Manitoba Hansard — 6 June 1989 (Sitting 13, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-13

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, June 6, 19 89. The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge (Mr. Carr), his petition was presented to the House on June 2. According to our Rule 81( 9), reading and receiving of petitions shall occur on the day following presentation.

I recognize that the Honourable Member did not proceed yesterday in order to assist presentation of the Budget Address. � Does the Honourable Member have leave for his , petition to be read and received today? (Agreed) I have reviewed the petition as it conforms to the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Dispense? Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please. The Hon ourable Opposition Government House Leader. Mr. Reg Alcock (Opposition House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, there was an agreement that the petition would not be read yesterday because of the timing of the Finance Minister's (Mr. Manness) speech. We would like to have the petition read, if possible. Mr. Speaker: Do Honourable Members want to have it read? (Agreed) Mr.

Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned of the Province of Manitoba, humbly - sheweth: That until 19 87 Canada enjoyed pharmaceutical drug prices among the lowest in the world which resulted from competition between man ufactu rers; but amendments to the Patent Act initia ted certain measures which reduced competition and increased drug prices at rates consider ably above inflation, contrary to federal Government assurances.

That high users of pharmaceutical drugs such as seniors, the disabled and persons with chronic health difficulties are often among the poorest Manitobans, and will therefore experience hardship as drug price increases outpace income growth. Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to respond to unjustified drug price escalations by intervening in the court challenge by the Manitoba Society of Seniors and support their claim that federal Bill C-22 is unconstitutional. 342 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS Hon.

Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report of the Manitoba Environmental Council for the period ending March 31, 19 88. Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to table the Annual Report for the Manitoba Mineral Resources Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 19 88. * (13 35) INTRODUCTION OF BILLS BILL NO. 21-THE UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood ) introduced, by leave, Bill No. 21, The Unfair Business Practices Act;

Loi sur les pratiques commerciales deloyales. BILL NO. 22-THE CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmw ood) introduced, by leave, Bill No. 22, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la pro tection du consommateur. BILL NO. 23-THE CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

(2) Mr. Jim Maloway (El mwood) introduced, by leave, Bill No. 23, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (2); Loi no. 2 modifiant la

Loi sur la protect ion du consomma teur. BILL NO. 24-THE BUSINESS NAMES REGISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood) introduced, by leave, Bill No. 24, The Business Names Registration Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'enregistrement des noms commerciaux. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr. Speaker: Prior to oral questions, may I direct Hon ourable Members' attention to the gallery where we have, from the Nellie McClung Collegiate, thirty Grade 11 students under the direction of Betty Mueller. This school is located in the constitue ncy of the Honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard). On behalf of all Honourable Members, we welcome you here this afternoon.

Tuesday, June 6, 1989 ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Budget Tax Reduction Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). I would like to begin, I think, by congratulating the Minis ter of Fin ance on his most creative Bu dget documents. I had no idea he was such an accomplished writer of fiction. Mr. Speaker, this Budg et is somewhat -( lnterjection) reminiscent . • (13 40) Mr. Sp eaker: Order , ple ase; ord er, please. The Honourable Member for Osborne. Mr. Alcock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This Budget reminds me of the '88 Wilson Budget, which promised all sorts of wonderful things on the tax side, only to take them away as soon as they got past their election. Perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) could tell us why Manitobans will not receive the benefit of this tax reduction effective July 1 of this year. Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): I thank the Mem ber for the question, his first question in this Session in the area of finance. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, the Member tal ks about fiction. I do not know what straw man he is trying to build.

The num bers were all presented clearly in an open fashion for all to see yesterday. Let me also say that the people in Thom pson and Brandon, many of whom I addressed today, are jus t delighted with the Budget. So if the Member opposite is not, I guess then he will have to tell them why. Specific to the question, if we had made the final decision with respect to some of the budgetary plans to reduce personal taxes, if we had made th ose decisions, I would say, two months sooner, we then would have had the opportunity to have notified Ottawa.

Ottawa then could have sent new deduction bulletins to all employers, and indeed Manitobans could have received that type of immediate tax relief, starting with July and the July payroll. That would have taken though a decision to have been made roughly, I believe, in the middle of March. Time did not allow us to provide for that reduction on July 1. Mr. Alcock: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I could begin by correcting both the Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). According to the system, you have to notify the federal Government by April 15.

That is what is required but, if the Minister of Finance requests it from the federal Minister of Finance, permission can be waived and there is still time to do it, to have those tax tables printed and out, to bring that into pay, to reduce the source deductions effective July 1. - (I nterjection)- I spent the morning on the phone with them. 343 Will the Minister of Finance make a call to the federal Minister of Finance and attempt to bring this into pay July 1? Mr. Manness: The new student across the way of taxation measures maybe can tell me his source, because I have been very close to this one.

I have appealed to my officials as to when the last dates were in effect, and I was told as recently as a month ago that the final deadline had been passed. So if the Member for Osborne has information that is in conflict with that, if he can tell me the source and if he can assure me tha t there is some way that the federal Government can run off new source deduction tables and that they can be in the hands of employers in Manitoba by the middle of June, as is required, as I am told, if he can assure me how that is, I will look into it very closely and, if it can be done, it will be done. Mr. Alcock: Mr.

Speaker, I am prepared to do that. In fact, I am prepared to meet with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) right after Question Period. I will go through the information I have and go through the agreement and point out how it can be done. I think if he is willing to do that, it would be terrific. It would be a wonderful thing both for the economy here and for the people of Manitoba. • (13 45) Some Honourable Members: Hear, hear! Surplus Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Osborne, with a final supplementary question. Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Perhaps, Mr.

Speaker, given the success of my first question, I could move on to a second question at this point. An Honourable Member: Do not push your luck. Mr. Alcock: I am doing okay so far. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) had not played with the accounting, Manitoba would have had a $48 million surplus last year. Can the Minister tell us when he became aware that .he would have a surplus this year? Mr. Speaker: Would the Ho nourable Member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) kindly rephrase his question? The Honourable Member's question is out of order. Would you kindly rephrase your question? Mr. Alcock: Mr.

Speaker, I am a little surprised that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) does not want to tell us that. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey). Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

- - Tuesday, June 6, 1989 Mr. Speaker: On a point of order. Mr. Downey: I heard your direction very clearly asking the Member to rephrase his question as it was out of order. We would appreciate it if he would do that. Mr. Speaker: I have asked the Honourable Member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) and I believe the Honourable Member for Osborne is going to rephrase his question. Order, please; order, please. The Honourable Member for Osborne is going to be put ting his question now. The Honourable Member for Osborne. Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, with a credit to the Finance Critic from the NOP (Mr. Leonard Evans).

How long has the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) known that there would be a surplus? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): I have not made a Fourth Quarterly Report to the people of � Manitoba. That will be done probably in the beginning ' of July. It became evident to the Government shortly after or moving into, I should say, the fourth quarter, before we reported the third quarter standing tha t there were some significant changes occurring on both sides, revenue side, on expenditure side.

I might also point out at tha t point in time we cou ld put no great confidence into some of the estimates of additional revenue. So as I stand here, the Third Quarterly Report was the status of the fiscal affairs of the province at that point in time. Mr. Alcock: This is the Third Quarter Report, Mr. Speaker, with the $12 4 million deficit that became a $48 million surplus that is now $15 2 million deficit. This is the clean and open Budget that the Minister has projected. Health Care Funding Mr.

Reg Alcock (Osborne): Knowing there would be � such a surplus, how does the Minister justify not moving on needed services, allowing the waiting time for surgery to double, allowing Klinic to go unbuilt? Why has the Minister not moved earlier on these needs? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): The global num bers are there, $99 million more directed towards Health, a 7 percent increase in the Health portfolio alone. Which way does the Li beral Party want it? * (13 50) This year the Leader of the Li beral Party (Mrs.

Carstairs) or the MLA for River Heights said that the Tories have done nothing to control Government spending. Last year Members opposite wanted us to commit additional hundreds of millions of dollars to Government spending. Last year we brought down a Budget of which the Members Opposite passed by way of resolution, by way of vote in this House. We stayed within the Budget. We were demanded to by the laws 344 of the Legislature. What is the Member asking for? Please be consistent. Is he wanting more spending or less? Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I would start with a little more openness in the financial statements.

A 6.5 increase in expenditure has all of a sudden become a 4.5. An Honourable Member: Do you have a question? Mr. Alcock: Yes, I do have a question right now. Klinic Community Health Centre New Facilities Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) proposing to move on the construction of Klinic this year? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, that question will be fully addressed by the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) during the consideration of his Estimates.

The Member wants to talk about-if he wants to talk about some of the circums tan ces tha t we fou nd ourselves in towards the end of the fiscal year, I have laid them out fully within the Budget presentation. I indicated that if we had followed the strict accounting of the province, there would have been a $48 million surplus. I have said that openly.

I have also given the reasons why it is that for long term stable planning, it is wise to set some of that money aside and to provide it in a savings account fund.- (Int erjection)- Members opposite can call it a "slush fund." They can go tell Manitobans whatever they want, but let them deny Manitobans a tax cut, because that is ultimately what they are saying. Health Care Underspending Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness).

In the Third Quarter Report we were shocked to see that the money we had allocated in this Legislature had been underspent in a number of the critical and crucial human services in this province, and particularly in the Department of Health we saw num bers approaching the $10 million figure. I would ask the Minister of Health (Mr.

Orchard), in the light of the fact that the Government has not gone forward with the Klinic, the Government is underfunding nurses, the Government is underfunding many other health care facilities, how much money in the so-c alled Fiscal Stabil ization Fund is rep resented by underspending in Health and underspending that was authorized in this Legislature? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): If the Member, the Leader of the NOP (Mr. Doer), is asking specifically what the lapse factor is for the former fiscal year, that full accounting will be provided in the Fourth Quarter.

I can indicate to him though that it certainly was in excess of the $30 million that we had plugged into last year's Budget. Mr. Doer: The Minister did not ans wer the question.

Tuesday, June&, 19 89 Budget Fiscal Stabilization Fund Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Oppos ition): I asked how much of that money has gone into the how much in un derspending in Health, how much in underspending in Commun ity Services which is now Family Services, how much in underspending in other departments, that was part of the Third Quarter Report, has gone in this Fiscal Stabilization Fund? Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, my question to the Minister, is he going to take this mone y that is needed for vital services last year and continue to perpetuate a situation where underfunding for nurses, underfunding for Klinic, underfunding for the Municipal Hospitals, underfunding for Dauphin hospitals, unde rfunding for nor thern facilities, underfunding for child care centres and day care centres is going to take place because of this so called "rainy-day" fund? It is raining for those people in those services. They need the money today. Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr.

Speaker, firstly, the fact that we had to commit $500 million to interest, public debt, is not the responsi bility of this Government. The Member knows fully well why $500 million, in not only last year's Budget but this year's Budget, is directed towards interest payments. With respect to many of the im portant social programs and services questioned and to their level of funding, let me make the Members aware that Members of this House supported the Budget last year. They supported it by way of all the votes within all of the departments of Government.

So that was their way of candidly S\Jpporting the levels of expenditure within all the areas of programming. * (13 55) Now the Members are claiming we did not spend it. That is not true.

