Manitoba Hansard — 19 April 1993 (Sitting 44A, 35th Legislature, 4th Session)

35-4-44a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Fourth Session ·Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 41 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocsn Speaker VOL. XLII No. 44A • 1:30 p.m., MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1993 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA, LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, louise DERKACH, leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, 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. GRAY, Avis HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY,Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PALLISTER, Brian PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann Vacant CONSTITUENCY Osbome Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan 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 Crescentwood Gimli Point Douglas Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Rossmere Pembina Portage Ia Prairie 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 Rupertsland PARTY. liberal NDP NDP liberal NDP liberal NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP liberal PC liberal PC NDP liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

1772 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, Aprll 19, 1993 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Ms. Rosann Wow chuk (Swan River): Mr. Speak er, I beg to present the petition of Christine Hather, Pauline Genaille, Martha Cha rtrand and others requesting the Family Services minister (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider restoring funds for the friendship centres of Manitoba. Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Brad Hastings, Sharon James, Cheryl A. James and others requesting the Family Ser vices minis te r (Mr.

Gil leshammer) consider restoring funding for the friendship centres in Manitoba. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker : I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Santos). It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed] Mr.

Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly she weth that: WHERE AS the United Nations has declared 19 93 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme, "Indigenous People: a new partnership"; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and WHER EAS the provincial government has stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and WHER EAS the elimi nation of all funding to friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services and programs provided, such as: assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially disadvantaged, families in crisis, educa tion, recr eation and cultural programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance, advocacy; WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Family Services minister to consider restoring funding for the friendship centres in Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker : I have reviewed the petition of the honourable memb er (Mr. Leonard Evans) . It complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed] Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that: WHER EAS the United Nations has declared 19 93 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme, "Indigenous People: a new partnership"; and WHER EAS the provincial government has totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and WHERE AS the elim ination of all funding to friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services and programs provided, such as: assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially dis advantaged, families in cris is, educa tion, recreation and cultural programming, housing reloca tion, fine options, counselling, court assistance , advocacy; WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Family Services minister to consider restoring funding for the friendship centres in Manitoba. * * * Mr.

Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Ashton). It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed] Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

17 73 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 1993 WH ERE AS the provi ncia l gove rnment has without notice or legal approval allowed wide-open Sunday shopping; and WHER EAS the provincial government has not consu lted Manitobans before im plement i ng wide-open Sunday shopping; and WHER EAS the provincial government has not hel d public hearing s on wide-open Sunday shopping; WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray tihat the Legis lative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Labour to consider holding public hearings on wide-open Sunday shopping throughout Manitoba before March 31 , 19 93 ; BE IT FURTHER resolved that the Legislative Assembly be pleased to reques t the Attorney General to uphold the current law concerning Sunday shopping until public hearings are held and the Legislature approves changes to the law. * * * Mr.

Spea ker : I have reviewed the petition of 1he honourable member (Mr. Dewar) . It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed] Mr.

Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that: WHERE AS the United Nations has declared 19 93 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme, "lndigene>us People: a new partnership"; and WHERE AS the provincial government has totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and WHER EAS the provincial government has staled that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and WHER EAS the elimi nation of all funding to friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services and programs provided, such as: assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially disa dvantaged, families in crisis, ed ucat ion, recr eation and cultUiral programming, housing relo cati on. fine options , counselling, court assistance, advocacy; WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legisla tive Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Family Services minister to consider restoring funding for the friendship centres in Manitoba.

Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Martindale) . It complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed] Mr.

Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that: WHERE AS the United Nations has declared 19 93 the Inte rnational Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme, "Indigen ous People: a new partnership"; and WHERE AS the provincial government has totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and WHER EAS the provincial government has stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and WHERE AS the elimi nation of all funding to friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services and programs provided, such as: assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially disadvantaged, families in crisis, educ at ion, re creation and cultural programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance, advocacy; WHEREF ORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legis lative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Family Services minister to consider restoring funding for the friendship centres in Manitoba.

Mr. Speake r : I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Hickes). It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed] Mr.

Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that: WHERE AS the United Nations has declared 19 93 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme, "Indigenous People: a new partnership"; and WHER EAS the provincial government has totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and WHER EAS the provincial government has stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and WHERE AS the elim ination of all funding to friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services and programs provided, such

April 19 , 1993 LEGISLAT IVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1774 as: assistance to the elderly, the homeless. youth programming, the socially disa dvantaged, families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance, advocacy; WHEREF ORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legisla tive Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Family Services Mi nister to consider restoring funding for the Friendship Centres in Manitoba. * (1 335) Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I dir ect the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afte rnoon from the Cres tview School, twenty-six Grade 5 students, under the dire ction of Ms. Lorraine Prokopchuk. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable minister of Consumer and Corp orate Affairs (Mrs. Mcintosh) . Also this afte rnoon, from the Garden City Collegia te we have fifty Grade 9 student s under the direction of Ms. Roberta Topping. This school is located in the constitu ency of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).

On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Tourism Marketing Strategy Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). Tourism is close to a billion-dollar industry in this province, employing upwards to 25, 000 to 26,000 people in our province. A couple of years ago we asked for reasons why Manitoba's decline in tourism from U. S. visitors was down 14 percent, much larger than any other province in Canada.

In fact, we had fewer tourists two years ago than we have had right back to 33 years ago, back to the 19 50s. Last year, after the government stated that they would have a thorough and aggressive campaign on tourism, kind of a recorded announcement to deal with U.S. tourists, again we see a decline of 6.4 percent in 19 92,

whereas the Canadian average was only a decline of 1. 1 percent. In fact, we were in last place in 19 90-91 ; we are in eig hth place in 19 92. I would like to ask the Premier why this aggressive campaign and aggressive strategy is not working in this very important and vital industry in Manitoba. Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, the member is partly correct in terms of the decline in visitors from the United States.

I would suggest he go back and review the statistics during his time in government, when he will find that the highest rate of decline in U.S. visit ors occurred during that very particular time in Manitoba. Having said that, we do recognize that about 1 0 to 12 percent of our tourism industry does come from the United State s. We continue to focus on that with a part of our tourism campaign.

I know the Leader of the Opposition could not be ther e today for our tou rism campaign announcement, but I believe repr esentatives on his behalf were there, and if he were to listen to leader s from the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce, the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, Tourism Industry Association of Mani toba, Tourism Indus try Association of Winnipeg, Tourism Winnipeg, and so on, I am sure he will find that they are very pleased with the 19 93 campaign.

We continue to target the U.S. market as part of our overall campaign, but I do want to remind him that 88 percent of our tourism visitors do come from Canada and from Manitoba. If you look at the statistics in terms of occupancy rates in 19 92, they were up in Manitoba in term s of fairs and festivals throughout Manitoba. Many of them had record attendance. Overall tourism still fared reasonably well in 1 992, but we do continue to promote in the United States. Federal Brochure Mr. Gary Doer (leader of the Opposition): The minister's own tourism book very clearly states that tourism from Manitoba,

whereas it is very important, 75 percent of people visiting in Manitoba either stay at a private cottage or stay at a relative's place. The percentage of money coming from U.S. tourists and tourists from out of the country is much more important and significant in te rms of the activity it ge nerate s, the people it em ploys and the

1775 LEGISlATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 19 93 billion-dollar pote ntial, and those are out of the ministe r's own stati stics. Mr. Speaker, my question is again to the Premier (Mr. Rlmon). Today, we are informed that the federal government has put out a tourism promotion publication listing nine great cities to visit. Are any great cities or communities in Manitoba listed in that federal tourism brochure from the federal government? • (1 340) Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Tr�1de and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, firstly, I want to, from my pe rspecti ve , corr ec t the Leader of the Opposition.

He talked about visitors from outside being more important than visitors from insidEt. I would suggest they are all important to Manitoba's tourism economy. If he were to look at the stati stics in terms of the im portance of Manitoba-and we conti nually encourage Manitobans to take their holidays at home and enjoy the many aspects of Manitoba, whether it is our outdoor activit ies, our beaches, our fishing, our camping, our hunting. There are many things for Manitobans to do, and they are just as important to our industry as anybody coming fmm the outside. I would hope that he would recognize that, Mr. Speaker.

He is referring to the federal publication that did not refer to Winnipeg. Obviously, we will be having discussions with the federal government on that exclusion. We are working with them on rna ny co-operative initiatives. We have a Ca nada Manitoba, $1 O-m ill ion agreement over the next five years. We are doing many things co-operativ13ly with the federal government. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we are very disappoi nted on this side to hear that the federal Conser vative government, with the federal-provincial agreement, has chosen to exclude Manitoba. I would hope the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) will take that up at the highost level with the Conser vative government. It is an insult to Manitobans that we have been left out of this publication. Marketing Strategy Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): A final question to the Premier: Tourism out of the country declined in Manitoba again at 1. 7 percent from '92 to '91 ,

whereas the Canadian decline was .3 percent. Why again is Manitoba running so far behind the rest of the country in terms of successful tourism campaigns to attract visitors from out of the country to our great province? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, again, I want to correct the Leader of the Opposition when he generalizes and suggests that we are running so far behind every other part of the country when he does his comparison. While we are not faring the best in Canada, we are cert ainly not faring the worst.

We continue to have a series of initiatives in the United States and other international markets. Part of the five-year agreem ent we have with the federal go ve rnment has an international marketing component that we are just starting to utilize and will be utilizing extensively in 19 93 . We are also bringing in a Visitor Values program, Mr. Speaker, with the United States in term s of promoting the advantages now of coming to Canada in terms of the exchange rate .

We are also promoting something that we brought in last year which has the ability for United States visitors at our border to get the rebate dire ctly of both the GST and the PST, many initiatives that will make it more attractive for foreign visitors to come to Manitoba. We are optimistic about the 19 93 campaign and anticipate it will meet the needs of attracting more visitors from the United States and other parts of the world. Misericordia General Hospital Status Report Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr. Speaker, all decisions with respect to bed closures are made by the Minister of Health.

I am sure that the Minister of Health will welcome the opportunit y today of quashing rumours and speculation and reassuring the staff and patients of Miseric ordia Hospital. Will he confirm that Misericordia Hospital is not to be closed nor to be significantly downsized now or in the next 18 months? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend is repeating some of the rumours that have been circulating recently and I suppose in November, December, circa 19 78, and circa 19 75-a long history of rumours.

