LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday,
April 13, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member (Ms. Wowchuk). It complies with
the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared 1993
the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has totally
discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has stated
that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as:
assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially
disadvantaged, families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural
programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance,
advocacy;
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Martindale). It
complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 1,000 young adults are currently
attempting to get off welfare and upgrade their education through the student
social allowances program; and
WHEREAS
WHEREAS the provincial government has already
changed social assistance rules resulting in increased welfare costs for the
City of
WHEREAS
the provincial government is now proposing to eliminate the student social
allowances program; and
WHEREAS eliminating the student social
allowances program will result in more than a thousand young people being
forced onto city welfare with no means of getting further full‑time
education, resulting in more long‑term costs for city taxpayers.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislative Assembly of
*
(1335)
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Santos). It
complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 1,000 young adults are currently
attempting to get off welfare and upgrade their education through the student
social allowances program; and
WHEREAS
WHEREAS the provincial government has already
changed social assistance rules resulting in increased welfare costs for the
City of
WHEREAS the provincial government is now
proposing to eliminate the student social allowances program; and
WHEREAS eliminating the student social
allowances program will result in more than a thousand young people being
forced onto city welfare with no means of getting further full‑time
education, resulting in more long‑term costs for city taxpayers.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislative Assembly of
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery and also to the translation
booth area, where we have 12 visitors from the Riverton Adult Day Care. They are under the direction of Leslee Gislason. These visitors live in the constituency of
the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
Also this afternoon, from
On
behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this
afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Provincial
Deficit
Government
Figure
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First
Minister (Mr. Filmon).
Comments made by the member for Rossmere (Mr.
Neufeld) last week in his speech I think are of concern to members opposite.
The member for Rossmere, in talking about the budget and the budget deficit of
'92 and '93, spoke about the fact that the $167 million is noted in the budget
of the government, a hundred million of which pertains to prior years, which
tells me that while the hundred million dollars may not be in this year's
deficit, there is another hundred million dollars in debt that was not there in
1992, March 31.
You
might say, and I quote, that the deficit this year was not 562 but was indeed
862.
That is the difference between last year's
debt and this year's debt.
I would
like to ask the Premier: What will the
deficit be when the Provincial Auditor ultimately reports on the government
finances? Will it be 562 that the
Premier announced in the budget? Will it
be 762, or will it be $862 million, as quoted by the member for Rossmere in a
speech last week?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): I am glad that the
Leader of the Opposition finally is interested in something called
"deficit." I know when he was
part of the Treasury Bench of the former government, he did not care one little
bit about deficits. As a matter of fact,
he proudly indicates that maybe the Pawley administration, in their last gasp
of life, maybe went too far.
Mr.
Speaker, with respect to the question, the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld)
and I discussed this issue before the member for Rossmere made his presentation
in debate the other day. As I indicated
to him, as has been the longstanding accounting practice of this province, long
before we came to government, that when the change, as a result of a
methodological change as this was, with respect to the census adjustment‑‑that
it would be treated as an extraordinary liability.
Now, if it is a missed estimate with respect
to income tax, either personal or corporate, by that time the year‑end
numbers reflect that change. But in this
case where you had a significant adjustment as a result of a methodological
change, we rightly took $67 million of that and showed that as an add‑on
to our deficit. Now, I would indicate to
the member that the Provinces of
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I guess the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
will want to answer the question of why the
Was
it going to show in the deficit of 862?
Was it just going to float out there as a liability? He did not answer the question of how the
Auditor will show that and I guess we will see ultimately when the Auditor reports. Suffice it to say, it is the highest deficit
as a percentage of our gross domestic product of any government in the history
of running this province.
Population
Statistics
Impact on
Equalization Payments
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the government has spent a lot
of time blaming all their fiscal woes on equalization but not talking about
their population and their lack of population growth.
I
would like to ask the Premier: In light
of the fact that in the '80s equalization payments, in some part, grew because
the population of
*
(1340)
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the
Leader of the NDP does not put forward a proper depiction of the reality
today. There is only one province in
So
I say to the member, if he is trying to paint the case that somehow
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the question on out‑migration
and net migration. The population of
Provincial
Deficit
Impact on
Economic Performance
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, a final question to the
Premier: Some $700 million of the
deficit for 1992‑93 is outside of the equalization decline of $167
million, close to 696 to be exact is a deficit outside of the equalization
changes. We have been saying for some
time now that the last place economic performance in 1991 would have an impact
on our bottom line.
I
would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon):
What is the impact on the deficit of the economic performance of the
province, when we were in last place in 1991 and we are projected under the
government's own budget to be in seventh place in 1992? What is the result of the lack of economic
activity on the $700 million in deficit, in the '92‑93 fiscal year?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the
member is twisting all of these various areas of measurement and trying to then
say, okay, what direct impact is the result of certain changes. I say to him that as far as last year's
budget, if he wants to talk about the deficit breakdown, we brought in on the
expenditure side in '92‑93 and we are bang on with respect to
expenditures. On the revenue side we
acknowledged, as we said fully within the budgetary document, that $130 million
of that shortfall was as a result of the federal forecast associated with the
economy. Then another $30 million was
the result of debt, the value of the Canadian dollar softening. Then we took a $67‑million charge, as
against the new methodology associated with the Stats Canada review.
Mr.
Speaker, I had a conference call this morning with upwards of 200 investors
around the world who lauded this province and the budget it brought down
because of the fact hard decisions were made, the fact that tax increases were
not used as has been the case in other provinces. They acknowledged that we held down the
provincial sales tax at 7 percent and indeed that we were following the right
course. It was on that basis that they
will continue to lend us money. I would
think particularly the arch borrower of money who sits across the way, that
that would be very important news to him.
*
(1345)
Motor
Coach Industries
Dial
Corporation Competition
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the 200 investors that
the Minister of Finance was speaking to would not have been nearly so impressed
if the Minister of Finance would have told them that the manufacturing base in
the province is disappearing, that last year we lost 4,000 manufacturing jobs
and we are about to lose more.
Mr.
Speaker, on March 12, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism said in a
response to our Leader that the purchase of a bus manufacturing plant in
Can
the minister indicate whether that will have an impact on the 1,200 jobs
approximately that Motor Coach employs in the city of
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, once again the member for
Flin Flon is totally inaccurate in his preamble when he compares
In
terms of his specific question, Mr. Speaker, at the time of previous questions
in this House we had direct contact with Motor Coach and we are assured that
the acquisition that the honourable member is referring to will have no impact
on their operations here in
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Motor Coach is
not the sole determinant of what is going to happen. The parent corporation now owns a bus
manufacturing plant in
Mr.
Speaker, can the minister tell this House what impact that conflict, the clear
conflict that Dial Corporation now has because it has a bus manufacturing plant
in
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at the time of the
previous allegations made by the NDP in terms of the impact on Motor Coach here
in
We
had direct contact with Motor Coach at that time in terms of the investment in
Mr. Storie: The minister has not yet indicated whether in
fact he has contacted any of the principals who will have an impact on any
future MCI operations in
Will the minister now meet with principals of
Dial Corporation to ensure that their long‑range plans do not include
competing directly with MCI's operations in
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, unlike the member for Flin Flon
and his style of government in his day, we are in ongoing and continual contact
with businesses throughout
When we deal with Motor Coach Industries we
deal with their senior officials, and we were given assurances that the issue
that is being addressed here today will have no negative impact on their
operation in
*
(1350)
Budget
Fairness
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, despite the rantings of the NDP,
no one seriously today says that the government does not have financial
problems and does not need to show restraint in spending. But the Premier (Mr. Filmon) defended his
budget last Thursday as a fair budget.
Today the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is
reported as defending that budget as impacting fairly on everyone. He also said that there is no segment of
society that will feel it any more than any other. That is the defence of the budget, that it is
fair and it impacts everyone equally.
The
truth is the expansion of the retail sales tax is a regressive, not a
progressive, form of taxation. It does
not respect ability to pay.
My
question for the Minister of Finance:
How is the harmonization of the PST and the GST, which the minister has
embarked on in this budget, consistent with any definition of progressive, fair
taxation, and will he acknowledge that a consumption tax by definition impacts
poor people more than it does wealthy people?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): If the member believes
his rhetoric at all then he should be standing and lauding the government in
its efforts to keep the sales tax rate at 7 percent. There are Liberal governments elsewhere of
course that have increased the rate as high as 11 percent and 12 percent.
I
can answer the question even more specifically by‑‑when the member
uses the word "harmonization."
We are not taxing services, Mr. Speaker.
To put into place a system where the federal government would collect our
provincial tax at the border we had to accept a broadening of the base‑‑no
different than the
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, it was a Conservative government in
Mr.
Speaker, he has defended again the across‑the‑board increase or
increase in taxes of $75 for every property owner in this province as
fair. My question for the minister: Why again did he not respect the principles
of progressive and fair taxation and raise the same revenue on a scale that
took into consideration those who could afford to pay?
He
defended that by saying, we cannot tell if someone owns a small house; they may
be rich. Well, why did he not respect
ability to pay in the imposing of a $75 increase in taxation on every
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, seeing the member is such a
staunch supporter of the ability to pay, then I am sure he will support our
measures on the expenditure side, particularly in the Department of Health, in
the personal care homes, where we have introduced that method to a greater
extent. I imagine he and his party will
be staunch supporters of that particular approach on the expenditure side.
The
member talks about the credit side and why is it we could not take into account
and relate incomes to the supposed value of a home by way of assessment. I ask him, if he would talk to some of his
friends who are accountants and maybe do some of the tax filing, he would find
out that there is a tremendous strong linkage as between the property tax
credit, the cost‑of‑living tax credit and all of the other credits
provided by the
One
of the great difficulties that we had when we considered this whole area was
that we would not impact in reducing at all the property tax credit, that we
would minimize the impact on the working poor, whom we sense have to be
protected the most through any taxation changes. I am proud to say that for the most part, we
were able to do that.
Mr. Edwards: The fact is, you live in Tuxedo or the west end,
you have got the same $75, Mr. Speaker.