Most of the saving, most of the contribution to the lapse factor, which will be detailed in greater display come July, once we put before the people of Manitoba the Fourth Quarterly Report, will show that most of the saving on the expenditure side came as a result of not the requirement within the public debt within the interest area, mainly because of the strength of the Canadian dollar, mainly because of the fact that we swapped into North American currencies in so many of our foreign exposed issues. Mr. Doer: The Minister has still not answered the question.

He is making the point in this House that the money we approved in the Estimates is indeed the money that they spent. Well, that is not true. In the Third Quarter Report, there is great underspending in health and there are a number of vital human health services that this Minister has not delivered on and put into this so-called "rainy-day" fund. My question to the Finance Minister (Mr. Manness), gi ven the fact that Winnip eg has no w got an unemp loyment rate one-half a percent off of St. John's, Newfoundland, does he not think it is starting to rain now on the economy of Manitoba?

Why is he putting so much money away in a sock instead of getting the economy going toda y? 345 Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, seeing that the Leader of the NOP is also debating my last response, let me remind him that in the fourth quarter much of this spending was caught up and indeed the budgetary amount that was given support by Members in this Legislature was fully expended in almost all of those areas. That will be reported fully within the Fourth Quarterly Report.

If the Member is trying to take issue with some of the unemp loyment statistics, let me remind him that this Government has a different philosophy than his, and that is not to wrap ourselves in the green Jobs Fund signs and try and buy employment-u nemployment statistics. We believe that it is much more important to provide Manitobans with disposable income through tax breaks so that they will go out and purchase and help the economy.

Sec ondly , we belie ve tha t through payro ll tax deductions- pardon me, the exemption within the payroll tax-that businesses will go out and employ more people and purchase more services. Thirdly, let me also say that the $30 million that we are contributing to the ve nture capital fund called the Vision Capital Fund of Manitoba, to be administered and to be judged as to where it should go by the private sector, is also a commitment to economic development in this province. Those are our approaches, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Doer: The Minister still has not answered my questions on health. Job Creation Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is this. Yes, we do have a different vision of the economy. Yes, we support the tax breaks, and we said so publicly, but we believe the Government should also be active with the people to create jobs, unlike the Sterling Lyon-G ary Filmon kind of regime while letting the unemployment rate continue to go up. My question to the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) is, what is he going to do for the Ogilvie workers, the Molson workers, the Upton workers, the Marr's Marina workers, and the hundreds of others that have been unemp loyed since this Government took office? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): The Member knows we have a different philosophy when it comes to job creation. The difference is, ours is working. Within the manufacturing sector, there have been 5,000 or 6,000 additional jobs created over the year. Ultima tely , when job crea tion grows un der our Government it is not bought by way of a Jobs Fund.

It is long run, it is stable, and it is provided by the private sector. That is the difference in the philosophy that creates differences. As far as the Liberals, I do not know what philosophy they believe in, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, unemployment is up and 9,5 00 people have moved out of the province and their policies are working.- (Int erjection)- I am ready.

- - Tuesday, June 6, 1989 Budget Multiyear Forecast Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): In January, Mr. Speaker, in a meeting of the Public Accounts Comm ittee, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), when questioned about multiyear Budgets, said, "I can tell all Members that we are actively including another year forecast in some detail, closely associated with that for '89-90. I have not backed off one bit. As I indicated, the Budget tha t will come forward will ha ve a fo recast of expenditures, of revenues and ultimately deficit for the year 19 91." Where is that forecast, Mr. Minister? Hon.

Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): That is shown, I believe, on page 20. In my read text, it is page 35. In the real Budget, it is towards the second last page. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), with a supplementary question. Mr. Alcock: Yes, Mr Speaker, it says expenditure just over five billion, 5 percent in revenue, maybe, but that is it. It is less than one paragraph. That is not a detailed-tha t is not what the Minister promised us. The departments have been working on multiyear Budgets. He has that information. Why has he not presented that this year, as he promised? Mr.

Manness: I indicated to the Members of that commit tee, as I have to other people, that I would present global figures of estimates of expenditures and revenues. I have honoured that commitment. If the Member wants to begin to debate the 19 90-9 1 Budget, maybe then his Party will support the '89-90 Budget. Mr. Alcock: This Minister and the Auditor made the case tha t we need those multiyear projections. If this is the Minister's idea of multiyear projections, then he is a long way off the mark that he set for himself. * (14 00) Deficit Reduction Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Now, Mr.

Speaker, perhaps the Minister could tell us something very simple. What will the cost be to finance the deficit created to give him his $200 million slush fund? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Nothing at all. The money that we have borrowed, much of it at this point in time, as the Member I am sure would realize, is long- term money. We do not have the ability really to buy our way out of it, something like a fixed mortgage, so I do not know what the Member is saying. What surplus we have now is earning more interest because you have inverted yield cur ves.

It is earning more money than the cost of borrowing of some of our long-term debts. 346 Universities Grants Commission Child Care Degree Program Mrs. Iva Yeo (Sturgeon Creek): The Manitoba Child Care Ass ociation and the comm ittee advoc at ing gr aduate educ ation in child stu die s were sorely disappointed at the decision of the Universities Grants Comm ission to deny targeting funds for this new program planned for the University of Manitoba. At this time, more educators, more researchers to study the changing child care needs in a changing society are needed.

With funding targeted specifically towards the Faculty of Management in yesterday's Budget, can the Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach) tell the House why this essential program already prepared with almost a full quota of applicants, why this Child Care Worker Ill program was not specifically targeted for funds? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Educat ion and Training): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Faculty of Management Program has received the attention of the Government because of the proposals that were presented both to the Gover nment and to the Universities Grants Commission.

Certainly that will, if it is approved and when it is approved, be done through the appropriate channels and in the appropriate way. With regard to the support to universities, it is very evident that 7 percent to the universities was a fairly generous sum this year as has been indicated by the universities themselves. It is not for me, as Minister, to demand that certain programs be offered by the universities. That is up to the university.

We give the funding through the Universities Grants Commission who in turn allocate it to the universities and the universities, as autonomous bodies, then determine how and where they are going to spend their mon ies. Certainly it is up to them to set their priorities. Mrs. Yeo: The precedence has been set in the past where the Government has targeted specific programs for the Universities Grants Commission. Child Care Training Programs Mrs. Iva Yeo (Stu rgeon Creek): Will the Minister of Education (Mr.

Derkach) signify what measures his department will take to ensure that qualified teachers for the various child care worker programs and administrators for the day care centres in Manitoba are available to the public? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Certainly we do want to have qualified people in charge of our day care centres and in charge of the children that are at the day care centres.

For that reason, there has been mention in the Th rone Speech that we intend to do something about the fact that we need more spaces for training in our institutions for those kinds of workers, and that will happen. Mr. Speaker, I must tell you though in terms of providing a specific program at the university is not

Tuesda� June6, 1989 for me to dictate. It is up to the university to decide upon. There is a Child Care Studies Program at the Faculty of Human Ecology. My department right now, through the Universities Gr ants Commi ssion, is discussing the matter with the faculty and with the president of the university to see whether or not that program will continue for the coming year. Child Care Workers Legislative Requirements Mrs. Iva Yeo (Sturgeon Creek): Could the Minister of Family Services (Mrs.

Oleson) explain how her department plans to meet the legislative requirements for trained child care workers in the province? Hon. Cha rlotte Oleson (Minister of Family Services): As indicated in the Budget yesterday, there is money being allocated to day care through the Department of Education for training at communi ty colleges for day care workers. Budget Fiscal Stabilization Fund Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Yesterday the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) in his Budget Address introduced us to a novel, he would say, concept-a Fiscal Stabilization Fund, which I would suggest is a result of magical bookkeeping wherein we put some revenue dollars aside. I think we should really call it "Manness' money magic" because it is nothing more or less than an item of unspent revenue. Would the Minister of Finance confirm that a

summary type of financial statement prepared, similar to the summ ary type of financial statements prepared last year would, in effect, really wash out this fund as such? That is, a full accountability statement would recognize these dollars as simply unspent revenue. Will the Minister confirm that? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the question is in order, the way it was posed? Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Minister of Finance. Mr. Manness: There is some essence of correctness to the Member's question.

That is why we are seeking support of this Legislature by way of Bill to set up the account, the savings account. We have said, by way of the release of the budgetary document yesterday, that we are doing this in an open fashion, that we are going to seek the support of the Legislature for the concept of a savings fund. If the Members wish to deny it, then obviously it would have to be consolidated within the books of the province. Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, we have now found that the existence of this fund will depend on the will of this Legislature. 347 Payroll Tax Reduction Mr.

Leonard Evans (Brandon East): On another item, the payroll tax was reduced by a mere 10 percent. I say a mere 10 percent when you think of all the election rhetoric from the other side about how they were going to abolish the payroll tax. We still have a payroll tax, a health and education levy of $18 0 million. Will this Minister acknowledge that this-w e know that this tax has had no negative impact on unemployment, we know that. There is no evidence. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) can laugh- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Leonard Evans: -b ut he has no evidence to prove that whatsoever. Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister acknowledge that this tax is far too important, too vital, to the province's revenues to be abolished and that th erefore it will remain as a tax ve hicle of this Government? An Honourable Member: Hear; hear! Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, what is obvious to me is that the Finance Critics of the Opposition Parties are having difficulty finding something to attack in this Budget. That is the first thing that is obvious.

This Party, over a series of yea rs, upwards of five now as a matter of fact, has made a commitment to the people of Manitoba to abolish the payroll tax. We are well- embarked on that path. We have now moved up that level to $600,000.00. We removed from the whole number of employers who are paying this tax, roughly 95 percent or more of the total employer num ber within the province, and we will contin ue. Yes, there is a cost implication. Yes, that cost implication will continue to grow in magnitude as we continue to move along the process, but that is a commitm ent this Government has made.

Some Honourable Members: Hear, hear! * (1410 ) Economic Development Mr. Speaker: The Honour able Member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), with a final supplementary question. Mr. Leonard Eva ns (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, we are very dis appoi nted that there is really no acknowledgement of the serious economic slowdown in this province, the exodus of people, the erosion of our industrial economy, the lack of jobs. Where in this Budget canwe find any economic plan, any economic strategy, to address the very, very serious

- Tuesday, June 6, 1989 lack of employment opportunities in this province? Where can he show us that there are going to be more jo bs? Where can he show us tha t unemployment is going to be lower? In fact, they are not going to be lower, he has already suggested that unemployment is going to be higher. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Minister of Finance. Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said before, we have a dif fe rent phi losophy with respect to eco nomic development.

Rather than Government buy jo bs, we are going to leave disposable income in the hands and in the pockets of Manitobans. That is the essence of our economic development plan. Let me tell the Honourable Member that in Thompson and in The Pas there are no homes for sale. Things are boomi ng-th ere are other parts of this province. The province as a whole has the third lowest rate of - unemployment in this country. Let me also indicate that the fo recast for economic growth in 19 89 is above the national average. This province is well-positioned.