I can indicate to my honourable friend that the rumours about an imminent closure of Miseri cordia Hospital are incorrect. They were incorrect when I

April 19, 1993 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1776 was asked by members of the media in December as to whether Misericordia was closing. Then the rumourwas a little more draconian, Sir. The rum our at that date was a question posed to me on a Friday to the extent that Misericordia would be closed the following Monday. At least the rumours are getting a little more gentle, but they are still not accurate. Mr. Chomlak: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question fully, and that is one of the things that breeds rumours. I will ask the minister simply again.

The minister said that the imminent closing will not occur. Will he confirm that the hospital will not be closed nor significantly downsized either imminently or in the next 18 months to two years? A simple question-he can put the rumours to bed by answering it right now. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speak er, I have giv en my honourable friend that answer as I have given that answer on previous days. My honourable friend's party supports the reform of the mental health system.

Part of that reform of the mental health syste m was the decision that was accepted from the Urban Hospital Council and from the Winnipeg Regional Mental Health Council to remove the acute care beds providing inpatient mental health services at Miseri cordia Hospit al. That decision was accepted some 15 months ago and was reconfirmed, Sir, last month, in which we announced steps to bring in community-based services in mental health. Now, that clearly is a do wnsizin g at the Misericordia Hospital as it is, coincidentally, at Grace and St. Boniface.

My honourable friend's seeking of assurance of no downsizing at Misericordia would go against what his own party has agreed to in mental health reform. * (1 345) Misericordia General Hospital Status Report Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why we have consistently called for a health monitor on the reform initiative is so that these rumours that are in the purview of the public do not continue to percolate on and on and on. As the minister has indicated, this one has been in the realm now for some many, many months.

The minister has clearly said, there is no imminent plan to close down Misericordia Hospital. Can the minister tell the House today if there are additional changes in function for Misericordia Hospital now being planned above and beyond the plans already announced and executed in the field of mental health reform? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, let me first deal with rumours.

Back in, I think it was November or December, when notice was given as per the MGE U contract in terms of a number of layoffs which would be imminent, the president of that union indi cated that all public health nurses employed in the Ministry of Health would be laid off. That was an unfounded state ment by the leadership of that union, and it caused untold concern amongst public health nurses and the people they serve throughout the length and breadth of Manitoba.

I cannot stop people from maki ng those erroneous state ments to do nothing but advance their personal cause at leadership positions and to do so by really putting a significant amount of fear in the very people they represent, namely, in this case, the public health nurses. I want to deal specifically with program in terms of the shifts, the changes that we anticipate may well be recommended to government across our urban hospitals.

There are a number of program studies, for instance, obstetrics, orthopedics, urology and a numbe r of oth er pr og rams in which exper t committees are now investigating how those programs can be deliv ered more effecti vely for the people of Manitoba. That may mean gives and takes and sh ifts in where and the amount of program s which are deliv er ed from var ious hospitals. To date, I have no recommendations other than in psychiatric bed provision. Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr.

Speaker, will the minister tell the House today if Misericordia Hospital has been designated as a hospital which will go from an acute care facil ity to an alternate community-based facility? Is that the di rection in which this hospital is moving?

1777 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 1993 Mr. Orchard: I think that is one of the rumours which is not accurate, Mr. Speaker. HIV Testlng Blood Transfusion Recipients Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Health tell the House today if he is debating and discussing with his officials to institute the same kind of HIV testing for those who had blood transfusions during the period of 19 80-1 985, which has now be1m put in place in the province of Nova Scotia? Hon.

Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): I am not sure what is happer.ing in Nova Scotia in te rms of blood transfusion, citizens, other than the specific reference to those hemophiliacs. Mr. Speaker, I thought my honourable friend's question might be centred around a decision by the Chil dren's Hospital in Toronto to inform the• ir pediatric patients. Upon seeking clarity around that, it has been the advice given consistently by our institutions that individuals who received blood transfusions in the mid-'80s, as a generous precaution, should avail themselves of the HIV tes ting.

That advice has been before those patients for approximately five or six years now. Manitoba Intercultural Council Legislation Repeal Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, on the weekend the Manitoba Intercultural Council, in its sixth biennial conference, overwhelm ingly called on the government to dism antle the Multiculturalism Secretariat, the Communit y Access Offi ce and the Multicultural Grants Advisory committee and to maintain the legis lative mandate role and funding of the Manitoba Intercultural Council .

Will the minister tell the House today, as she did not stay on Saturday morning to discuss issues and questions with the delega tes there, if she will now re-eval uate her decision to bring in legisl aticn revoking the MIC Act and follow the mandate of the biennial conference? • (1 350) Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): Mr. Speaker, just at the outset, I was at the opening of the biennial assembly on Saturday morning, by inv itati on, to bring greetings and open the assembly.

I would just like to table in the House, if I might, my opening remarks, because a few of the NDP caucus were not there to hear them personally. So I would like them to have copies, and other members of the House, because it does indeed indicate our commitment to multiculturalism. Mr. Speaker, we commissioned the Don Blair report, which was extensiv e consultation throughout the province of Manitoba in the multicultural community. As a result of receiving that report, we sent 800 copies out the width and the breadth of this province.

I had very few comments and responses back, but those who did respond did indicate that they were supportive of the Blair report, and we intend to follow the recommendations. Anti-Ra cism Proposals Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr.

Speaker, how can this government state its commitment to combatting racism which, as we have seen day after day, is increasing in this province in strength and in viciousness, when they are in the process of destroying the one organization that over the last 1 0 years has been able to provide a comprehensive plan for combatting racism .md has been the one organization that has been able to co-ordinate the activities of 400 multicultural communities? How can they say they- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question. Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): Mr.

Speaker, we will not take a back seat to anyone in initiatives regarding combatting racism in this province. We have many initiatives that are ongoing, and we will continue to promote racial harmony as the government in Manitoba. Legislation Delay Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, if the minister is not prepared to immediately repeal her comments on the MIC Act, will she agree, as the MIC council asked her to do, to delay introducing that legislation until the MIC executive and council have had a chance to meet with the minister and discuss ways that they can co-ord inate the activi ties? Hon.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): I would say, of the very most important biennial assembly that has ever taken

April 19, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1778 place in the history of the Manitoba Intercultural Council, I was somewhat disappointed that of the 400 organizations that are represented, about 70 dele gates were there. That is about 18 percent of the organizations that were represented there. I do know that I have indi cated quite clearly that I look forward to a very positive working relationship with the Manitoba Intercultural Council as they establish their new role and mandate, completely controlled by the community without government interfe rence. Canadian Wheat Board Barley Marketing Ms.

Rosann Wow chuk (S wan River): Mr. Speak er, my question is for the Minis ter of Agriculture. The Carter report on barley sales to the U.S. was tabled today in Edmonton. The report is full of inaccuracies and information that cannot be substantiated. In fact, the dollar value is completely inaccurate. Mr. Carter has proven that he is not cred ible.

In light of the fact that five major farm groups in Mani toba, Manitoba Pool, Farmers' Union, Canadian Federation of Agricultu re, KAP, the Canadian Wheat Board and maltsters are opposed to this report and say that it will have devastating effects in Manitoba, will the Minister of Agriculture tell us today whether he stands with the farmers and opposes this report, or is he supporting Charlie Mayer on this one? Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the member raises a question that is of pretty keen interest in the farm community right now.

I would like to tell the member that over the last four to five years since 19 88, we have increased our barley sales to the United States by some 50 percent, a rather phenom ena l increase , but I understand the report also indicates that some markets have not been served either in term s of volume or in terms of price. I can assure the member that my de partment is going to do a thorough analysis of the study to determine if the facts there are right, if the allegations made against it are right. We are going to do a thorough analysis.

I want to be sure that we penet rate the market to the best possible extent and get the highest return to the farm gate for all farmers in Manitoba. * (1 355) Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, since it is the opinion of major farm groups that these changes will be devastating and will dramatically change agriculture patte rns in Canada, will the minister commit today to holding public meetings so farmers could get information, and will he immedi ately implement a plebis cite on this very important issue? Mr. Findlay: Mr.

Speaker, over the course of the last number of years, farmers have always had choices how to market the ir barley -nonboard market or the Wheat Board. That choice still exists. No vote was held on whether that choice should be in place. I have told the member, we will adequately review the document. Maybe, just maybe, the Wheat Board has not been using enough of the agents, the private sector agents, in selling the market, in penetrating the market. We are going to do that analysis. I will not make a knee-jerk reaction like that member there.

Without even having looked at the report, she has already made a conclusion. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that we have looked at the report. Will the minis ter agree tha t the federal government, which is at the end of its term and very low in the polls, does not have the mandate to make such dramatic changes to the Wheat Board, and wiii- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are having great difficulty in hearing the question of the honourable member for Swan River. Ms.

Wowchuk: I want to ask the minister if he will make representation to the federal gove rnment on behalf of farmers opposing any changes to Wheat Board sales before the next election. Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, I have always been adamant-the facts only, please . That member, in her

preamble, forgot to notice the facts in the polls right now. Her party has gone thunk, right to the bottom, and the government has gone right to the top under the leadership of a woman, or the potential leadership of a woman. She refuses to accept those facts. Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member, we will assess the facts. She may not like to address the facts, but we will.

1779 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 1993 Point of Order Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he would clarify the facts where he was talking about the leadership- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is definitely not a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. [interjection] What? Mr. Findlay: She wants me to clarify that? Mr. Speaker: There was no point of order. * {1 400) Sexual Assaults on Youths Conviction Rate Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Mr.

Speaker, again today we have all been reminded by a repo rt prepared by Dr. Catherine Stark that the community response to sexual violence towards children is woefully inadeq uate. Assailants are charged in only half of the cases of reported sexual assault of teenagers. Less than 20 percent of reported assailants are convictt�d. despite the fact that 60 percent of victim s are raped by someone they know. Twenty percent of rapes are gang rapes or had others watching. Finally, Mr.

Speak er, and pe rhaps most dis turbing and, underlying all of this, is the esti mate by experts that only one in 1 0 case s of sexual violence towards children is even repo rted at all. Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Jus tice is: What is this minister prepared to do, as the senior law enforcement officer for this province, to get tough with the perpetrators of sexual violence towards children in our communities and give some comfort and support to v·rctims of those crimes? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr.

