations of Manfor. Now, of course, they are born-again environmentalists when they are in Opposition. They are jumping on an issue that they think is politically popular today and that is that they are jumping all over -(interjection)- we will talk about that too, we will talk about the Ducks Unlimited proposal

November 1, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 646 because that again is the exam pie of the short-term, quick-trick mentality of the Opposition. No long-term view of it. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) When they were in Government just two and a half years ago they brought into law a new Environment Act. That Environment Act included with it a process for environmental assessment and review under the Clean Environment Commission. Just two and a half years old, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Doer), because he thinks that he can see some cheap politics in it, is now abandoning the principles of that Environment Act and the environmental assessment and review process that is called for under that Act and the Clean Environment Commission. What he is saying is, that despite the fact that we have applied totally all requirements of the Act, that we have in addition to that applied totally the environmental assessment and review process that is called for under the Act, and applied totally the Clean Environment Commission process to the letter, he now calls into disrepute all of that, saying he rejects it.

He rejects it, Mr. Speaker, because now it is politically opportune and popular for him to do so, just two and a half years after he boasted that this was the best Act in the country and that his Government- An Honourable Member: He said it yesterday . Mr. Fllmon: That is right. I agree with it, Mr. Speaker. Now he is abandoning all of those things and saying that we ought to reject the principles of the Act, reject the principles of environmental assessment and review and reject the Clean Environment Commission decision-making that is called for under the Act.

Why--because he believes that he can make political points from striking fear in the hearts of people, standing up here publicly before television cameras and saying that plant, as it has been licensed by the Clean Environment Commission, after public review, after the application of the environment Act-all of which had been formerly exempted by the NOP-that now that it has gone through that process and that the Clean Environment Commission has allowed for certain emissions to take place, that it ought to be totally rejected and abandoned and thrown out the window because it is politically opportune for him to do so.

He stood up and he said and he repeated, and he shouted at the top of his voice that we were allowing for cancer-causing dioxins to be emitted into the river system by way of effluence from that. Let us examine the honesty of that statement, Mr. Speaker. He wants to talk about dioxins. Let us talk about dioxins. I ask the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) if he knows where most of the dioxins into our environment are injected in North America~0 percent of them from automobiles, 60 percent of the dioxins.

What proportion does he think is coming from all of the pulp plants in North America into our environment-2 percent to 3 percent. So he will not say anything about the automobiles. He will not say anything about it. The other thing is, what did the Clean Environment Commission licence call for by way of dioxin emission into the river system from that plant in The Pas-10 parts per quadrillion. What that is equivalent to is one second in 32 million years. That is what he says is going to cause cancer in people.

If the Leader of the Opposition -(interjection)- no, we are listening to the Clean Environment Commission who listened to both sides of the argument. We are listening to the environmental experts. We are listening to the scientists, the engineers, the health care professionals who had their opportunity to appear before that commission, and that commission is set up under the legislation passed by the NOP. What do you suppose are the odds of cancer being contracted by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) or any of us here in this House who go for a winter vacation and spend too much time in the sun?

How many times higher than the odds of cancer causing from those dioxins in 10 parts per quadrillion-many, many, many, many times . Will the Leader of the Opposition stop going out for his vacations in the winter in the sun, Mr. Speaker? Will he stop coming back with a tan to this Legislature, time, after time, after time and risking cancer--no . *

(1540) Well, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about honesty . We are talking about honesty. We are talking about the fearmongering and the ignorance that you want to spread versus honesty. That is what we are talking about.

647 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 1, 1990 Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) yesterday called down our announcement on the Sustainable Development Strategy for Manitobans as being fluff. This is the same-and today he said that the funding ought to be taken away from the Round Table on Environment and Economy. That is what he said, that it ought to be taken away from that. This is the same Leader of the Opposition who got up many, many times in the fall of 1988 and said, when are you going to create the Round Table? When are you going to appoint the Round Table?

This Round Table has achieved more in two years than any other Round Table in the country, and you can get Round Tables right across the country to say so. They are going to take this Sustainable Development Strategy as the blueprint for their own strategy, because none of them have been able to put one together. None of them have been able to put one together. Mr.

Speaker, at the same time, the New Democratic Party, when they were in Government, exempted Limestone from any environmental assessment and reviews, exempted Manfor from any licensing, and allowed Manfor to willfully pollute the environment in ways that have never been dreamed of by people. They had no grand plan. They had no vision. You know what people say about that: "If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there." That is what the NDP did. They took any road that they thought was convenient to get some cheap public support. They took the easy road.