That is the bottom line.
Mr.
Speaker, finally, for the minister‑‑he raises health care. How is it fair to require patients who need
home care services to pay for home care equipment under $50, like crutches,
like colostomy bags? How is it fair to
charge those people that money when you have absolutely no criteria which
respects ability to pay? Will the
minister admit that he is seeking to solve his financial woes on the backs of
the poor and the elderly and the sick?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate what I said last
week. Each and every one of us has an
indebtedness of $11,500, and as much as the member would try and characterize
this as the government's debt, this is the people's debt. Therefore, every one of us in society has to
make some contribution towards that debt.
The
member can try and pretend that we have a tax system that is not
progressive. We have one of the most
progressive tax systems in the land. We
have the most progressive tax credit system in the land, and I am saying to him
that there was no way of dismantling that short of reworking it and rewriting. On that basis, when we take into account that
everybody has to make some contribution to the indebtedness that we each have
in this province, there was no alternative, and I am there to say that the
budget is a fair document.
*
(1355)
Course
Cancellations
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, this government claims that it
does not want to pass on a debt to our children, but this budget ensures that
the young people of
I
want to ask the Minister of Education:
Could she tell us how fewer courses, students with no places, unemployed
teachers, how does this fit with the continued and apparently hollow rhetoric
that we hear from both the federal and provincial Tories?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, our
colleges have had to look at the kind of programming that they will offer,
because a great deal of the programming that they offered was also underwritten
by the federal government. The federal
government has decided that it will be changing the way that it funds training
programs at our colleges, and they will be funding more programs as fee
payers. As a result of that, the
colleges had to re‑examine what they could offer, but in addition, they
also looked at enrollment in the colleges.
They also looked at how highly people were hired following their
training at the colleges. So a number of
issues were taken into account by our community colleges.
Youth
Employment
Programs
Reductions
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, will the minister explain why in
her department she continues herself to cut youth employment programs, when
this month youth unemployment has jumped from 12.9 percent to 15 percent, and
we are not even yet seeing the impact of the lack of summer jobs for students?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): The
labour market statistics, I believe, indicated that
Budget
Impact on
Youth
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Will the minister tell us the impact of the
new housing tax, the additional gasoline tax, the extra tax on school supplies,
the tax on journals, the increases in fees at colleges and universities, and
the cuts to summer youth employment?
What is the collective impact of this on the young people of
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): We have
not even begun to speak about summer employment for youth. I have just let the
member know, and she can see in the budget, that we are certainly committed to
youth employment at, particularly, summer jobs.
We are also continuing to be committed to our training programs and to
accessibility to our universities, so I think the member better look again at
the commitment that this government has.
St.
Boniface Hospital
Layoffs
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, today we are advised that
another 141 people will be laid off at St. Boniface Hospital. In his November press release about health
reform, the minister stated that 380 positions would be lost between Health
Sciences Centre, St. Boniface, and less than a hundred people would actually
lose their jobs as a result of reform.
Are
these additional 141 layoffs announced today part of that total or are they in
addition to the layoffs already announced? Where are the community jobs to
replace those laid‑off jobs?
*
(1400)
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the
layoffs that were shared with the provincial government and with the respective
unions this morning by St. Boniface Hospital are part of their ongoing downsizing
and restructuring within that facility.
It is anticipated, and I think it might be appropriate to read for my
honourable friend the communication that St. Boniface made in conjunction with
advising my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) about the layoffs.
I
will quote from their letter: "The
hospital has an established local Workforce Adjustment Committee. Mr. Asselin of Industrial Adjustment
Services; Mr. L. Schoomski, Department of Labour, and all unions are part of
the committee. Employer representatives
on the committee include C. Savard, S. Shofer, S. Macdonald and D.
McMorris."
Mr.
Speaker, clearly no one takes any particular joy in having a number of layoff
notices go out, but St. Boniface is continuing internally to try and minimize
the actual number of people affected by those layoff notices, as well as
participating, Sir, with the provincial redeployment committee.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the
question.
I
will try another question. Can the
minister advise if the positions, the cuts at St. Boniface Hospital are as a
result of the nearly $30‑million cut in funding to hospitals, personal
care homes, et cetera, by this provincial government in its regressive budget?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, without naturally accepting any of
my honourable friend's rhetorical flourish around the question, I would
indicate to my honourable friend that certainly St.
I
note my honourable friend seldom mentions that there were a significant number
of new jobs and employment opportunities at
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to talk about it
because the minister mentions it. That
is the only thing he can positively mention in this House and has been doing so
for the past four years.
Mr.
Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister: How can the minister justify forcing St.
Boniface Hospital to pick up the expenses, hundreds of thousands of dollars in
expenses, of American consultants to fly to
Mr. Orchard: I appreciate my honourable friend's, again,
rhetorical flourish. My honourable
friend has yet to say that he disagrees with the process of restructuring at
St. Boniface and Health Sciences Centre, that the boards and the senior
management of those hospitals urged us to engage APM so they could
undertake. My honourable friend's
seeming concern is that it is an American firm, and maybe my honourable friend
would like to explain why the government that his front bench was all part of
so embraced American consultants that they hired Drs. R.L. Kain and R.A. Kain
of the
Education
System
Federal
Strategy Paper
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education. In today's Globe and Mail there was an article
with respect to an increased role to be played by the federal government in the
area of education. I find that somewhat
ironic in that in a referendum debate just last fall the federal government was
willing to turn over responsibilities for all manpower training and education
to the provinces. It now appears that
they have put their other foot down and now they would like to in fact play a
role.
The
paper has apparently been distributed to the Council of Education Ministers for
the provinces and the territories. Can
the Minister of Education tell this House if she has indeed a copy of this
strategy paper, and will she share that strategy paper with the members of this
House?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, the member has spoken about what she has read in a Globe and Mail
article, and that article did not give the complete tone of the paper. The paper did in fact stress the issue of
federal‑provincial relations and the co‑operation and the national
perspective which Ministers of Education are extremely interested in. I do not have a copy at the moment, but when
we receive a copy I will look at giving the member some information.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, if in fact the article does not
reflect the complete tone of the paper, then presumably the Minister of
Education has read the paper. If she has
read the paper, presumably she has the paper.
If she has the paper, why will she not distribute it today?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, at the last meeting of the
Ministers of Education some of the information that was related to the paper
was discussed by the ministers. I do not
have the paper at this moment.
However, as I have said to the member, one of
the issues of discussion was an issue of national perspectives. I am aware that is of interest to that
member. I can tell her, too, that within
education, Education ministers and those of us who are also responsible for
labour market development as well are particularly interested in some of the
issues of national perspectives.
As
many in this House know, we are also participating‑‑Manitoba is one
of the participating provinces‑‑in an exam, the Student Achievement
Indicators Project, and we will be looking at some of the national achievements
of students across
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that the Council of
Ministers, of which this Minister of Education is indeed a member, sent a
response to the federal government on this strategy paper. If they sent a response, presumably they have
the paper, but they must also have a copy of the response.
Will the Minister of Education transmit to the
members of this House the response of the Ministers of Education to the federal
strategy paper on education?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, a number of the issues that were
covered in response were in response to the federal prosperity paper which the
federal government has spoken about.
Within that, we did want to look at the participation and the co‑operation
between provinces and the federal government on issues such as labour market
development, the Stay‑in‑School Initiative, the Official Languages
program and literacy programming.
In
addition, other issues, this province has already taken a leading role in terms
of looking at education legislative reform in our Task Force on Distance
Education.
Education
System
Federal
Strategy Paper
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, as has just been discussed, the
federal Conservative government is now indicating that it wants to assume a
greater role in education, stick its nose into another area of the Canadian
economy after making a mess out of almost every other area that it has
jurisdiction‑‑and education at the post‑secondary level at
this time.
We
think it is probably to implement their very frightening agenda that they have
outlined in An Action Plan for
In
light of the federal government's cutbacks in education for post‑secondary
education and transfer payments, and its dubious record, Mr. Speaker, I want to
ask the Minister of Education to tell us what specifically is her government's
position with regard to the federal government's announcement?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker,
as I said in earlier answers, we are interested in looking at working co‑operatively
and also consultatively, but we would like to work through the Council of
Ministers of Education because we are interested in the national perspective.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how this minister,
first of all, can put any confidence in a national government that has made
such a mess out of education up to this point in time.
I
want to just follow up on the earlier question and ask this minister if she
will now table a copy of the response‑‑[interjection] It was asked
of her, and she did not answer the question.
The Premier (Mr. Filmon) is chirping from his seat.
We
simply want a copy of the response that was given to the federal government by
the Council of Ministers. Will that
minister now table that response?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, the member speaks about a national
perspective. The national perspective is
one which is developed in consultation with the Council of Ministers of
Education, representing provincial interests across this province in co‑operation
and consultation with the federal government and each of our own
provinces. He, I believe, is alluding to
a federal perspective, and that is different.
Mr. Plohman: We have all been at these ministerial
conferences, and we all give provincial positions. What is wrong with this minister?
I
want to ask the minister what assurances she can give the education community
in
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, the member speaks about having
been at conferences representing the provincial government where there has been
a federal minister. There is not a
federal Minister of Education. Ministers
across
*
(1410)
Canadian
Wheat Board
Barley
Marketing
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Once again, farmers in western
I
want to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he has seen the report and whether
or not he supports the dual system of barley sales or whether he supports the
Wheat Board's control of barley sales.
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister
of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, no, I have not seen the report
because it has not been published. I can
tell the member that 19 people have been appointed to the commission of study,
seven of whom happen to live in the
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, will the minister admit that
changing to a dual system will reduce the board's power and it will reduce the
overall value of Canadian barley, and
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting. That member has already formed an opinion,
and she has not seen the results of a group of experts from across western
I
will tell the member what I will be looking for. I will be looking for maximizing the
opportunity of
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the minister
has not seen the report. It is the worst‑kept
secret that there is.
Will the minister admit that if we go to the
dual sales, it is going to be remote farmers in northern
Mr.