It has good Government and it is well-positi oned for the decade of the '90s. Hydro-Electric Resources Development Mr. Herold Driedger (Niakwa): Jake Epp, the federal Minister of Energy, has warned that Canada will face an energy shortfall by the mid- 1 990s and that therefore Ottawa has absolutely no choice but to subsidize energy mega projects.

Yesterday in this House, we find that almost one-half of this Government's windfall revenues has come from a booming northern Manitoba mining economy, and yet there is absolutely nothing in the Budget that even hints that any of this money is going to be returned to the people and the region from which it came. Does this mean that the Government expects to get help � from Ottawa to assist us in this Northern Energy , Development?

So my question for the Minister of Energy and Mines is this, has he obtained a commitment from his Ottawa cousins in support of the further development of a renewable hydro-electric energy resources, and if not, why not? Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker , the construction of hydro-el ect ric generation on the Nelson River and elsewhere in the North has always been the function of the Manitoba Hydro and the Manitoba Government. We have never asked for any help from the federal Government with the exception of some loan interest reduction for the Bi-pole line.

There is no reason at all, Mr. Speaker, why we should ask for help for the construction of generation in northern Manitoba at this point in time, when we have not yet made a decision as to whether or not we are going to build another generating plant in the 19 90s. 348 Fossil Fuel Products Exploration Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Niakwa, with a supplementary question. Mr. Herold Driedger (Niakwa): In the same breath, Mr. Speaker, the same Minister references the fact that we have to reduce our need for fossil fuels.

The Minister of Energy is aware that the geology of the Hudson Bay Basin is favourable for fossil fuel deposits and since the federal Minister wishes to extend these, have his Tory friends committed funds for further exploration in this important area of Manitoba as part of their energy security strategy for Canada? Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, we are continuing our exploration in northern Manitoba. We, together with the industry, are continuing.

It is the Manitoba Government 's intention to balance the taxes and the job creation so that will continue into the future for the benefit of the northern communities. Hydro Development Northeast Line Status Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Niakwa, with a final supplementary question. Mr. Herold Driedger (Niakwa): Well, -(Inter jection)- Mr. Speaker: I believe that is a false alarm. Mr.

Herold Driedger: Taking into account the phone call, what is the status of the hydro transmission line of the Northeast Power Project, which figured so promi nently in the 19 88 Throne Spee ch, but was conspicuous by its absence in the 19 89 Address and was absolutely not mentioned , not at all in neither the '88 nor the '89 Budget statements? Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): Well, Mr . Speaker, the northeast hydro line is under discussion and when we have something to report to this House we will do so. Government Documents Security Hon. Albert Drie dger (Minister of Government Services): Mr.

Speaker, I took certain questions as notice by the Leader of the Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs) yesterday, and I want to thank her for turning over the instruction book that had been turned over to her office. I want to indicate that because of the questions that she raised that we have done a full investigation in terms of all the act ivities, all inc idents th at have happened security-wise over a period of time, including this one, and that this book was lost through human error . But as a resu lt, the mom ent it happ en ed, preventative measures were taken.

When management discovered the loss, security access codes to the two buildings that it could have affected were immediately

Tuesday, June 6, 1989 ·Changecl. As a result of that, we have also looked at prevention of similar incidents for the future. We are taking various precautionary measures to make sure that security is going to be the No. 1 concern that we have. We are going to be coding all these things that are on these reference books we have so that they will not be available any more. Rafferty-Alameda Dam Project Environmental Impact Study Mr. Harry Harapiak (The Pas): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.

Enns) who, unlike his predecessor last year, acknowledged that more research was needed on the effects of the Rafferty Alamed a project on Manitoba water qual ity and quant ity. Mr. Speaker, I would like to table in this House an Executive

Summary of the Environment Canada Report on Raffert y-Alameda, along with the Adverse Environmental Im pacts Caused by the Altered Flow, det ailing damage to Manitoba along with other jurisdictions.

In view of the fact that the Environment Canada Report says Manitoba fish habitat would be severely affected along with damage to the water quality and quantity and it also affected the plant species in Manitoba, will this Minister now demand of his federal colleagues that they proceed with Stage 2 of their environmental assessment review process, which would establish an independent review panel, and conduct an independent review with full public hearings into the proposed project? Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): thank the Honourable Member for the ques tion. Mr.

Speaker, I indicate to the Honour able Member and to Members of the House that the document the Honourable Member referred to is a summ ary. It does indicate that perhaps not all of the implications of the project have been investigated to the extent tha t the proponents ought to have in the first instance, and tends to support the position that the Government has today, and has had in the past, for a full environment impact study to be held. The position will be detailed and placed before the federal panel group that is studying this at the first public hearings to be held here in Manitoba.

Endangered Species Mr. Harry Harapiak (The Pas): Mr. Sp eaker , considering that the Minister has recently tabled in this Le gisla ture The Endang ered Species Act, will the Minister agree that the stateme nt in the

summary of the report, detai ling adverse effects of rare and endang ered species in ·t his pro vince, make the continued suspension of the project necessary until alternative methods have been established for the endan gered species which will be affected? Hon.

Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resou rces): am going to do my very best to ensure that all 349 Manitobans, including certainly my Opposition Critics, have at their disposal the information required to make appropriate judgments on this matter from time to time, but it is not my intention nor do I think we have the capacity to conduct an environmental impact study here in this Chamber. It is for precisely those reasons that we support the federal Governmen t's initiative at this instance in reviewing the matter by way of the

summary initial studies that are now under way which, I am pleased to indicate, at our insistence will include public hearings here in Manitoba. At least two are scheduled, I believe three: Melita, Souris, and Brandon. Coming out of those hearings, the kind of recommendations I would hope, and cer tainly it will be the posi tion of the department and this Government to call for that kind of complete environmental impact study that I believe this project deserves. Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. * (14 20) NON-POLITICAL STATEMENTS Hon.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation): Might I have leave, Mr. Speaker, to make a non-politic al statement? Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Minister have leave to make a non-pol itical statement? (Agreed) Mrs. Mitchelson: I just want to indicate that this morning I had the opportunity to participate in the open ing ceremoni es at the Winnip eg In terna tiona l Children's Festival at Kildonan Park. I do know that critics from both Opposition Parties were there also to participate in this morning's events and activities.

The Winnipeg International Children's Festival offers the best children's entertainment in the world, Mr. Sp eaker . Canada arid Manitoba lead the field in promoting and producing this type of learning and entertainment experience. This festival also makes a vital contribution to our province's cultural life. The experiences that our young people gain at this festival will stay with them for the rest of their lives.

My congratulations go to the board of directors, to the staff, and to the many volunteers of the Winnipeg International Children's Festival for their commitment and hard work in assuring the future of Manitoba's vigorous and unique culture. I would like to encourage all of my colleagues here in the Legislature to participate in the next week's events. Take your children or, if your children are too old, take your grandchildren along and go see what our city has to offer to Manitobans. Thank you. Mr. William Cho rnopyski (Burrows): May I have leave to make a non-pol itical statement? Mr.

Speaker: Does the Honour able Mem ber fo r Burrows have leave to make a non-polit ical statement? (Agreed)

Tuesday, June 6, 1989 Mr. Chornopyski: Mr. Speaker, 45 years ago today thousands of Canadian men and women fought and gave their lives to preserve peace, freed om and democracy on the beaches of Normandy under the umbrella of hundreds of aircraft, warships. Thousands of Canadians participated in this event. We should never forget those brave men and women who gave their youth for the preservation of democracy. We shall never forget those who gave their lives but we should also not forget the many thousands of veterans who are still with us today.

I would ask all Members of the Manitoba Legislature to join with me i n recognizing all those veterans who gave their youth for our tomorrow. Thank you. Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resou rces): Mr. Speaker , if I may just make a brief non-pol itical statement along the same lines. Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Minister have leave to make a non-poli tical statement? (Agreed) Mr.

Enns: Simply to associate the Government with the thoughtful reminder that the Honourable Member has just gi ven this Chamber, perhaps appropriately so, that we are reminded of those freedoms that men and women fought and died for at the time that he referred to on the beaches of Normandy.

When we see that 40, 45 and 50 years later, people around the world are still fighting for those kinds of freedoms and democracies today and are paying with their lives with them today, as we were reminded yesterday by acknowledging the events in Beijing, China, that we do take time to honour those who have kept this country as free as it is today. I am delighted and I am proud to associate the benches of the Go ve rn ment with the com ments jus t made by Honourable Members. Mr. Sp eaker: Does the Ho nourable Mem ber for Interlake (Mr. Uruski) have leave to make a non-poli tical statement? (Agreed) Mr.

Bill Uruski (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would like to as well associate our group with the comments made by the Honourable Member for Burrows (Mr. Chornopyski) and the Min ister of Natural Resou rces (Mr . Enns) in recognizing those of our forefathers who in fact were the thrust of the Canadian Forces in attempting to assist in preserving freedom and democracy in the world. Clearly, it is a very clear reminder to us that the struggles that occurred several decades ago continue in many parts of our universe.

The grim reminder that we are faced with now in China should remind us as legislators that demonstrations, for whatever cause, by our citizens should be recognized as a true freedom of democracy, that we should never be prepared to bear arms against our citizens. Governme nts are to serve the people and not to control the people. We want to share the comments of the Member for Burrows (Mr. Chornopyski) and participate in this. 350 SPEAKER'S RULING Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House. On May 29, 19 89, I took under advisement a point of order raised by the Honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) concerning the words "window dressing," spoken by the Honourable Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) in relation to the attendance in Portage la Prairie of certain Ministers of the Crown. I have reviewed Hansard and am of the opinion that those words do not constitute impugning or imputing of motives. Therefore, I am ruling that there is no point of order. ORDERS OF THE DAY BUDGET DEBATE Mr. Speaker: On the proposed mo tion of the Honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) that this House approve, in general, the budgetary policy of the Government, standing in the name of the Honourable Leader of the Official Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs). The Honourable Leader of the Official Opposition. Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Unlike the opening remarks a few minutes ago of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), I can assure him that there is no difficulty on this side of the House in attacking his Budget.

We have more than ample information to prove to the citizens of this province that he has not taken into consideration many of their needs. Before I do that, I would like to make some comments about some of the speeches given in reply to the Speech from the Throne. There seemed to be in that Speech from the Throne an inordina te use of the word "arrogance" and an awful lot of the times it seems to have referred to me. Mr.

Speaker, I want to talk a little bit about arrogance in this Chamber today, just a little bit, see how I define arrogance, because I think it is quite different from the way many in this Chamber on the other side and to my left define the word "arrogance." For example, I find it arrogant for the Member for Churchill (Mr. Cowan) to think that a non-confid ence motion that shows concern about employment opportunities is arrogant.

I find it difficult that the Member for Churchill would find a non-confi dence motion that showed concern for the violation of Native Treaty rights in this province would be considered arrogant.