When a Government takes a concerted, planned, long-term view of environmental protection, they tried for the cheap trick by making comparisons to the dioxin levels from the Manfor plant. Without going into much detail, the core document addresses from a strategic standpoint the specific areas of environment, economy and health in a whole host of areas.

Firstly, you have personal behaviour; secondly, education and research; thirdly, environmental management and protection, land and water, energy, waste management, economic development, environmental businesses, market incentives and fiscal policy, regional development, institutional change, but this is not a final draft, Mr. Speaker. It is only a beginning. It is a beginning that we hope will spark the involvement of Manitobans from all across our province. The challenge of Sustainable Development is not one that can be met by any small group of people no matter how dedicated they are.

Public involvement will be the key to the success of the development of a Sustainable Development Strategy. It was the public itself that first raised the concern on the environment. It certainly was not the NDP or any politician. No politician lead the way on the issue of the environment. It was the public that rose up and said, we are killing our planet and it has got to stop. We need public involvement now- An Honourable Member: What does the public say now about your projects? Mr. Fllmon: They support it. They support the Clean Environment Commission and they support it. Some Honourable Members: Oh, ohl Mr.

Fllmon: Yes, yes, yes, yes. An Honourable Member: That is a good point. Listen to the publio--- Mr. Almon: Absolutely. That is what we are doing. That is what we did through the clean environment process under your Act. We followed it to the letter. Now we need public involvement to ensure that our plans for future economic growth in this province will adequately respond to environmental concerns as well. Now is the time for Manitobans to have their say, and we will use the core document as a basis for an extensive public consultation process.

There is an elaborate questionnaire that accompanies the core document. This is the same workbook format that is being followi:td, that has been followed very successfully in our land and water strategy. Not everyone will agree with everything that we have put forward. I think I speak for all the members of the Round Table when I say that we expect the consultation process will show areas where there is need for improvement. We are open of course to those suggestions.

The document that we presented yesterday will be improved, and at the end of this process Manitoba will have a blueprint for responsible future economic growth that respects and supports our environmental heritage. Mr. Speaker, I say to you it is no accident that I have chosen to chair both the Round Table and the Treasury Board. As I said when I addressed the throne speech, the ideas of fiscal and environmental responsibility are founded on the same principle, protecting the ability of future generations to enjoy the same quality of life or better than we enjoy today.

November 1, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 648 Both of these organizations are vital to the long-term strength of our province. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to squander the financial resources of our children any more than we can afford to abuse our natural resources. I would hope that every Member of this House can see the inherent logic and the justice in that statement. That is why I am so concerned about the deficit in our debt. Deficits are just delayed taxes. Our debt is a mortgage on our children's future.

Now I recognize that there is a need to spend more than we take in during a recession, but we have an obligation to the future to keep that deficit within tight limits and to ensure that the money is used to the best possible effect to protect vital services. That means that you have to set priorities and to stick with them. We are prepared to do exactly that. Our current economic difficulties have many causes. Some of them are international. The grain war, for instance, is a good example. The increasingly competitive and interconnected global economy is another.

We cannot bury our heads in the sand and ignore these forces no matter how much we wish that we could. We live in a trading province. Early on in our history it was the fur trade , then the grain trade. Now we export a wide variety of items from hydro to nickel to airplane parts to computers, but international forces are only a small part of our current difficulties. By far. the greatest problems facing us as a province have been created by the federal Government's actions over the past decade.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government of this country is deliberate ly running our economy into the ground with their high-interest and high-dollar policies. Year after year, at conference after conference and meeting after meeting, my colleagues and I have expressed our concern, indeed, our outrage at the federal Government's insensitive and damaging fallacies. We have even secured the support of the former Premier of Ontario in calling for lower interest rates, but the federal Government did not listen to us. High interest rates drive down housing starts.

They add to farmers already perilous position. We have taken action in this budget to help them, to help farmers against those high interest rates. High interest rates slow down investment in the private sector , particularly in the small business community , the area that creates most of our jobs. High interest rates dampen consumer spending. In terms of the Manitoba Government, we are hurt by high interest rates in two ways. Firstly, the slower economy hurts our revenues right across the board from sales tax to corporate income tax to personal income tax.