Findlay: Mr. Speaker, I am really
disappointed. That member is
fearmongering, interested only in a few people.
She is not interested in the broad spectrum of opportunity for people
producing barley in this province. One
of the greatest markets we had for feed grains in, particularly,
The
mission of the commission was to see if we had maximized our opportunities
selling in the North American market, and I will await the results of that
group of experts who have analyzed the whole question for an average of all
farmers in western
Residential
Tenancies
Branch
Staffing
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, due to funding cuts by the
provincial and federal governments in housing, the number of units of new
construction of public housing has declined from a thousand units in 1990 to
200 units in 1993, and now the Department of Housing is considering reductions
in staff because they claim that the workload is not there.
Meanwhile, numerous families in the inner city
have a very high migrancy rate which has a detrimental effect on children in
inner‑city schools.
I
would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, would she
talk to her colleague the Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst) and instead of laying
off staff, would they give serious consideration to transferring staff to the
Residential Tenancies Branch so that tenants who request work orders can see
that those work orders are speedily processed and the work orders enforced so
that families are not forced to move in order to find better accommodation in
the private rental market?
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the new Residential Tenancies
Act, as you know, was brought into place last year. Always as that act is being put into the
marketplace and we are living with it, we are refining and enhancing it at all
times. We have had tremendous co‑operation
from landlords and tenants and excellent feedback.
As
far as the Minister of Housing is concerned, I think he is handling his
department in a very good way. We are
always in communication with each other on areas of interest to Manitobans and
will continue to be.
Public
Housing
Inspection
Program
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Would the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
give
consideration
to allocating staff to a housing inspection program, whether it is in the
Department of Housing or in the Residential Tenancies Branch, since, with the
demise of the Core Area Initiative and the termination of the Core Area Residential
Upgrading and Maintenance Program, there is no housing inspection program.
The
current system is entirely complaint driven.
Would this minister consider allocating staff to a housing inspection
program?
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the
Residential Tenancies Branch work in close co‑operation with the
Department of Housing, indeed with many other departments in the government as
well. Ministers are in close co‑operation
and communication with each other on the needs of their various departments and
will continue to be in that kind of co‑operation.
Residential
Tenancies Act
Enforcement
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Would the minister who is responsible for The
Residential Tenancies Act see that this act is enforced since tenants
frequently complain to us from our constituencies including in Burrows that it
takes an inordinate amount of time to have repair order requests processed and
the repair orders enforced?
Will the minister talk to her colleague, the
Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst) and see if the staff cannot be redeployed in an
inspection program or at least to enforce the legislation that is there, not
just in the private rental market but also in
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):
Mr. Speaker, if any tenants, whether they be tenants of public housing
or of private housing, have any concerns at all about repairs and work orders that
need to be done in their buildings, they can certainly contact the Residential
Tenancies Branch, receive advice and information, indeed receive action if it
is required.
As
I repeat from my earlier answers, ministers of the government are in close co‑operation
and communication with each other on their various responsibilities and do work
together, when it is required, when departments cross over in certain arenas,
and they will continue to work co‑operatively with each other in that
venue.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENTS
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, may I have
leave for a nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for The Maples have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, the Sikh community today throughout
It
was that day the common surname "Singh" and the five "K"
symbols of the religion were given by the 10th guru.
Mr.
Speaker, the foundation of the order of Khalsa, its growth, prosperity and
contribution to human civilization, bear witness to the strength and vitality
of Sikh faith. The ideals and values set
by Guru Gobind Singh and embodied in the Khalsa‑‑courage, sacrifice
and compassion‑‑remain as valid today in
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to extend best wishes on behalf of myself and my
colleagues in this House to the entire Sikh community in our province on this
very important social and spiritual occasion.
Let
us pray for harmony, peace and prosperity for all people of the world. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Niakwa have leave
to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have this
opportunity to recognize April 13 as an auspicious day for Sikhs here in
It
has been on this day, 294 years ago, 10th Master Guru Gobind Singh created
Khalsa, the order of the pure beings, now being known to the world as a Sikh
community. After asking for five
disciples, who would sacrifice everything including their lives in the cause of
righteousness, the guru laid down the basic tenets, practice and customs of the
Sikhs.
For
nearly 300 years, the baptized Sikh men and women have lived by the guiding
principles of sacrifice, responsibility, accountability, truth, beauty,
goodness and acting for the good of others.
For Sikhs here and around the world, the Vaisakh festival is a time to
gather and rejoice in their heritage.
I
am asking the members of this House to join me in extending our best wishes to
*
(1420)
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
As
has been noted, today is Festival of Vaisakh.
It is one of the most important days, both in a cultural and a spiritual
way, for members of our Sikh community.
It is a day which requires on the part of all of us to again look at the
principles that are so much behind this festival and so much a part of the Sikh
faith‑‑principles about reaching out to others, about sacrificing
for others, about holding our actions accountable for the good of all society
and about holding on a very high plane the principles of beauty, truth and
goodness.
We
all know in today's society, where there is considerable conflict, trouble and
difficulty on all fronts, that it is more important than ever to hold those
principles high as guiding lights in our society today.
We
appreciate the deliberations and the determination of the Sikh community in
keeping those principles before us and in drawing all of our attention to this
very important day in the spiritual life of the Sikh community. So on behalf of all of us, I would like to
join in commemorating this day and in sending our best wishes to all members of
the Sikh community in
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
BUDGET
DEBATE
(Fourth
Day of Debate)
Mr. Speaker: On the adjourned debate, the fourth day of
debate, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) and the proposed motion of the honourable Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Doer) and the proposed motion of the honourable Leader of the Second
Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs) in further amendment.
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand in
the House today to speak on the budget, which was presented the other day by
the honourable Minister of Finance in this House.
I
would like to start off, Mr. Speaker, by quoting out of Hansard on previous
debates that were held in this Chamber.
I would like to quote what was once spoken by one of the members here.
It
says: Governments over the years,
whether they are Conservative or New Democrat, have been faced to deal with a
situation that has developed in the '70s and '80s of diminishing revenues in a
relative sense and very, very hard challenges.
The days of just being able to spend your way out of the problems had to
change over the '80s. Ministers of
Finance and indeed governments of all political stripes had to begin to manage
their way out of these problems, often with some very unpopular decisions,
whether they are taxation or cuts or combinations of both, but often Ministers
of Finance have been asked, with very, very tough times in terms of the decisions
that they have to make and present to the Legislature and to Legislatures
across this country.
Mr.
Speaker, those are words that are echoed throughout all of
I
would say, Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of sitting in the House here the other
day and listening to the member for Concordia talk on the budget speech, and I
had the opportunity, as much as the long weekend‑‑and it was a long
weekend‑‑to go home and talk to‑‑I mean to spend time
at home and sort of enjoy the long weekend.
I took home Hansard with me, because I thought it was important that I
do read over what the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) had to say about the
budget, because I figure and I feel that as Leader of the Opposition it is
important that I listen to him. It is
important that I listen to what he may have to say, and something that may come
forth of some sort of pearls of wisdom so that indeed these things can be
looked at in a more comprehensive and more objective way.
I
must say, Mr. Speaker, in reading over the Hansard of the Leader of the
Opposition it brought back a lot of memories.
One of the memories I believe that I have to refer back to was when the
member for Concordia was also involved with the MGEA as president of that association. I look back at when the budget was brought
back in 1983. As I mentioned, he was
president of the MGEA. At that time the
Finance minister was a Mr. Vic Schroeder.
In
the comments that came out of the budget speech at that time, the then Minister
of Finance Vic Schroeder said, and I quote again: I do not believe that just because an
individual happens to work for the government he should be guaranteed a
particular job for life.
We have
members of the NDP on this side now criticizing any and every cut and every
move we make towards a‑‑
An Honourable
Member: Yes, we are all around
you, on both sides.
Mr.
Reimer: I am being surrounded here, Mr.
Speaker.
Talking about the cuts and the injustices of
this government in looking at a way to become more fiscally responsible for the
malaise, if you want to call it, that we find ourselves regarding the funding
and the lack of funding and the ability to try to do things better with less, in
a sense.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
That is part of the philosophy and some of the
mind‑set, if you want to call it, that is throughout not only here in
In
the '70s, we looked at incomes that were rising in fact in double‑digit
numbers. Inflation and revenue growth
was upwards of 10, 12, 14 and I believe even up into the 16 or 17 percent
during the '70s. In the '80s, we looked
at growth, Madam Deputy Speaker, of 7 and 8 percent during the '80s. Now in the '90s, we hear reports and we see
that the growth of revenues here not only in
So
we are looking at a very diminishing amount of monies that are coming in and
yet the services and the locked programs that we have been saddled with, not in
a sense saddled with, but we have inherited, are programs and areas that we
have to look at very critically now. We
have to look at them in a sense in relation to what is before us.
When I say that when the budget was brought
down by the former NDP government and the then Minister of Finance Vic
Schroeder was saying that no individual who happens to work for the government
should be guaranteed a particular job for life. That was a philosophy that they
incorporated in trying to look at the way of being more fiscally
responsible. The president of MGEA at
that time, and which I mentioned, is now the Leader of the Opposition, the
member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), and he goes on to say that in his analysis of
that budget at that time, and I quote again:
It is Darwinian. There are no set
criteria. No one has taken political
responsibility.
Again, the member for Concordia at that time
was overly critical of his cohorts the NDP and the ministers at that time in
all their budget perusals and what they brought down for. He goes on to say there was mass confusion in
the NDP at that time because of what they were doing. The member for Concordia also goes on to say
that the method lacks sincerity and common sense. He goes on to say and I quote
again, there is a real sense of unfairness now.
It is white wine socialism.
That
phrase "white wine socialism" just stuck out in a sense in my mind
because I remember him saying that, and I remember the philosophy and how that
sort of stuck on the NDP at that time.
