Manitoba Hansard — 25 April 1991 (Sitting 30, 35th Legislature, 2nd Session)

35-2-30

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

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

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBl Y Thirty-Fifth Legislature LIB - Liberal; ND - New Democrat; PC - Progressive Conservative NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARR, James CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILU, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward 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. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHUN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MclNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. 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 WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington Crescentwood River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage la Prairie Ste.

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

Johns Swan River PARTY LIB ND ND LIB LIB ND LIB ND PC PC PC PC ND ND PC PC PC LIB PC PC ND ND PC PC ND LIB PC ND PC ND LIB ND PC ND PC ND PC PC PC PC PC PC PC ND PC ND PC PC PC PC ND PC ND PC PC ND ND

1202 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, Aprll 25, 1991 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the House. Mr. Speaker, I had planned on making a statem ent yesterday, but because of other business, I was unable to get here on time. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that as of yesterday morning Manitoba Hydro President and CEO, Bob Brennan, announced their increased emphasis on energy conservation and demand side management.

The name of this expanded program is called "Power Smart." The program will involve an additional investment by the corporation of an amount in excess of $130 million over the next 10 years. This program covers a number of new initiatives for residential, commercial and industrial customers and will initially include programs to encourage more efficient street and farmyard lighting; new energy efficient shower heads to reduce the amount of electricity used for water heating; energy efficient motors in industry; and new efficiency infrared lamps for the use in hog operations.

This is a leading customer-oriented energy conservation program in North America. The program was first introduced in British Columbia by B.C. Hydro in 1988 and has been accepted by other Canadian el ectrical utilities in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. Longer term plans include a Power Smart labelling program to designate energy efficient appliances, motor and other electrical equipment, that meet stringent energy efficiency standards.

These new initiatives are in addition to the rebate programs already offered by Manitoba Hydro on block heater timers and compact fluorescent light bulbs. As you are already aware, Manitoba Hydro had set an initial target to reduce energy demand by 100 megawatts by the year of 2001. It is now anticipated that the initial target will be exceeded. The utility is now committed to saving as much electricity as is cost efficiently possible.

This is a major new direction for the corporation, whose historical goal has been to meet the electricity demands for Manitobans by developing new sources of supply and to ensure a reliable delivery network. Today's announcement by Manitoba Hydro is in line with this government's commitment to provide adequate supplies of fuel and power at competitive prices and to ensure that the energy is produced and used in an efficient and environmentally sound manner. As Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro, I am pleased that Hydro is unde rtakin g en ergy conservation in such an aggressive and responsible manner.

Our department has been and will continue to work with Manitoba Hydro and other utilities to identify new opportunities for energy conservation. •

(1335) Mr. George Hlckes (Point Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I also am pleased to add a few comments to this. It is very good, encouraging news. When we last met with Manitoba Hydro, I personally introduced a resolution to raise the target from 2.6 percent to 6.6 percent, so we are encouraged by this and we know it can be done. It can benefit all of Manitoba, everybody in Manitoba. All we need now is some initiative and efforts to help the people in northern Manitoba who will be coming to change their power sources, and that should find some way to help them conserve their energy.

With the announcement with the X number of dollars that are tied into the conservation of the energy, that will mean we can save a lot more energy consumption in Manitoba. So hopefully we should be able to find new markets for that, to create more wealth for Manitobans and to keep our taxes and costs down for everybody in Manitoba. One thing that I would encourage the government to tie in with energy conservation is looking at the aspects of reversing the billing process, where now if an individual uses more electricity they save more money. If that was reduced, where you conserve

1203 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 25, 199 1 more energy and you reduce your bill, then you will encourage more consumer s to be energy conscious. I applaud this, and I know our side of the House will do whatever we can to support the initiatives. I know there is more that can be done. We just have to find new ways and take opportunities of new ideas, and we will all benefit by this. Thank you. Mr. James Carr {Crescentwood): Mr.

Speaker, this is a very good news day for Manitoba Hydro, for the government and indeed for all Manitobans, because at long last we have recognized the importance of energy conservation. Allow me to be just a little amused to listen to my friends in the New Democratic Party now talking about energy conservation and talking about resolutions that they introduced in front of the committee of Public Utilities, because between 1981 and 1988, when they were government of Manitoba and in charge of Manitoba Hydro, not one megawatt was saved, Mr. Speaker, and the target for energy conservation was one big fat zero.

I think it is important to put on the record that there has been some considerable shift in position between what we hear from the critic today and the actions that were taken by the New Democratic Party when they were in government. Manitoba Hydro itself has come a very long way even over the last two years, because we saw as recently as the annual report ending March 31, 1989, the Manitoba Hydro pictures on its annual report, a rural Manitoba farmhouse with 11 lights on burning brightly.

Obviously that is the wrong message to send to the co nsumers of hydro-electricity in Manitoba and obviously a lesson learned by the new management of Manitoba Hydro. We also have to remember that there are considerable -(interjection)- well, there is some heckling going on from the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie). The member for Flin Flon was the minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro when the energy was zero. For a change-- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We have given the courtesy to the honourable minister to make the statement.

We have also given the honourable member for Point Douglas the courtesy. Now I expect that we give the honourable member for Crescentwood the same courtesy. Mr. Carr: I think we should also on this very important day make the point that building huge hydro-electric dams in northern Manitoba has a cost beyond the cost of building the dam and the construction of the transmission line to southern Manitoba and then for export sale.

The costs are also very much a part of a traditional way of life of aboriginal peoples who live in northern Manitoba, the environmental costs that we have to look at very carefully before any major construction. *

(1340) So this all in all is a happy day. Let me also say that I think all members of the House can take some credit for this. Those of us in opposition do not often get an opportunity to see the results of our own labour in government decisions, but this is an example I think where private members' resolutions and pressure from members of the opposition have encouraged policy development from the government. We do not want to take away any of the credit that the Minister of Energy (Mr. Neufeld) deserves, or the board of Manitoba Hydro.

I think that we can all take credit for a good public policy development, very progressive, Mr. Speaker. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister responsible for The Clvll Service Act): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table in this House today a report prepared by the Hay Management Consultants for the Manitoba Civil Service Commission, a review of the recruitment, selection and classification process within the Manitoba Civil Service. Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon from the Elmdale Elementary School sixty Grade 5 students. They are under the direction of Sylvia Baker and Dave Driedger. This school is located in the constituen cy of the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon.

April 25, 199 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1204 ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Repap Manitoba Inc. Preferred Shares Value Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), who is the minister responsible for the divestiture of Manfor, has been asked a number of questions in this House by a number of members over the last couple of years.

We asked the Minister of Finance last year how he in all consciousness could put $78 million of so-called preferred shares in the so-called Fiscal Stabilization Fund, notwithstanding the Auditor's comments that that in fact was an incorrect and invalid place for the shares, because in fact they were worth nothing in terms of the financial situation of Repap.

Since the government's announcement, which included sale of some of our products to Wisconsin plants, in the press release of a couple of years ago, we have found out from publications in The Pas and other announcements today that Repap is having problems with payments from the Wisconsin plant for purposes of Manitoba product, and that in fact, according to financial analysts, will put Repap's financial situation in greater jeopardy.

I would ask the Minister of Finance: What is the status of the preferred shares that he has placed in the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, given the Auditor's statement and given the fact that we have to pay $90 million as part of this deal for highways? What is the status of that preferred share situation? What year can we cash those preferred shares, and what year can we use them to hire nurses or keep our province going in terms of the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, given the recent financial analysis of the Repap situation? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr.

Speaker, as I have said many times in response to questions put previously by the leader of the NOP and also in response to some other questions emanating from the Provincial Auditor's comment, certainly the $78 million to which the member refers is not to be considered cash. They are not realizable at this particular time in a cash or spending sense.

They are footnoted that way, but let me also indicate that when I challenged members opposite or indeed the Provincial Auditor to tell me where to lodge the value of those shares, I never got a response, because in reality they had to be lodged somewhere, so I put them in the best place that I thought then, and I still seem to think that was the proper place to lodge them. * (1 345) We have promised this House and we have promised Manitobans that $78 million would not be spent in any fashion until they turn up in a cash sense. The member asks: When is that going to be? Mr.

Speaker, that would begin to happen in 1994-95 under the present contract as it stands. let me also indicate to the leader of the NDP and to members of this House, the contract is binding on both parties, government, including Repap. let me also indicate, Mr. Speaker, that not one dollar of the $90 million commitment in roads has flown to this particular point in time. Not one dollar of the guarantee that was put into place, pari passu, equal status with the other lending institution, has flown also.

Government has not put any money into this other than to clean up the horrible mess that was left with respect to Manfor. Job Creation Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the previous government did not in any way change the forest cut area. In fact, we had separate value-added job opportunities being developed in the Swan River area. I will table the internal confidential document that went to the Conservative caucus from the Weste rn Diversification Office talking about the tremendous opportunity in the Swan River valley area for jobs. Mr.

Speaker, we have called on the government to not give away the forest cut area in the Swan River area to have the separate value-added jobs being evaluated both subject to the environmental hearings that would of course have to take place. Now that we have only two jobs from Repap in the Swan River valley area instead of the hundreds of jobs that were being analyzed by the Western Diversification Office and analyzed by other independent sources, I would ask this Minister of Finance: When is he coming through with the 250 jobs that he and his Premier promised to the people of the Swan River valley area? Hon.

Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, what is obvious, firstly, is the NOP is totally against the divestiture of Manfor to Repap. What is obvious also is that the NOP is trying to pit The Pas

1205 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 25, 199 1 region versus Swan River in this whole issue, and I say to them, shame. Mr. Speaker, right today there are 60 jobs in the Swan River area purely and entirely as a result-in the cutting area, I am talking in the Swan River area-of the supply of chips to The Pas existing mill.

The member can try and dredge up this story from the past again, but as he is so keenly aware and hopefully understanding, the 250 jobs can only come as a result after the investment has been made in Phase I leading to Phase II by Repap, and that can only happen after the environmental licences, as required, are finally provided. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, let the record show that most Manitobans are against this deal that this Tory government negotiated in terms of giving away our forest resources in the Swan River valley area and other areas of the province of Manitoba, changing the cut area.