Speaker, as soon as my dep artment learned of the existence of this report, senior officials in the department got in touch with the author of the report to discuss the findings. Certai nly, as we see them repor ted in the newspaper, some of the numbers that we see thme are disturbing indee d. However, there are some things happening that the honourable member may wish to be reminded about. Some of the things that are wr itten in the arti cle are cause for concern in themselves when we hoar that many victims, it says here, also decide not to testif y· when they find out about the di smal conviction rate.

Well, that looks to me like the beginning of a vicious circle . If there is a belief that there is not going to be a co nviction, then there are going to be a lot of people not wanting to testify . Therefore, they are going to have to have stays of proceedings in numbers which we all agree are unacceptable and should not be happening. There are some positive things happening, however.

When the Supreme Court struck down the rape shield, the federal government, supported by provincia l govern ments across this land, supported speedy action to replace the rape shield in such a way that the Supreme Court we hope will find accep table. We have our Domestic Violence Court here in Manitoba. We have the Women's Advocacy Program in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, and other victims' programs which are working to assist victims and to let them know that you ought not to be frightened of the system , that we are trying to make the system more se nsitive to the needs of victims. Pedlar Report Recommendations Mr.

Paul Edwards (Sl James): Mr. Speaker, one of the most interesting comments in the repo rt today was from a Crown attorney. The Crown attorney was quoted as saying that a major problem in securing convictions was that victim s of teenage sexual abuse and assault could not get adequate support in coming forward and testifying in court.

My question for the minister, flowing from those comments, and that is a comment from someone in his department: Has the minister yet implem ented, as he said he would, the Pedlar re por t recommendations that medical staff receive training and protocols to assist in securing convictions or that school curriculums include discussions about relationship violence? After 18 months of the Pedlar report, has the minister implemented the things he said he would? Hon.

James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Many of the recommendations of the Pedlar review have in deed been implem ented, certainly in the area of domestic viol ence and curriculum in the schools. Mr. Speaker, there are modules respecting violence in families that are made available to teaching staff across the province, and young people are learning

April19, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1780 about the dynamics of domestic violence and how we can avoid it. The comment that was made in one case I suggest is not so helpful. One comment was made that if her goal is to see the guy go to jail, we tell them that is not likely. I frankly, Mr. Speaker, do not think that is helpful to a victi m seeking assistance, to be told that it is not likely that your attacker is going to go to jail when everything we are doing in the justice system is pointing in the other direction .

If you look at our Family Violence Court, for example, the number of accused being sentenced to probation or jail has increased since the institution of the Family Violence Court. I with all due respect would take issue with giving that kind of advice to a victim of sexual violence, you know, that, do not come forward because it is not going to do you any good anyway. If this is the atti tude of the professionals in the field, then I think that we still have some work to do, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Edwards: I am not wanting to provoke debate, Mr.

Speaker, but it was illustrated six week s ago, the justice system sends people- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. James was quite correct. He does not want to provoke debate. Kindly put your question now, please. Women's Advocacy Program Resources Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, finally, for the minister, the minister said he was going to implem ent every recommendation of the Pedlar report. You will remember he said that.

My question for the minister: Has the Women's Advocacy Program, which he has just spoken of rece ntly in his an swer , been moved to the Depa rtment of Justice now? Will its resources be expanded as set out in the Pedlar report with the new monies from the federal fine surcharge, which are not revenues raised in the normal taxation way, but are raised through the court system- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. James has put his question. Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr.

Sp eaker, when the honourable member gets up, I put my earplug in, because I do not want to miss anything he says, but when you stand up, his mike goes off, so I did not hear any of the gibberish that came out at the beginning of the question, but I did hear- Mr. Speaker: I heard the question. Order, please. Point of Order Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me entirely inappropriate that when we are dealing with children who have been raped, sometimes gang raped, that we allow- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order.

It is clearly a dis pute over the facts. *** Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Justice, with his answer. Mr. McCrae: I think the honourable member for River Heights' efforts to advance the debate are not very helpful, Mr. Speaker, frankly, when you consider the importance of these kinds of issues. The honourable member asked if the Women's Advocacy Program has been moved to Justice . The answer is yes. The other question was: Have resources for these kinds of programs-are resources made available? This program has been very carefully monitored.

Each time there has been a need demonstrated through our independent advisory panel, funds have been made available, staff has been increased. The honourable member, really, I am glad he raises the question, because it is important, but the answer on both counts is yes, indeed, there is. On the part of this government, this is a No. 1 priority. Budget Property Tax Credit Mr. Leonard Evans (B randon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) .

Over $53 million of the expenditu res cut in this last budget were related to reductions of the property tax credit of up to $75 and a reduction in the Pensioners' School Tax Assistance Program. This was a very regressive fiscal move and is definitely equi valent to an unfair tax increase, disp roportionately hurting

178 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 1993 people on modest and low incomes and especially senior citizens. My question is: Given this minister's stated intention to cut expenditures further next year, as: he has shown in his budget, can Manitobans expect additional cuts to property tax credits next year or the year after? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance ): Mr. Speaker, that question is bizarre. We have not even voted on this year's budget. We will begin the budgetary process for 19 94··95 usually in the month of September.

At that time we will have a clearer indication as to how the revenues are flowing in within the fiscal year '93-94, which will then give us the base of greater confidence as to forecasting revenues for '94-95. It is much too soon to make any type of comm4mt with respect to the budget for '94-95. Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the expenditure side, which you forec•:tst as being cut next year and then level for the n•�xt three years, so my reference is to expenditures.

My question then: Has the Minister of Rnance taken into account the fact that even with a mod•�st amount of inflation, let us say 2 percent a year, the level of $4,760 million, which is in here and proposed to be maintained over the next three years, will really mean a cut of about $1 40 million in constant 1993 dollars by 19 94, a cut of about $1 80 million by 19 95, and a cut of about $270 million by 19 96? My question is: What draconian measures dCies this minister anticipate undertaking to achieve the cutback targets? Mr.

Manness: I hope the member opposite has an opportunity to digest the Ontario budget when it comes down. Then he can apply the label "draconian." Let me say that we have made decisions in this government over the course of our first six budg•�ts so that we did not have to take draconian measur•�s. so we do not have to reduce expenditures in the realm of 8, 10 , 15 percent.

I tell him that when we were talking about a reduction, and again, this is in a broad term, as I have laid out in the budget, as indeed the memb1Hs opposite have encouraged me to do over the last three years, to forecast ahead three or four years, as I have done in this budget. I would say a 1 percent reduction is not draconian in any respect, and all the decisions that are going to be made around that number will be made not in the course of the next week or two. They will be made probably next fall. Mr.

Leonard Evans: The minister seems to have forgotten about the phenomenon of inflation as far more than 1 percent to try to maintain level in 19 93. Fairness Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): My last question to the minister: Will this min ister guarantee that he will not again focus feature expenditure cuts on the poor, the elderly and the disadvantaged, as he has done in this budget? Will he stop being unfair with the most vulnerable people in this province? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, it is springtime. I just wish the member would wake up and smell the roses.

The fact is, when he surveys the political landscape, we are making decisions which are not an awful lot different than are being made anywhere else in the country. I think it is very important also that the member realize that inflation is not manif esting any revenue increase to governments across the land. It is a sign of the times, and I would expect that the member would realize that the difficult decisions that we made in this budget no doubt will be followed by some degree of difficult decisions in terms of '94-95.

The member can throw across all the commentary he wants, but let us sit and wait and see how the Ontario budget comes in, and at that time we will decide where we more aptly apply the term "draconian." * (1 41 0) Furniture Manufacturing Plants Emission Levels Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): For some three years, the residents of-{interjection) Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Reid: As soon as the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) is finished, Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to ask my questions. For some three years, the residents of Transcona have displayed symptoms of exposure to chemicals

April 19, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1782 and wood dust particulate as a result of a furniture operation in my community. The American U.S. Department of Health, the North American Woodworkers Association, The British Journal of Industrial Medicine, The American Journal of Epide miology and the Manitoba Department of Labour list emissions from furniture manufacturing as a carcinogenic industrial proc�:�ss. My question is for the Minister of the Environment.

Is it the position of the minister and the Department of Environment to consider wood particulate from the furniture manufacturing process a nontoxic substance? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of very important aspects to this question, not the least of which are the concerns that are expressed by th e residents in the area, but let me make it very clear, this is not a situation that has been ignored, nor will it be ignored by our department. I am somewhat disappointed that the

article in the paper, which I am sure helped to precipitate this question, did not also refer to the fact that the department has been doing a considerable amount of stack testing, which goes far beyond opacity testing. Last year, I think this was probably one of the most closely tested and monitored sites in Manitoba but, anytime that the community believes they have a problem, then we need to make sure that we are doing everything we can to address it.

In that respect, there have been a number of meetings that have been brought together in order to get an enhanced working relation ship between the community and the plant to make sure that the plant is doing everything that the community believes is needed to respond to their concerns. We have offered on one occasion to mediate this disagreement. We were unsuccessful in having the community and the plant sit down together with the Department of Environment at that time, but I believe they are today following up on that. Mr.

Reid: Can the Minister of Environment explain why the Department of Labour sets an exposure level standard for wood particulate from furniture manufacturing at one microgram per cubic metre of air for an eight-hour employee exposure level, Mr. Speaker, while the Department of Environment has a standard of 120 micrograms per hour over a 24-hour exposure period? How does this help the sick, the elderly and the young people of my community who are exposed to this level of 120 micrograms- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question. Mr. Cummings: Mr.

Speaker, there are very often differences between the standards that are set in workplace, because of the intensity of the operation and the unremittance of the conditions in which the worker must continue his occupation. Mr. Speaker, in addressing these concerns, we have now, in that community, a plant that has emission controls and equipment in place that far exceed any other plant of that nature in North America.

I do not say that in any way to reduce the concerns of the people in the community, but I have to tell you that even today they are working on new technology to try and bring into place anything that will at all provide any additional control and relief in that area, including some untried technologies in order to reduce concerns. Mr. Speaker, the corporation has been monitored extensively.

There have been occasions when they have, through various clean-up procedures and shut-down procedures, exceeded their emissions, but we have not been able to bring the compliance down to the level where we cannot perceive any further complaints. Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the same minister. I have asked this minister now for two years to assist the residents and myself in having this plant clean up its operation. This minister refuses to help.