I
have to say now in reading the Hansard over the weekend and taking it home and
reading the member for Concordia's reply to the budget speech, instead of
calling it white wine socialism, I must relabel it to vintage wine
socialism. I will have to point out to
Hansard that when I am talking about wine from now on, it is w‑h‑i‑n‑e,
because that is exactly what we see across the House here now. We see the vintage whining that is coming
forth from across the House made with sour grapes and they use that as the only
effort of trying to do anything that is constructive is to whine. They whine about the cuts. They whine about this. They whine about that.
*
(1430)
There is not one thing in this speech in
Hansard of the member for Concordia, the Leader of the NDP party, that is
constructive, contributory or has a method of trying to come to an answer. It goes on page after page of just whining
and whining. It made for some very‑‑well,
boring reading if you want to call it, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it sort of
spoiled my weekend in a sense. The
weekend, as we know, we were celebrating a rebirth, if you want to call it if
we look at it in a religious connotation because of Easter, and it is a time of
reawakening, a time of spring.
We
usually associate spring with this type of year and the new growth that is
coming forth. We start to think that
this is what the opposition is going to come forth with is some sort of new
growth, some new ideas, some new energies, some new expressions of optimism
that
Instead, what we heard was the whining again
and the doom and gloom. You know, we
have the sour grapes over there from making "whine," and all the
wannabe's over there are stomping on them trying to make it sound like
Madam Deputy Speaker, we in
We
have a population that is‑‑[interjection] Madam Deputy Speaker, I
find that there is a distraction in this House here that keeps taking me away
from my speech. I find that in looking
at the distractions it is like the distractions of the NDP across the House. They keep trying to derail the positive things
that this government is trying to bring forth.
In
talking, as I mentioned, with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) he also
went on to say back in 1988, actually when he was in the House here and he was
talking about the budget speech at that time, I would like to quote another
item from the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Concordia where he says,
you have to make a tough decision. If
you are not going to make the tough decisions today you will not have the money
to deliver the services tomorrow.
That is a statement that could be made by the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) of our government, and it could be made by
Ministers of Finance right across
They seem to feel that because programs are
there or programs that started off as a temporary gap have grown and they have
become an establishment, they become a crutch, they become a focus of
entitlement. At the same time we stifle
the initiative to grow, we stifle the initiative to expand because we put forth
the reliance and the total reliance on, sometimes, governments to provide for
everything.
We
have to take a look at a new paradigm, if you want to call it, a new‑think. Because when we look back in history we look
back on the early '30s when we had the paradigm, if you want to call it, which
started with Roosevelt in the
There was a need, and there was a need for
social programs and there was a need to protect and put forth the social safety
net, if you want to call it, for the peoples of need because as a caring
nation, as a caring peoples, I think that nobody wants to see people
suffer. No one wants to see the disabled
or the unfortunate being taken advantage of or being put into a situation where
there is no reliance. And this is where
government stepped in and has stepped in and does help.
At
the same time there has to be a critical analysis and there has to be a
critical awareness that you cannot do everything for everybody all the time
because it is just not there. The money
is not there. The pocketbook is getting
dry.
Madam Deputy Speaker, when we look at our
wallets nowadays, there are only two things in it. There are the credit cards, and then there is
cash. Well, here in the government, we
have the credit cards, and we have very, very little cash. The credit cards right now are right at the
limit, and what we are doing is we are paying more interest on our credit cards
than what our credit cards are able to buy.
We have to look more at trying to get more cash into the‑‑these
are the areas or some of the areas that we have to look at very critically in
assessing the amount of monies that come into and are used by the governments
and come from only one place, and that is the taxpayer.
There is only one pocket, there is only one
taxpayer, and the monies that we keep taking from these people, we cannot afford
to just keep going back to the well, if you want. People are saying they have had enough. They want to be able to enjoy some of their
monies, but if governments are continually taxing and taking all the money,
then they do not have the initiative to work or the emphasis to produce or to
make things better for not only themselves but their children. It seems that when we look at the debt, what
we are talking about, Madam Deputy Speaker, is a legacy that my children and my
grandchildren will be paying, and it is a legacy that no one should be proud
of.
We
have to turn that corner. I think this
budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is a turning
point. It was a hard turning point, and I
have to say that members of Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance, I am
sure, went through an awful lot of very hard and very trying decision making in
trying to come to this budget. Members
of Treasury Board analyzed and looked at the various departments in a very
comprehensive and a very critical way and, at the same time, in a very humane
way of trying to still save or hold on to programs that they felt were of
worthiness to Manitobans in trying to help them.
You
have to help a bit along the way. You
cannot just cut and slash, if you want to call it that, but you have to have
the conscience to provide. I believe
that is what this government has done.
There will always be the criticism that we cut too much. On the other hand, there is also the
criticism that we did not cut enough. So
the balance that the Minister of Finance has put forth is a very fair balance,
I believe. I think it shows an awareness
of how and what we can do, and we have to look at how we can try to get through
this malaise, if you want to call it.
I
would like to go on, Madam Deputy Speaker, and talk a bit‑‑I was
quite flattered in a sense that the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) had taken
time to read some correspondence that I had sent out to my constituency in
Niakwa. It actually was quite flattering
that the member for Flin Flon would get my mail. I do not believe that he lives in my
constituency, because my constituency is Niakwa, but I am a bit flattered, like
I say, in a sense that he took time to read my correspondence to my
constituents, because I wanted to talk to my constituents in a way and send
them some information regarding the situation of the government and the
province, the way it finds itself financially.
He had the wherewithal to bring these things into the House and mention
them in his speech on the budget.
I
was quite flattered that he recognized and made a point of saying that the
problem that we have in
When we spend 42 cents of every personal
income tax dollar in 1993 on interest payments, you have to say there is
something wrong. You have to say that we
have ourselves too far into debt. The
debt that we inherited from the NDP is where we are looking at in trying to
correct all these promises. We can go on
and say, well, we should have an alternative.
*
(1440)
I
look again at the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer). I thought back to his speech, reply from the
budget. As I mentioned, I could not find
too much in there, so I thought, well, I have to look maybe a little further
into the member for Concordia's various other speeches.
I
had to go back to when he spoke to the NDP convention that was here last year,
because I believe at that convention, when you have members and delegates from
all across
I
went back to when the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Concordia (Mr.
Doer), gave his speech to the delegates at the Convention Centre where they had
their members in from all over
I
went back into his speech that he said at the Convention Centre at the NDP
convention. He started talking about
education. He was talking about the
education and the three Rs. He said what they were going to do, though, instead
of replacing the three Rs, they are going to replace them by the three Ps. I will quote:
private and privileged. Then he
goes on to say that this is not the education we believe in and this is not the
priority on education New Democrats will be putting in place.
He
goes on to say there: We will stop the
privileged financing of the Tory government regarding the private schools. That
is a fantastic statement to make, Madam Deputy Speaker. We believe in the public school system, and
we will recommit our government to a public school system. We will stop the privileged financing of the
Tory government in regard to private schools.
That is a phenomenal statement.
We are talking about closing 74 schools that the member for Concordia is
talking about.
I
am asking him whether he wants to close‑‑the member for Concordia
is talking about closing the school in his constituency. He is talking about the
He
talks about the school in Radisson, Emmanuel Christian School‑‑close
it.
The
member for Wolseley, now here is‑‑close the
In
the inner core, the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), close Holy Ghost
School, close St. Mary's
This is what the Leader of the Opposition is
saying. He is saying that we will stop
the privileged funding of the Tory government.
This is in the speech to the delegates at the NDP convention. Talk to the Leader. I would suggest that the members in the back
benches of the NDP actually start talking to their Leader. He is advocating closing 74 schools. What is going to happen to those
students? Where are they going? Where are those school students going to go? Incredible.
He
talks about the members of the government, the backbenchers talking to our
ministers, but I would challenge the members opposite, the backbenchers, if you
want to call them, with the NDP party to talk to their Leader. Their Leader is saying these things that they
will cut this funding out to these private schools, 74 schools. That represents thousands, tens of thousands
of students. Throw them out of the
schools just because they will not fund them.
He
goes on to say in the same speech to the delegates, in the same speech to all
the NDP delegates: and we will stop the
tax breaks to corporations for training grants‑‑I cannot believe
that he said that, but I will repeat it‑‑and we will stop the tax
breaks to corporations for training grants.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I find that statement absolutely incredible.
In
this government, this Conservative government in introducing Workforce 2000, up
to February 28 of 1993 since its inception from May 1, 1991‑‑these
are the figures from 1991 to February 28, 1993, the program has trained 43,816
employees. This was done by private business, private entrepreneurs. Private
business has trained 43,816 employees.
The member for Concordia, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of
the NDP, has said: and we will stop the
tax breaks to corporations for training grants.
I find that an affront to the people and the working people of all of
The
private individuals, the private entrepreneurs here in
Over the weekend also, there were quite a few
articles in the paper, as was brought up earlier in the House here‑‑in
fact, it was brought up during Question period‑‑regarding the jobs
and the availability of employment here in
I
am not sure which paper he was reading, but I saw that in the paper. I read it.
It was in the paper, and it also at the same time stated that 12,000 new
jobs were created during the past year here in
It
also goes on to say that the number of full‑time jobs increased 4.3
percent in
*
(1450)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would think that
But
I would also like to point out that over a year ago there has been an increase
of 16,000 full‑time jobs during the same period here in
People like to hear the good news
sometimes. They just do not like to hear
the Chicken Little syndrome that comes from across the row there with the
rooster crowing in the morning in the sun all the time regarding the poor and
the destitute that he was predominating in his speaking all the time.
We
have got to look also, like we said, at the terrible debt that we are faced
with here in
It
was interesting that foreigners, people other than Canadians, owned $230
billion of
Figures like that are astounding because it
shows that we have a debt load that we have to come out from underneath because
it is actually stifling growth. It is
stifling a lot of the programs and the entitlements that we feel that are dear
to us, which are our health care, our education and to a certain degree some of
our social programs which all governments feel are necessary to provide for and
to be there for in times of need.