Let the record show that it was the Tories who changed the cutting area and got nothing for it. Mr. Speaker, given the Premier's own comments in his own press release and the Minister of Finance's own comments where they made job guarantees to the people of Manitoba, has the gover nment renegotiated the wishy-washy, meaningless wording that they had in the contracts saying that the best efforts would be made to have these jobs?

Has the government renegotiated wording in a contract in terms of this divestiture that could guarantee fulfilled jobs in Manitoba instead of the promises that have not come true in terms of what this government has made to the people of Manitoba? Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the question is no. No renegotiation has taken place.

Let me also indicate though to the member, as individuals in the forest products industry became aware of the covenants put into place, particularly by Repap, the indication has been made to the government that no better agreement could have ever been struck for the province of Manitoba. • (1 350) Let me indicate, Mr.

Speaker, the agreement is so solidly in support of the best interests of the province, it is one of the problems that the government would have to face, indeed, if Repap came forward seeking a redraft of certain aspects of the agreement, because we have such a solid agreement that is in place right now with such tremendous guarantees that we are very reluctant to make changes within it. It is so binding on the company. Repap Manitoba Inc. Job Protection Mr. Oscar lathlln (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

At this moment, over 100 residents of The Pas are demonstrating in The Pas over the contracting out of woodland jobs by Repap. Some 50 employees of Thompson and Cranberry Portage along with other traditional woodland jobs have been dropped by Repap, while the company is contracting out part-time nonunion woodland jobs and importing chips from nontraditional areas instead of increasing the jobs in The Pas. All of this when the mill is being shut down. My question, Mr.

Speaker, to the minister: What guarantees did this minister put forward to protect wood land jobs, so that the total number of employees in the mill and woodlands area will actually rise rather than being shifted around, playing one area against the other? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, here is the great irony of this situation. It is a great dilemma that the NOP particularly have because in the member's

preamble, when he talked about contracting out, when he talked about moving the cutting area into a nontraditional area, that is happening but it is happening in the Swan River area, and that is where the economic benefit is shifted in part. Now, as far as a reduction, with respect to the sawmill-and let us be very specific-the member is well aware as to the reality in the forest products industry. He is well aware that many, many companies, if not half of the corporations with respect to the forest product industry, are showing significant red ink.

Corporations, of course, are going to do what they have to do, and they are going to have to try to address that loss . Mr. Speaker, what can happen and why the government is so happy it divested itself of Manfor is right now if the government owned it, there would be pressure for the members opposite to be losing $30 million, $40 million, $50 million a year and supporting a nonviable operation at this point in time. That is what the people of Manitoba have

April 25, 199 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1206 saved by way of that divestiture. I say to the members opposite, shame on them for being in opposition to the sale to Repap. Northern Manitoba Youth Employment Services Mr. Oscar lathlln (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Family Services. Since the layoff at the mill was announced some time ago, why did this minister not support keeping the northern youth job corps and CareerStart at current levels? Did the minister not realize how many Northerners are already unemployed?

Right now there are 225 people unemployed-being laid off at Repap. What will the minister do? Why did he not support Northern Youth Corps and CareerStart? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of famlly Services}: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is well familiar with the situation that the federal government has withdrawn their funding for that program. That information was provided by the federal government last year, that they would no longer fund it, and we do not have the ability to fund that program on our own. As far as the CareerStart Program is concerned, there will be a CareerStart Program this year.

We have sent out applications to those institutions and groups that have applied for information. The program is somewhat smaller than last year, but we will be goin g ahead with the progr am. The confirmation of the successful applicants will start taking place after May 3. Repap Manitoba Inc. Job Protection Mr. Oscar lathlln (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, my last question is to the First Minister. What contingency plan does his government have now if Repap continues to encounter financial difficulties, continues to lay people off and finally decides to shut down?

What plans does he have right now to address that situation? Point of Order Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I ask you to bring the member to order, to ask him to pose his question in the un hypothetic, to present it as based on fact, because there were as least two "ifs," and I would say the question is totally out of order. It is hypothetic. * (1 355) Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House leader): Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for The Pas was asking this government if it has any plans.

I realize that the government may not have plans; that indeed may be an answer, but I believe the member's question was not hypothetical. It was: What are the plans in regard to Repap in The Pas? *** Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for The Pas, would you kindly rephrase your question, please. Mr. lathlln: Mr. Speaker, what are the plans of this government to maintain the jobs at Repap and to ensure that the people in The Pas and area continue to be employed? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, the first and foremost thing we did was to sell Manfor to Repap, to a private sector corporation that has been very successful in the past decade, in fact, the fastest growing private sector operator in the forest industry in the private sector in the past decade in North America. In so doing, we have given stability to the operation, unlike what happened during the '80s when the NOP were in government, where when they were running the operation, they were not only losing $30 million a year of taxpayers' money, but they too were laying off hundreds and hundreds of workers. We have the press clippings.

I do not know what the member for The Pas was doing in those days, but he certainly was not out there criticizing the New Democrats who were laying off hundreds of people when they operated it, and at the same time, having a $30 million annual- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that we do follow our rules. Beauchesne is very clear that answers to questions should relate to the matters raised. The member for The Pas asked a very straightforward question, what is the policy of this government? What are they doing?

1207 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA April 25, 199 1 The First Minister should not engage in the kind of debate which is avoiding to answer a very serious question that was asked on behalf of the people of The Pas. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, I would like to remind all honourable members that answers to questions should be as brief as possible, should deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate. Repap Manitoba Inc. Construction Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, the Premier seems to forget that Manfor was in the black when it was given away. Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Finance talks proudly about the solid agreement he has, but an agreement is only solid if you choose to enforce it and he has not shown that willingness to date. When Repap pulled out of its commitment to Swan River, he did not take the necessary action to see that they met that commitment. I would like to ask the minister a very simple question. To the Minister of Finance: Will Repap be starting construction in this fiscal year? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr.

Speaker, if Repap started construction this year before they received all necessary environmental processes, permits and clearances, I can indicate the very first person who might be standing at attention calling upon us to take drastic measures preventing Repap to build indeed would be the member for the Liberal Party. Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question in definitive terms, because I cannot stand here today and tell members when it is that the clearances and the permits necessary to begin and allow building will be in place. Development Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr.

Speaker, despite the environmental issues, the financial community on this continent seems to suggest that Repap will not be building this year or next year and perhaps never. It is, and I qu ote , the most heavily debt-financed forest products company in North America. Can the Min ister of Finance give us some indication of when Repap is going to do something to begin to build the kind of economic base that this minister keeps promising that investment is going to create, because we have seen nothing to date? *

(1400) Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the member quotes from a 7:30 a.m. this morning CBC Radio clip, and the source of that was an Ahmed Wadwhaney, a financial analyst with M. J. Whitman and Company of New York. That was the source of the quote that the member asked the question today. I would prefer to put my confidence, Mr.

Speaker, with respect to development, Phases I and II under the agreement, first of all in our own environmental processes and after that in Repap itself, who has been a tremendous corporate citizen in Canada, who provides literally thousands of jobs across this nation. I put my faith in the agreement as has been written and ultimately put faith in the people of The Pas and Swan River, who I know will provide the necessary fibre supply for a billion -dollar-plus investment in our province. Financial Protection Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr.

Speaker, the people of Swan River put their faith in this minister, and he failed them. My question is to the minister. It is the Wisconsin plant that is so seriously in trouble today. In this very good agreement that the minister speaks so proudly of, is the Manfor complex, The Pas complex, sheltered from the problems of the Wisconsin plant? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, directly, yes. Indirectly, in the sense that it is a subsidiary of the same parent, Repap Enterprises in Montreal, the answer is no. I mean they are part of the same conglomerate.

I know the member knew the answer to the question before he asked it, and I say to him, what point is he trying to make? I sense what he is trying to say is that Repap should not be here. He wishes that they were not here, and if the Liberals were in government, he would do everything in his power to make sure that they were run out of the province, and to that I say, shame. Mini College Program Continuation Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education.

April 25, 199 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1208 Assinib oine Commu nity College has run a summer program for young people in Brandon for a number of years. It is called Mini College, and it is very popular in the community. It also provides summer employment for four university students. This program was to be offered this year at no cost to the provincial government, since the federal government, through an employment program called Challenge 91 , would provide some funds with the parents making up the difference in tuition fees.

Nevertheless, the government will not allow the Mini College program to be offered this year. This sounds very unreasonable. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister: Would the minister please explain why his department is depriving 150 young people in the city of Brandon of a learning experience and four students of summer employment when there is no direct cost to the provincial government? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.

Speaker, although the member for Brandon may think there is no cost to the provincial government, indeed the operations of plants, the provision of supplies and all of those matters constitute a cost, and although the NOP does not account for those kinds of costs, indeed they are. Again it is a part of the reshaping and refocusing of education in this province, that indeed we are determined to ensure that the training and retraining we undertake in this province result s in skill development that will lead to jobs rather than simply having individuals deliver courses for no purpose whatsoever. Mr.

Leonard Evans: I would ask the minister if he would really take it upon himself to review the whole matter, because my understanding was that there were no out-of-pocket costs. It is a great program in the community. It provides jobs for young people, and the province as a whole would be the loser, Mr. Speaker, if we do not proceed. I do not know what he has against those kids, the students, the com muni ty. There are no out-of-pocket costs. The facilities are there, and it is virtually a free program. Mr. Derkach: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the member uses the term "virtually." In terms of determining what our priorities are as a government and as a department, we have to ensure that the money we invest in all kinds of training opportunities and education does indeed lead toward meaningful skill development and meaningful job skill development in the future. Mr. Speaker, to that extent we have set some priorities. Indeed the programs that we have developed at Assiniboine Community College, at Red River and at Keewatin Co mmunity College are those that we think are going to lead to meaningful jobs in the future. Mr.

Leonard Evans: This program does not detract from that objective whatsoever, Mr. Speaker. Budget STEP Program Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I have a question either to the same minister, or perhaps it is the Minister of Family Services. The Students Temporary Employment Program, referred to as STEP, has provided hundreds of jobs within the provincial government for many a year during the summertime. I understand that it too has been scaled back considerably this year. Can the minister tell us to what extent this program has been cut back within this budget?

How many fewer positions are being offered under the STEP program? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, we will be proceeding with the STEP program. I simply do not have the details available that the member is asking for at this time, but I will seek to get them and forward them to you. Rural Development Corporations Funding Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swa n River): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Rural Development. During the el ection the government made promise after promise that it was committed to the growth and development in rural Manitoba.