Can the Minister of Environment explain why this furniture manufacturing plant in Transcona is allowed to exceed the limit and emit a level over 1 ,800 micrograms per cubic metre of air, some 15 times above his own environmental standard, which is insufficient to protect the health of the residents of Transcona? Why is he not acting on this- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Cummings: Mr.

Speaker, the member continues to ignore the fact th at-it was demonstrated I believe by a meeting that we called for on December 17 when the department went to deal with the concerns of the residents, but when we intended to bring the corporation into the meeting and for discussion of what further compliance activities could be undertaken, that member led the

1783 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 1993 group out of the meeting, as I understand the situation. Mr. Speaker, it is not helpful when we are trying to exceed what are normal standards and we a.re not receiving the help of the member opposite. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Committee Changes Mr. George Hlckes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be amendEid as follows: Burrows (Mr. Martindale) for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans); The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) for Kildonan (Mr.

Chomiak); Broadway (Mr. Santos) f,or Flin Ron (Mr. Storie), for Tuesday, April 20, 1993, for 7:30 p.m. Motion agreed to. ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE (Eighth Day of Debate) Mr. Speaker: On the adjourned debate, the eighth day of debate, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and the proposed motion of the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) in amendment thereto and the proposed motion of the honourable Leader C)f the Second Opposition (Mrs.

Carstairs) in furthor amendment thereto, standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River who has 38 minutes remaining. Ms. Rosann Wow chuk (S wa n River): Mr. Speaker, last week when the budget was tabled, many people were momentarily relieved because they had been expecting much worse. From the way this government had been carrying on and speeches they had been making, people were expecting much worse. As I say, they were temporarily relieved but, in reality, as they started to look at this budget they realized that although the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) has said he did not raise personal income tax or sales tax, in real it)'. people are going to be paying much more. In particular, it is going to be the poor and the middle class who are going to be paying the most, and this budget is going to have extremely bad effects on the elderly and disadvantaged. This government seems to have taken a very hard blow on those who can least afford it. In particular, the minimum property tax, the change in the property tax will be devastating for people on low incomes. To have people pay a minimum of $250 property tax is going to be devastating for many people.

This will be a much different impact on low-income people, people living in rural communities, than it will be on people who are living in Tuxedo-just a tremendous increase. When I look at some of the examples here of seniors who will have their taxes increased from-last year their property taxes were $575. Once they got their tax credit back, they were paying $75. Now with the changes implemented by this government, they will be paying $250, an increase of over 230 percent. This goes on and on.

I believe that it is extremely unfair to people, particularly in rural Manitoba, where we do not nearly have the services that urban people do and particularly in light of the fact that the government offloaded many, many costs onto rural people in the last two budgets, off loaded roads, reduced services, and now they are expected to pay more. Rural people, as I say, do not have the services-in many cases, no paved roads. We are seeing a tre mendous decrease in services-reduced educational services, cut back on the dental program, clinicians in our schools, less services for our rural people.

They are going to be asked to pay more property tax which they cannot afford. I mentioned the dental program and for the life of me, Mr. Speaker,! cannot believe that a government could take out such a valuable program for northern and rural Manitoba children. They talk about health reform. They talk about improving preventative health and helping our children. What they have done is taken out one of the most vital programs that has helped keep our young children healthy, their teeth in good condition.

With the removal of this program, there are going to be many young people who will not have the opportunity to go to the dentist, will not have services available to them, particularly in the remote communities. In the end, we will pay much, much more. *

(1420) At the rate this government is going, we will be paying much, much more in many ways. With the removal of many of the assistances for students going to school, the incentives to go to school,

April 19, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1784 particularly the social al lowance program, by having that removed there is no incentive for people to get off the social welfare roll. It appears that the only economic development this government is committed to is increasing the social allo wances budget, and that is certainly not going to help people. Mr. Speaker, this government broke several election promises in this budget. During the last election, the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) promised that we would see no increases in taxes, but we have seen tremendous increases in taxes-property tax, fuel tax, many increases. The Premier's own briefing books equate this budget to an increase of 5 percent in personal taxes, and people are well aware of that. They are feeling the consequences of that, and many people are worried about how they are going to make ends meet with less revenue, parti cularly also because there are so many people who are nervous about their jobs. They do not know how long they are going to be working.

There is absolutely no job creation in this province, nothing to keep families going, but they are asked to pay more and more and people cannot afford it. There is a very distressed feeling out there right now. The other promise, Mr. Speaker, that was made was that we would not have a harmonization of the GST and the provincial sales tax, but we are seeing the GST and the provincial sales tax harmonized. We are also seeing an expansion of the tax to many, many more goods.

Snack foods, school supplies, ba by supplies, personal hygiene produc ts, restaurant meals for under $6 all will be added to the provincial sales tax. This government may say as often as they want that they have not raised the provincial sales tax, but by broadening it to a much broader base, spreading it out, it is an extra cost to many people and on many products that people cannot avoid buying. They are essential products that are now being taxed. This again is a broken promise by this government. Mr. Speaker, finally, the other broken promise that I would like to talk about is the VL T revenue.

People in rural Manitoba agreed to the video lottery term ina I scheme because they were promised that revenues raised from video lottery terminals would go to economic development in rural Manitoba. This is not happening. Sixty-five percent of revenues are going to deficit reduction. Meanwhile, we are losing jobs and businesses in rural Manitoba . Although the government says that they can access money through the REDI fund, people are finding this money very difficult to access, but the government is not listening. I can think of a couple of prime examples of people who could use, perhaps, video lottery money.

I think, Mr. Speaker, of the alfalfa plant in Dauphin which is at the risk of shutting down. When they ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) whether he can help them out, he says, there is no money, there are no grants available. Where is the economic development plan of this province? It is just all hollow promises. They talk about being committed to rural Manitoba; they talk about economic development in rural Manitoba. Basically, we are having a shutdown of jobs and services, and this government is not listening.

There are jobs, in particular, at the alfalfa plant, expert people who have-markets they have found, people who have developed the plant, have skills there. This plant is going to be shut down. Yet, we have the government giving false hope to people in other parts of the province saying that they support the development of the alfalfa plant for perhaps in the Interlake. The minister said that he went to Japan to look for sales for this product, but in reality there has been no benefit from that, and we are going to lose.

Another example is the fishermen on Lake Winnipegosis, what was a viable industry, but an industry that is struggling very much right now. The government refuses to listen to them, and in fact, they have cut services to them. The fishermen's co-ops no longer have auditing services, Mr. Speaker. Now, I cannot imagine what this government is thinking of by reducing that service when there has- where are people in the very remote areas going to find auditor s? What is the cost going to be versus what the government has saved? I believe when you look at it, Mr.

Speaker, there is going to be a tremendous loss of services to the people in the fishing industry but, again, that does not seem to be a concern to this government. Mr. Speaker, this government is draining money out of rural Manitoba, but not meeting the needs of the people. In fact, we are losing ground under this government. They have broken their promises on decentralization. They have not carried forward

1785 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA April 19, 19 93 with those. The minister shakes his head, but the1re are promises that were made on decentralizati, on that have not been fulfilled, and we have had reduced services. Actually, what we are doing is we are losing c1ur people out of this province. In the end, we will pay the price because many people who have a tremendous amount of kn owledge and understanding of this province are leaving, not because they want to, but they have no choice but to leave this pr ovince because there is no opportunity for them here.

I think of the Parkland human resource centre that is being closed down and the number of skill4!d people we are going to lose, plus the services that we are going to lose for all of those people who are on social assistance, people who have no hope. I guess that is where this government would rather keep them. They will not have very much hope under this government. Mr. Speaker, I know that there are other people who want to speak today, and we are getting into a shortness of time here. However,! would like to tatlk briefly on the Agriculture budget. The Agriculture budget was reduced by ·1 4 percent.

We are told that in large part, this is a reduction due to GRIP, and that is a fact. I agme that there will be a reduction in there, but there are other things that will be cut. They have removed the hail spot loss in insurance. In talking to people in the farming community, they believe that in the long term, this is going to weaken the crop insurance program. People will be forced to go for private insuraru�e which is in reality much more expensive according to the people that I have spoken to as far as hail insurance. The hail insurance is going to cost them.

The removal of the spot loss insurance will weakon crop insurance. The other area that I am most concerned about is the reduction in research by this government. I attended the Gate to Plate Conference which the minister often refers to. We talk about the different markets that are available and things that we have to change. For things to change, government has a responsibility to do research and provide farmers with information on what should be happening, but we have had the budget in the Ag offices reduc.:1d and the amount of research.

Now the minister may say it is a minimal amount that has been reduced but, in reality, if we were really serious about diversifying and providing opportunities and new products for farmers to grow, we should see the research dollars increased. We should be takin g every opportunity we can to improve the opportunities for farmers to change. I believe that it is a mistake and not a serious commitment to farmers by reducing the research budget. • (1 430) The other area that deals with the agricultur e industry is the production of ethanol.

Now I am sure the minister is quite aware that there is a tremendous interest in the production of ethanol in Manitoba, as there is in other provinces, and there is some incentive put forward by the federal government to encourage more production and changing the type of fuel we use. So I question the reason then in the budget where the tax preference for gasohol has been reduced by one cent a litre. Is this moving away? Is this not discouraging the production of ethanol if the incentive there is taken away? Now I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) shaking his head on that one.

Perhaps when we get into the Detailed Estimates we can discuss it more thoroughly. But that causes me some concern, because I think that we have to think very seriously about what we are-We have to get away from using fossil fuels but, in order to do that, a tremendous amount of work has to be done. I guess that is another area where I think we have to be putting more research dollars into. We have to be looking at the feasibility of whether or not it is viable to convert grains into fuel. As I say, that is something that has to be looked at very carefully.

Perhaps we can get into a more detailed discussion on it when we get into the Estimates which will be coming very soon. The whole issue of barley sales, Mr. Speaker, is causing great concern, and I think that if we see changes, if we move away from the single-desk selling there is going to be a tremendous impact on the farming community. I am very concerned about some of the information that is in this report that came out today. I thin k it is inaccur ate. From what I can see out of it, it appears that this is a move to open the door for Mr.

Mayer to move along the lines that he has always wanted and that is to remove barley from the Wheat Board.