At
the same time there is the realization that we are talking about a tremendous
amount of debt when we talk about nationally $247 billion of just foreign
debt. If we brought in all the debt that
is brought through that Canadians have with their own system and in their own
banking system, then we have got to look at a lot of money that is available.
I
would like to comment a bit on what the member for Concordia, the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Doer), when he was talking about what we should be doing is we
should be taxing the rich.
We
hear that comment made all the time that there are people who are getting off
not paying any taxes or corporations are not paying any tax, but I would like
to point out that we have got to take a definition of what a corporation is,
because we feel that corporations for some reason have this mystique about them
as to what corporations really are.
Actually, corporations are made up of individuals that work for
companies, that provide for the services of the company, and, at the same time,
the corporations are made up of shareholders.
Shareholders are people that have invested in that company.
There are a lot of Canadians who are not even
aware of the fact that they are a part of corporations, the people that a lot
of times feel that, just because they do not work for a corporation, they do
not have any affiliation with corporations. But in today's market, and in
today's perspective, when we talk about pension funds or we talk about mutuals,
we are talking about monies that are shifted into RRSPs and, through union dues
and through contributions, into large pools of money that are handled, or directed,
if you want to call it, by mutual fund directors or mutual funding
directors. They invest that money. They
are going to invest that money in companies that show a profit, because profit
is what shareholders want on their investment.
Profit is what mutual‑fund owners want on their investment. So when you have large funding available
through teachers' pension funds or through municipal employees' funds, this
money is put forth or invested by individuals into other corporations.
I
would just like to point out the amount of money, and the huge amount of
monies, that are available that come out through contributions that go into the
various business endeavours. For
example, the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Board, which is made up of
the employees working for
For
example, in
What in effect you have, Madam Deputy Speaker,
is you get something that is two ways.
You have a union putting money, or union members putting monies with
union dues into the union war chest or the union fund, if you want to call
it. The funding manager of that
particular union then takes that funding or that money and invests it back into
the free‑market society, if you want to call it, because they want a
return on their funds.
Now, how can you have it both ways? How can you be fighting the unions or
fighting this large capital corporation because of the fact that the large
union bosses are the ones who are pulling the strings on our friends across the
House here and telling them how and what to do?
At the same time, the money that they are collecting goes into a fund
that they invest in businesses that they want to get a return on. If they do not get a return on that
investment, if they do not get their proper percentage of return, they then
say, well, we are going to take our money out of that company and we are going
to put it somewhere else.
I
mean, it is a very delicate balance. How
do union members foresee or how do they get along with their union bosses in
the dictates or the philosophies that they are trying to come forth with? I am sure the monies that are collected now
with all the union checkoffs going into these pools to pay for their large
union bosses, I do not know where it all goes.
We are not fighting strikes anymore so that there is that buildup, a war
chest for that type of endeavour for the union to use the fund.
A
good example of where possibly some of the funding is going is when we look
around the city of
They talk about the fact that they would like
to see monies going into different areas and the utilization of it, but we do
not have that type of money to use but, at the same time, we see all this
blatant use of funding that goes into advertisement that we hear on the radio
and the fact that the union bosses are using all this money.
We
were exposed to a demonstration out here on the front steps the other day, and
who was part of that demonstration? University professors. University professors who are making $60,000,
$80,000, $90,000 a year, and they are standing out in front of the Legislature
here complaining that they want more money.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is absolutely incredible, that these are the
type of people who would be coming up and standing in front of our Legislature
along with the union bosses who are making $60,000, $80,000 and $90,000
demanding more money‑‑demanding more money.
*
(1500)
This is incredible, and they stand out there
and you have people who were standing in front of our Legislature with an
income of $60,000, $80,000, $90,000, $100,000 and they are placarding, we need
more money. The head of one of the
departments at the
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is incredible how
some of these people feel that the government just has a big well underneath
this building here some place and the money just keeps flowing out. There is only one pocket. It is a pocket that is running out of
money. It has a pocket that our credit
cards are at the end of our limit and we are paying on the interest.
We
have to get the house in order. We have
to turn our corner.
I
think and I believe that there is an understanding that our house has to become
in order. Our Finance minister has put
us on the first leg of it. It is going
to be tough. There were tough decisions,
but I believe that the direction that we are taking and the emphasis that our
minister has put forth are going to make a difference and we are going to make
it through this time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to conclude
by saying that
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to
take a few minutes this afternoon to address the Budget Debate. I thank you for giving us the time.
I
listened with some interest to the address by the member who just spoke, the
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), and while I did not hear all of his comments, I
did pick up and make notes on some of them.
I did want to certainly address a few of his comments directly.
Nevertheless, the member for Niakwa sent out a
letter to his constituents and he is obviously pleased that I have a copy
here. I notice though that the member
for Niakwa neglected to put his picture on the leaflet, and no doubt he is
worried that perhaps it might be a very popular dartboard given what his
constituents have seen via the budget.
The
member also, I note, in this 8‑1/2 by 11 double‑sided sheet had the
printing done in rather small print. I
do not know of very many people who would be interested in reading something of
such small print.
So,
Madam Deputy Speaker, he does make reference in this leaflet that he sent out
to
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to talk about how
the Conservatives have dealt with public relations over a number of years. I recall in this House a number of years ago,
as a matter of fact, the Duff Roblin government employed a system to determine
the popularity of certain government programs and tested them against the
popularity of the government in certain swing constituencies.
I
rushed down to my office while the member previously was making a speech in an
attempt to find him a copy of that old document called, I believe it was,
project working papers. The Conservative
government in the old days prior to 1969 had a very deliberate, organized,
orchestrated method of determining government programs and their effect,
negative or positive, on their target seats.
Perhaps by the time I next rise to make a speech in this House I will
have located the documents for the members opposite and they will see. Perhaps when they leave office in the next
two years, we will find similar documents to the project working papers of
1969. I think that this government has
done nothing more than just dusted off the old project working papers and, in
fact, is following those old guidelines to the letter.
I
believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this government focus tests all its
initiatives. I believe it polls constantly;
I believe that this is, in fact, a government by polls. With that in mind, it seems to me that this
particular government is a government more of popularity polls and focus groups
than it is in terms of‑‑it is more interested in the Bill Davis
type of Toryism, the staying in power at all costs than any previous
Conservative government I have seen in this province.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that may work for a
while. It has been a proven way for the
Conservatives to operate in other jurisdictions. It has worked well for them over the years
but, in the end, people wisen up to it and in the end it will not work for
them.
Now
I come to the total hypocrisy of Conservatives when it comes to deficits. When we were in government the Conservatives
in opposition would constantly demand‑‑one Conservative member
would stand up and make a speech demanding that this road be paved, that bridge
be built, that money be spent in his or her constituency, another Conservative
would stand up and make a similar type speech, and then their Leader would
stand and make a speech about reducing the deficit.
The
one thing that Conservatives nationally and in provincial governments have been
doing and making a case for over the years is that somehow they are better on
deficits. For some reason they have
people that actually believe that. I
think that if we look at Conservative governments nationally and across the
provinces, provincially we find that the Conservatives have in fact a terrible
record when it comes to dealing with the provincial deficit.
In
fact, I think, to address the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) more directly,
debts are not peculiar to the Conservatives and they are not peculiar to NDP or
Liberals or Socreds or any other kind of government. I think it is as much a generational problem
as anything.
I
can recall in the 1950s people of all stripes tended to, and I think if you
probably could take yourself back to the 1950s in this very House, you would
probably find that members from all sides would be more inclined to be opposed
to debt. As a matter of fact, there was
not the availability of credits in those days that there is right now, and I
can see members in those days being very much more concerned and actually
practising bringing in balanced budgets.
*
(1510)
In
fact, you saw the NDP under Ed Schreyer and the NDP under Allan Blakeney and
the CCF before that and the Socreds under old wacky Bennett in B.C. along with
Conservatives and Liberals who used to bring in balanced and surplus budgets in
those old days.
As
the '50s passed and consumer credit became much more available and people
became comfortable with debt, and that is the key, when people started to
become comfortable with debt and became used to taking out mortgages on houses
and taking out credit cards and so on, they over the years became more
comfortable with debt, and so what we find is that it transcends all political
parties, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I
submit to you that the people who grew up in the '50s and '60s are now members
of this House, and they in their own personal lives conduct business much the
same way that the government does. There
is not that fear of debt that there was in the old days. So the result is that we have run up,
collectively, as politicians, substantial debts over the years.
The
hypocrisy of the Conservatives, however, is that at least with the Liberals,
and there is a Liberal here, so I do not want to leave the Liberals out of
this, but at least the Liberals do not make any pretext about reducing the
debt. You do not find them discussing
the debt too much, and we in our party, in the NDP, historically, have not paid
a lot of attention to addressing the debt kind of question.
The
Conservatives, on the other hand, have prided themselves in being able to
address the deficit. In fact, they have
credibility on that issue, and people believe them on that issue, but what they
produce is anything but action on the deficit.
It just does not happen.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, any action,
however, that they do take toward reducing the deficit, in fact, is designed in
such a way that the richer people in society, the richer groups, the richer
organizations and companies in society, pay less as a percentage than poor
people.
Of
course, the Conservatives will argue, well, there are fewer rich people and,
also, rich people tend to be able to be mobile and leave the country and go to
So
the Conservatives, not only do they do very little about a deficit‑‑you
look at the
So
it is fairly obvious to me that when this budget was crafted, when it was
designed, it was done fundamentally on the same basis of the old program. The old Treasury Branch papers of 1969 looked
at government programs. It was done with
the view to make certain that the groups that were hurt were not the target
Conservative voters.
I
believe that the Conservatives know who their target vote is. They certainly do not want to alienate their
target vote, and they have looked and weighed each of the tax measures in this
budget with a view to not alienate those target voters. From a political point of view, that makes
sense, but people in this province have to recognize that this is, in fact, the
case.
What the Conservative government, at their
peril, must recognize is that there are more poor people in the province than
there are rich people in the province.