We were led to believe that under this government the rural econ omy would strength en, but instead this gove rnmen t has cut funding for regio nal development corporations by up to 25 percent. This is an organization that promotes growth in rural Manitoba, helps small business and strengthens the rural economy. How can the Minister of Rural Development on one hand state that he supports rural Manitoba and

1209 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 25, 199 1 then cut funding to this organization which will create jobs in rural Manitoba? Hon. James Downey (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, let me say to the member for Swan River that the program to which she refers and tho se in dividuals and those municipalities that participated have in fact provided and do in fact provide in most cases a meaningful program and service to those communities for the enhancement of economic development. The government has had to make some difficult decisions.

The previous government left the people of Manitoba with an annual interest bill of over $550 million, over $500 for every man, woman and child. There had to be some difficult decisions made. I believe that through the work with the government thr ough rural developm ent bonds and other activities that we are working on, that we will be able to overcome the difficulties that a slight reduction in that program will cause. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, this government continues to offload and offload onto municipalities.

First we have their operating grants cut, increased policing costs, 2,000 kilometres of roads dumped back on to the municipalities, now cuts to the RDC funding. Can the minister tell this House how he expects municipalities to absorb all this cost? Their budgets have been set. They have been in place for a month. How are municipalities going to pick up this extra cost for their RDCs to continue to operate? Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, as I said, there have been difficult decisions that had to be made.

I will, for the member's benefit, have to say again that it is important, I am sure, to every municipality that we maintain the hospitals in those communities, that we maintain the educational facilities and that we maintain the family services which this government has provided. So, Mr. Speaker, those municipal people she is talking about, and represent atives, clearly understand the difficulty that this province is facing. They clearly understand it. I know we have had a meeting. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), the Mini ster of Highways and Transportation (Mr.

Driedger) have met with the municipal people and will be meeting further with them to further discuss how the road system can be taken over and how we can work our way through these very difficult times and make sure that we do have the building, the base of which will rebuild the economies of rural Manitoba. Ms. Wowchuk: What these rural municipalities understand is that this government has given up on rural Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, to the same minister: Can the minister tell us why he has also cut the RDC associate funding of $50,000 which is used to promo te busin ess and prom ote Mani toba throughout the country, but also includes the pensions and benefits of the RDC managers? What is going to happen to the pensions and benefits of these managers? Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, let me again emphasize that a lot of these difficult decisions had to be made. I can tell her and tell the members of the opposition that we did not and are not ignoring rural Manitoba.

The commitment of $43 million in an agriculture program is not ignoring the farm and rural communities, as is the commitment to continue the removal of the provincial portion of education taxes off the farmer, probably close to some $20 million in benefits. So do not let the member say that we are ignoring and neglecting rural Manitoba. We have put a substantial amount of money in this budget for rural Manitoba. *( 14 10) Education System Teaching Positions Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, the government workers who demonstrated on the steps of the Legislature at noon today are not the only public employees facing a bleak future as a result of this government's policies. We have learned that the Manitoba Teachers' Society is dealing with 312 teachers who have been laid off as of March 31 . That is 10 times the number of teachers who were laid off at the same time last year. At the same time, we have 700 new teachers graduating from Manitoba universities this spring with no hope of a job since the school divisions are laying off, not hiring.

Can the Minister of Education outline in this House today, plans or even ideas that he has that will stop the flow of Manitoba graduates to other provinces and keep Manitoba-trained teachers here

April25, 199 1 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 12 10 in our province working to improve the skills and competitiveness of Manitobans? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Well, Mr . Speaker, that is the dilemma we face in this province, because when we unfolded the fiscal plan for this province, we did it for all sectors of the society. We did go out to school divisions and ask them to set their priorities.

We did go out to the Manitoba Teachers' Society and indicate to them that this province was facing an extremely difficult financial situation, and we asked them to contribute to the process by perhaps reducing their demands on the public purse, if you like. School boards then had to make some decisions after having settled with teachers at 5 percent and above levels. That definitely has resulted in some of the repercussions that we see here today in teachers being laid off from the various school divisions across this province. It is regrettable, but that is the reality.

Red River Community College Course Ellmlnatlon Criteria Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (leader of the Second Opposition): This minister is so out of touch with what is going on in the education system that it is incredible. Yesterday this minister said in this House in response to a question about the elimination of the developmental social work program at Red River that he had three criteria: they had cut programs in which there were low enrollments; they cut programs in which the facilities were being offered in other institutions; and they were cutting where there were few job opportunities. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I have been in touch today with the peopl e. They te ll me that they had overenrollment in thisdepartment-ove renrollment, and that there is an incredible demand for the jobs. Why is this minister giving information in this House which is obviously wrong and for which he shows his absolute lack of understanding of what is happening at Red River Community College? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.

Speaker, I regret to say that the leader of the third opposition party, or the second opposition party-she is going down-is the only one who is out of touch with realities, whether it is in Education or any other department. As a matter of fact, the program that she talked about that was being cancelled was a market-driven training program. As a matter of fact, she should know also that there is a two-year program that is still ongoing at Red River Community College, and there will be 25 new students taken into that program.

So I ask her to do her research and to come back to this House with more accurate information. It is true that had students and had teachers and had the people who work for government taken zero percent, or if they would take zero percent, there will be fewer layoffs than there would be if people who work for government and for school boards expect very high increases in economic times such as we are facing today. Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr. Speaker, there were two programs, one two-year, one one-year. He has slashed the one-year program. Those are the facts and he knows it.

Brandon Mental Health centre Education Programs Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (leader of the Second Opposition}: I would ask the minister today to tell this House : What legal right do the children who are patients at the Brandon Mental Health Centre have to an education, and how will that legal commitment be fulfilled when there will be no teachers instructing at that program? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, once again, the leader of the liberal Party shows her complete lack of knowledge about the educational process in this province.

There are alternative programs delivered right through this province, indeed Brandon School Division has some very progressive programs in terms of dealing with students who have special needs. A year ago, we implemented a special program at Brandon School Division, which is costing the province something like $100,000 to deliver that program to students with special needs. Indeed, there are programs available. There are very professional staff, well-trained, to deliver alternative programs in this province.

12 11 LE GISL ATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA April 25, 1991 Health Care System Multicultural Services Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Health now familiarized himself with the government's evaluations of the Immigrant-Refugee Health Program and satisfied himself that the program is exemplary, cost-effective and worthy of provincial support? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): I have never said anything different, Mr. Speaker. An Ho no urable Mem ber: For one shor t question-go back to the old way. It is the only way he will listen. Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: It was a good experiment while it lasted, Mr. Speaker. I guess I will go back to my old ways. Has the Mini ster of Health reviewed the government's evaluations of the health program for immigrants and refugees and satisfied himself that this program is exemplary, cost-effective and worthy of provincial support? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with that question last answer. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Will the minister be making a positive announcement on this program at his meeting today with ethnocultural representatives at 6 p.m. and at the gathering this evening on the steps of the Legislature? Mr.

Orchard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Now that my honourable friend has been so concerned about shortness of answers, maybe she would allow me to elaborate. Let me tell you what the process is that we are un dergoing in te rms of allocation of funding, because I think- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister, probably it may be a first in this House, has answered the question in one word, and I believe we should allow the member for St. Johns to continue with her questioning. * * * Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

The honourable Minister of Health, to finish his response. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, there are two processes at work to deal with this issue. First of all is my Multicultural Health Advisory Committee, which I hope to meet with when the chairman returns, so that they can establish the process of prioritization of program that will be important in aiding us in our decision making. Secondly, within government, I simply want to reiterate that there was a request for $160,000 to continue a program that had been developed through ad hoe funding. We were unable to accede to that request this budget cycle.

GRIP Program Addltlonal Coverage Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Agriculture announced his approval of a program, GRIP, that discriminates between producers based on whether they have had crop insurance in the past or not.

As a matter of fact, he said that a farmer who had crop insurance premiums, who paid crop insurance premiums in the past, was justified in getting additional coverage because "he has proved himself above average." In view of the fact that all it proves is that the farmer on crop insurance, who was eligible for additional coverage, merely produced 70 percent of his insured levels in the majority of the years that he was on crop insurance, will the minister now clarity his position with regard to that statement, and will he admit that a farmer's previous premiums paid on crop insurance should entitle him to no special privileges under GRIP?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member has been, but I announced approval of the GRIP program many months ago, not yesterday. What I announced yesterday, for his benefit, is the extension of the deadline to allow more farmers an opportunity-I would also like to remind the member that a safety net task force has been in place for about a year with some 33 members; 19 of them are farmers, 11 of those people are from western Canada, three of them are from Manitoba. One of the principles they work with very strongly is the

April 25, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1212 individualization of the producer's ability to cover himself based on his record over time. * (1 420) Mr. Plohman: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that only 54 percent of Manitoba producers are actually on crop insurance, and therefore, in other words, nearly half of the producers in Manitoba are not eligible for this additional coverage, will the minister reconsider that provision and ask that the program be changed to allow farmers who were not on crop insurance to bring forward their long-term verifiable records, based on elevator tickets or Wheat Board records, so that they too can qualify for additional- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mr. Flndlay: Mr.

Speaker, the safety net task force recommended that the revenue insurance program be based on the principles of crop insurance and the records that people have built up over years and the records that the Crop Insurance Corporation has built up over years.

When that recommendation came forward, there were some shortcomings in it naturally, and we asked that the window of opportunity of adjustments be kept open on an annual basis, but for the member's benefit, in this year alone we have instituted a superior management adjustment that allows the producer retroactively in 1991 to raise his level of coverage based on his ability to produce. We have allowed producers who are below the soil zone area average to have at least area average, allow them to bring themselves up to average, an option that is available to them if they want. Mr.

Speaker, we have reduced the premiums on revenue insurance. We have extended the deadline for premium payment. We extended the deadline for sign-up. We have added a lot of benefits to the program since it was announced. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, I would ask this minister-he says that he has made all kinds of improvements to the program with the pressure from this side of the House and from producers across the province. -(i nterjection)- Yes, there has been some improvement.