April 19, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1786 We have to look very seriously at the impacts. Who is going to benefit from that? Are farmers right across the province going to benefit? Are farmers right across Canada going to benefit or is it going to be those farmers alo ng the border who will gain the greatest benefit from this and the farmers in other parts of the province be the ones who are going to sufferfrom this? Mr.

Speaker, that debate, I am sure, will take place over the next few days as we get more information on it, but I can assure you that we have a tremendous amount of concern about what is being proposed in the Carter report. The Wheat Board has served Ca nadian farmers well for many, many years. They have brought maximum return for farmers, and I would hope that the minister will look at this very carefully. I think that it is extremely important that farmers have a vote on this. After all, when we dealt with the Constitution, we were able to have a vote.

This is an issue that could change the pattern of agriculture. I think the minister should pursue that and should immediately begin implementing meetings on this and also implementing a vote, a plebiscite, on this so that farmers can have an input on their future. They have to have some say in this. Mr. Speaker, I believe that if we are going to see growth in rural Manit oba the government has to be prepared to invest, to create jobs, to give our young people something to come back to. That has not happened.

When we look at this budget, we see the word "jobs" mentioned very, very littl� nothing to stimulate our economy. All we see is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manne ss) telling us that we have to share, everybody ha s to take a fair share of the burden. Everybody has to help us come out of this deficit that we are in. In reality, it is the poor who are asked to pick up a m uch bigger portion of the cost, percentage-wise-! beg your pardon? [interjection] No. Mr. Speaker, the member says that I am not interested in health. I am tremendously interested in health.

I am interested in the health of seniors, of young people and of all people. I think all people should have access to proper health care, but what is happening under this budget is people are being denied. The removal of the dental program is denying people access to health care. The increase to Pharmacare costs is going to weigh more heavily on those on low incomes an d will, in reality, deny people. The changes to th e Home Care Program and the increased costs that people are going to be asked to pay will, in fact, deny some people of proper health care. So I am very interested in health care.

I believe in a fair hea lth care system that is open and equal to everybody. I believe there should be the opportunity for all sectors of this province to grow. Particularly, as I said, I am concerned abo ut the growth in rural Manitoba, and that is not happening under this government. They are paying lip service to this government-to rural Manitobans, I should say, draining money out of rural Manitoba but doing very little to promote economic development there. We are seeing very few new jobs. What we have from this government is a dded taxes, increased costs and reduced services for Manitobans.

It is disappointing that is the direction this government is taking, and they are not prepared to invest in the future of this province and give our young people the opportunity, give our young people the hope that they will have an opportunit y in this province. Also, Mr. Speaker, they have to be prepared to invest in education and give our young people the opportunity to get an education. That also is being reduced. I am afraid that for the young people and for most people of this province their reaction to this budget is not a positive reaction. I spent the last couple of days out talking to people.

I want to tell you that there are many people who are very concerned about whether or not they are going to have a job. They are also concerned about whether their children are going to find summer employment this year and whether or not they are going to be able to continue going to university in the fall. Those are their real concerns. This budget does nothing to stimulate growth in our province or encourage people or give them much hope, and it is my belief that this government could have done much more. They should have been prepared to invest in our people. * (1 440) Ms.

Marianne Cerllll (Radisson): I am pleased to be able to put some comments and analysis on the record regarding this budget. I will do that, considering the limited time, focusing on the area of environment, workplace safety and health as well, and the status of youth.

1787 LEGISlATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 1993 I was just looking through some correspondence I was opening, and I will start off by reading from the Manitoba Medical Association newsletter, April '93. On page 7, they have a headline which reads: Action speaks louder than environmentally friendly words. They talk in the short

article there about how this government continues to use the rhetoric ,of sustainability, and the y continue to use the rhetoric of environmentally frie ndly, and then they do thi�Js like elim inate the mere $50,000 that went to the Manitoba Environment Council, the environme11t advisory council for the Minister of Environment. This little

article in the newsletter for the Medical Association says that here again we have the gov ernment talking about sust ainability and envi ronmental friendli ness and then cutting funding to an organization that probably had more Ph.D.s in it, Mr. Speaker, than the entire department. For nothing, those people would volunteer and advise this government and the minister on environment•al matte rs. We ll, I wou ld suggest that this government, we are se eing time and again, does not want to hear it. They do not want to hear expert advice on the seri ous concerns rela ted to environment and health.

The former me mber for the Manitoba Envi ronmen t Coun ci l, who was the Me dical Association's represe ntative, I am going to quote what he says in the journal. He said that the Minister of Environme nt recently wrote to the MMA to advise that the council's operating budget would not be renewed. As of April 1, 19 93, the council wlill cease to be provided with funding from the Manitoba government.

He ended his letter with a remark that is an example of political doublespeak: In the spi rit of sustai nable develop me nt, I am commit ted to breaking with the past, which saw support fm envi ronmental issue s dwindle in an uncertain economy. Wel l, Mr. Speake r, that is exactly what is happening, and this government is encouraging it by trying to silence organizations and effectually silencing them with discontinuing their fundinn. This government is contributing to the detraction away from environmental issues by focusing on thiH, I would say, rhetoric of recession and tough eco nomic times.

There are a number of comments I want to make about this on how this government is missing the boat in truly moving to enviro nmental sustainability. They are trying to make it look like, Mr. Speaker, they are maintaining a strong commitment because they have not decr eased the funding to the Departmen t of Environment like they have so many other areas in the budget. But I want, Mr. Speaker, to make the point, think of it this way. We are in the biggest debt we have in the debt of cleaning up and maintaining the natural ecosyste m.

That is the biggest debt we have because we cannot only maintain, as this government barely has its level of funding to the department, we have to in leaps and bounds be increasing funding to deal with environmen tal cleanup and programs and protection of our natural environment. I want to frame this too in the kind of doublespeak that the government uses in talking about youth services and educ ation , because again the government will say that we are treating our future generations unfairly by leaving them with this debt, the government debt. We ll, Mr.

Speaker, the biggest debt that we are going to leave futur e generations is the high cost of cleaning up for the greed, extravagance and overconsumption of the previous generations, and that is no exaggeration. So it is important to look at a historical context of the comment that I have just made and to look at the government spending that went on post-World War II. There was in Canada the hig hest level of government spending during the war and right after the war, and we all know that right after the war there was the baby boom . Tha t was the highe st subsidiz ed , if you will, ge neration ever.

That generation has enjoyed the highest standard of living and quality of life ever . Maybe some would say that is now what we are paying for.

But if it could work at that time, and that money could go into military expenditure as it did in the '40s, then the same kind of expenditure now into health care and education and environmental restoration would not be sucking money out of the economy-as we are witnessing again with the Conser vative Government federally where we are spending billions of dollars on helic opters that are not necessa ry-but having an investment into health care, education and envir onmental restora tion, things lik e retrofit ting for ener gy and water conse rvation.

April 19, 1993 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 1788 That is the area where we should be creating jobs because again it is investing money where we are going to see some dividends. We are going to see some money coming back from those future generations. There is a difference from how this government spends money as compared to what I am just sayi ng, because there is a lot of rhetoric that we hear about the problems with the deficit when the government says that we cannot afford social programs, we cannot afford programs like student social allowance which were getting people out of the poverty cycle.

Now that cut is symbolic, just like the cut to the Environment Council, just like the cut to the Manitoba Intercultural Counc il, all of these organizations that are trying to speak and work on behalf of people who are the most vulnerable. So when this government says that everyone is tightening their belt equally, we all know that is not tru e.

But when you put that beside the overconsumption and the continuation of economic destructio n, a model for an economy that is destro ying the enviro nment; when you put it beside the continuation of having grants and government handouts that are still going on to oil and gas companies, to drug companies, to a number of other companies that destroy the environment.

I think it is high time we do not just look at the Department of Environment's budget as some signal about a gov ernmen t's comm itment to environmentalism and sustainability, but we also look at to what kind of organizations they are funding, what kind of businesses and corporations that they are funding, and to see how many of those corporations that are benefiting from government grants, water div ersion schemes that are for irrigation that are still receiving millions of dollars, and try to see the environmental impact of that economic development.

We have to stop giving grants to organizations and corporations that are not complying with envir onmental re gulations. We have to make those links with our grants and funding, because that is the road to true sustainability. Today, the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) asked serious questions about the furniture manufacturer in Transcona that is exceeding its environmental licence. We know that plant had government funding. A licence to pollute was also given out to that corporation. When we mention these issues, members on the opposite side tell us, maybe we should shut it down.

If that is the attitude that they have, that it is either one or the other, that you cannot have industry as well as a protected environment, then we are in big trouble. We are in big trouble, because I think that is the attitude of a number of people.

I would suggest, it is probably the attitude of a number of people advising this government which would explain the decisions they are making and would explain why they have done things like cut the small amount of money that goes to advise them through the Environment Counci l. * (1 450) I want to spend a little bit of time as well, talking about this government's attack on youth through this budget. I have never seen such an outright attack on youth services.

Whether it is health programs, funding to public education, funding through the students' social allowances-type program, funding to student em ployment programs, all have been cut back. There seems to be the attitude that, if you invest in work experience paid for by the provincial government, those are not real jobs, and that is not contributing to that young person's education. All the while that this happening, Mr. Speaker, tuition fees have more than doubled in the last 1 0 years, and there has not been a raise in the minimum wage in the last six years. So what is happening, Mr.

Speaker, is young people are becoming very discouraged. Many of them can no longer afford to go to university. This province is horribly underr epr esented in spaces of post-secondary education in colleges, and we have an incredible problem with youth unemployment, drug abuse, violence as reported in the paper day afte r day. It does not seem like this government is capable of any kind of analysis that is going to link these economic problems for youth with the social problems that they are experienc ing.

We see cutbacks as well in programs like Girl Guides and Boy Scouts, which are providing something positive for young people to focus their ener gy on so that they have an alternative to doing things that are more destructive. (Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) Mr. Acting Speaker, I have with me a small chart which is from Manitoba Agriculture, and I think it is from the Financial Post magazine-yes , it is-March 6, 19 93, issue. It is the cost across Canada of raising a child.

17 89 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19 , 19 93 Somewhat tongue in cheek, Mr. Acting Speaker, I refer to this budget as the "honey, we have to setll the kids" budget, because that is what is happening with the trends that we are seeing in the rising cost:�. the way that the taxation is being shifted more and more to individuals. People are not being able 1o afford to raise a family, whether it is because of the high cost of education, food, clothing, personal cam. This chart shows that the cost for one year for an infant is just over $9,000. That drops somewha t to 18 years of $6,1 00, roughly.