So if we are successful, and I think we will be successful in
communicating to people the devastating effect, the negative effects of this
particular budget on each target group, if we are able to communicate to those
people how this budget negatively affects them, then I believe we will be the
political winners out of this fight. I
think it is only a matter of time before we are able to get to the people to
explain how the budget negatively affects them.
Now, if the Conservatives were concerned about
proper and fair taxation in this province, I would have thought they would be
looking at some type of a tax that we see in a good number of the OECD
countries in
What we would find if the government had a net‑wealth
tax in Manitoba would be more than likely a scenario whereby we would have a
reduction in sales tax by a point, we might have a reduction in income tax by a
point, and we might have, as a tradeoff, a 3 percent net‑wealth tax. But Bob Kozminski and other people who
support the Conservative Party, Terry Stratton and other big Conservatives,
would not be too supportive of a net‑wealth tax. I would like to submit to you that (a) they
would get used to it, and (b) I do not think it would be that detrimental to
their overall financial health. Think
for a moment, if you were to have a net‑wealth tax in this province, say,
a phased‑in net‑wealth tax, perhaps 3 percent as a base and going
up to 4 or 5 percent based on income, that in fact would be a progressive tax.
I
hear people talking in the Legislature here about progressive tax, and in fact
some people‑‑one of the Liberals the other day was talking about
income tax being more progressive than sales tax, and that is true to the
member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry). It
is a true statement to say that income taxes are regressive, they hurt the poor
more than the rich, and that a progressive income tax is more equitable. In actual fact, what is even more equitable
than an income tax is a net‑wealth tax. In fact, one could argue from the
standpoint of a net‑wealth tax that even income tax is regressive,
because let us look at where people's wealth comes from.
What we have seen in this country,
particularly since 1977, are the federal government and the provincial
governments phasing themselves out of succession duties. I recall in Wolseley in 1977 during the
election, people on
The
fact of the matter is that the governments phased themselves out of succession
duties‑‑I am finding it very difficult to hear myself over the
Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), my friend the Minister of Labour, and,
normally, Madam Deputy Speaker, that would not be a problem, but today I have a
sore throat and a cold and I am having a difficult time getting fired up here.
So,
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to leave the succession duty question yet,
because what we saw is the governments in
*
(1520)
Madam Deputy Speaker, that simply further
accentuates the disparities in society.
We have a federal government just recently that buried in an omnibus tax
bill in Ottawa a sneaky little provision that allows family trusts, Tory family
trusts which have been untaxed now for 20 years and, in fact, were supposed to
spring free at the 20‑year mark, which is now, and were going to be
subject to taxes, and what these big trusts did was get to the federal
Conservative government. They managed to
convince them to bury this tax measure in an omnibus tax bill and it is the law
today. Those laws are now in effect and
those family trusts holding billions of dollars are going to continue now for
some unspecified time. I am not sure
whether it is yet another 20 years or whether there is a time limit on it or
not, but the point is that they will continue untaxed now for a length of time
to come.
Madam Deputy Speaker, when people ask about
where the money for deficit reduction should come, there are a few places for
the government to start looking. The
federal government, rather than ordering new helicopters, should have been
looking at taxing those family trusts, having them pay just a little bit of tax
which they have not been paying for 20 years.
These trusts, the assets have been building and compounding over 20
years and they are going to remain untaxed.
Now, what would be wrong with taxing these
trusts a miserable 1 percent or 2 percent or 3 percent? Why would the trusts have a problem with that
concept? Obviously they did, because
they went to the people whose bills they pay at elections, whose campaigns they
pay for, they went to those people and they caused them to change these rules.
I
am waiting for the day when the news media are going to pin Kim Campbell down on
where she stands and how she voted on the questions of the trusts.
Another area that the government has to
revisit at some point in time will be the succession duties, and I know the
provinces will say individually they cannot do anything but, as a collective,
they are going to have to revisit that and, once again, that is a major, major
source of revenue that is untapped, that will be coming on stream over the next
10 or 20 years, and the governments, I predict, will be forced, no matter what
stripe they are, to look at bringing back some kind of succession duties.
Madam Deputy Speaker, another area where the
government may have to look at taxation on will be lottery winnings. In the United States, I believe, that if you
have a big winning in Las Vegas‑‑I have never been to Las Vegas,
and I really do not plan to go‑‑but if you go to Las Vegas or
Mahnomen or wherever you go these days and gamble away your money, and if you
are successful and able to win money in Las Vegas, the Americans have a tax on lottery
winnings.
The
government will probably, at some point, have to look at perhaps increasing or
bringing in some kind of a tax on lottery winnings. It was not a major problem to tax lottery
winnings when we were only dealing with perhaps one lottery in one province,
Madam Deputy Speaker. But, as the dream
merchants across the way prevail‑‑and that is what they are is
dream merchants, because lotteries are nothing more than a tax on the poor‑‑as
they prevail in their proliferation of the one‑armed bandits and the VLTs
back‑to‑back across this province, then it seems to me that this
whole area of taxing back a chunk of the lottery winnings is something that they
are going to have to look at.
I
do not hold out a lot of hope that a government that operates by polls the way
this government does is going to take any measures such as this. Once again, one only has to look at recent
activities of the Motor Dealers Association to see how pliable this group over
here is. I sat down with the Motor
Dealers Association, I think it was in January, and they laid down their short‑term
plan. Now why they came to me for
advice, I do not know, but they obviously were not getting anywhere‑‑they
do not get anywhere with this government.
At least, they did not last year with their safety legislation.
They fooled the motor dealers into believing
somehow that they could pawn it off on one of their backbenchers, and then he got
locked in his trunk and the whole thing went down the drain on the last couple
of days. They came out of there shaking
their heads over this one, right, because they thought they had elected their
government, that it all came home for them.
Talk about dream merchants and winning the lottery, when the
Conservatives won the big lottery back in 1990, the motor dealers thought
bingo, they had hit the jackpot. They
had pulled the slot and three cherries had shown up.
So,
Madam Deputy Speaker, when they came to collect their winnings, they found out
that this government was not as enthusiastic about giving them what they wanted‑‑and
not that they were not enthusiastic about it, they had to find a way to do
it. Well, the Conservative caucus was
split on the issue of the safety checks, and they still are. So they put off the motor dealers for a
couple of years, and finally they created a diversion. They got the member for St. Norbert (Mr.
Laurendeau) to bring this thing in as a private member's bill when they have a
majority government, when they should be taking action on their own, they get
him to do it to fool the motor dealers.
Well, the motor dealers smartened up and
realized that that was a diversion, so they got back on track. I think that basically big Bob may have
threatened to take the T'bird away or they threatened to quit making
contributions to the Conservative re‑election effort.
Whatever they did, they got the government's
attention, because, bingo in the budget, what do we see? We see one of the measures that they were
telling me, one of the three measures that they were demanding from this
government.
What was that?
They want the public to pay a market value on private auto sales. They are very disturbed that 70 percent of
the people in
The
problem that they are running into, and I do not say that this is a
particularly bad idea. I mean, something
probably should have been done about this area and it probably was time to do
it, but it is interesting, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to the timing and why they
did it. They did it because the motor
dealers told them to. That is why they
did it. There is no question about that.
Of
course, now what we are going to have is, we are going to see people now paying
tax in many cases on a higher value than they actually paid for the car. So you are going to find the tax department
is actually going to be now inundated with a lot of calls come August 1 from
people who actually bought the car that they are driving for $100 to $200
because it was a beater, and the book says that it is a $500 car.
To
keep the motor dealers happy, tax will be collected now on a higher value than
people paid for their car. So in an
effort to correct one inequity in the system, the government has inadvertently
walked holus‑bolus into another problem.
*
(1530)
Nevertheless, given this government's reliance
on its apple polishers and its media people and whatnot, they no doubt will
have Barbara Biggar and the other apple polishers out there putting the best
spin on this initiative that they have done to try to collect money on the sale
of‑‑tax.
Now, of course, they have yet to deliver on
the complete package to the car dealers, and perhaps they are involved in a
slow dance here with the Motor Dealers Association. They do not want to give them too much at one
time because they do not want them to lose interest. So they give them a little bit now and kind
of keep them on track, eh. Collect all
those cheques for the next election and, you know, get by the next election and
give them a few more scraps and keep them happy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the picture is clear
though. Fundamentally, they act in lock step with the interests of the business
community and those that they hang around with and they talk with.
I
cannot leave the Liberals out here because, while they are dispirited and they
are diminished in their number, they have recently taken on a vastly
depreciated asset from our party in the hopes of increasing their federal
profile. That is not going to help them
too much. They are out there trying to
sort of negotiate for talent I guess.
They maybe have some kind of Liberal board of directors out there trying
to sort of hustle a few more people on board, eh.
The
member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), the leader apparent here, said about three
months ago that he was not interested in the leadership, right? Then all of a sudden, he changed his
mind. He came back in.
I
remember that this was at a time when Jean Chretien still had a chance at
becoming Prime Minister, and they were still appointing judges, so they had a
potential to appoint judges and senators.
As that becomes a fading memory now, I do not know, I think the member
for St. James might want to reconsider and throw his support to the member for
St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry).
The
member for St. Boniface told me last week that one of the reasons he sent out a
press release saying that he had decided not to run for the leadership‑‑and
he told me in the hall it was because I had withdrawn my support for his
leadership bid. I am very
disappointed. I want to let him know
that I am firmly behind him. I want to
see him in the race.
I
want to let the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) get off the hook here. I want to let him off the hook so he can get
back to his lucrative law practice. I do
not want to see him in poverty for the next so many years that he is the Liberal
Leader, because while he is waiting for that judgeship that may never come‑‑he
may never see that judgeship because the way the Liberals are going right now‑‑[interjection]
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard) is growling again. It is
obviously past his mealtime, or he has been let out once again without his
muzzle and his leash. I keep telling him
he should not go out in public without them, but it never seems to stop
him. He just‑‑I rest for a
minute.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thought I was going to
have some trouble filling my 40 minutes today, because I have a sore throat and
a cold. The time has gone so fast.