Will he allow the long-t erm, verifiable average for individuals who are not on crop insurance, some 46 percent of the farmers in Manitoba, who cannot qualify for this discriminatory provision? Will he allow that so that those farmers can indeed get additional coverage to cover their cost of production, rather than be discriminated against? Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mr. Flndlay: Mr. Speaker, some 67 percent of the farmers have been in this crop insurance over the past few years, so he is wrong again on that count.

We have allowed a lot of input into this program from a lot of people, several farm organizations, many delegations. We want this program to be responsible for what the farmers want. We also want the program to look responsible to the taxpayers of Manitoba and Canada who are going to fund this program. Ther e is no question that the program is desperately needed. I want to tell the member, the rate of sign-up is going at about 1, 000 a day right now. Health Care System Multlcultural services Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

It seems that we have lost the whole issue between the short questions and short answers. Can the minister give us an explanation and assure that this year's funding will be provided for this specific program? It is a spending smart program which has saved money. It is costing $5 per visit. I think we should expand this program rather than cutting this program. Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I cannot give my honourable friend that assurance. The assurance that I have been giving in the last couple of days is that this program is in process of discussion with the ministry.

We could not build into the base funding this year the additional funds that were required. There were two specific reasons why we were unable to do that in this budget cycle. No one is saying that the program does not serve a value. What we are attempting to establish with the advice from the Multicultural Health Advisory Committee and advice from my department is where we can reallocate funding if this program turns to be one of a higher priority than those currently funded within our fixed budget. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

12 13 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 25, 199 1 ORDERS OF THE DAY House Business Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House leader): Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 65.(6.1 ), I am tabling the sequence for the consideration of Estimates in the two sections of the Committee of Supply. BUDGET DEBATE Mr. Speaker: On the adjourned debate, eighth day of debate, on the proposed motion of the honourable Min ister of Finance (Mr. Manness) , and the proposed amendment of the honourable leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Doer), and the proposed subamendment of the honourable Leader of the second opposition party (Mrs. Carstairs). Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on this budget, a 1 Oth budget, a 1 Oth year in this Legislature speaking in terms of budgets. I will say this is a budget that I speak on very, very reluctantly. Of all the speeches I have had to make in this Legislature in the last 10 years, this is the most difficult one.

If members wonder why people such as myself and other members of the New Democratic Party have such difficulty in speaking on this budget, they should look at its contents. Mr. Speaker, this budget is the most regressive, vicious budget in Manitoba history. I find it surprising that I have to make that statement, because I remember when I first ran for the Legislature in 1981 running for a party that opposed what up to that point in time had been the most regressive and vicious governmen t in Manitoba history, the Sterling Lyon government.

But you know, this government has exceeded the Conservative government of Sterling Lyon, not only in terms of regressiveness and in terms of vicious cuts, but in particular in terms of duplicity with the people of Manitoba. As I rise to speak today, I will prove in the short time available that indeed there can be no other conclusion than the fact that this government has misled the people of this province, first in the election of 1990 and now with this budget of 1991 . (Mrs.

Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) I want to, as evidence, quote the words of those leading members of the government to see exactly what this government is all about, and in particular to see how much Manitobans were misled. Madam Deputy Speaker, does anyone remember the statements of the Premier on election night? What you see is what you get. More of the same, was another quotation from the Premier, referring to the type of so-called moderate government that we had seen for a sh ort period of time while the Conservatives had a minority government situation. How can anyone forget that?

How about the quote of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Madam Deputy Speaker? This budget does not affect ordinary people-1 991 . I will deal with that in my comments today. Who of course, if we are going to be talking about quotes from this government, can forget the quote from the so-called Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) last year, last session in this House: It is too bad Northerners do not know how to vote. A direct comment he made in response to questions about northern cutbacks.

I want to deal with that comment in my comments today. * (1 430) But of course there was one comment that probably was an indicator of things to come. It was on election night: A Tory is a Tory is a Tory; a majority is a majority is a majority-Gary Filmon, 1990, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Premier. Well, let us see what a Tory is in 1991 . Let us see what a majority is. Let us see what Conservatives mean when they say, this does not affect ordinary people. Let us assess that.

Let us deal with the statement by the Minister of Northern Affairs about Northerners not knowing how to vote, and let us deal with the statements of the Premier to assess whether there is going to be more of the same, and what you see is what you get.

Let us talk about this budget: more than 950 jobs eliminated as a result of this budget; over 400 individual Manitobans have received layoff notices, and that number may increase; Natural Resources slashed by 231 jobs; Highways and Transportation slashed by 11 4 jobs; major cuts in the Department of Education, more than 10 0 jobs; cuts to virtually every department in government, major cuts in terms of programs, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let us talk about this budget, $20 million being expe nded to lay off people in the midst of a

April 25 , 199 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 12 14 recession, send them out on the streets to save $30 million a year, a strange economic strategy. Funds cut to outside agencies, providing many useful services to Manitobans; funds cut in terms of regional economic offices; major cuts in terms of services to rural and northern Manitobans and no job creation. In fact, not only is there no job creation in this budget, Madam Deputy Speaker, they have cut what job creation there is. They have significantly cut CareerStart.

They have significantly cut other programs, and they have eliminated the Northern Youth Corps job program. That is the reality of this budget. I want to deal with the Minister of Finance's statement first- this budget does not affect ordinary people. I took the time this Monday to attend a demonstration organized by students in Thompson affected directly by the cuts of this government. You know, the staff could not be there. They were told unofficially they might not want to attend, but the students spoke for them and the students spoke for themselves. What was their message?

Their message was that it was wrong to cut 19 positions with the Keewatin Community College in Thompson. It was wrong to cut carpentry, electrical and plumbing programs. It was wrong to have civil technology students, 16 of them told just after they had been relocated to Thompson in October, they have to move to Winnipeg. You know, when I spoke at that rally I said to them that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) says this budget does not affect ordinary people. Their response was, if they are not ordinary people, Madam Deputy Speaker, then who is?

I want the Minister of Finance and the rest of this government who have been bunkered up in this Legislature, at times behind chained doors, to know the kind of results of their decision making, their so-called budget that will not affect ordinary people. I would like the Minister of Finance to meet with two couples in my constituency where both the husband and wife have been laid off. Talk to them, are they not ordinary people? I would like the Minister of Finance to meet with the 29 people laid off and ask them directly how they felt about the layoffs.

I would like to ask the minister to meet with the students who are being affected by these cuts in programming, to meet with the civil technology students who have said to me and have said publicly, they are now faced with a choice between their education and their family, because many of them are parents, many of them are single parents. I asked them back, out of that choice, what choice will you make? They will, Madam Deputy Speaker, choose-m any of them-their families. You know whatthat means? They will drop out of that program. I would like the Minister of Finance to talk to those people.

I had a meeting last night, a public meeting, because I wanted those people to have the opportunity to talk. Most of my comments today are based on the feedback. Before the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) talks about playing politics, I want to let him know that one of the first messages that people gave me on Monday and yesterday again, that his statements, his threats to Northerners, and in fact it is now being carried out, the fact that Northerners in his own words, and I quote him, do not vote right. They have said that that is absolutely unaccep table on behalf of the government in the 1990s.

They look directly to that so-called Minister of Northern Affairs and blame that minister for the kind of vindictive cuts they have been faced with-the kind of vindictive cuts. Those are the ordinary people. Do you know what they said yesterday? I just want to relate some of the comments. They worried about the future of this country, they worried about who is in charge anymore, for whose benefit are decisions being made. They worried about the impact of the cuts in jobs to the Civil Service.

They are incensed over the $50 user fee, the surcharge for the northern patient transportation program that we have in place. Madam Depu ty Speaker, they said that Northerners are being targeted. They said, they only wished they had some of the opportunities of people in the South. They talked about seeing neighbours laid off, friends laid off, families affected by this budget.

They talked about the impact on the school district and the Minister of Northern Affairs, who had the gall last Friday to go fly up in the government jet to the opening of the Eastwood School, irony of ironies, the Eastwood School, which this government refused to fund, but which that minister will gladly jump in front of any ribbon-cutti ng ceremony, they said that this government is hurting that school by

12 15 LEG ISL ATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA April 25, 199 1 its cuts to the school board, including the drastic cutback in the school lunch program in that school. Many of the people there said, how can a government like this penalize the children of northern Manitoba? Do you know what else they talked about? They talked about special needs kids in schools, because they are going to suffer. They talked about the increase in fees in terms of day cares, because this budget will affect them.

They talked about the fact that if you are going to talk about medicare, you should talk about employer abuse as much as anything else in a community like Thom pson, wher e often some of the main expenditures are when companies send people to doctors to get pink slips. Always we hear from the other side, from this type of government, in terms of so-called abuse of medicare. They talked about putting day care back 20 years, because that is what they feel will be the result of this budget. They talked about, yes, the comments of the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey).

One individual said it was frustrating to have to tell people only six months after the election, I told you so, I told you so, when it comes to Tories and what they bring in. They talked about other things, the kind of tax bre aks that sti ll exist in our tax system for corporations and how this government has done nothing to deal with that. They talked about education being turned into a two-ti ered system. That is their fear: one system for those who can afford it and basically no system or a second-rate system if there is to be a system at all for others. They talked about welfare.

They asked, is this going to be the welfare generation in northern Manitoba? That is their fear. They talked about the pr iorities of this government. One woman who was in the civil technology program worked in the business sector as a secretary for seven years, and the essential reason she went into civil technology was that there were no jobs. What is the government doing now? They are cutting out the civil technology program in Thompson and putting in a business skills course. She asked, what kind of priorities does that gover nment fee l that it is showing by those disastrous decisions?

People said they do not need to be lectured on how to vote by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey). They said that he is not going to threaten or bully them. In fact, one individual said, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in the next election perhaps Northerners should teach other areas of the province how to vote, because maybe that is the problem, not how Northerners vote. • (1 440) They talked about the increase in the gas tax and how that affects Northerners, the major cuts in terms of Natural Resources. They talked about the elimination of a number of heli-tac crews.

These are the people who saved northern Manitoba in the major forest fires only a few years ago. They were given all sorts of accolades by Northerners and this government. Now they are getting pink slips. They said, what kind of government can face us with that kind of a risk? They talked about Conawapa. They want to see Conawapa built, but they do not trus t this government to put the training in place to see that more Northerners are hired. They predicted, and I agree with this prediction, Madam Deputy Speaker, that training in the North might suddenly become a priority six months before an election.