I find it is very difficult that he would think the need to protect the environment would be considered an arrogant statement, and I certainly think that it is the height of arrogance for the Health Critic to think that concerns raised about health care would be considered arrogant. * (14 30) I believe real arrogance is when some Members feel they have to kick other Members under the table in this Chamber in order to get their attention. That, to me, is arrogance. I think the treatment of the former

Tuesday, June 6, 1989 Speaker, when he sat in this Chamber, was arrogance. I think, for example, arrogance can be best expressed when the Premier (Mr. Filmon), who was then the Leader of the Opposition, refused to second the Speaker's nomination after the election in March of 19 86. I consider that real arrogance. I consider arrogance when a Premier, not having given a newly elected majority Government the opportunity to govern for even two months, introduces a non confidence motion. Yes, I think that is arrogance. On that particular occasion, their House Leader stood up and said-a nd it was Mr.

Mercier-I do not speak for the Member for River Heights. Well, he certainly did not speak up for the Member for River Heights, because I was prepared to give that Government of the Day a chance, and did not vote on their original Speech from the Throne or voted against them. I abstained in their original Speech from the Throne and I gave them a year. The following year, yes, I did vote against them because after a year of a new mandate they had not shown themselves fit to govern this province, and that is exactly what we did this year. That, Mr. Speaker, is the job of the Opposition. It is not arrogance.

I do not think it is arrogance when I refer to one vote being cast as an expression of my cons cience. You know, I do not tell anyone in my political Party how to vote. Maybe that is unusual for a political Leader. Maybe others do that. Maybe they twist arms and they jerk people around and say, you will vote this way or you will not vote that way. I do not do that. I have no intentions of ever doing that. So, when I say I am going into the ballot box and I am going to cast my vote as my conscience tells me to cast it, and that I will not put pressure on anyone else, no, Mr.

Speaker, I do not consider that arrogance. I consider that the height of democratic freedom. Some Honourable Members: Hear, hear! Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) of course talked about it being an orgy of power. She really got carried away-a n orgy of power. One of her reasons for why she thought it was an orgy of power or one of the explanations she gave was that because she could not see any difference, you see, between the Liberals and the Tories. Well, she must have because she voted with the Tories.

She certainly did not vote with the Liberals so she obviously was able in her own mind to differentiate between the two political statements. She also made an allusion to the fact that day care policies do not differ between the Tories and the Liberals. Let me tell you that they do differ, and they do differ because the first criteria of this Party is non profit day care, but I will not deny a garment worker a day care space working on shift work when the only space available is in a private day care. No, I will not deny that.

If they had met those needs in this society, then there would not be any need to support the private day care system. It was their failure to address shift workers, the lowest paid on average in this nation, that made it necessary to do that. Mr. Speaker, I was shocked when I listened the other day to the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) speech in closing the 351 debate on the Speech from the Throne. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) made no mention in this speech, of almost an hour in length, of health care, education, employment services. It was totally focused on business.

That, regrettably, is again what we saw yesterday-no people focus. They like to talk about the fact that they are good businesspeople, good managers, but their actions over the last year simply do not verify that. They have not shown themselves to be good business people nor have they shown themselves to be totally open with the pu blic. Let us take the announcement of Manfor. With great fanfare, they said they were going to make $1 32 million, but underneath that $13 2 million, of course, was the fact they were only going to get $42 million in cash.

Of that $42 million in cash, $32 million was going to be immediately paid back to Manfor. So now we are down to $1 O million, but we discovered there was $12 .5 million, of course, in the Manfor books so, in fact, we discovered that Repap had actually been given $2.5 million to take this company off the Government's hands. Now, of course, we have learned that the Government has agreed to clean up the spills at a cost of some $3 million to $5 million, so Repap actually was given $8 million to take over Manfor. It is hard to find the profit of $13 2 million in that particular deal. (Mr.

Deputy Speaker, William Chornopyski, in the Chair.) Now, of course, we look at the Ladco deal. We know that

Section 7 .1, in essence, says that if there is no money to be made in the first five years, well, that is too bad. Ladco will make the 10 0 percent in the next period of time until they have made $6.9 million. Regrettably, of course, the Government will not get its pay back until after Ladco has made a killing. Then, of course, I listened with some amusement to CBC the other day. Paul Thomas was speaking about the operations at the Manitoba Telephone System, and I heard a statement made about fax machines that I really thought could only have been made under the previous administration.

The Budget plan and the plan for having fax machines at MTS, according to the chairperson, is that we are not going to market them. We are just going to have them there. They are going to sit and colle ct dust, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because they are not going to tell the public about it. Maybe that is because, of course, when they did tell the public about the Commod ore 64s and they managed to lose a lot of money on advertising, they had to give them away to all the senior executives.

So now, of course, we have to contem plate whether all the sen ior executives of MTS are now going to get their at-home personal fax machine. If that is an example of good management, it is no wonder the Budget is not-reflectiv e and more reflective of the need for good management in the Province of Manitoba. La question n'est pas a savoir s'agit-i l, d'un budget plein de bonnes nouvelles. La reponse est evidemment, oui. La question veritable est a savoir si vous aviez des revenues supplementaires et vous en avez sOrement. Les avez vous depenses sagement? La reponse est non.

- Tuesday, June 6, 1989 (Translation) The question is not did they have a good news budget. The answer to that is obvious. They certainly did. The real question that must be asked is, having had windfall revenues-a nd they certainly had those, Mr. Deputy Speaker-did they spend them wisely? The answer to that is a resounding no. The question is not did you give an accounting to the people of Manitoba. The question is did you present to the people of this province the most open and honest set of books? Again, I must regret to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the answer is no. They have deliberately played the shell game.

Now you have the money and now you do not. Let us look first at the good news, the tax cut to Manitobans. This Government had millions of dollars. Even the Finance Minister admitted that it did not come from their good management. These revenues came from mining taxes and equalization payments. In deed, our thanks should go to Thompson for its wonderful mining resource nickel and to Ontario for its overheated economy which created our equalization payments, but not to this Government. Hopefully, our resource wealth will continue.

There are good indications that the nickel market will remain firm and lnco is reporting an even better year for 19 89. * ( 14 40) Ho wever, Ontario is not. So reve nu es from equa lization payments will plummet. My colleagues in the Liberal Caucus support the tax deduction. We recommended it all of last year. Putting money into the hands of the taxpa yer st imula tes the econo my, particularly when targeted to lower income earners. The improvements in the Child Tax Credit should do just that.

However, in order to stimulate the economy, it must happen now, and because of their sloppy management , taxpayers cannot get their money for 19 89 until next spring. Why were they unable to get that change to take place on July 1, 19 89? Our information from Tax Canada is that indeed, while the federal Government would prefer to have that request in by April 15, they will in fact accept that recommendation any time up to and including the 30th of June. Families need that money now. The economy needs the money now. Retail stores require that money now.

When Kostyra introduced his mugging of the taxpayer in 19 87, he ensured that we began paying those new taxes on July 1. They have had no difficulty in imposing the tobacco and gasoline taxes quickly, thereby taking money from the consuming taxpayer. Why can you not return the tax mo ney just as quickly? The explanation that the federal Government needs to be informed sooner simply does not wash with the information we were given this morning. They have been working on this Budget, according to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and verified by the Finance Minister (Mr. Manness), since the second week in January.

It has been obvious since last fall that windfall revenues were coming your way and that the people of this province should be the beneficiary. 352 Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe there is a political motivation to their announcement. The polls do not show that an election called by their Government now would be to their advantage. Therefore, it is "dangle the carrot" time. Tell them, the people of this province, that they will get a tax cut but do not give it to them until next year in real dollars, because then they will remember you during the election campaign. A good scenario perhaps, Mr. Finance Minister (Mr.

Manness), however, the public has become pretty jaund iced about Tory Finance Ministers who say one thing during the fall- remember the fall of 19 88 -a nd deliver quite another thing in the spring. Michael Wilson has taught all Canadians not to trust Finance Min isters. Deliver on your promises now if you expect to have any credibility. Why should you and, of all people, your federal Government cousins get the benefit of interest payments on Manitoba taxpayers' money, probably some $6 million to $8 million? Let the Manitoba taxpayers earn their own interest on money in their own hands and in their own pockets.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me now turn to the numbers game. "Watch the shell," the shill says to the watching crowd, particularly the most gullible, "now you see the deficit, now you do not." On Monday, March 7, 19 88, the then Opposition Finance Critic, now our Finance Minister (Mr. Manness), rose in this House on a matter of privilege. He said on this most important matter: "For the past six sitting days the Opposition has been documenting distortions and misrepresentation of the information provided within the 19 88 Budget.

In doing so," he stated, "we have called into question the credibility of the Government, the Premier and the Minister of Finance." Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I agreed with him. However, he took a bit of a nose-d ive, in my opinion, when he introduced exactly the same Budget some five months later. However, he hit the floor yesterday with his own presentation of figures. We do not have a deficit. We have a surplus of $48 million. Why will not the Finance Minister (Mr. Manness) admit to this clearly in his documentation and show the books as they really are? Once again, a political explanation can be found.

It looks like good Tory management to see a deficit gradually declining from $299 million to $15 2 million, to $13 7 million, a nice slow, downward curve. That kind of curve looks good on election pamphlets of the future. The real picture of a $299 million deficit, then a $48 million surplus, only to descend to another deficit of $1 37 million, looks irregular and not, ther efore, as glitzy for the Ron Telpners of this world. Perhaps it is not the stuff of campaign brochures, but it is truthful. Why is this Finance Minister (Mr.

Manness) prepared to pay interest on a deficit that we do not have yet, and what is to be the cost? Is it ethical to manipulate the taxpayers' hard-earned money for political benefit? No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not, and the public no longer trusts those who betray them in this fashion. This is not the only area where the Finance Minister's (Mr. Manness) credibility must be called into question. He announces with great fanfare that he has kept spending to 4.5 percent. Yet he annou nced spending

Tuesdart. JUJ14l;6, 1989 increa$,e$;.qf, 9::1 for .Family Services, over 7 percent for Health; 7 percent for Education, 8.2 percent for Justice. These departments account for 64 percent of the Budget. This one sent us scurrying to the books because this sleight of hand was simply not possible. The explanation was simple, spending Budget to Budget was up 4.5 percent. However, the actual spending numbers which were available to Government show an increase of 6.5 percent. Therefore, when trying to paint the Government fiscally responsible the lower figure was used.

However, when trying to show how generous the Government was the higher figure was used. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this may be good short-term politics but that image will be short lived because my Members will be telling the public from one end of this province to another that yes, once again, the people have been deceived. Mr. Deputy Speaker, let us examine the departments in order to show this Government's faithfulness or lack of fait hfulness to their announ ced vision in both the Speech from the Throne in 19 88. and 19 89. Last year we will remember that they targeted seniors.

I see the former Minister, last year it was the biggest joke of the Session, with a Minister who said publicly he would rather be on a beach in Florida. Do we see any improvement, any new .direction? No, it is with regret that I must report to you that we did not. The salaries went up $17, 300 but the other expenditures went down 10 ,000, for a grand increase of $7 ,300 and not a single initiative announc ed. What a sham at the time of aging population growth. Mr. D.eputy Speaker, the number of our citizens over 75. and over 85 are doubling and tripling over the decades that lie ahead.

It is essential that strategies be put in place now. Regrettably, it will not happen from the Ministers across the way because they are prepared to pay lip-service only to the needs of our aging citizens. Some of them do not even do that. They actually annou nce they do not need anything, as did the previous Minister in this department. Despite promis es to th e con trary the 55"Plus Program, an income supplement program for those getting on in years did not show the 4. 1 percent increase forecast but was limited to an increase of 1 percent Budget to Budget.