Secondly , our interest costs go up even higher than they are today, and I will speak a little more about that later. Yet, as damaging as the impact of federal Government interest policies are on our Government, they pale in comparison to the 10-year-long Government retreat from its commitments to equalization, federal Government retreat, from its commitments to equalization and health care, and post-secondary funding. •

(1550) Before the Members of the Opposition get too carried away with their partisan glee, let me remind them that these cutbacks began in 1982 when the Liberals were in power in Ottawa and the NOP were in power in Manitoba. Let the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) try to explain his Party's record on intergovernmental relations . Let him explain why under his Party's administration in Manitoba the federal Government eliminated the revenue guarantee to health and post-secondary transfers . Let the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs.

Carstairs) explain to the people of Manitoba how her heroes Jean Chretien and Pierre Trudeau made a single cut that has cost the health care and post -secondary education communities $375 million in Manitoba since 1982. This year alone that decision will cost Manitoba $64 million in reduced transfe rs. Let me remind Members opposite of the federal Liberal decision to apply the six and five program to EPF payments . That decision has cost us $78 million so far. It will reduce our EPF transfers by $15 million this year and by $16 million next year.

It was during the Liberal and NOP terms in office that the first cei ling was put in place on equalization payments, and I will talk more about them in a few minutes . This is not-I repeat, not-a partisan issue. Federal Governments of both Liberal and Conservative stripe have cut social transfers to both this administration and the former NOP administration . I can tell you here today that if a united front was important in Meech Lake it is crucial

649 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 1 , 1990 in the fight to preserve federal responsibilities in equalization and in health care. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) has attacked me in his speech to the budget over our relations with the federal Government. He claims that we were too soft at the last FMC. His Deputy Leader went on to repeat those allegations in a news release in today's Question Period. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me read from an account of that conference in the Winnipeg Free Press. This is not my version.

It is not the version of the Leader of the Opposition or his deputy, it is an objective version. The headline says, Filmon, PM exchange barbs-and that is not Biggar and McDougall. Filmon, PM exchange barbs, reads the headline. Premier Gary Fllmon--1 will quote-Premier Gary Filmon questioned Prime Minister Mulroney's image as the great conciliator yesterday and challenged him to improve federal-provincial relations.

In the frankest attack on Ottawa yesterday, Filmon said that while Mulroney enjoys the image of a nation builder since being elected to a second term, he has forgotten the formula that allowed him to proceed with initiatives such as free trade. The

article goes on, quote, but in the year since the federal election, Filmon said Ottawa has stopped listening to the provincial Governments and started acting in a unilateral fashion reminiscent of relations under former Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The Premier attacked the proposed federal sales tax, reduced regional development spending, VIA Rail Canada Ltd. cuts, high interest rates and national defence cuts.

Quote, the message must be starting to sound familiar, Fllmon said, quote, GST, the military bases, VIA, telecommunications-in every case we are asking the federal Government to stop and to consider the full impact of these proposals. The frankest attack, Mr. Speaker, that is what they said in the Free Press, and I think that is what the Prime Minister might say as well, because he did not respond with kind words to me for my comments to him last November. No, he responded with kind words about Howard Pawley for signing the Meech Lake Accord. That is what his response was. The frankest attack, Mr.

Speaker, more so than the Liberal Premiers. I will never let my Party affiliation stand before the interests of my province no matter what the Liberal ad agency would like people to believe. Despite my efforts and despite those of nine other Premiers and the parliamentary opposition and a host of others, the federal Government has continued its agenda of offloading onto the provinces and retreating from their commitments. Last February the federal Government announced measures to cap the Canada Assistance Plan and to freeze EPF funding.

Like every other M13mber of this House I was outraged at those cuts and have fought against them. Earlier this year we joined with British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario to fight the cap on CAP. We won that fight. At both the meetings of the western Premiers and at the annual Premiers' conference here in Winnipeg, the EPF cutbacks were very high on our list of criticisms. Let me outline the total impact of federal cutbac:ks just in equalization and EPF. The total cost of the five separate cutbacks to the EPF spread over the last 1 0 years to Manitoba has been $606 million.

This year alone we will have $197 million less for post-secondary education and health care than if th13 Government in Ottawa had lived up to its responsibilities. This is a story that is told in the document that was prepared by the western Finance Ministers and released publicly in July of this year. In the next budget the loss will be $256 million. That is a very serious shortfall. Over $65 million of that can be attributed to the last cutback alone, and like it or not it is a part of the reality that we in Manitoba have to plan for. In 1987 the federal Government lc,wered the ceiling on equalization.

Let me be clear. We believe any ceiling at all is totally contrary to the, i

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-1-16
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 1st hansardpdf 16.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d3b5188821b98eacb23da13f2196717afa2b708b

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