But you know, those people have been fooled so many times before, they will not be fooled again. That is what they told me. They asked, in terms of the kind of people who are being affected, how they could be impacting on students making less than $1,000 a month, living below the poverty line. They asked, was this part of the government's strategy, divide and conquer? They talked about the fear of the employees involved who are afraid, many of those who were not laid off, but they may be next. There was a lot of talk about fear from people.

They talked about the buzzwords that were used, attrition, layoffs, when in fact, we know the real human dimension of it. You know, for more than two and one-half hours they spoke about how they felt the budget was affecting them, themselves, their neighbours and their families. Madam Deputy Speaker, that meeting was probably one of the most moving meetings I have ever attended. It was a public meeting. It was open to all. There were many people there from all walks of life, and I think the real message the people had out of that meeting was, they said, how could this happen? How could this happen in Manitoba?

What happened to those fine

April 25, 199 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 12 16 statements I referred to earlier? They said very clearly that the budget does in fact negatively hurt, disastrously hurt ordinary people. So we will remember the Minister of Finance's statement. He will remember it for a long time. They said that they were not fooled in 1990, by the statements of, what you see is what you get, and, more of the same. They dealt with that as you can see from the com ments from the people in my community.

They said they were not fooled at the time, they will not ever be fooled again by the likes of this government, that this government had a hidden agenda that is brought into place, particularly in northern Manitoba. They said that indeed a majority is a majority is a majority, but you know, what I sensed the most was a cynicism of politics and politicians, and it was frustrating after 10 years of being a member of the Legislature to hear of such a great amount of cynicism. You know, I do not blame people at all. I told the meeting myself that I get frustrated by what I see sometimes.

I get cynical too when I see biodegradable campaign promises, when I see the Premier, only months after the election, doing a 18 0 degree turn on key areas. This government making so many decisions- Mr. Edward Helwer (Glmll): That is wrong. Mr. Ashton: The member for Gimli should look at this budget and see how it impacts on people because it was not to be found anywhere in their election campaign promises, and he knows that to be the case.

But you know what really, really bothered them, and I have mentioned this several times and I want to reference it again, was the comments about Northerners not knowing how to vote right. I had people come up to me afterwards and say, what can they do? I had one person who was thinking seriously of filing a human rights complaint, filing a complaint against this government for discrimination based on political affiliation. He comes from a community by the way, Madam Deputy Speaker, where I believe out of 60 votes one person voted Conservative the rest of the community did not.

He has never told me his politics by the way. He said it is supposed to be a free and democratic society. How can this government, how can this Premier (Mr. Filmon) have his Deputy Premier and Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), someone who blackmails and threatens the people of northern Manitoba, as evidenced by his statement in 1990 and in 1991- Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member that all debate should be relevant to the question before the House and that he should use some discretion in terms of parliamentary language. Mr.

Ashton: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would also ask that you do consult Beauchesne in terms of the budget speech which allows members to make comments on a wide variety of issues. This one, which is integral to the duplicity of this government, which has threatened Northerners with cutbacks because of the way it voted, as evidenced by the minister in this House and which continues to do so-that is absolutely fundamental to this budget.

The actions of this government, led by the deputy hatchet man-th e so-called Minister of Northern Affairs, who has taken out the incredible 1950s right-wing mentality on the people of Manitoba. I am here today, Madam Deputy Speaker, saying the people of northern Manitoba are not going to take that from the likes of the Minister of Northern Affairs and this government. -(i nterjection)- T o the members-including the member who sits at the back and laughs and makes light of this, would he like to come up and talk to the 29 people that he and his government have laid off? Would he like to talk to them?

Would any of the Conse rvative members like to get out of this building and talk to the real people of this province? An Honourable Member: We do. Mr. Ashton: Oh, you do? They say they do. Then how can you stand here in this budget debate and support a budget brought in by a Minister of Finance who says this does not hurt ordinary people?

I am tempted to use language which I know would be declared out of order, but I will use a statement that is within keeping in Beauchesne as in order, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Minister of Finance is not telling the truth when he says that this budget does no t hur t or dinary Manitob ans, because it fundamentally targets ordinary Manitobans, it targets Northerners, it targets rural Manitobans, it targets the unemployed, it targets young people. So do not tell us about what the budgetary policy of this government is. Do not tell us. Get out of this building and talk to Manitobans, because they will tell you.

12 17 LE GISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA April 25, 199 1 What frustrates me the most is the fact that we are seeing Calvin Coolidge-A. B. Ben nett economics. They have said- Point of Order Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, the honourable member just implied that those of us sitting on the Conservative side of the House continually spend all our time in this building and do not consult with rural people or people in Manitoba about whether it is budgetary items or other. I think the honourable member should be asked to retract that statement because it is in fact not truthful.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Emerson does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over facts. * * * Mr. Ashton: Madam Deputy Speaker, this is the first government in Manitoba history to chain the doors of the Legislature to keep people out of this building, because they are too afraid to face them. So I would ask that member to look in the mirror at this government if he professes still to be a part of this government, before he suggests that there is anything untoward about suggesting that this government is hiding from the people.

This is the first Premier in Manitoba history who is afraid to go out and talk to people. We saw today. He will nottalk to the laid-off civil servants. He will not talk to the students. He hides in this building. He sends out people to speak on his behalf, and I do have some sympathy for the Minister of Natural Resou rces (Mr. Enns) having to do that. Even Sterling Lyon had the guts to get out and talk to Manitobans, even Ste rlin g Lyon. Whatever happene d to that approach, Madam Deput y Speaker?

They are hiding in this building, and if they do venture out of this building to talk to anyone-it is like the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), he came to Thompson to go to an opening for something they refused to fund, the Eastwood School. He, in this House a couple of days ago, said he did not get any complaints on the budget. What else did he do? He talked to a Conservative political function. That is his definition of going consulting with Northerners and talking to ordinary people. He went to a Conservative dinner.

Wow, Madam Deputy Speaker, he should get out of that jet of his and start talking to the many Manitobans, the many northern Manitobans who would love to have a few minutes of his time to be able to tell him exactly what they think of this budget, this government and, in particular, one of the statements I would say that will haunt that minister and haunt this government for the length of this government and for many years to come in northern Manitoba. What frustrates me is how little people learn from history. You know, when I see this government I can see Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover and R. B.

Ben nett written all over them. What I thought was probably the best

summary of Calvin Coolidge's economic philosophy was when he, and this is a quote from Calvin Coolidge, when more and more people are thrown out of work, unemployment results. Well, brilliant, Madam Deputy Speaker, I mean that is what this government is doing. It is throwing more and more people out, and the minister gets up and says bottom line is we have unemployment. What they do not understand is the causation. There is a direct causation, and it is interesting that they feel they can solve the problem of unemployment by firing people and laying them off and cutting job creation.

That is Calvin Coolidge all over again. • (1 450) I am reminded actually of J. S. Woodsworth, who I think summed it up best. I can hardly understand how people can go on year after year wondering why people lack food, collecting old clothes without asking why people should not buy new ones, trying to get people jobs and not asking why unemployment? Why unemployment? Exactly, Madam Deputy Speaker, why unemployment? That is the question this government has not even asked yet, let alone answered. In fact, I am reminded-and J. S.

Woodsworth being a man of the cloth-of a quotation that I saw, which I think probably sums up what is happening in Manitoba today, from a Reverend J. M. Douglas from 1895, a member of Parliament for Assiniboia, and it is what is happening in Manitoba. A friend remarked when we first came to this country, we lived on faith. That failed, and we lived on hope. Hope even is deserting us, and it almost seems as though at least we should live on charity.

April 25 , 199 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 12 18 That is what is happening in this province. First there was faith, faith in this government, faith in the future. That went. Then there was the hope that maybe something would happen, something would go right. It has not happened. What are we left with, Madam Deputy Speaker? We are left with charity. We are left with food banks. We are left with welfare. That is the end result of not asking that question, why unemployment? Well, the bottom line is you do not put people to work by laying them off, do not solve the problem with unemployment.

You do not solve the problem of unemployment by cutting job creation programs for young people like the Youth Corps program in remote northern communities. You do not solve problems of the future by cutting back on the future itself through cutting education and training. That is no solution. You definitely do not solve anything if you do not listen to the people, if you can honestly believe that this budget does not affect ordinary people. You know, that is the sad thing that has happened the last number of years. Ste rling Lyon cut programs, he was proud of it and at least people knew where he stood.

This government slashes programs, cuts programs and then tries to pretend it is not doing that. Well, I am reminded of the story of the emperor with no clothes. Madam Deputy Speaker, because it was the emperor with no clothes, no one commented on it for awhile. I think that is what is happening with the Conservative caucus. The vestige of moderation, those garments that they wore uncomfortably for two years are now being stripped away and we are seein g the same right- wing ideology that we have always seen, the same sorts of cuts in programs and job creation and yet this government does not rl3cognize it.

I really believe that they also, many members of this government, not all because I have faith in the judgment of some, particularly new members who indeed may in fact be talking to their constituents and getting the same message we are, but to say that this does not affect ordinary Manitobans is fundamentally wrong. It is wrong, this fundamentally affects ordinary Manitobans. Whatever their ideology is, whatever we may agree or disagree about in terms of political approaches, let them not say that.

Madam Deputy Speaker, there is so much more I would like to say, and if I have been heated in my comments today it is because of what I have seen, the impact it has had on ordinary Manitobans, the people I talked to on Monday had their programs slashed, the people I have talked to who have lost their jobs, two couples in my constituency, people I know who are concerned about the fact that the young people in remote communities are not going to get jobs this summer, in Native communities.

That is why I do apologize if in anger I said anything that offended the rules of this House, but in all the 10 years that I have been in this Legislature, this was the most difficult speech for me to prepare for, the most difficult speech for me to make. It is the most difficult time period for many of us on this side because we are seeing so much of what we accomplished, when I say we, not the NDP but people in this province generally at threat because of this government.

Just one final message-and I really say this to the government because there will be further budgets and we fear there may be further actions of this kind. Please, talk to some of those people, the ordinary people who have been affected, please listen to their stories. That is all I ask. Do not listen to what we have to say in this Legislature, do not assume that is everything. Talk to the people, and I think you will see the error of your ways. In fact, Madam Deputy Speaker, if people--as the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) has suggested, he has talked to his constituents.