Perhaps the Government believes the numbers of eligible recipients will be down. H-0wever, they need only to look at the layoffs of older people in this city and throughout our province, and they will quickly realize that there are many over 55 who will become unemployed or will be forced to accept low paying jobs in order to find any form of employment. Mr. Deputy Speaker , this Gov ernment tout s its programs in rural Manitoba. They speak about rural decentralization, about a water strategy; about help to the farmers but what are the facts?

Yes, once again they havecprovided an education tax reduction program but farmers do not always want to feel they are getting handouts and special treatment. They waat fairness and equity and they want a property tax system that is properly reformed and recognizes their needs in an automatic right and not as something touted out each and every year. I quote from this Budget: "This year our Government expects . to proceed with refo.rm." I stress the word 353 expects. Why do they not .finally use the word.commit? Why do they not do it? * (14 50) There is a $19 million cut in Agriculture.

They, as we, are hopeful that last year's drought will not be repeated. However, surely some of that money could have remained in Agriculture with additional funds for research in new technologies, if not elsewhere. The onl y mention of diversifica tion is the vag ue hope expressed that: "The federal Government will be a full and active partner in a vital program to further development and diversification." This is the same federal Government that has decided to do its best to dest roy the com muni ty of Por tage la Prairie and surrounding areas. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, rural economic development corporations were slashed by 7.5 percent. Once again, rural Manitobans .will be hardest hit by the increase in gaso!ine .tax. We await the targeting of this money to roads, and we hope they will particularly be targeted to those much needed maintenance projects in rur al Manitoba. The bottom line. is that rural Manitobans must travel more and the burden is disproportionate and not shared by all of the driving public. What is their often-touted water strategy? Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the Throne Speech said and I quote: "My Government has produced a comprehensive land and water strategy which has now been widely discussed within the province and will be implemented later this year." We have to wonder how it can be implemented when there is· a 6.4 percent reduction in water resources funding. The Water Comm ission sees a decrease, that is right, a d.ecrease of $1 50,000 and water resources, the area of natural resou rces which plans the use and management of water resources, is cut by one-half million. How are we to address much-needed water strategies with a cut of $650,000.00?

Even in the area of Rural Development under the title, "Manitoba Water Services Board" we see an increase of only 27 percent or a 1 percent increase. There are no funds to enhance a water strategy despite the commitment in the Throne Speech. It is simply more flimflam and more empty rhetoric. Tourism, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is an important part of rural life and it is an important issue to them as well as to urban Manitobans. The Throne Speech again said: "The potential for increases in tourism," but it is hard to bring about increases when you cut the Budget by 5.3 percent.

Literacy was to be a big thrust of this Government when they came to power last year. They established a task force headed by a defeated Tory candidate and spent 300,000 and this year they budgeted another 70,0 00 for the task force. Surely this was the year we were to see some reforms. This was the year when those, who are illiterate, were to be helped to become literate. They are certainly not found in the education budget. Illiteracy .is found and it is noted over and over and over again in the greatest

- - -� - - Tuesday, June 6, 1989 num bers in the Inn er City. Did we see any new dollars in In ner City education to target those young children who do not learn within the school system adequately? Yes, Inn er City education got a magnificent increase of 1 p ercent, $19 00 for additional salaries. I am afraid that is not going to help one school age child become more literate. Let us look now at the Department of Health. The total increase in health expenditures, budget to budget, is 6.8 percent, a growth of 2. 7 percent over an inflation rate of 4. 1.

This growth rate is token when it is realized that the new programs promised in the Throne Speech, the Breast Screening Program and the Women's Health Directorate, must all come from these funds. In addition, the Government promised to address cultural barriers to health care, to improve the Cancer Research and Treatment Foundation at the St. Boniface Hospital, to make the Health Sciences Centr e Surgical Program a world class program, to increase resources for AID S outreach education and prevention and all of this is going to be accomplished within the narrow margin of growth? It is simply not possible, Mr.

Deputy Speaker. It is a legacy of broken dreams fueled by broken promises. The Health budget discloses no innovation. The Health Advisory Network is budgeted for another year at $500,000 .00. This reflects no change in its funding but suggests with deep regret that it will be another year of status quo from this particular network. The Breast Cancer Scre ening Prog ram , we are assuming, will come from Maternal and Child Health, which has experienced a $1 60,0 00 increase. But Dr.

Patricia Mirwaldt, chair of the Health Professional Education Commit tee of the Canadian Canc er Foundation, estimated it will cost approximately $2 million to screen women 50 to 69 years of age every two years. This age group was the one rec ommen ded for screening by a group sponsored by Health and Welfare Canada, the Canadian Cancer Society and the National Cancer Ins titute of Canada. The $1 60,000 increase to the basic Maternal and Child Program is wholly inadequate to even begin any effective breast cancer screening program.

This Government has touted its commitment to health promotion, which it appe ars will beco me the responsibility of external agencies, and salaries in this program have decreased by 1 percent. Program funds remain unchanged, but funds to external agencies are increased to $5 12, 000.00, Health promotion is an imp ortant function of this Go ver nment, and the delegation of this responsibility to external agencies may signa l this Govern ment's position on health promotion. Let someone else do it. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we were shocked, considering that they still try to pay lip-service to the aged within our society, that hearing conservation has been reduced by almost one percentage point. Hearing conservation is absolutely essential to the well-being of many seniors within our society. While continuing care funding has increased overall, there is no increase in services for home care, social 354 workers and public health. The in crease in funds available for external agencies is 4. 1 percent. Can we expect that programs such as the Si ster Clermont Health Plan will be funded out of this line?

It is doubtful in that the funding just meets the rate of inflation and does not provide any additional funding for programs not covered last year. This Government focused on the environment as the cornerstone of its Throne Speech. Yet the Environ mental Health Program has seen only a 4.4 percent increase for cost-of -l iving adjustments to salary. There is no evidence of new directions by this Government. Clearly, their commitment to environment and health concerns is window dressing at best.

This area should provide medical public health input to departments and agencies in the del ivery of environmental health services, for example, medical expertise in the assessment of health hazards and the development of preventive measures. Is this not part of their environ mental package? Does sust ainable development not also include the people, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Communi ty health operations, regional services consists of department field resources in 10 regions for the del ivery of com muni ty health programs encompassing health promotion, communicable disease control, maternal and child health, hearing conservation, continuing care, community mental health, support services to seniors and northern primary care. This is where the commun ity network is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Well, we kn ow from the commit ment of their Government that they do not believe in commun ity health care delivery, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, because inflation is 4. 1 percent and they have given community health care 2.5 percent. That means services have to be cut, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is supposed to be the new thrust for delivery of medical services. We do not know where this Minister is coming from. * (15 00) This Gov ernment has rep eated ly stated its commitment to mental health services. The Member for Kildonan (Mr. Cheema) conti nually rose on his feet in the last Session and asked this Minister to address the mental health needs of Manitobans.

I have to report to the Member that despite his very fine questions, despite his prodding of the Minister, the Minister still does not understand the needs of mental health in the Province of Manitoba. Again, well below the rate of inflation, a mere 2 percent increase. Program support is down by half a percentage in mental health promo ti on. It is red uced almo st 4 percentage points in mental health clinical. Support goes up to 2 percent for the provincial psychiatrist but rehabilitation ge ts only 1.5 percent, and mental health services has to scrape by with 1. 2 percent.

Financial support to both the mental health centres at Brandon and Selkirk have been seriously eroded with only 2. 1 percent going to Brandon and 1. 6 percent to Selkirk. While we would like to see those figures

Tuesday, Jon�e 6, 1989 down, becaus e people are being serviced in the community, that simply is not happening. They are still trying to cope with the same patient loads at those centres, because the Minister has not taken the initiative to build the communi ty placements that they require. The Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba has received a 1. 5 percent increase. This Government is on the record as being very angry with drunken drivers.

While we are not in full agreement with the legislation that they are proposing, we agree society needs to be angry with drunken drivers, but surely we also deserve to ensure that those people get treatment. If you are going to ensure that they do not drive on the roads, and with that I can concur done in a legal way, then surely we must be able to get them into treatment centres so that they can improve the quality of their lives. We have not made a commitment to that. Our comm itment is only in the judicial way, not in the treatment way. The Finance Minister (Mr.

Manness) boasts of a $54 million increase to hospital funding which represents a 7.2 percent increase. However, when an inflation rate of 4. 1 percent is considered in addition to funding in part oft he St. Bon iface Cancer Research and Treatment Fund Foundation to make it a world class facility, as promised in the Throne Speech, where are all the other monies going to come from? They have also promised to fund the Health Sciences Centre back up to its world leading surgical education and services. How can these funds be stretched to cover all of these commitm ents from this Minister?

Willw aiting lists for cardiac surgery be reduced? No, they will not. Will access to rehabilitation services be speeded up? No, they will not. Will elective surgery lists be shortened ? No, they will not. Will physiotherapy or speech therapy be more readily available? No, they will not. Will this token increase, stretched as it is, enable hospitals to make the transition to ambulatory care or out-patient programs or to establish surgical day care units? No, as these innovations require some up-front costs and hospitals no longer have any elasticity. There is no flexibility in hospital budgets anymore.

They have been strained to their breaking point and indeed many have gone beyond their breaking point. Can the increase of 6.9 percent to personal care homes shorten waiting lists for seniors? No, it will not happen. The medical program for doctors shows an increase of 3 percent and that is.the best indication, I am afraid, of this Government's lack of foresight. It has done nothing to encourage physicians to remain in this province. This nominal increase does not offer any hope of that situation changing. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the City of .

Winnipeg, I know well-lo ved by the Deputy Speaker, received short shrift from thfs Government. It appears to be a new fact of life in Toryland, if you do not vote with us, ex pect to be mistreated. Their federal cousins have displayed their petulance in their treatment of Manitoba and Prince Edward Island. Now it is their turn with regard to the City of Winnipeg. There is no leadership displayed by this Government regarding the protection and enhancement of the city's rivers. The financial assistance to the City of Winn ipeg 355 is down in real terms.

Even if one excludes the Special Education Transfer Grant, all other increases are below inflation. The city will have no choice but to turn to its property taxpayers once again. We all recognize all Parties have said in this House that property taxes are unfair and inequitable, but this Budget leaves the City of Winnipeg with no other choice. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is the Northwhich has in large part been responsible for our windfall monies. Without the viability of our mining sector, Manitoba would be hard pressed. But do we bequeath any of our new riches to the North? No.

We rape them, but we pay no reparations. There is nothing in this Budget to suggest that we have a northern development strategy, despite the promise made in the Throne Speech over a year ago. There are no job creation programs targeted to the North. There are no economic development programs. Like always in Toryland, there is a belief that the private sector will produce the jobs. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are no job guarantees in the Repap sale, only the hope, and no built-in guarantees that even if jobs open up they will go to Northerners or Natives. Why is our Northern Affairs budget down?