When you compare that, Mr. Acting Speaker, to what the poverty levE�I is in this province, it is quite frightening. It is quite frightening to think that we have a num ber of families with an income in Manitoba of not much more than that $9,000 that it costs to feed and clothe and shelter a child.

It is very clear that the economic policy of this gov ernment is saying that ther e are certain populations and certain people in this province who are expected to sacrifice their quality of life and theiir livelihood, in a lot of cases, to benefit the econom}'· Those people who are in that situation are comin!:J to the point where they cannot afford to feed, hous<e and clothe their families. [interjection] It is interesti ng liste ning to the comments that come across the floor, because it just shows that th13 government is not looking at things in the larger context.

They will try to use the excuse that this i:s a recession, but this is a much different situation because we are not coming out of this recessi on. A lot of the jobs that are leaving the province and leaving the country are not coming back. Th13 definition of a recession is something that we wi ll come out of. I have a theory that the North American Fre13 Trade Agreement and the Free Trade Agreement that are resp onsible for the de struction of particularly the manufacturing sector in Manitoba and in Canada, are a response to the growin!l conce rn around e nvir onmen t and health inter nationally.

Cor pora te inte rests and th13 gov ernme nts that they support, such as th13 government across, had to come up with a way of fixing things so that the mobilization of concern regarding environment and health issues could not affect the economy as it would have and move to a more socially just eco nomy, nationally as well a:� internationally. This government, especially when they make the comments like they did today in Question Period, does not seem to understand that we cannot try to buy jobs by sacrificing our quality of life, our health and environment.

We are reaching the end of the line, and it is just not going to work anymore. The grandchildren and children of the members opposite are going to be paying that, i n some cases, I would say, with their lives. Already in this province we are seeing the results. We see many areas in this province. Particularly of concern to me is the area of water and the number of areas in this province that are in serious concern over the quality of water and the difficulties of drought.

I want to talk a little bit about the subsidy from this government of the Assiniboine Diversion because, again, this is an example of how this government does not get it at all. They are not changing their approach to dealing with developme nts in this country, in dealing with agriculture. They are continuing down the same old path of di sregard. They might think that some little envi ronmental assessment that they are going to have because they have to by law is going to satisfy people's concerns. Well, it is not. They fail to look, it seems, at the consumption side, the overconsumption.

There are many people that are suggesting that w hat the Assiniboine Diversion is really about is a couple of things. It is an example of how they can guarantee a supply of potatoes for large food manufacturers, and how they can also guarantee the water supply for those potatoes. There is a big dispute. The y say that water is not going for irrigation. Well, maybe it is not.

Maybe the intention is that, subsidi zed by both levels of government, the corporations benefiting from the irrigation will be able to continue to dep lete the aquifers in that region and that the shipped water will be used for the domestic consumption in that area. It does not really make any difference. The bottom line is that the perm its have been issued to expand the irrigation in that region of the province.

It would be interesting for those food companies that are going to benefit from this proposal if their corporate policy of having only irrigated potatoes would surpass or pass any kind of sustainable development criteria, because the waste of the kind

April19, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1790 of agricultural practices that are encouraged by this kind of economic development is quite appalling.

So that is an example of how this government is making choices of investing millions of dollars into the kind of economic development that is depleting the environment, increasing the huge debt we have to the environment, and at the same time, diverting funds away from education and health care where our government should be investing its money, especially when we frame this also in the context of all the kind of corporate loopholes and tax breaks tha t are made ava il able by Con se rvative governments. * (1 500) The kinds of corporate tax breaks that I am referring to are never considered in the budget when we are looking at the way that this gove rnment is dealing with its rev enue.

I think just generally, to finish off, I will not get into some other examples of this idea that we can conti nue having governme nts invest into this dinosaur, Stone Age style of economic development that destroys the environment and not invest into edu cation and health and environmen tal restorati on. I want to deal with the basic concept of fairness because I was speaking recently to a group of students. When I asked them, is it fair to take $75 from someone who earns $1 0,000 a year and take that same $75 from someone who earns $1 00,000 a year, they said no.

They unde rstood that if you are trying to practise fairness and create fairness in a society and an economy, that is not fair. They even understood that when you are trying to create fairness you cannot take the same per centage of tax from- Point of Order Mr. Jerry Storie (FIIn Flon) : Mr. Acting Speaker, there are a number of conversati ons going on in the Chamber, making it very difficult for me to hear my colleague. It is better to have- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner): Thank you very much. The honourable member does not have a point of order. Order.

I would ask all members, if you want to carry on conversations please do so but do so outside of this Chamber or in the loge that is provided for that sort of conversation. * * * Ms. Cerllll: I am just going to finish on this point of fairness because I think it is very important to talk about the unfairness of the budget. I want to refer to someth ing that we studied when I was in university, and it is a theory of how people learn their values and how they develop values like fairness. And I encourage the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) to listen to this.

I will not get into a lot of the theory, but quite generally ther e are six stages of values development. The final stage is where decisions are made based on principles, and those principles have to do with human rights and equality as defined by developing the potential of all. Our party principles comply with that. Ou r party principles talk about how we want to create a society where people have what they need. We have an economy based on need, and people give according to their ability to give. That has been said over and over by a number of leaders internationally.

Tom my Douglas, I remember hearing reference to Tommy Douglas over and over again at a number of events. But in getting to the point about this gov ernment's budget and its unfairness, it would be at about a stage two or three at level of values development of how you only give according to what someone else is going to give you-that, sort of, I scratch your back, you sc ratch mine. That is the level of this governmen t's values analysis, I would think, it seems, by this government and their definition of fairness. It is about at a nine-year-old level. I did not make up this theory.

This is something that eve ryone who goes through the Faculty of Education learns. The other thing about this budget is that it does not deal with creating equity. We cannot continue on the path that we are on because we are seeing over and over again that there is a social cost to having the kind of budget that creates poverty. This government will support the notion that some people have , that there always will be poverty.

But the increase in poverty that we have seen in this country under this government and their cousins in Ottawa, shows that poverty is created by economic policy that does not fairly deal with wealth. That is a very basic concept that high school students understand easily, but it seems, Mr. Acting Speaker, that this government does not understand that concept of fairness.

179 1 LEGISL ATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 1993 So with that, I will thank you very much for the opportunity. Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Acting Speaker, I could not help but listen with a little bit of interes t to the concluding comments of the member for Radisson, and I just could not help but remember what I heard the former Premier of the province of Saskatchewan say last night on W5. She refers to the economy as economy of need, that everybody should have what they want and if they need it and they want it, they should have it.

Let me te ll her what the former Premier of Saskatchewan said last night. There are not absolute rights to have what you want. He went on to say, in fact, there are the rights of those people who should not have to pay taxes just to give somebody else something they want. So the forme•r Premier of Saskatchewan, NDP Premier, very clearly on the opposite track to that member fc•r Radisson. I only use that reference right off the top, Mr. Acting Speaker, because that is a dilemma we face•. We have an opposition over there who is constantlv talking about want and need and spend and spend and spend.

Their comments bear no reflection on ability of the youth of the future to pay for the- Point of Order Ms. Cerllll: On a point of order, Mr. Actin!� Sp eaker, I would hope that the Mi nister of Agriculture will distinguish between want and need for me. Thank you. The Ac ting Speaker (Mr. Penner): Tht� honourable member for Radisson does not have a point of orde r. * * * Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Speaker, there is no question that the budget is a very significant piect� of paper for the province of Manitoba, as it is for every province across this country.

I have becomt� rather discouraged in listening to the comment:> from the other side over the past couple of weeks, and I guess I could maybe say over the last couph� of years. There is a constant demand of want and want and spend and spend and spend with no reflection on ability to pay. Mr. Acting Speaker, every province is facing tht� circumstances we face here today. There is no question about it. If we just look at what was printed in The Globe and Mail here back on March 15- 1 will I just read out of The Globe and Mail because this kind of sets the record, province by province, of what everybody is facing.

I will just read from The Globe and Mail, March 15 , 19 93: At this point, it is an open wager as to which province will be the first to find it cannot sell its bonds. Each may legitima tely claim to have the worst financial record. * (1 510 ) It goes on to talk about the financial record province by province: Ontario, of course, has the largest deficit in absolute terms, $1 3 billion and counting. The largest debt also ex ists in Ontario. Quebec is the second on both counts, both in debt and deficit. Saskatchewan has the most debt on its books proportionate to GOP. Newfoundland has the worst credit rating.

Prince Edward Island has the bigge st deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product. Alberta's deficit has ballooned the most in the past year. It is already the second-largest debt in proportion to tax revenues in the country . British Columb ia has increased spending the fastest, 36 percent in the last four years. New Brunswick spends the most per capita. Nova Scotia, more than any other province, has its debt eating up its tax revenue faste r.

Manitoba, in a comparative to all those statistics, sits very favo urably in the eyes of bond raters, very favourably because of decisions that have occurred in the past, the kind of decisions that are reflected in this document that was presented to this House and we vote on today. Mr. Acting Speaker, another critical piece of information that everybo dy must be aware of is the credit rating we have as a province. Manitoba currently sits as an A. You get Newfoundland sitting with a triple-S and Saskatchewan with a triple-B.

Over the course of tim e, we have certainly expended our resources faster than we have been able to gene rate revenue in this province. We all know that the general purpose deficit of this province is now around $6 billion. When we came into government in 19 88, it was $5.1 billion. When the previous government, the NDP gove rnment, came in, in 19 80, it was at $1 .3 billion. If we had it down to $1 .3 billion today, we would have a lot more money, probably about $300 million to $400 million more money to spend on health, education and all these services that the members on the other side claim are essent ial.

April 19, 1993 LEGIS lATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOB A 1792 It is rather alarming, to put it mildly, that the previous member who spoke, from Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), and all the other speakers over there speak only in terms of wants and needs and expenditures. The last member just talked about attack on the youth. I am sure what she meant, attack on the youth, ther e are maybe some expen d iture reductions in the educ ation area where we spend over a billion dollars. The real attack on youth that has happened from this gene ration is the overexpenditure that creates deb ts which are future taxes on that gener atio n.