I will be watching very carefully, as we see the vote tonight, to see if there will be members who in good conscience will rise to vote against this budget because they cannot in good conscience see so many ordinary people penalized. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the member for Thompson for giving up some of his time so that I have an opportunity to speak today.

This is the fourth budget that I have spoken on since becoming a member of this House, and I agree with the member for Thompson, because in many ways for me it has been the most difficult by far. In my first budget, the very first time I spoke in this House was on a budget speech. It was my inaugural

12 19 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA April 25, 199 1 speech in the House. At that time I said, and this is back in August of 1988, the economic future in Manitoba is not promising, despite what the Finance minister claims. The question I asked at that time was: How does the government propose to address this? It was a new government, just come into office, with a new plan, with a new idea, having been in the opposition for long enough to think a little bit about the economy in this province, and I said, what are they going to do? Where is their vision? I was somewhat forgiving of the government at that time.

They really did not have much time. It was important to get a budget before the province of Manitoba. They did not have a lot of time to plan, so they took the Kostyra budget; they tinkered with it a bit and they brought that in. I was not too harsh with them, because I understood that it takes a little time to build a budget. You cannot take on a task as massive as that in a few months. The following year the concerns increased. The following year, in June, almost 12 months later, I asked the same questions. There is a problem.

The economy is in trouble in this province; this province is in trouble in this country, and what are you doing about it? What is your vision? How are you going to improve things in this province? The Minister of Finance at that time kept telling us, no, there is not a problem. We are fine. The growth rate is high. He would make these statements, and then a month or two months or six months later they would of course be proven wrong as the various indicators came out. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) I said at that time, Mr.

Speaker, that the problem with the growth rates that the Finance minister was predicting is that they are so fragile that a relatively small shock in the economy will send us into negative growth very quickly, and what happens then? The question then becomes: What is this government doing to prepare Manitobans for an uncertain future? A year later, Mr. Speaker, I said the same thing.

In creasingly , as I was looking at what was happening in the province, as I was reviewing the indicators, as I was study ing the econom ic information that is available, I became increasingly concerned about the position Manitoba was finding itself in, both with the debt and with the economy and prospects for growth. We launched a task force, and I spent a great deal of ti me talking with members of the business community, with economists, with managers, with individuals, people from all parts of the province, people from all backgrounds. I talked with social workers. I talked with businessmen.

I talked with educators. I talked with labourers. I talked with labour. I talked with management. All the time we collected information. All the time we analyzed what we were collecting. What we discovered was very worrisome. We discovered a province that has been sinking over time, a province whose share of national wealth has been diminishing not growing, a province that year over year is falling behind in this country, a province that once had a well-diver sified economy, that once was able to resist the changes that took place, but I do not believe that is the case any more.

I think increasingly we have been falling back into a simple resource-based economy, and those resources are in deep trouble right now. I keep asking this government, budget after budget, and this is the fourth budget, and I am going to have to ask it one more time. What are you doing? What is your vision that is going to get us out of this particular problem? When we looked at Manitoba's share of national wealth, and we graphed it over a period of time thr ough succ es sive governme nts, what we discovered was very worrisome.

We discovered that if we were receiving the same share of national wealth today that we were receiving in 1970, this province would have about $3.5 billion more GDP than it has today. If we had the same share of full-time jobs in this country that this province had at the start of the Lyon government, we would have 23,000 more full-time jobs in this province today than we had when the Lyon government took over. We asked: What are the things that we can do in this province to build wealth? How can we increase the economic activity in this province? How can we build our base for the future?

One of the things that we looked at was private and public sector investment. We said over and over and over again that if you are going to have private sector investment, you have to have public sector investment, because when we tracked investment in this province over time, we found that two things ran parallel. "( 1500)

April 25, 199 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1220 If we got private sector investment at the Canadian average level, we would have a billion and a half dollars more private sector investment in this province right now than we do at the current time. Research and development-we said, well, research and development is an area where one can invest and build for the future. We looked at what was happening in this province, and we tracked it on a per capita basis. We found that up until 1984 this province parallelled the national averages.

It actually did make some significant investments in research and development, but since then it has tailed off. If we were investing the same amounts in research and development as the Canadian average in this province, we would be investing an additional $125 million in R and D in this province. In every area we looked at we found this government, this province falling behind. The other thing we found, Mr.

Speaker, as we met all over the province was tremendous distrust and tremendous cynicism about what was happening in this province and in the people's view of what we were doing, tremendous cynicism about those of us who occupy these seats. It was a message, Mr. Speaker, that does not sit well with someone who takes public life as seriously as I do. The questions people asked me all the time were: Why is spending good and control bad? Why are some groups okay and other groups not? In an economy that is changing so rapidly, why are we so afraid of change?

Why is government operations good and private sector bad, or why is the private sector bad and government good? Why is this debate becoming so incredibly polarized in this province? This is a time for some serious rethinking, Mr. Speaker. It is a tough time in this province. It is a time that has been growing tougher year after year. What we need to see in this province is a competition for good ideas, a competition for ways to get ourselves out of the trouble that we have gotten ourselves into and not a continuation of the competitive kind of rhetoric that has characterized this House for the last decade or two.

If somebody even raised with me-and it is a concept that I have read widely on in the U.S., in Boston, I studied down there-the premise is that we have a Bill of Rights in this country as they do there, and is it time that we began to speak about a bill of duties, that with rights go responsibilities and should we not begin to recapture or recast some of our thinking about what we do within a province, or what a province does for or with us in terms of what responsibilities we have to this community that we live in? Mr.

Speaker, through all of that and through many discussions within the business community, we determined that what this province needed was three things if we were to build some life back into this economy. There was a need for capital. There was a need for investment capital so businesses at the various sizes could grow and produce the kinds of jobs that the Minister of Finance would have us believe are out there just waiting to be created in this province. That there was a need for investment in R&D.

That we needed to see some investment in the future, we needed to th ink beyond what is happening today, and we needed to think beyond simple resource extraction. That we are living on a continent within an economic system that is moving heavily into information technologies and into services, and we needed to be there to compete. If we just allow ourselves to be an economy built on the extraction of our resources, we are going to fall further and further behind and we are going to shrink more and more, relative to the rest of North America.

The third thing people told us, and I applaud the government on one thing because we heard about it very strongly and obviously the government has listened, is the need for training. Now they have caused some serious problems in the training programs, but one area they did hear a need was in the training of aerospace workers. We have a broad base in aerospace, and I went around, as I am sure the members of the government did, and I heard exactly the same concerns. We have to learn to train aerospace workers. We have a need.

We have a high skilled job, we have plants that can hire the workers, and we have an ability or a need to train them, and we should train them here. The government has done that with the investments in Portage la Prairie, and I think that is a very positive step. But I think the government needs to stop and think a little bit about what it has done there, and apply that thought across other areas of the economy and other areas in which similar training is also required.

122 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 25, 199 1 Mr. Speaker, as I looked at the position that we were getting into in North America, as I looked at economies falling, not growing, as I looked at the eco nomic resou rce bases dimi nishing, not expanding, I grew increasingly worried. I grew very worried frankly about the level of debt that this province was carrying. I do agree with the Minister of Finance when he raises concerns about the capacity of this government to remain independent, not just this government, but any government that is managing the affairs of this province.

I looked with some shock as Saskatchewan attempted to raise money in New York to finance its debt, and found that that offering went extremely slowly. I have real concerns about what is happening in some of the small provinces in the Maritimes as bankers from outside this country are making investment decisions in that particular province. I have very serious concerns about that. So when the Minister of Finance called the briefing on January 21 , and stood up and said, I want to enlist the support of members of the Legislature, I supported him. An Honourable Member: You supp orted him. CJOB. On record. Mr.

Alcock: I supported him. That is right, that is exactly where it is. Well, I am going to put it back on the record today so the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) who seems to want to run blindly ahead without thinking about what is going on in this province as his party has chosen to do, should sit and should think a little bit about what is happening here because it affects all of us. It affects everybody in this province, and I am frankly very saddened by the debate that has taken place in this House. I am very saddened by the debate that took place in this House on Bill 33, because I think it hurt all of us.

I think it reflected very badly on every member of this House. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (lnkster): No winners. Mr. Alcock: There are no winners in this province right now; the member for lnkster is quite right. When the Finance minister came forward and said, I want to enlist your help, I was suspicious as others were about the sincerity of that request, but I did not stand up and express those concerns at that point. I stood up at that meeting and I said, well, you have said there is a concern with revenues. Give me the information. Tell me what is happening. You say you are restructuring into an enveloping system.

Tell me what is happening. Give me the information. You say you have a problem with expenditures. Tell me what is happening. Give me the information. If you want my help, give me the information so that I can attempt to be helpful. Mr. Speaker, it took me two months to get a copy of the slides that the minister showed us that day, and that is the only piece of information that has ever been forthco ming from this minister -public relations, nice colours, nice graphs, irrelevant in terms of the economic debate that is taking place in this province, absolutely irrelevant. Still, I did not attack the minister.

I thought hard about it. I went on CBC television, did a free-time public broadcast on February 8 in which I talked about exactly the same thin g. I talked about supporting the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). I talked about the fact that corporate income tax revenues had fallen so far, that the mining tax revenues had fallen, and that we had a serious problem here. I asked the questions at that time about what we could do about that. I asked Manitobans on television, not in the back rooms; right on television I asked Manitobans: What would they do? What were they prepared to live without?

What were they prepared to give up in order to see this province get back into balance? * (1 51 0) Now, Mr. Speaker, I asked them two questions. I asked them: Where can we cut back, where can we find deficiencies? And what should the government be doing to stimulate this economy? What should the government be doing to provide growth? There are two things that you can do when you are looking at attempting to get yourself out of a problem like this. You can cut back and many times you have to. You have to lean down. You have to watch your expenses, but you can also take some action to increase your revenues.

If I have a fault with this budget, that is the fundamental one, that this government, this Finance minister, seems to understand one side of the question, but he fails to recognize the other side of that equation. That is the concern I had in 1988 in August, and it is the one I have had with each budget that I have had the pleasure of speaking to.