Are they to receive no benefits from their wealth? Mr. Deputy Speaker, what of Churchill? Has this Government abando ned ship like their federal cousins and completely deserted that community in the North on our sea, on our coastline? Well, it would appear so when one looks at the Budget. What of job creation , Mr. Deputy Speaker? There is not a single job creation program. In deed, there are cuts to programs which deliver training and ensure our young people's success in the marketplace.

Job Training for Tomorrow has been cut by $3 million, and the Human Resources Opportunity Program has been given a mere I percent increase. Skills Development has been cut by $200,000 .00. Youth programs and emplo yment services have been cut. Even workplace and worker's services have been decreased. There are new venture funds available, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we do not oppose such funds because there is a real need in this province to help business adjust to the Free Trade Agreement, but nowhere are any of these funds or loan guarantees tied to a single job.

All too often the se funds do not enh ance employment opportunities, and employment and the creation of employment should be the thrust of these programs. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to turn for a moment to the issue that this Government prides itself on- the environment. They talk about it a lot. I stated in my speech in reply to the Speech from the Th rone that actions speak louder than words. The Premier did not like that. He promised us lots of action. Well, you know, it is not good enough to talk about sustai nable development while our resources are abused, and that is what happens in this Budget.

Perhaps it was the Minister's late entry into Cabinet but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Natural Resources has been stripped. Forestry has had a million dollar reduction ,

Tuesday, June 6, 1989 with silviculture alone seeing a $360,000 cut. The Government should know better than to put all its faith into the private sector when it comes to resource preservation. Yet this is exactly what they have done. The fisheries see no increase, neither does wildlife, and fur management sees a decrease. Now would have been a good time with extra revenues to establish a trap exchange program, as in the Territories, in order to adopt tra pping practices mo re accep table to the marketplace, but we did not see them.

Obviously, to this Government, sustainable development does not include enhancement. Enhancement is essential if there is to be a sustainable future. * (15 10) It is essential that I now speak of the poor, the vulnerable and those under stress in our society. Since I entered this House, I have decried the lack of support for residential care and licensing. I addressed it in my 19 86 reply and again year after year. How can we ensure that our personal care homes, our group homes, our residential treatment centres are properly run if we do not have ongoing inspections and licensing?

A couple of years ago, I actually used the example that had been proven to me, tha t they notify these homes when they are going to go and do an inspection. If I am a private operator and I am running a personal care home and I am given three days' warning by the Government, I can tell you that I would certainly put in an extra shift of cleaners and I would go out and buy a bunch of plants to fancy the place up. We have to have that kind of inspection processing taking place without warning so that we can see the conditions in which those people live not at "inspection time" but on a day-to-day basis.

We have had documented for us in the news media story after story about some of these conditions. The previous Government would wait until an emergency hit the front pages and then they would swoop down like avenging angels and close the home, only to reopen it several days later because the residents had no place to go. They did that twice, in my recollection alone. A constant monitoring is required to ensure physical facilities are adequate. Staff checks are necessary so tha t clients ge t appropria te care.

Moni toring of programs is essential, but nothing in this Budget would indicate any improvement in this bleak picture. The Minister stated last year that there were few increases in money and services to the mental ly handicapped in her last ye ar's Budget because she needed the time to re-organ ize and re-e valuate the directions of her department, but there are still no additional funds. It only proves the department is sti ll mired in inaction with no leadership from the Minister. We see $6 million additional monies for day care but they cannot find the $1 20,000 for training of day care workers at Level Ill.

Where are the mana gement skills this Government likes to tout when they cannot even put the horse before the cart? How are you to add spaces when you do not have trained workers, or is quality of care of no importance to this Government? We have asked repeatedly for this Government to tell us if they are willing to suspend the standards. No, 356 they are not willing to suspend the standards. They are not willing to change the regulations. They are just going to violate the regulations day after day after day.

Why are there 3.8 percent in reductions to general purpose grants to agencies like the Manitoba League for the Physically Handicapped, the Canadian Council of the Blind, the Canad ian Council on So cial Development, the Volunteer Centre of Winnipeg, the old Grace Hospital? In almost every case, these budgets fund volunteers. They cost the Government nothing, a volunteer. A volunteer provides services unlike none other because they do it from the heart, yet these agencies that run these volunteers are going to be cut by this particular Government.

This Tory Budget may be good news for some Manitobans, but it is bad news for poor Manitobans. Funds within Agriculture, Family Services, Housing, and Justice, to name but a few, have seen ac tual cuts or increases less than the rate of inflation. The programs that have been cut are programs which would have provided services to the poor. This Government told us in this Throne Speech that agriculture is the backbone of the Manitoba economy. Unfortunately, the individual farmer does not have this Government's support.

Last year, Manitoba farmers suffered great losses due to the severe drought and massive crop failure. This crisis was imposed on a community which is already suffering great hardship. Between 19 77 and 19 88, Canadian farm debt rose from $10 .3 billion to approximately $2 1 billion. Between 19 78 and 19 88, 3,68 1 farmers went bankrupt in Canada, almost one per day. The threat to our farmers continues. This year, we are again experiencing some drought conditions. Fortunately, we are grateful and thankful ·for rain today, but drought conditions do prevail. What financial commitment has this Government made? None.

Where are the drought-proof ing programs that were promised so there would not be another year like last year? Hard on their luck farmers have relied on programs such as the special Farm Assistance Program which is used to reduce interest rates. Now, at a time when those rates are high and farmers are in need, this Government has seen fit to reduce this program by 20 percent. The allowance for doubtful accounts has also been reduced by $4 million, a 37.9 percent reduction .

To add insult to inju ry, this Go vernment, whic h has promised to eliminate the education tax on farm lands, has reduced the tax by a mere 10 percent, a reduction of approximately $13 6 per farmer. Why does this Government, which last year had a $48 million surplus, not come to the aid of Manitoba farmers? Where are the initiatives .to diversify the farm economy so farmers will not be relegated to the lines of poverty? Mr. Deputy Speaker, where are the programs for the poor family?

The Child Income Support Program, which provides fina ncial supple ments for low-income Manitobans supporting childr en, has been cut by

Tuesday, June 6, 1989 $200,0 00,QO. Considering most single parent families are headed by women and live below the poverty line, cuts in this area will severely affect this group. Youth emplo yment services have been cut by $28,000.00. Youth are the future of Manitoba and, without adequate employment services and programs, this important human resource will not be able to recognize its full potential. The most drastic cut has been to northern employment support services which has had its budget decreased by $1 1 2,0 00.00.

Unemployment is a serious and chronic probl em in the North, whic h will be compounded by service cuts. Although the Fir st Minister's (Mr. Filmon) Government has repeatedly committed itself to the North, severe reductions to emp loyment services do not suppor t such a commitment. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please; order, please. Mrs. C,arstairs: Thank you , Mr. Deputy Speaker . Financing for special programs in immigration services and human resou rces opportun ity prog rams have received incr eases below the inflation rate.

The disadvantaged need every opportun ity and support to assist them in gaining employment. Lack of commitment to these programs means lack of commit ment to the people the se programs are designed to assist. Wh.at gave grave concern to this caucus is a housing budget-a housing budget which does not address the needs of the poor at all. The housing is an essential element for the well-being of all Manitobans and it is unfortunate that there are many in our province who cannot afford to provide themselves with a comfortable st and ard of living with respec t to living accommodations.

Wha t is even more un for tuna te is tha t this Government is turning its back on those disadvantaged Manitobans most in need of housing assistance. In fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Conservative Government is targeting its cost-cutt ing measures at those least able to sustain this loss. The housing budget shows no real growth for 19 89-90. In fact, it will be well below the rate of inflation for 19 89. In real terms there will be less assistance, not more, for Manitobans most in need of help. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, grants and subsidies within the housing budget will decrease under this Tory Budget by 10 percent -a 10 percent decrease while at the same time they create a $200 million slush fund for a rainy day. They are blind and dea f to the needs of Manitobans living in poverty all around us. For these people, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is already a rainy day.

What is the cost of the so-c alled "good news" in this so- called "good news Budget?" If you look closely you will find that the cost is cutbacks to programs for low rental housing, cutbacks to subsidies to low income homeowners who require assistance to preserve their home.s. The cost will be borne by low income and elderly Manitobans. They must cope with the vicious attacks 357 in the federal Budg et brought do ne by this Government's Ottawa cousins, and now they must cope with new attacks by the local version of the Ottawa raiders. These programs are cutback by 10 percent , Mr.

Deputy Speaker, while this Government jumps headfirst into risky, speculative, joint venture development deals. It cuts back on housing assistance for the poor by 10 percent. While the Minister of Housing (Mr. Ducharme) is cutting upscale development deals with his well heeled Tory friends, he is also cutting spending on housing assistance for the poor by 10 percent. Legal Aid which assists Manitobans in poverty to gain access to a legal system they could not otherwise afford has been increased less than the rate of inflation.

This department is al ready aware that the increasing cost of office supplies alone will erode any increase to Legal Aid. The increase to this important program is one of the lowest within the Department of Justice, a clean signal of this Government's priorities. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this Government has been the beneficiary of great good fortune at a time when indi vidua l Manitobans have not been so lucky. Unemployment rates in Manitoba are higher than the national average for the first time in decades. Weekly we seem to hear of layoffs at another plant in Manitoba. We need to look to the future, Mr.

Deputy Speaker. We need directions for the future. Yesterday there was sunshine but today there is rain. An Honourable Member: Hear, hear! Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order. * (1 520) Mrs. Carstairs: There are more storm clouds on the horizon and let us take a look at those storm cloud figures, the ones that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) chose not to mention yesterday. Our population is declining, as is our employed labour force, and average weekly earnings are rising less than 1 the rate of inflation. Manitoba's overall position has weakened relative to the rest of Canada.

Housing starts are down 52.5 percent at a time when this Government is entering the housing development business with Ladco. Building permits are down $7 4 million this year alone. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it does not end there. Both personal and corporate bankruptcies are up in the Province of Manitoba, retail sales are down, interest rates are up and inflation is up. The province is receiving larger equali zation payments from the federal Government because our economy is faring so badly and this economic downturn must be stopped. Manitobans need to be assured that there will be sunshine in their futur e.

There can be no such assurances from a Government that proposes a slush fund for which it promises no accountability. Funds are needed now to provide jobs and retraining programs. While our economy adapts to free trade and

Tuesday, June 6, 1989 a changing world marketplace, adjustments to labour training are essential. Education of our youth must receive top priority. Health care delivery to meet the needs of our aging population is a must. This Budget has done nothing to give Manitobans confidence in the future, to give them hope for a vibrant economy. We hope this Government will soon wake up to the fact tha t overfl owing Go vern ment coffers provide an opportunity to make all Manitobans prosper, not only today but tomorrow as well. We have many questions to ask of this Government.

We want answers about their budgetary practices. We want answers about spending lines in department after department. We began to ask those questions today and we will continue to ask them day after day until the Budget is passed, if the Budget is passed. We will continue to ask them during the Estimate process first and foremost. We want this Government to get tax breaks for consumers now, not next year. They have yet to giv e us an adqua te explanation for their sloppiness in this matter. You have not gained our support on this Budget yet. Be more forthcoming, Mr.