Madam Deputy Speaker, now that I have dealt
with the car dealers and their lobby with the Conservatives, I wanted to also
make reference to the whole question here of‑‑the member for Niakwa
(Mr. Reimer) made a reference. He is
paying attention now, and I thank him for that.
The
member for Niakwa was talking about some union bosses making $80,000 or $90,000
or $100,000 a year. I do not know what
that was all about, because I could not hear him. I do not know any union bosses who make
$80,000, $90,000 or $100,000 a year. I
do not know where he gets this erroneous information.
I
guess that is the way the member opposite would attempt to discredit people who
put in long, long hours and work weekends and so on, working for the interests
of their members for years and years.
That is his attitude and approach to them. I find that is not helpful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I
wanted to deal for a moment with the issue of Sunday shopping and how the
government has dealt with that. That is
another major gutless issue.
The
member for
I
do not know where he stood, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the question of Sunday
shopping. I would have suspected that he
must have rolled his eyes at the way the government handled that question, to
bring in a bill and then offer to have public hearings and then actually having
no intention whatsoever of going into the public hearings field and then to
allow the whole experiment‑‑the bill to become redundant,
essentially.
They wait until the Sunday shopping experiment
period is over so they can test the air.
Then what do they do? They throw
it off to the civic government who are really not overly thrilled about the
idea of having to deal with this issue, because they are not prepared to do
it. They are, obviously, feeling the
heat. I sent out a number of survey
questionnaires in my constituency over the last few months, and I certainly got
an overall negative reaction to the Sunday shopping issue.
I
can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Liberals‑‑I hate to
get back at the Liberals again, but I cannot resist‑‑the Liberal
Leader, and deal with the Liberals and Sunday shopping, talk about a messed up,
mixed up group of confused people over there.
The member for
So
it is hard to read the Liberal players without a score card here.
[interjection] Well, to answer the member for St. Boniface, at least the NDP
has been consistent. The NDP is
consistent in its positions and its views on the question of Sunday
shopping. There is a disspirited,
disarrayed group over there trying to find an issue, trying to find any issue
to grab onto, to claw onto. They are so
split.
I
predict, Madam Deputy Speaker, without any kind of moorings, without any kind
of solid philosophical position anywhere, that we are going to see the end of
the Liberal Party. I think after the next election, in another year from now we
are going to be back down to a two‑party system. It is going to be back to the good old days
with them over here and us over there and the Liberals out on the sidewalk out
there operating hot dog vendor carts and as judges.
I
think the Liberals are in an absolute mess.
I think their polls show them that, that they are in an absolute
mess. I do not think if there was an
election today that the Liberals would have a chance to pick up any seats
unless it is one or two Conservative seats, optimistically, certainly nothing
out of the city of
So,
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is once again with a very heavy heart that I conclude
my speech and turn the floor over to I believe the member for St. James (Mr.
Edwards). I was hoping, in fact, to be
following the member for St. James, but it is the luck of the draw I suppose.
*
(1540)
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Madam Deputy Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to this, the Filmon government's
sixth budget. I want to start by saying
that I think this is the budget worthy of more comment than any past budget
that this government has brought down, because I believe that we have now
clearly reached the stage where the government more than any other time in its
term has to account for its priorities in spending and the way it is raising
revenue in this province and the way that it is handling the economy of this
province.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think this is the most
important budget in the tenure of this government for all members to consider
carefully and speak on.
Now, I think that the government believes at
this point that it has had somewhat of a coup in this budget that, well, we had
1,500 or 2,000 people show up at the Legislature, but they were all union
members anyway, and the polls suggest that the public supports the thrust of
the budget. So I think that they think
they are safe, but what we in the Legislature know and see, which perhaps not
many other Manitobans do, is the thrust of this budget in terms of whom it is
going after to deal with the fiscal restraint which is necessary, not just in
this province, but all over this country and indeed throughout the western
world.
The
truth is that when you scratch the surface of the budget, you see an agenda
that is dedicated to solving the financial woes of this government on the backs
of those who can least afford to pay.
That is the bottom line, Madam Deputy Speaker, and for that, I believe
that in time, maybe not this week, maybe not next week, but in time, this
government will pay the price. That is
my hope, of course.
What I know for certain is that in the short
term, today and tomorrow, the people of this province will pay the price
whether or not they understand completely that it is the work of their
government, not necessarily and not wholly the work of forces outside of this
province, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) leads us to believe, but it
is the agenda of this government which is pressing them every day in their
attempts to live decent lives and provide for themselves and their families.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I start with that
comment and that premise that the government does, of course, have fiscal
reality to deal with, something which the New Democratic Party never really
concerned itself with. This government
is correct and has tapped the public sentiment in favour of fiscal
responsibility. However, the way they are doing it and the priorities that they
are setting are regressive, not progressive, and far from being fair, as the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Finance have both said. It is my belief and it is my opinion, having
reviewed these budget documents, that it is grossly unfair.
Madam Deputy Speaker, let me start with the
fiscal reality that this government finds itself in. I think it is important that members
understand the history of deficits in this province. I looked back briefly, only to 1970. I did not go further back beyond that, and I
think I could have. But what I see is
that in those years between then and now, there have been 17 deficits. I do not have the statistics in front of me,
but I am led to believe that you can go further back than that, and you will
not find the governments of this province running deficits.
Out
of those 20 or 30 years, you find 17 years that have deficits. Of course, we now have a prediction for an
18th year of deficit, for the coming year, of $379 million. The very disturbing fact is not so much the
number. If we had a few years of surplus
and a few years of deficit, as Mr. Keynes suggested so many years ago that we
would have if governments properly financed public works during recessionary
times and then paid it back in the good times, if that had ever happened, it
might not be so bad that we had 17 or 18 years in a row of deficit financing.
The
problem is that it is 17 years, and going to be 18 years, in a row. That is the problem. Prior to that, we did not have those deficits
occurring, Madam Deputy Speaker, except in times of insurgence and emergency,
the Second World War, for instance. This, I think, tells us that the government
of the day, going back to 1976, in which the first deficit in this province
occurred in recent history and has continued since that time, that the
governments since then have been on a track that they cannot get off.
Now
they are not unique, and I do not suggest that they are. And the problems they
face are not unique. Every province in
this country, I suspect, will have a roughly equivalent history. Indeed, the
federal government has almost the same history.
So it has been a pattern of conduct in governments. The
But
we are in
We
have to come up with some solutions to deal with this problem. Why?
Because I believe that most Manitobans understand that social
responsibility and fiscal responsibility are not opposites. They are one and the same thing.
Proof of that is today's comment from the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) which is correct, and I believe if anything a
little low, that 10 percent of revenue is being spent to finance the debt in
interest payments. I think it is
11. But what we know for sure is that
next year it is going to be a percentage point higher because $562 million is
being added to the deficit which interest on that will equate to roughly 1
percent of revenue.
So
next year it will be 12 percent of revenue that is having to be spent on
interest going to people in
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to suggest that
money which was spent for very good reason in the last 18 years in many, many
cases‑‑sometimes not, sometimes it was squandered‑‑but
most of the time all three of these parties would have defended the expense to
pay for social programs, to pay for education, to pay for health care, to pay
for these things.
It
is not so much the expense that is made today which has to be criticized, it is
the fact that the public is not asked to raise sufficient money to pay for
those things today and are instead told, you can pay for it tomorrow.
What that does is it takes programs, it takes
the things we will want to spend, out of the mouths of future generations. You are paying for people who are born today,
who are living and who have needs today, which of course is defensible, and I
agree with, but you are doing it at the expense of people whom you will want to
spend money on tomorrow.
So,
I do not think it is socially responsible to run consistently 18 years in a
row, a deficit. If we had been in an 18‑year
depression you might defend it as necessary and things have got to get
better. But let us look at the
statistics.
1976, was the first year of deficit. That was
the last year of the Schreyer administration.
He balanced the budget, or had a surplus in every year of his tenure
except the last. That is an interesting
point because it shows the stark departure for the NDP between Mr. Pawley's
administration and Mr. Schreyer's. I am going
to get to that in a minute.
But
the truth is, 1976 to 1977, revenue decreased‑‑[interjection]
The
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has just indicated that the first deficit was
in 1972. In 1972 there was a surplus of
$2,800,000; in 1973 there was a surplus of $938,000. Madam Deputy Speaker, those are the
facts. The Schreyer administration was,
relatively speaking, in comparing it to future administrations, fairly
responsible.
Since then, there was one year of decreased
revenue between '76 and '77. Since then,
since 1977, every year revenue has increased, so it is not as if we had
dramatic declines in revenue which then led us to necessarily deficit
finance. We had increases in revenue
every year, obviously not enough because deficits have been run every year.
*
(1550)
Sterling Lyon, as the Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Doer) said in his speech, left in 1981 roughly a $350‑million
deficit. That was in his four‑year tenure. So much for the fiscal responsibility of the
Conservative government.
When he left in 1981, between 1981 and 1988
when Mr. Pawley was the Premier‑‑and we have before us in the
opposition party so many of the participants in that administration, one of
them the speaker who spoke just before me, but the whole front bench is made up
of cabinet ministers from that regime.
Let us look at what happened between 1982 and 1988. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will find that the
revenue growth in particular between 1984 and 1988 was unprecedented. The revenue growth was there. Let us look at the deficits: 1984, $857 million; 1985, $774 million; 1986,
$805 million; 1987, $559 million and in 1988, $306 million. The biggest deficits in the history of the
province occurred in the years in which this province was ostensibly doing the
best it had ever done. That, I think
more than anything else, shows the incredible irresponsibility of the Pawley
administration.
There is simply no excuse for that type of
mismanagement. No matter what the rest
of the world was doing, we are looking at
Madam Deputy Speaker, if you move to the Crown
corporations where there is the Workers Compensation Board, the Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation or many, many others‑‑Manitoba Telephone System‑‑you
will find that legacy of mismanagement is repeated again and again all the way
down the line.