April 25, 199 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1222 Now, Mr. Speaker, I decided to ask people in the province. I sent out letters. I sent letters all over the province to people asking them a few simple questions. One of the things I discovered-I survey widely all the time, prim arily within my own constituency-I found that people wanted to talk to me. People wanted to-th ey did not want to just tick off a few boxes and do a traditional survey-they wanted to write things, because they had ideas they wanted to express.

I got back hundreds of surveys from all over the province, not simple little surveys where they checked off a few boxes or said, are you in favour of good things, yes-no, but questionnaires that asked them to detail their thoughts on how we could save some money, their thoughts on how we could produce growth in this province. I got back some very interesting responses. As the budget drew closer, there was a central message in there, and it was a two-part message. One was that we have to cut back. People believe that we have a problem.

The government has been successful, and I think successful because the facts support them in believing that we have to reduce the level of expenditure in this province, but the other thing they said over and over and over again is that we have to provide opportunities for people, that we have to invest in our people and we have to treat people with respect. Over and over again they were concerned about the actions of this government. Mr. Speaker, as the budget got closer, I wrote again. Only this time I wrote to my constituency, and I asked them-in fact, the Finance minister has already quoted from a

section of the letter that I wrote. I am prepared to share this letter with anybody who wishes to see it. I have already sent out 10 ,000 copies of it. What I did is I sent out a copy of the budget, and the statutory areas of the budget I listed, along with the amounts that are being spent on it and the proportion of the provincial budget. I asked people to work along with me to indicate those areas of the budget that they felt they would accept cutbacks in and those areas of the budget that they would ask to be expanded.

Then I gave them space to comment one more time on whatthey thought we could or should be doing. I asked them, in the letter that I wrote, several things. I said, what action can we take to reduce the deficit? What services must we protect? What services can we do without? Overall I asked them, what can the government do to create opportunities for Manitobans? I got back probably the strongest response-I think the only thing I got a stronger response to, because I do this continually, as you know, Mr. Speaker, was the response I got to the Meech lake question, because I got a very, very strong response to that.

This would be second. People said all sorts of things on it. Mr. Speaker, I just want to read a couple of them right now: Our health care and education systems are falling apart because the government does not care. I hope their position changes soon. I worked for the Filmon party during the election, and I am beginning to think I made a big mistake. Health and education are unique in Manitoba and Canada, that is what makes us different than the Americans. I am proud to be a Manitoban and a Canadian. I hope the provincial and federal governments realize most of us feel the same. Mr.

Speaker, when I totalled up the results I got back, people in my constituency told me that they wanted health care protected, they wanted services to senior s protected, they wanted educ ation protected and they spoke at great length about education. In the written responses I have more writing on education than I do on any other activity, any other area of the budget, because over and over and over again people expressed their concern about the cutbacks to the universities. At that point they were just prospective cutbacks because the budget had not been announced yet.

I have letter after letter of students detailing their own expenses and how they simply cannot go to school anymore. I got letters from parents expressing concerns about how many of their children are moving out of this province, because they cannot get the kind of education that they once could here. The environment was another area that came up over and over again, and it is interesting. I asked people to do four things. I asked them to indicate what they would reduce, what they would freeze, what they would see met inflation so it did not lose ground and what it is they wanted to expand.

The area that got the greatest support for expansion was the environment, followed by education. Family Services and Agriculture were the two areas where a clear majority of the people in my area felt that there should be support. In the rest of them, led by Urban Affairs, they were prepared to

1223 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 25, 199 1 see some reductions-Urban Affairs, Energy and Mi nes, Northern Affairs, Ru ral Developmen t, Justice, Housing, Natural Resources, they were prepared to give up some services. They were prepared to tighten their belts and to do without in order to see us get the debt down, but they talked over and over again about how you do that. Now, Mr. Speaker, they talked about who gets hurt when you cut back. They asked the government to protect people, to protect those people who were least able to protect themselves.

What we have seen out of this government is exactly the opposite. What we have seen out of this government is a desire, an apparent desire, to make the budget cutbacks on the backs of many very defenseless groups, the poorest seniors in this province-not seniors- the poorest seniors by definition, the recipients of 55-Plus. Students who do not have the resources, do not have the access to jobs and do not have the loan abilities to meet their education costs, and the governmen t has cut their suppor ts .

Single women-I mean, the choices that this government has made as it has gone about attempting to reduce the size of the provincial budget simply do not support the kinds of priorities that certainly the people in my area would like to have seen. Over and over again the people said they were prepared to accept some cuts. Mr. Speaker, there is a bigger problem. You know, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) spoke on the budget, and he actually repeated it today in the hallway.

I keep wondering when we are going to get the real story, because it seems what happens with this gov ernmen t is tha t they make an announcement, they make a statement, they defend it vigorously and then, because they know that a lot of the indicators do not come out for a month, six weeks, two months, three months after the fact, and then when the real story comes out, they, by that point, are off onto some other tangent, some other explanation of why their original prediction was not correct.

The minister would have us believe that starting in July we are all of a sudden going to be wealthier in this province, that we are all of a sudden going to be doing better, because we are coming out of recession. What is happening, Mr. Speaker? The Business Cou ncil on National Issues met just recently and sat around a table- some of the CEOs and presidents of the largest corporations in this country-and they have done this periodically through different recessions. Always there have been some sectors of the economy that are doing well, some sectors of the economy that are doing very poorly.

Today, all of them are doing poorly. A friend of mine who was at that meeting said he was absolutely astounded, that he has never seen it before. Every CEO answering the question, how is your sector doing, how is your business doing, all of them said, it was tough, it was real tough. It has been growing tougher in this country for some time. I ask people-in fact, I had a gentleman come in, he wrote me a very long letter, and his business was placing people in employment.

He had been in business since the early '50s-I think, '52-had been through many recessions, and I asked him: Just subjectively, tell me, compare today to '81-82, how are you doing? Do you think it is better or worse? Absolutely worse, we are in greater trouble today because each time we sink, we never get back to where we were. Each time we fall, we never make it quite back up to the same level we were at before.

Right now by the minister's own figures in the Budget Address-a lthough he says in the beginning that things are going to be so much better, his own figures indicate that agricultural income is down once again; mineral prices are down and predicted to fall throughout the year, and if you look at the forwards on it, it is exactly the same; housing starts are down again, they have been for the last three years ; financial in du str ies are in trou ble; manufacturing is down, predicted to be do wn; forestry is in deep, deep trouble. The minister has given away the best private resources we had in the province.

It looks like once again he has managed to turn lead into gold, once again he has managed to destroy an opportunity for this province. * (1 520) There was an interesting thing that happened, Mr. Speaker. If you look at what has happened between the two economies in the U.S. and in Canada-and this Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) supported the Free Trade Agreement very strongly, and his party continues to-but what is interesting when you match the two economies is that, prior to the '81 -82 recession, unemployment rates in the U.S. and in Canada were pretty close together. They were like the interest rates.

They were not dramatically different. After '81 -82, as we went through that

April 25, 199 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 1224 recession, we developed a substantial spread. U.S. unemployment rates came down between 4 percent and 5 percent; Canadian unemployment rates did not come down again. They did not continue to parallel. Each time we have been through it, we have lost. Each time that we have fallen further behind, it is that much harder to get back on top. Mr. Speaker, the member for-I forget, is it Emerson?-made the comment just recently as I began to speak, that interest rates are going to solve our problems. This is the panacea, and I hear the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) talk about it all the time. Interest rates are coming down, and all of a sudden there is going to be this flurry of activity that is going to take us out of this slump. It sounds good; it makes sense intellectually. You think, falling interest rates, money costs less, people can get more, they can spend. The fact is, though, that the lesson from the Great Depression is that it is not enough. It is a necessary condition, but it does not move the econ omy. One of the fi rst things governments did in the '30s was to drop interest rates.

The second thing they did was drop government expenditure, which is credited with taking us deeper and deeper into recession. The question a lot of people are asking right now is: When is this Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) going to stop using the "r" word and start to use the "d" word? When is he going to start recognizing the depth of the problems that we have in this province, and when is he going to come forward with a plan to get us out? He has had four years and to date he has produced nothing.

What is particularly difficult-and it is interesting, you can go all sorts of ways, you can look at Keynes and we had a great debate about what Lord Keynes had to say about this a year ago. I am not going to repeat that. I am going to reference somebody much more at home. Basil Lagopoulos, who runs a restaurant down in the village here, and who is a good personal friend of mine and somebody I admire very much, opened a second restaurant recently. I went to Basil, and I said, are you crazy? I said, this is a recession. We are in deep trouble right now. How can you be expanding at this time?

Are you not afraid that you are just going to get overextended and get into trouble? And what Basil said to me, he said he has been in business since the early '60s, he has been through a lot of recessions, and the recessions that he held back in, the recessions that he hunkered down in, were the ones he got hurt in. He has learned that to get through this period, to maintain market share, to maintain growth and vitality, you have got to be aggressive in a recession. You cannot hunker back. It is the lesson that he has learned doing business in this community a few blocks south of here.

It is the lesson that Lord Keynes talks about, it is the lesson that we got out of the Great Depression, but it is a lesson that seems to have failed to penetrate the skulls of the members on the Treasury bench. He has debt, but in the words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), debt is okay. He stood out in the hallway a few minutes ago and said debt is okay. What you have got to think about is what that debt is doing for you? Now I want to use another example. A good friend of mine by the name of Val Thompson, who runs a car dealership, said exactly the same thing.

It is a recession, and I said, what is happening? They have been in business since the early '70s, and the lesson they have learned from recessions is you have got to get more aggressive. You do not hide in the closet, you work harder. You bear down, you push and you grow. In fact, they were the only business I know that is experiencing significant growth. They have pared down their expenses, and they worked hard to create growth. This government is talking about paring down its expenses. It is doing nothing to create growth, and that is the failure.

But there is a second one, and it is one that is, I think, a little more invidious and a little more disg usti ng, and that is the attitude of this government towards the people who work for them. You know I have a lot of civil servants who live In my area, and they wrote to me too. They wrote to me like this: I am a civil servant and I do not like waste, I do not like high taxes, I think the deficit should come down, I am prepared to do without. What they do not like is the government's gloom-and-doom statements, and the morale problems it is creating within the Civil Service.