Finance Minister, be more honest and we may support this flawed document. Should tha t happen, I am informing this Government now that they are in a rough road in Estimates because we believe your spending priorities are misguided. You appear not to care about the poor, the vulnerable, the unemployed, and we challenge you over the next week to prove that we are wrong. Some Honourable Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please; order, please. The Honourable Minister of Health. Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, let me congratulate you on your elevation to the Chair of Deputy Speaker (Mr. Chornopyski) in this House. I have participated in a lot of Budget Debates but it is going to be a difficult job for me to follow the last two minutes of in-H ouse cacophony that we just heard engaged in here, and the complete disarray of that Liberal Party that was so ready to govern just two and-a-half short weeks ago. I mean, this is absolutely incredible.

On the one hand nothing is right in the Budget, but on the other hand we sort of like this, and on the third hand we may ask some questions and then we are going to make up our mind whether we are going to support the Budget or whether we are going to vote against it, but we really do not know what we are going to do because we are confused. • (1 530) I have never seen such a display of immaturity in an Official Opposition Party in all my life. You cannot make up your minds on such a funda mental issue to Manitobans as to whether you want children of families, families that we all support to have tax breaks.

You cannot make up your mind as to whether farmers ought to have more education tax relief on their farm land. You cannot, as an Official Opposition Party deeming 358 yourselves ready to govern, make up your mind on whether you wish to have businesses further exempted from the payroll tax. As a Party almost ready to govern, you cannot make up your mind on whether you want the personal income tax rate to fall 2 percentage points in the Province of Manitoba.

It is absolutely incredible what we have just seen displayed by this group in Opposition who three short weeks ago, all of us would recall, stated with such arrogance they were ready to govern. What a shameful display for the people of Manitoba to watch. I listened with a great deal of intent to the Leader of the Opposition's (Mrs. Carstairs) comments. She took 10 minutes on her Budget speech address before she finally mentioned the Budget. She spent the first seven minutes trying to defend her arrogance as Leader of the Liberal Party by saying my arrogance is no more than the arrogance of others before me.

Tha t is not a very good excuse because this was the Leader of the Official Opposition who came to this House saying, I am not going to be like every other Opposition politician. I am going to be different, I am going to set a new standard in this House. She got in and started defending her arrogance as being no more arrogant than anyone else. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I simply want to point out to you, I have been an elected Member of this Legislature for 12 years. It would be scary should some of my honourable friends in the Liberal Party ever achieve that record.

Many of them will not because many of them are not even going to retain their nominations should we have an election. That will be assured by the Party hierarchy and the backroom boys. I have never heard a Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of any political Party treat the Members of their caucus with such arrogance. I have never heard such disdain expressed by any Leader of a political Party in this House for the membership of their caucus as I have heard from the Mem ber for River Height s (Mr s. Carstairs) describing her caucus.

I have never heard a Leader of a political Party in the 12 years I have been in this House say, it gets a little tiring having to repeat things three and four times before some of my Members of the caucus catch on. That is why she has attached to her an aura of arrogance. I have never heard a Leader of a political Party in this House describe her caucus as an adult day care centre. I have never heard that.

I have never heard any Leader of a political Party in the 12 years I have been elected to this House saying this, and I will quote directly from the Winnipeg Free Press: "The Liberal Party ought to know that Sharon Carstairs does what Sharon Carstairs thinks is best for Sharon Carstairs and maybe that is good for the Liberal Party as well." One of the interesting things that we are all challenged with in this House, as elected representatives, is to attempt to achieve the greater good for the people of Manitoba.

Whether you are in Government as we are today or in Opposition as I have been in my 12 years in this House, we all have one overriding goal that we believe we are here to do what is the best for the people of Manitoba. I have not detected that to be something that imbues and drives the Leader of the

Tuesday, June 6, 1989 Oppositiori. That statement that I just quoted forgot the most important component of any elected official in this Legislature and that is the people. There was no mention of doing what is good for the people of Manitoba. There was a con desc ending reference, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to hopefully what she did would be good for the Liberal Party, as if the Liberal Party is the only thing that matters in the Province of Manitoba.

The Liberal Party is becoming less and less relevant to the people of Manitoba as we see the kind of confused approach to responsible Opposition that we just witnessed this afternoon. It is an incredible display. I want to just close off on this me ssage of arrogance that the Liberal Leader (Mrs. Carstairs) decided she was going to defend herself against. I have never heard such arrogance as what I heard when she put on the record this afternoon, put on the record this afternoon, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that the management of personal care homes in this province are given two or three days notice, and they hire an additional cleaning staff shift to clean up the home so their inspection will be all right. I want to tell you, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that is the most arrogant and insulting statement ever made by an elected official in this House, saying, in effect, that the management and the staff of Holy Family Nursing Home, Tache Nursing Home, Middlechurch Nursing Home, Tabor Nur sing Home in my cons tituen cy, Meadowwood Manor and on and on and on, only clean up and provide adequate living conditions for those vulnerable seniors that are in their care and nurture when they are forewarned of an inspection by the Department of Health, if that is not the most disgusting display of arrogance that I have ever heard.

I know that my honourable friend, the Liberal Health Critic (Mr. Cheema) in the level of integrity that he has tried to bring to this House will disassociate himself from those comments of his Leader, because he knows they are not true. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I and others on this side of the House know that is not true because many of us have dropped into personal care homes in our constituencies unannounc ed, and have found them to be cared and cleaned and the residents cared for in the finest of tradition.

That kind of arrogance, that the y only do that when an in spec tor is coming, demo ns tr ates the most fu nda mental lack of understanding and absolute arrogance that I have ever heard in this House. Besides that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is the most demeaning put down of the workers and the staff and the management of those nursing care homes to say they care no more for those residents in those personal care homes than the statement she just made. That is disgraceful.

I ought to ha ve gotten up on a point of privilege on behalf of those management staff, nurses, LPNs and other support staff in the personal care homes and demanded an immediate retraction. I know that my honourable friend, the Liberal Health Critic (Mr. Cheema) is here and is listen ing. He will take that message back to his Leader and we will receive an apology to all the personal care home management and staff in this province tomo rrow, because nothing less is deserved, Mr. Deputy Speaker. 359 That is what my honourable friend, the Mem ber for Churchill (Mr. Cowan), my honourable friend, the MLA for St.

Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) and growing numbers of Manitobans have referred to as the arrogance of the Liberal Leader. That exemplified it in spades. I am shocked, shamed and dismayed that an intelligent person who deems to have the ability to be Premier of this province would cast such aspersions on caring staff in Manitoba. I think this House ought to thank one individual. One individual about 14 months ago, stood in his place and defeated the then-Go vernment. That individual was Mr. Jim Walding. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, what that triggered was an election in the Province of Manitoba which resu lted in the return of a min ority Prog ressiv e Conservative Government under the premiership of the MLA for Tuxedo (Mr. Filmon), and a new direction in the Province of Manitoba. * (1 540) Now, Mr. Deputy Sp eak er, without that, what circumstance might we be in today? Our honourable friends in the Liberal Opposition, and we have not heard from the New Democrats yet, are flip-fl opping on this issue of the Budget.

They may support it, they may not, they are going to question us some more, they are going to make up their mind, they are going to we do not know what the y are going to do. We simply do not know what they are going to do. Certainly, we would know from past experience what a Liberal Government might have done faced with the circums tan ces that this Minister of Fin anc e (Mr. Manness) was faced with, because we have seen that experience, not in this province for many, many years. The last Liberal Government in this province was a qu ite fiscally respo nsibl e Go vernment.

The last experience we have that would mean anything to Canadians is the Liberal administration in Ottawa where they took buoyant economic times and they developed spending programs that the country could not afford. They drove the deficit to higher and higher levels so, as a result, the federal Budget commits fully one- third of its tax revenues to interest on accumulated debt over the Trudeau years under a Liberal administration.

We know that the New Democrats, in the six-and a-half years that they were Government under Howard Pawley's leadership, took relatively buoyant economic times and drove the deficit to the greatest levels it has ever been driven in the history of the province, with an ensuing substantial commitment by the taxpayers of Manitoba to interest payments. So we know what the record of the two political Parties in Opposition would be, faced with unusually buoyant revenues over the past fiscal year.

It is fortunate that Jim Walding gave the people of Manitoba an opportunity to change Governments and to change att itude and to change appr oach in Government, because what you saw yesterday in the tabling of this Budget is a Budget that demonstrates respo nsibi lity towards the taxp ayer, demons t rates leadership in the financial affairs of this province, a Budget that demonst rates that we believe in offering

Tuesday, June 6, 1989 incentive to Manitobans to do better by saying to Manitobans, you shall have tax breaks so that you ca n keep more of your hard-earned resource in your wallet, in your bank account, so that you make decisions on how it ought to be spent, no t Go ve rnment. It demons trates long-range planning by this Fin ance Minister. Mr. Deputy Speaker, above all, it demonstrates a vision for the future, a future that we believe is bright and is good for Manitobans, and for our youth in Manitoba.

None of us on this side of the House in the Progressive Conservative Caucus will escape to Toronto and describe Manitoba as a have- not province. That is a statement that we want to solely leave with the Liberal Party and its Leader, because we do not believe that. We believe that this province has opportunity for our youth and has the ability to be a better place to live, to work, to play, to raise your families, to educate them, and to provide them a career path in this province. That is what we believe in, and we always have believed in that.

That Budget tabled yesterday demonstrates the steps we believe are prudent and appropriate to take to achieve those longer-term goals for the citizens of Manitoba and future generations of Manitobans. I realize that my honourable friends will say we are not doing this or that or the other thing, or that we should have done this or we should have done that. That is fine, that is Opposition's right. That is Opposition 's obligation, quite frankly, but clearly the contrast is there between two styles of Government, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has indicated in a number of questions.

We are not wrapping ourselves in job creation signs from the Manitoba Jobs Fund, those nice green signs that proliferated around the provi nce, prolif erated around the province while the deficit was going through the roof and the asso cia ted interest costs were substantial to the people of Manitoba. We have chosen the very common- sense route that you and I as individuals, our spouses, our children, our neighbours and our friends, the people of Manitoba, know best what to do with their own income. That is what we have always believed in, in the Progressive Conservative Party.

That contrasts, I will admit, very sharply with the New Democrats, because they believe that Government holds and controls all the answers for the citizens of this province and that only the New Democrats can take the money from individuals and develop programs to spend it that theoretically help all Manitoba. That failed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That failed miserably and it has failed every time it has been tried in any democratic jur isdiction that I am aware of.

That is why 80 percent of Manitobans said no to the New Democ rats and continue to say no to the New Democrats, because they do not believe that is the style of Government. What is on the line later next week when we vote on this Budget is what the Liberal Party of Manitoba stands for, because they did not tell us today when their Leader addressed the Budget.

We do not know whether they believe that individual Manitobans ought to exercise more choice in how they spend their income. 360 We do not know whether the Liberal Party of Manitoba supports Manitoba families receiving tax relief so they have more money in their pocket to make the decisions they want to make in the economy of Manitoba, whether it be investment decisi ons, purchase decisions, job creation decisions. We do not kno w where the Liberal Party stands on this. It is fundamental to know because the people of Manitoba want to know. Are you in favour of individual choice in this province?