I ask any member in this House, how do we tell our children and our grandchildren, hey, by the way, we have left a bill that we did not pay that you are going to have to pay for us? That is not a very nice thing to say. I have not heard anybody in this House really address that issue or talk about it from the other side. We constantly talk about it from this side. If you go to the Legislature to the west of us, the opposite is said from the government side, from the NDP.

They are talking about the realities of life and the probability they will not be able to borrow in the future and the debt that they have and the inability that they have to serve it from the existing less than a million people. On the other side over there they are saying the same thing we hear from the NDP her e- spend, spend, spend. Do not reduce the expenditure. Do not reduce it there. The situation we are in, in the country right now, I think, is very serious.

It is very disappointing that there is not an understanding across this country in terms of the legislative opposition parties, because if there is not an underst anding, sooner or later, we will hit the circumstances New Zealand hit in 19 85. Most of us know what that was. The consequences were rather severe. We are doing, in this budget, reductions of 2 and 4 percent. In some cases grants reduced 1 0 per cent, trying to keep the level of expenditure about where it was last year, around $5.3 billion. I think that is very respo nsible.

I think that is a Jot more responsible than just spend, spend, spend until the day comes when you have to reduce expenditures on health or edu cation or family services by 50 percent or 80 percent. That is what happened in New Zealand. They went from third highest standard of Jiving to 22nd simply because they would not come to grips with their spending patterns. They would not live within their means. Canada, over the last 20 years, going back to the Trudeau governments in the federal scene, got into the mechanics of spending. Throughout the '70s, we had a very high rate of growth.

We had spending growth on an average basis per year growing at 13 percent per capita. In the '80s, it started to slow down to 8 percent per capita, projected in the '90s · at 3 percent. Yet, we have a desire, on behalf of governments, to spend like we did in the '70s and the '80s, and it is totally unaffordable. We cannot pay our bills. I would ask any member on the opposite side to tell me how they run their household, or their business, by constantly spending more than they are taking in. Sooner or later you face your banker, the person that is financing you and he or she says, hold the line.

The buck stops here. Mr. Acting Speaker, I would be very surprised, I guess, to see any member in the House over ther e to understand that message, although they should talk to their colleagues in Saskatchewan because they are on the opposit e side of the fence to them in terms of under standing the issue. To listen to Alan Blakeney last night say that there are no absolute rights to have what you want certainly dem onstrated that he understands.

Over the cou rse of the time when he was in government, I think he was fairly responsible in his spending, but when he got into the '80s, when he campaigned, he campaigned on expenditures. He said last night he was probably mistake n, he probably wished he had not said those things, but he also said last night that the people that are working have a right not to be taxed beyond their capacity to pay. That is what we are trying to respect here in this province by keeping taxes down on a continuous basis, trying to control our expenditures so we can live more closely within our means.

The Mini ster of Finance's (Mr. Manness) projections to have an annually balanced budget by the year '96-97 is a responsible way to go, probably should have started that four or five years ago so that we would be in that position today. But we cannot go on with this process of, spend and what everybody wants, we should be able to deliver. It is not affordable. I do not care what political party you represent, you cannot afford it.

1793 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 1993 To think that you can go out and just tax people constantly to get that money, you will find, like Ontario has found, that the businesses leave town. Jobs leave town. You will see what Ontario is talking about now. Probably what they will bring in, in their budget next month, will reflect exactly what you are facing in this budget here. You have got to keep the taxes under control. You have got to limit your expenditures and try to use some sense ·of fairness and equity throughout the process <of reducing the expenditures. Mr.

Acting Speaker, the program that we all saw, or many of us saw, on New Zealand a few weeks ago I think shocked a lot of peop le. I have been around the province and talking about agriculture and about finances quite a bit over the last three to four months, probably spoken 15 or 20 different times in different locations. I tell the fiscal message and I tell the present mes sage that I see for agriculture. In some cases. it is not all that encouraging.

When you ask people who saw the W5 program, they really nod their heads up and down and they really-when you start talking about it, the whole room goes quiet because people know those are the facts. That is what happened. They can see the parallel that we are on. We are very close to it. I do not think we are being hit quite as hard as New Zealand because we are a more dive rsified economy across the country, but nonetheless the message for us is that what happened to them can and might happen to us.

By popular demand, I understand, that program is going to be re-aired on, I think, the first Sunday in May, which is good because I know a lot mor·e people will watch it. The job we have to do as politicians I think, whether you are in gove rnment or in opposition, is to let people know what the realities are, let thern know why the decisions that are made have to b·e made. They can very honestly say it does not matter what political stripe across this countr}'. budgetary decisions are fairly similar. The sam,9 principle is being represented, and that is that W<9 must control our expenditures.

We must not tax people any further than what they are toda�·. because we will not win in the competitive glob�tl market. We in the country of Canada have developed our economy on being exporters of raw product or processed product-too much raw product, not enough processed, in my mind, over the years. We have done very well with that. We developed a very good standard of living, the highes t in the world, according to the United Nations last year. We have done that in only 12 6 years of being a country. It does not mean that we will continue to stay on that rapid rise.

Many, many countries of the world are coming after us wanting to achieve some portion of our standar d of living. Cer tainl y Japan and Germany have grown very dramatically over the last 45 years. You see countries now like South Korea, Taiwan growing rapidly, China coming on stream, rapidly growing, wanting to achieve a better standard of living. They are going to be very tough for us to compete with . Mexico is another example, coming on, wanting to have a higher standard of living, and they have every right to want it. How do we compete with them?

How do we compete with them when we have the attitude that we have in Canada in that what our forefathers gave us, we take for granted and say, I want, I want, I want. * (1 520) Our forefathers came here and said, I am here, I am prepared to work hard to make this a better place for my children. This generation, 20 years from now, is probably going to look back and say, I made a mistake because I did not think of that principle. I said, I want, I want, I want, and what I created was future debt for my children so that their standard of living automatically went down.

We are at the peak of standard of living in Canada, as far as I am concerned. If we do not get our act together as a nation over the next four to five years in terms of understanding the realities of competing in the world market, we are definit ely going to giv e our grandchildren a lower standard of living, if not our children, too.

I guess it is frustrating that although more and more people do print those sorts of things, more and more people talk about them every day in this House, we hear the exact opposite as if there is a magic wand, there is som e magic way that government can give you everything you want, no questions asked. That is just not the real world, Mr. Acting Speake r. The industry of agriculture is going through much the same kind of revolution of understanding. We have developed an industry that has been very

April19, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1794 aggressive and done a very good job of selling, particularly cereal grains around the world market now for over a hundred years. We started selling one commodity wheat, and now we sell 60 all over the world. Many other countries got into the game over the last number of decades and selling in competition to us. It would probably even be fair to say we sti ll have the superior quality, but a lot of conditions have changed out there. Trade wars have occurred and created lower prices. That makes it tough for us to compete.

Then the farm communities come to government for safety net programs, stabilization programs, subsidies, if you like, to fill in the gaps that the marketplace did not fill. As we look at the circumstances we are in today as an industry-! have been out telling this to the farm community, that we are in a safety· net program called GRIP that expires at the end of the '95 crop year.

Beyond the '95 crop year, the ability of the government to stay in at the level of stabilization they have been in the last few years is probably very doubtful, given the overall fiscal circumstances that exist It does not matter what political stripe you are, around that federal-provincial table, the discussion is pretty much unanimous in terms of that particular principle. As we look at the overall industry of agriculture, there is no question that if we are going to continue to produce at the level we are producing today, we are going to have to continue to export and access export markets all over the world.

We are going to have to live more and more on the value of that marketplace returning to the farm gate what it takes to cover our costs and make a fair living. As I look throughout the industry, there is no question that in the oilseeds and the special crops, the outlook is reasonably bright. In the livestock sector, whether you are talking about cattle or horses-PM U-or hogs, the outlook is reasonably bright We can get a pretty fair return from the marketplace. We have high quality. We are expanding our production in all of those sectors and doing a very, very good job of accessing that world market. Mr.

Acting Speaker, when you get into the cereal grain picture, it is a little more difficult, a little more clouded by a very severe grain trade war that we have all wanted to see solved over the last five years and that, it is probably fair to say, has not moved any closer to resolution over that period of time. There is a strong will on behalf of the United States and Eur ope to maintain tha t trade war. We as governme nts-the Province of Manitoba, federal government, Province of Ontario, Province of Saskatchewan, Province of Alberta-have put a lot of money in to offset the hurt of that trade war.

As we look ahead and as I look at our fiscal capacity, I say our ability to continue to put the amount of money in in the future that we have in the past is very much in doubt. I have been trying to convince the farm community to adjust more in terms of producing what they can sell to the market and get back a fair living from the marketplace. That is the way we built our industry over the first hundred years that the industry has been here in this country, western Canada.

I do not think there is any question that is what is going to have to be done in the future in order for us to continue to survive at the level of the standard of living we would like. Just to give you a brief idea of the health of the agriculture community, particularly for me mbers opposite, you hear a lot of gloom and doom about agriculture and a lot of the difficulties, I think less so in the last year than in the previous years, but there is a lot of economic health in rural Manitoba. Farmers own 80 percent of their capital , 80 percent of their lands, their buildings, their equipme nt-only 20 percent debt.

That is a very, very commendable figure. It has been that way for a long time. Over the last 15 years, that figure of 80 percent equity has not changed. Certainly there is more value out there in land, buildings and equipment, but farmers are doing a good job of being able to pay their way. The Manitoba Mediation Board, which is kind of a barome ter of financial problems in the farm community, the number of cases coming before it has continued to go down each of the last three years. There is another bit of encouraging news.

Our ability to access markets, particularly in North America, namely the United States, has grown and exp anded very, very much in the last three to four years. We have gone from 19 88 of selling $3 billion of agri-food products to the United States to today, 19 92, say, selling $5 billion. So that is a growth of $2 billion of sales to the United State s. Every once in a while you read the press about certain farm groups or senators in the United States saying, well, we should not allow this amount or that amount of durum or pork or wheat or whatever in the United State s. I think everybody should be aware

17 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA April 19 , 19 93 that between the United States and Canada, in terms of overall balance of trade in agriculture, the United States still has a positive trade balance wiith Canada. We sell less to them than they sell to us,. Yes, we sell in western Canada a lot of durum, a lot of wheat, a lot of pork, a lot of cattle, but in eastern Canada particularly a lot of corn <..'Omes up then�. Right across the country there are a lot of fruits and vegetables that come up into Canada, particularlly over the winter months.