You read the management literature right now, and you read Passion for Excellence and you read In Search of Excellence. What is the first thing they tell you in the management of large corporations? Enlist the support of your staff. Get your employees on side. Get them involved in solving the problem; communicate with them. See them as a resource,

1225 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA April 25, 199 1 not as the enemy. Yet if there is a major problem in labour relations in this continent, it is that we seem to have adopted a British model of relationships with our workers. We do not treat them like a resource. We do not see ourselves as a resource for this province. I do not know. Yes, it may be politically easy right now because there is not a lot of support for civil servants, but I think it is crass and vicious to treat them the way this government has.

I think the kicking out, like some sort of criminal, a person with 17 years of experience is just unacceptable behaviour. There is an interesting example that was studied at great length by a friend of mine at Harvard. He looked at four companies in four different countries that were all in the same problem: British Leyland, a large car manufacturing company in Britain; Chrysler; Telefunken in Germany; and Mazda in Japan. All four of them were huge corporations, all four of them were on the verge of bankruptcy. All four of them went to their governments and said we need help.

All four of them eventually got that help. All four of them restructured and came back to be more vigorous and to be major contributors to the economies in their provinces. All four of them were success stories during the period of time studied. Chrysler laid off tens of thousands of people during that process, saw them as being disposable, saw its employees as being the problem and got rid of them, despite the fact it promised that it would not, despite the fact it got the government grants in order to prevent layoffs.

British Leyland did exactly the same thing, got huge grants in the name of job creation and then did not follow through with the commitments it made. The other two examples, a German one--a very successful economy- and a Japanese one did exactly the opposite. They did not lay off a single person. They went to their workers and said, we have a problem. We all have the problem. We have to cut back. We have to reduce. We have to find a way to make these companies more viable.

In Mazda's case, the line workers who no longer had work to do because they were cutting back on the production line shifted over and became car salesmen and went out and supported the company in the community. In the case of Telefunken, very similar things happened. They developed employee work groups. They developed new products. They worked at getting new production lines underway. They enlisted the employees in ways of finding ways to reduce expenditures. You can do that here. Most civil servants in middle management positions, if you trust them and you work with them, are like anybody else.

Most of them will work with you. They will try to solve the problem. They pay their taxes too. They will help you out, but you have to trust them. You cannot treat them like they are somehow throwaways. You have done that. You have violated that possibility. It is so strange to me, Mr. Speaker, because the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) is working on a proposal, a copy of which got leaked, that I think is very innovative. I think it is very creative.

I think it is something that government could do with, that talks about enlisting people and trusting them and getting them involved in decision making and letting them manage and letting them be responsible, while the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) treats them like criminals. An Honourable Member: Who do you think brought the program in? Mr. Alcock: Who do you think brought the program in? I have not seen it announced yet. I have seen a lot of talk.

I have seen no follow-thro ugh, and I see the announcement of a very in novative management appr oach in term s of one department- An Honourable Member: Who do you think chaired the committee when cabinet brought it in? Mr. Alcock: Well, the Minister of Finance you know makes statements all the time about the wonderful things he is doing. The trouble is the reality and the realization have yet to be apparent. Mr. Speaker, the one thing that this government is committed to is the first 48 hours of any issue. They are very, very interested in the spin that comes out of their stories.

They will say anything necessary to get that spin. What happens after that seems to be irrelevant. * (1 530) If you listen to the Minister of Finance, if you listen to the Premier, you know they will tell you that they are doing really well. They will tell you that they are funding Family Services, as an example, at an exceptional level. They will tell you that they are really attempting to build some support into that set of services, and they will tell you they are meeting

April 25, 199 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 122 6 their commitment to preserve that sector of the economy or those organizations. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, what they have done for the first time at least since 1977 is, they have restructured that appropriation in order to hide what they are doing, in order to prevent people from knowing the truth, in order to continue to deceive people into thinking that they are following through on their commitment. Like the last time, they win the first 48 hours, they lose the rest. The truth will come out. It will not come out today.

It will not come out until we get into the Estimates of Family Services. I see they are afraid to bring them forward early. They are going to wait. They have made them the very last on the list, Finance and Family Services. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is afraid to bring his own Estimates forward, because he simply knows that the truth will be exposed when he brings it forward. Mr. Speaker, I understand that there has been an agreement to allow the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) to speak now, and I will sit down and relinquish some of my time in order to allow him to do so, but this budget is the same as every budget we have seen this government produce. There is no creativity, there is no vision, there is no hope, there is no direction, there is no thought, therefore there is no support. Hon. Gary Fllmon {Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise and address the fourth budget of our government.

As others have said during the course of this budget debate, it is not a particular pleasure to address a budget that is filled with as difficult choices and as difficult decisions. In the real world we must make choices, because life is about choices. Every aspect of what we do involves choice making--at home, on the farm and in our own small businesses, in our workplace, with our families. Believe me, nobody ever said it was going to be easy. The only time it is easy for a temporary while is if you avoid making choices.

You know, it has often been said that a particular budget is presented at a critical point in our history when our province is at a unique crossroads, facing a particularly difficult challenge. Although that has been said before, I do not think it has ever been as true as it is for this budget. Every budget has an important impact on our province, both in the immediate sense and in the long-term sense for the future, yet some budgets are more significant than others.

This afternoon, I want to speak to this budget, in particular about its goals, about how we establish them, but also I want to speak to you about the debate that has been engaged in this Chamber over the last week and point to just some of the inconsistencies that have developed over that period of time. Our government's fundamental goal since we came to office in 1988 has been the strengthening of our province's economy. In each and every budget since our election, we have been able to make steady progress toward that goal. We need a strong economy to create jobs and economic activity.

We need economic growth to support the health and the social programs that people have come to expect and depend upon us for. A strong economy is fundamental to the preservation and improvement of the quality of life that we enjoy today. There are no easy answers, no overnight solutions when it comes to economic growth. I wish there were. Politicians do a disservice to their constituents when they suggest that there is a quick fix to fundamental structural problems in the economy.

The cynicism directed toward politicians today is due in no small part to the raising of false expectations in the past by politicians. We have opened up the budget process in this province to an unprecedented degree to try and help dispel that cynicism . We have laid out the challenges in a straightforward manner and set forth realistic expectations.

I have had discussions with various people from the media and from the pu blic about the course of events that began with our budget last fall in which we laid out a year's projection ahead, in fact the first time in the province's history that we were able to start projecting ahead. I beg your pardon. We laid out two years ahead in that particular budget. We have said to people what they could expect from the economy by doing that process, and then we followed it with a statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) about how we were going to handle the very crucial part of our budget process, the aspect of public sector wages, in December. Then he held an open forum for all members of the legislature in January to lay out -(i nterjection)- the

122 7 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA April 25, 199 1 fi rst ti me ever, our projected reve nues and expenditures, for the forthcoming budget. In the process of this, he engaged in all sorts of consultations, and I might tell you that, despite protestations, I have met on two occasions in less than three months with the president of the Manitoba Government Employees' Association; once with some of his executive, once just one on one with him to lay out this information in as full a manner as I possibly could to try and avoid some of the difficult decisions and ask for some co-operation.

This province is set on a path that will lead to long-term economic success, but it is going to take a little bit of time, and it is going to take a lot of the right decision making along the way. We have to continue to improve the economic climate to achieve that success, and that means keeping our fiscal house in good order-no easy task, believe me.

The fiscal challenge before our government is as severe as any that we faced in government and, in fact, as I look back over the history of my 12 years in the Legislature, and two terms before that on City Council, I cannot see in the past, certainly within memory, any provincial government that has faced as difficult a challenge in terms of the revenues. Cr eating a str onger and more diver sified economy re mains the fore most goal of our government. Our fiscal strategy provides the foundation for the economic strategy to achieve that goal.

Manitoba's economy has been severely constrained by the heavy burden of debt and taxation placed upon it by previous governments with a spend now, pay later philosophy. Government must recognize that there is a limit to what taxpayers can afford, and we have reached that limit. The government's fiscal plan is the blue print for establishing a more competitive economic climate that will encourage investment in job creation, and there are a number of specific objectives within that plan. Firstly, keeping taxes down. That is keeping faith with the people of this province. Secondly, controlling the deficit.

That is keeping faith with future generations, because they are the ones who will pay it. Thirdly, targeting spending to priority areas. That is putting the things that we care about most into perspective. Ther e are three key compone nts to the government's fiscal plan: internal reform, public sector wage restraint and a new Estimates process. Internal reform is the process by which the government reviews each of its programs and asks itself if government needs to provide this program, and if so, is it being delivered in the best and most efficient manner possible.

Programs that are needed and best delivered by government are being examined to see if there are ways of reducing overhead, admin istration, dupl ication. Other programs are needed, but can be delivered more efficiently outside government. * (1 540) Increasingly, governments of all stripes have been moving away from a model where government is the sole provider of services toward a model where government acts as a hub in the network of the best providers of that service.

Finally, there are some services of government which no longer are ne eded because of the emer gence of nongovernmental alternatives or reduced demand over a period of time. Indeed I can think of some decisions within this Estimates process that take away from government responsibility for things we have done for 25 years, but cannot be justified any longer. While internal reform is critical to keeping government under control in the long term, it has a limited effect on our immediate challenge.

In the face of very constrained reve nues and the deepening national recession, government has developed a public sector wage restraint program to avoid increasing the burden placed on taxpayers in these difficult times, while minimizing the impact on public sector jobs. Difficult times create difficult choices for each and every one of us. The government's choice was a simple question about what was fair. Limiting salary increases, is that more fair? Or laying off more people? To this government, the answer was clear. It is more important to protect jobs and services than to give raises in these difficult times.

I wish that the leadership of some of our public sector unions would agree to that, because more jobs could be protected if only they would agree and co-operate. Even with public sector wage restraint, we still experience some layoffs. We had to set priorities among programs this year and when we cut support to programs, people inevitably lose their

April 25, 199 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1228 jobs. I wish it did not have to be that way. I wish that there were easier answers. I know personally many of the people who were laid off, and I know that these decisions will have a real human impact on a personal level, but delaying these decisions would only have made things worse. Each budget is the accumulation of months of work and literally thousands of decisions that take place during the Estimates process.

The Estimates process must provide government with the ability to weigh spending requests against one another, both within departments and throughout government. Very few I know on the other side of the House have had that experie

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-2-30
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 2nd hansardpdf 30.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e9fdba2efe614fb92a16f0f2e193927a0ba5eaef

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