Do you suppor t private enterprise? Do you support the free ,enterprise system that built this nation and the free world or are you into the New Democratic philosophy .that only Government rig htfu lly can make decis ions, the same kind of Government decisions that have often caused enormous harm in various parts of the world, witness many events across the world that are unhappy events for the citizens when Governments have made unilateral decisions? Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I look forward to seeing where the !li beral Party stands in terms of the individual and the family in Manitoba and the initiative this Budget has taken to put more decision-making capability in their hands, to recognize the work and the contribution that individuals make to this province, and the right that they have not to be taxed at the highest rate of any province in Canada. (The Acting Speaker, Ms. Avis Gray, in the Chair.) I look forward to the Liberal Party's response when it comes to the vote, I believe, on Wednesday of next week.

It will be an important watershed for the people of Manitoba to try and understand further what the Liberal Party really does stand for in Manitoba. One thing I also did was I listened very carefully to my honourable frien d, the Li beral Leader (Mr s. Carstairs). I listened to her in the Throne Speech as well as today in the Budget Address.

She ide ntified what she bel ieves and obviously I think-ma ybe this is not so obvious, but I think she speaks on behalf of her Party in these issues, identified a number of what she considers to be difficulties in the health care system. * (1 550) But you know, one thing that was missing, Madam Acting Speaker , is that th ere were no solu tions proffered. There were no answers that the Liberal Party would undertake. You know why? Last year when they started offering their answers-in a scant six- week period, was it? -th ey asked for $700 milli on of additional spending.

That begs the logical question, where does the money come from? You cannot use the $200 million fund because that is not enough. You cannot have lower personal taxes as all of you claim to support, although we do not know because we do not know whether you are going to vote for the Budget or vote against the Budget. We have got no answers from the Liberal Party, no answers at all. We have the identification of what they perceive to be problems, but no identification of solutions. It is sort of interesting to hear what the Finance Critic, the MLA for Osborne (Mr.

Alcock), had indicated quite rece ntly , apparen tly in com mu nication to his

Tuesday, June 6, 1989 constituents. It was his January letter about how gravely disappointed he was and the Liberal Party were over the performance of the Government. The MLA for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) indicates in this letter that they have not moved to curb the increases in Government spending. I would say that the

interpretation of that ought to be that the MLA for Osborne wanted spending cuts. Nor mal ly, when one communic ates with their constituents, they do enunciate Party policy as to what the Party would do in Government. Possibly the MLA for Osborne might in the next series of questions, should he try them this Session again, offer some

preamble suggestions as to where these increases in Government spending ought to be cut. I think that is only fair because he said that to his constituents, but is he going to say a different thing on television in the House than he does to his constituents? We do not know because we do not even know how the Liberal Party is going to vote on this Budget. I want to deal with my honourable friend, the Leader of the Opposition's (Mrs. Carstairs) news release on the Budget.

Normally, we have been used to this feisty Leader of the Liberal Party leaping from her seat on any issue, storming out the doors to meet the press and tell them what she thinks, except for yesterday. I saw for the second time in the short history that we have had an Official Liberal Opposition sort of the lifetime of the Li beral Party in Manitoba flash before their eyes as a drowning man or woman or person, as happened when they see the death knell of their political future. The first time was in the extremely grey look on the face of the MLA for Fort Rouge (Mr.

Carr) when his only issue, his singular obsession of Meech Lake, was removed and all of a sudden he did not have questions nor answers. I saw it again yesterday in the face of the Liberal Leader (Mrs. Carstairs) as she went greyer and greyer and greyer, as every single fulfillment of obligation to the people of Manitoba was met by this Budg et. The normally feisty answer-fo r-everyt hing Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) who leaps from her seat to meet the media took 45 minutes to do what? To consult with her caucus for one of the first times ever before she made the statement on behalf of them. (Mr.

Deputy Speaker in the Chair.) An Honourable Member: Not true, not true. Mr. Orchard: Then I assume, because we have had two people from the Liberal Caucus say our Leader does not do that, that she must have caucused with the caucus the statement she made about looking after an adult day care centre. If that was caucused and a position of the Liberal Leader, who are the adult day care recipients in your caucus who agreed to that statement because you caucus what she says? When did you caucus the statement that Sharon Carstairs does what Sharon Carstairs thinks is good for Sharon Carstairs? When was that caucused?

Or are we into this unfortunate circumstance where they 361 do not always caucus what their Leader says? The silence from the Li beral ranks is ominous, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There were a number of issues that have been addressed by my honourable friend, the Leader of the Opposition, in terms of health care. I want to tell my honourable friends, I look forward to the presentation of Estimates in Health. I look forward to the ensuing debate, parti cula rly with the Li beral Party in this Legislature.

I hope we take somewhat more time this year than the 30 minutes we took last year to spend $1.2 billion in the Manitoba Health Services Commission.

I hope that the Liberal Party genuinely tries to investigate the issues, because I want to tell my honourable friends, I want to tell my honourable friend, the Liberal Health Critic, when I was the Opposition Critic-and being the Opposition Critic for the Department of Health is a very politically opportune one for any Member of the Opposition, because you can take at any particular time and find an individual Manitoban who may not be well served or served as well as they believe they should be, or even appropriately served by the health care system , because the health care system is such a large one.

It touches every man, woman and child's life in the Province of Manitoba. You could almost, on a daily basis, bring some sort of difficulty to the floor of the Legislature. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I operated on somewhat of a different vein when I was Opposition Health Critic. My honourable friend, the current Liberal Health Critic, prides himself on asking more questions than I did as Opposition Health Critic. That may well be. I have not taken the time to count them, because I am not interested in the number of questions. I am interested in the issues, and I always was when I was Opposition Critic.

I want to deal with some of the issues because I tended to raise issues, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I sincerely believed as Government we could resolve. I was not going to place false expectations in front of the people of Manitoba that we had the instant overnight cure for the health care system. I did not have it as an Opposition Critic. The Progressive Conservative Party does not have it as a political Party. That is not a confession of frailty.

That is an admission of reality, and that reality extends to each and every Member in this House, from the New Democratic Party Opposition who had the stewardship of the health care system for six-and-a-half years and brought about some changes, but not enough. It certainly applies to my honourable friends in the Liberal Party because when you stand up and you ask the qu estion, as my honourable friend the Liberal Health Critic did yesterday, we raised this issue last week, what have you done to resolve it in one week's time? Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if he is asking that question on behalf of the Liberal Party to leave the impression that he, hence the Liberal Party and Government, can resolve health care issues in one week, he is not telling the truth to the people of Manitoba and that is as bluntly as I can put it. He does not increase his credibility in

Tuesday, June 6, 1989 the health care community or in this House by making tho se kinds of statements . I have not made the health care system or the portfolio of Health a politicized portfolio , and I have been very deliberate about that. On the very major initiative s, I have tried to bring in expertise right across the entire political spectrum , because no one political Party, no one individual, no one professional group has all of the answers on health care and the challenges facing the system , not only in this province but across Canada . *

(1600) You do not resolve the issues in the health care system by politicizing and that is not being done under my stewardship as Minister of Health and that is why, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have achieved results . When I was in Opposition I made the proposal to the then Minister of Health on mental health reform and I made that proposal because I genuinely and honestly believed it could be done. Mr. Deputy Speaker, within our first year in office and my first year as Minister of Health , we commenced those mental health reforms and changes .

We announced less than a month ago in Dauphin the establishment of the first Regional Mental Health Council to bring in citizen input into the reform of the mental health system, something that has been talked about, discussed, advocated by a number of people but done by this Government; not because , Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believed it was the correct political thing to do, it was the correct policy thing to do and that is why I pointed it out when I was Opposition Critic because I believed we could do it when we were Government and we have started that process . Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I heard last Session from the Member for Selkirk (Mrs. Charles) numerous questions about ambulance funding and she even , from time to time, read back to me a very good question that I posed in the House. It was a substantive question that she quoted from me that made sense to what she was attempting to get at. Well, have we had one question from the Member for Selkirk on ambulance funding? -(Interjection)- Oh, I heard a voice from the couch saying " wait for it.

" I am going to wait for it because I criticized the level of funding that we were providing as a Government to ambulance services in the province as an Opposition Critic, and my colleagues in Government allowed me to announce an enhanced funding program that meets more appropriately the needs of the ambulance service in Manitoba . It was not done, Mr. Deputy Speaker , because it was politically appropriate to do, it was good policy . That is why we did it. The support was needed , and it brings us up now to an average support equivalent to the average of other provinces across Canada .

Last year I recall a number of questions this time of the year about Pharmacare refunds and , Mr. Deputy Speaker , I even recall one from yourself concerned about some of the citizens in your area , and rightfully so, because last year the turn-around time that was there on May 9 when I became the Minister of Health was unacceptably too long. 362 Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have not had any questions from Opposition and I have had very few inquiries as to the status of refunds this year. You know why?

Because at the Manitoba Health Services Commission this year, starting on January 1, they used the vacant positions they had in the system of the Manitoba Health Services Commission to hire term staff to speed the process of refunds so that now in less than three weeks , I believe is the last figure I have, applications for Pharmacare refunds are processed. Did we hear anything from the Opposition Members about that? Did we even hear a slight acknowledgement that that is better management and better program delivery by the people? No.

Not one thing, just the usual complaint without any offering of solutions to the problem . If you are going to criticize the health care system and find fault with it, please have the decency, the courtesy and the honesty to suggest a solution , what the Liberal solution would be. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have had our honourable friends in the Opposition Liberal Party criticize speech therapy, that there are not enough speech therapists in the Province of Manitoba, and I agree . I have never disagreed and we have the same problem in occupational therapy and physiotherapy .

The Liberal solution is, pour more money at it. As my honourable friend , the Leader of the Second Opposition Party says, back up the Brinks truck . That may be part of the solution in the longer run because I want to tell you what steps I have taken as Minister of Health in the first year to help resolve that problem, again without any acknowledgement by my honourable friends in the Liberal Party, because good news to the liberal Opposition is bad news, and they do not want to talk about it. Now, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I made an arrangement with the Health Sciences Centre that cost some $214 ,000, in which they were able to put four more people on staff . Let me just indicate to my honourable friends what that has done, because that announcement was November 1, wherein an extra $214,000 - pardon me, it was not $214,000 , it was $205,000-but it funded four new positions and equipment in the Department of Communications Disorders at the Health Sciences Centre. Mr. Deputy Speaker, when that announcement was made the waiting list for assessment was one-year·long.

Now I am pleased to say, on behalf of those children who are being served, it is now down to two months. Some Honourable Members: Hear, Hear! Mr. Orchard: We just heard not a half-hour ago the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) saying the waiting lists are growing. Why did she not say that this waiting list is down to two months? Is it because she did not know or she does not want to tell the people of Manitoba that some programs are being addressed in a forthright and deliberate manner to resolve the problem , because that is what has happened .

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-13
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf 13.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	fb6f7eceadf16f9e0d5feda5b77bbb85a71f3a34

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