So the United States doe's not have a fair argument and say that they do not have equal access to our market. In fact, they have a trade surplus with us, as I have mentioned. Not only have we increased our sales of raw products to them, as I mentioned, from $3 billion to $5 billion over the last four to five years, the pe rcentage of value-added or processed food products being sold to them has also grown by 63 percent. That is the highes t rate of growth of penetration into that country by any country in the world.

The next highest rate of growth into the U.S. market has been 12 percent by the Eu ropean community. We have increased our sales by 63 percent. So we have done a good job of accessing a market tha t is very close to us in terms of transportation costs. It is easy for us to access it. In terms of the quality of product we have to sell, it is the very best.

We are finding many Ame rican buyers who did not buy Canadian products fiv�e years ago and have bought some over the past few years, have been very surprised with the quality of our products and the constant quality shipment afte,r shipment after shipment that we can put into the11r marketplace.

The other fact that has been working to our advantage in the United States is the fact that under the U.S. farm bill, the Export Enhancement Program subsidizes the buyers of the various agricultural products from the United State s, particularly cere<ll grains, in other words, subsidizes them to the buyer that pulls the grains out of the United State s:, stimulates them to be exported and that leaves '" vacuum in the United States that we are selling into. They are shorting thems elv es in many grain commodities, and we are selling into there.

The export price that we have to compete with out in the world because of their subsidy is very low, but the domestic price in the United States is quite high. S':> we are doing very well in terms of price that we ar,9 getting in the United States plus the access to th9 market has improved, as I have said, very, very much. Ladies and gentlemen, as we look towards the vote on this budget, it is very obvious what the government is going to do on our side.

I would hope that some members on the other side have reflected a little bit on the overall discussion occurring in the country in terms of realities of financing government expenditures, realities of de bts that we have put upon our chi ldren and our grandchil dren by decisions made over the past number of years. • (1 530) I cannot help but just pull out the

article of February 29, 19 93, an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press. The headline sort of says it all. NDP needs to come to grips with the real world. I can assure memb ers ac ross the way tha t the NDP in Saskatchewan and Ontario and B.C. are all coming much more to grips with the real world than the NDP that I see in this particular House day after day. Mr. Acting Speaker, in all the discussions that I have had with individuals across rural Manitoba, although they ask for things and they want things, they do understand that whatever they ask for has to come out of some taxpayer's pocket.

There is a much greater understanding of the impact of deficits and the horrendous impact of debt that hangs over this cou ntry. One may say, wel l, you are fearmongering by constantly talking about it. I think we do the entire public a disservice unless we do talk about it. We all know that the money that was borrowed over the last 20 years in this provi nce, in this country, is owed to somebody. It may be the teacher's retirement fund next door. It may be the neighbour next door. It may be a relative 500 miles away. They loaned the money to the various governments of this country.

They want the money paid back sooner or late r. They want the interest on the money. There is no way that the deb ts and deficits that now are in front of us are going to vanish or evapora te . The big job now is just try to get towards zero budgeting, zero budgets in terms of deficits on an annual basis. The overall deb t accumulated over time in this country of $650 billion federally and provincially, when is it going to be paid back? How is it going to be paid back? I would wonder if I stood in this place five years or 1 0 years from now whether we would be looking at Canada still being the No. 1

April19, 19 93 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA 17 96 country in the world with the highest standard of living, or whether we would look at Canada as decreasing in standard of living annually over the course of time as opposed to the last 1 0 years of continually having a better standard of living. 1 do not like the prospects of going backwards as a society. We have been given a country and a standard of living by our forefathers that was because of the hard work on their behalf, the sweat from their brows. The corns on their hands created what we have.

Through our shortsightedness over the last 20 years as governme nts-it does not matter what political stri pe-we have put all of that in jeop ardy for our children and our grandchildren. I will never forget-1 think I heard the same thing from my grandfather-! would say to the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey) , what they did, what they wanted to put in place for their children and grandchildren was a better standard of living, a little easier life, and we are sitting here doing the opposite.

I would be very encouraged if some members on the other side of the House were to recognize that today and vote in favour of the budget for whatever reason they saw fit. Their colle agues in Saskatchewan and Ontari o, New Brunswick, Newf oundland, B.C. are all making the same decisions we are making, and their colleagues over there are standing up and voting for the kinds of decisions that are in front of us here today. These decisions we have today are probably made pale in comparison to the decisions that lie down the road unless we have some improvement in the international economy.

I say international because we are not isolated from it. We have not, in my mind, been in a recession the last two or three years, we have been in a global economic readjustment. There is no question about it. I think I can see other countries that have worked a little harder, have a better understanding of economic realit y recov ering in term s of the international readjustment faster than us because we still have not come to grips with understanding how we got to where we are and how we are going to be able to pay our bills in the future. That is really what life is all about.

We have a global economic syste m. It is the only one that works. As I mentioned the last time I spoke, I had the occasion to be in Ukraine in Russia, and that really focused me. An Honourable Member: They threw communism out there. Mr. Findlay: Yes, they threw it out. They said to me that there was only one gove rnment in the world, and that was the international marketplace. All the rest were tinkering around the edges. For 73 years, they tried to tinker, but what they did was destroy the ability of their country to compete in the world. They very desperately want to get back on the main track.

The challenge they have in front of them to get there is rather significant. They do not have the economy, they do not have the training, they do not have the technology. They need it all from the western world, and the western world, I think, 20 years ago could have jumped in and done a job. Today the western world is all strapped with debt, more difficult to jump in. The recent mee ting of G-7 nations cle arly indicates a lot of money will be made available. In one way or another a lot of technology will be made available.

It is cer tainly one of the most interesting experimen ts of my lifetime to see 250 million people over there try to come out of the dark ages and jump into the 19 90s in a very short period of time. It may take them 20 or 25 or 30 years, but I hope that they are able to stay on the course that they are on now, which is one they have chosen and want to get out into the world and compete with us.

Yes, that will make things more challenging for us and make it more difficult for us to have the standard of living we have had in the past, but I think it is only fair in the global context that everybody have a chance to a fair and reasonable standard of living. A fair and reasonable standard of living means the right to work, the right to produce, the right to contribute to the best of your ability. That is what built this province, that is what built this country, and I know that is what is going to continue to make this province and this country strong.

I hope, as I have said before, that some members on the other side will reflect and try to vote in favour of a budget that is going in the di rection that the budgets in all other 1 0 jurisdictions in this country are going to go, the one federal and the nine other provincial. So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I have enjoyed the opportunity to make a few comments, and I would strongly recom mend that all members over there thi nk seriously of voting agai nst this budget

17 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 19, 1993 because there are a lot of things in there that they and their constituents probably feel are okay. Yes, they will probably see some negatives. We all see negatives. Tough decisions are not without some negatives but, by and large, this is trying to put us on the right path that will make this a stron�Jer province for our children and our grandchildren. Thank you, very much. Committee Change Mr. Nell Gaudry (St. Boniface): I move, seconde d by the member for Osborne (Mr.

Alcock), that the com position of the Standing Comm itte e 1:>n Privileges and Elections be amended as follows: Inkste r (Mr. Lamoureux) for St. James (Mr. Edward s) . Motion agreed to. * * * Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): I think before I get into the depth of the remarks I wish to make, I have two things that I would like to comment on. The first is just to pick up on someth ing the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) said, because I have heard it repe ated in this House many times, and I woUIId like to try to put it in a different context.

The argument I hear coming from the government is that the only condition we have to respond to is the international condition, is the global market and that this, as a result of the fact that the global market sets prices in a variety of commodities, somehow makes it imp ossible for us to exer cise any independent decision making. He also uses examples of countries like Japan and Taiwan and Korea and others to dem onstrate countries that are coming on and being successful in competing in the international marketplace . I would just like to say two things.

The first is that the international market, like any other market, is not some thin g that ope rates inde penden t of the activities of gove rnment. It simply does not. It is bounded by gov er nments ; it is regula ted by gove rnments; it is controlled by governments; it is controlled by agreements that are reached betweon governments. The second thing is the countries that he identifios and his colleagues identify as countries that have been successful in the international marketplace are, by and large, countries that have mixed and largely command economies.

To suggest that the Japanese economy is completely unbounded by any kind of governmen t involvement is simply wrong. What they have done is consider ed care fully the role of government and the role of finance, and they have made intelligent decisions about what their industrial activity is going to be.

Now I have considerable sympathy for the government when they talk about markets and the importance of markets and how markets must be left alone to set prices, because they are an official mechanism for doing that, but I think it is simply a very naive belief to suggest that governments can stand back and do nothing or have no role to play in the operations of markets or in the policy structures that surround them or how a given country responds to them. I wanted to lay that out because I am going to come back to that theme in a minute.

I did have one item that I also wanted to mention, and it is left over, frankly, from my budget and throne speeches for several year s now. I just want to make an on-the -recor d comm ent about the qualit y of research support that is given to this Chamber, the government and the opposition, by the Legisl ative Library and the Legislative Reading Room. I never fail to be impressed by how hard the people who work in those two locations, how hard they work to see that your interests and your needs are met. They are absolutely astounding.

I go to them all the time for assistance when I am looking for economic information or legisla tive information, information from other jurisdictions, and they have never failed me. I think too often we forget the people who work in the background here and provide support to us, and for a long time I have meant to mention just how indebted I feel to them. I do not want to leave this Chamber without having put that remark on the record. • (1 540) When I sat down to think about this budget, the sixth budget of this government, the first thought that came to my mind is that the government must be very frustrated.

For five full years and six budgets now, the Conse rvative government has had the ability to make all of the major economic decisions in this province. They had an analysis when they started, and it is the same analysis. We just heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) give us exactly the same analysis that was given to us by the Minister of Rnance (Mr. Manness) in his very

April19, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1798 first budget, and it has been the analysis that they have provided this House with in every single budget. It is fairly simple. It is that somehow Manitoba has gotten out of whack with the rest of the country, with the rest of the world, if you would allow some ofthem to define

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-4-44a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 4th hansardpdf 44a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e96badd42d277f255f4f637bd1b506b7caa7b283

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