Lest we stop in 1988, let us move forward
since then. Madam Deputy Speaker, 1988
to 1989 was the biggest revenue increase in the history of the province due to
Mr. Kostyra's tax grab. Some $850
million in new revenue came into the coffers because of the many, many taxes
that he put in place. That $850 million
in increased revenue resulted in what should have been a $34‑million
surplus for the government, but did they do that? Did they make a payment on the debt? No, they set up the Tory slush fund, also
known as the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, Madam Deputy Speaker. They did that so
that for the next five years, which they have done, they could have press
conferences with nice charts that showed a graph going down, and they could
show and say, we are decreasing the deficit.
Why? Not because they were doing
anything to control costs. Not because
they had any new ideas. Not because we were even retaining the wealth in this
province, let alone increasing it. None
of those reasons. They were abysmal
failures at all of those. The reason was
that they benefited from Mr. Kostyra's tax grab, and they had that money and
they paid down to make the graph look like it was the right slant.
Now
that brings me back to why this is an important budget, because this spells the
end of the Tory slush fund, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think all Manitobans who want to keep an
eye on the real progress of government in this province should be thankful that
fund does no longer exist to mask the reality of what is going on with the
government and the government's problems.
Madam Deputy Speaker, what galls me, and I
guess all people who do not ascribe to the Conservative government and Mr.
Filmon's government, is that this party stands up still today‑‑and
always has‑‑and tells Manitobans that they know how to manage the
economy. They are the party of
business. They know how to do
things. They say, trust us with your
money. Socially, they have never
particularly claimed, and nobody has really accepted, that they had much
responsibility, but fiscally they get away with it. That is a great mystery to me, and it is a
job for us. We have a job to do to
expose this, because we have to shake that sense, because it is just not true.
The
fact is, not only did they set up the fiscal slush fund in 1988, but since
then, despite that, they have still run substantial deficits, culminating in a
deficit this year of $562 million, in reality $762 million. [interjection]
Maybe $862 million, we are not sure.
Madam Deputy Speaker, let us‑‑[interjection]
Harold, that is right. The member for
Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) did put on the record that there was another $100
million which he felt was missing. I am
prepared to accept his statement on that, because whatever you say about the
member for Rossmere, he generally calls it like it is when it comes to fiscal
matters. I think he is probably one of
the few, if not the only member on the other side of the bench, who can read a
balance sheet, and knows when monies are being shifted for political purposes
and when they are not. So I trust him on
this.
We
are dealing with a deficit, in his opinion, of $862 million. Now that is the largest deficit in the
history of the province. That is the
largest. The next biggest was $857
million in 1984. That is the biggest
deficit in the history of the province, rung up by whom? By the so‑called money managers across
the way here, by Mr. Filmon and the Conservative government, Madam Deputy
Speaker‑‑$862 million. That
is only with expenditures of $5.5 billion.
They are running a 17, 18 percent overrun in expenditures. This is fiscal responsibility? Heaven help us
if this is fiscal responsibility.
The
truth is, this government has absolutely no idea, except for the traditional
hack‑and‑slash means of dealing with it. They are stuck in this
mind‑set that says, you either hack and slash programs to save money or
you have to increase taxes. That is the
balance that they play all the time.
Those are the only two options they put forward.
Frankly, it is the only two options put
forward by the NDP. These two parties thrive on that dialectic. You are cutting too much. You want to raise taxes? That is the dialectic. Manitobans, they
think, are so unsophisticated that they just look at that and say, okay, that
is my choice‑‑higher taxes, lower services. That is what they think. These two parties, over the decades, have
told them that those are the only options.
*
(1600)
The
truth is, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a third option, and both of these
other two parties have been abysmal failures in the last 20 years in doing
anything to deal with the third option.
The third option would be to even retain, let alone increase, the
taxable wealth in the province. You do
not have to cut programs and cut spending, nor do you have to increase taxes if
you have a growing economy. If you have
more people, more wealth, more businesses to tax, normally the economy should
grow. They like to grow.
The
problem with these two parties, to my right and to my left, is that they have
both failed horribly and so tragically for Manitobans, and in particular young
Manitobans, at achieving, even retaining, existing wealth in this
province. Look at the record of the
Filmon government on their biggest linchpin plans.
Conawapa was going to bring in billions and
billions of dollars to this economy.
This government was so desperate to get that infusion of capital and to
get Conawapa going that they were willing to play politics with northerners,
with the environment, with hydro development in this province as badly or worse
as the New Democratic Party was with Limestone back in 1986.
They went out and cut a deal with Ontario Hydro
to get this money into the province.
They were desperate to see it go ahead, and if that meant going by the
side of the environmental process, so be it.
They were blindly going ahead because they needed that investment, just
like the New Democratic Party had back in the mid‑'80s when they
sacrificed labour training for natives in the North, when they sacrificed
prudent, financial management and went ahead with Limestone for one reason‑‑to
get the infusion of capital prior to the next election. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, Conawapa has
failed.
What was the other linchpin of this
government? Well, it was Repap. They were going to get‑‑I believe
in the neighbourhood of $1 billion to $2 billion of investment was going to
come into The Pas and the
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, without commenting
on the wisdom of the actual deal with Repap, the fact is that too has failed.
The plans of the Filmon government to do anything to increase taxable wealth in
this province have failed.
It
is interesting to hear the government‑‑and the member for Lac du
Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) today at the St. Boniface Chamber of Commerce waxed
eloquent about all the jobs coming to this province. Economic growth, is it not wonderful? The fact is that
The
fact is that the jobs they say they are creating are the lowest paid in the
economy. They are the service‑sector
jobs. They are not full time. They are
part time. They are poorly paid. They do not come with benefits which feed
families, pay mortgages, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Those are the jobs that this government is creating. We are losing the institutional manufacturing
industrial jobs which families can rely on to feed them, clothe them and give
them a decent standard of living.
So
when this government talks about job creation, we must always keep that in
mind. What type of job are they
creating? They are generally not creating it in the first place and they cannot
take credit for it, but the jobs themselves that do come into the marketplace‑‑[interjection]
The fact is, there is another factor at work when it comes to talking about
employment statistics, and that is the outmigration that this province is
suffering from. So you have to keep that
in mind when you are looking at the numbers of employed people. You have to look at the number of people who
are leaving the province, because they do not see an economic future in this
province.
In
1991, this province lost 7,663 people.
In 1992, it will lose close to 5,000; 1990, 8,836 people. This is net.
This is after immigration, Madam Deputy Speaker, has been taken into
account. These are net loses: 1989, 8,910; 1988, 9,529. That is net loss. The tragedy about those numbers, more than
anything else, is that the biggest group of people leaving this province are
young people. It is the people under the
age of 30, and many of them are very well educated. They have gone through our universities. I venture to say that every member of this
House either is related to or knows personally young people in this province
who become well educated and then they leave.
That is a very, very major tragedy.
[interjection] I see the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) indicating
that this has always been a problem.
An
Honourable Member: One of the great
freedoms of being a Canadian.
Mr. Edwards: It is a great freedom to leave and no one is suggesting
to the Minister of Natural Resources that anybody be actively restrained, but
the difficulty is that those people who are leaving, I believe, given the
choice for an economic future in which they can reach their goals here in
Manitoba, would stay. They want to stay
but they feel they cannot. Why? Because
they cannot get a job. Because they feel
they do not have a future.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as the Minister of
Natural Resources must know, if you lose a 25‑year‑old from this
province with a future, with prospects, you lose a taxpayer for 35 years. You lose someone who is going to be paying
more into the system than they are taking out for 35 years. If you lose a well‑educated or an
ambitious, entrepreneurial 25‑year‑old, you have lost an enormous
amount, because you have lost‑‑just in fiscal terms, leaving aside
the social costs of losing those people and how they participate and enrich our
community‑‑an incredible amount of revenue. You lose 35 years of a contributing, tax‑paying
wage earner when you lose young people.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns) says, that has always been a problem, we have to let these
people go if they want to go. That is
not good enough. We have to provide an
economic future for young people in this province because I know that, given
the choice, they want to stay. I know
that their parents want them to stay and they want to be able to provide a
future in this province for those young people.
That is a very human cost but also a very real financial cost to this
government that that trend continues.
Madam Deputy Speaker, having outlined what I
consider to be in my view the major negative factors affecting this government,
which are that this government and the prior one have absolutely no idea how to
handle the consistent deficit financing. [interjection] The Minister of Natural
Resources says, everything is on schedule.
I remember a prediction that the deficit this year would be, I believe,
$227 million. I remember them saying
that. Well, it was $862 million. That is not bad, and these are the guys and
the ladies who are telling us that they are going to have a surplus in 1996. That is what they are telling us.
No
Manitoban should be so gullible as to believe this government's predictions on
anything. They only missed by about four
times on the deficit this year, and every year at budget time they stand up and
say, boy, next year is going to be better.
They are all coming, all the people, all the investors, everybody is
coming. It is going to be great. We are going to grow. We are going to have good jobs. Everything is going to happen and coming up
roses‑‑and it never does. It
has gotten worse every year, Madam Deputy Speaker, so much so that this year
they have the biggest deficit in the history of the province.
*
(1610)
Madam Deputy Speaker, having dealt with that,
and the bankruptcy of new ideas that this government and the bankruptcy of new
ideas that the New Democratic Party had or has, there is one overriding message
that comes from these difficulties we face, which is that it is time for some
new ideas. It is time for some new
solutions to these problems. The
assumptions that we have been functioning under and the tired policies and
rhetoric of these other two parties do not work, have not worked, and will not
work.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
I
want to talk about some of the things which I believe that the government
should be doing, Mr. Acting Speaker, to really reach that goal in 1996 of a
balanced budget and not hack and slash social programs. I agree the cutting was necessary in spending
in the government. I agree with that. There is no question that there was a need to
cut some programs and perhaps some positions.
What I do not agree with is that is the only solution of the government,
hack and slash.
An Honourable Member: Oh, you want more taxes. You want taxes, . . . higher taxes.
Mr. Edwards: There goes the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.
Downey) saying it again; he plays the game.
It is played out every day on this floor. It is the dialectic between cutting programs
and more taxes. Has he ever had a
thought about economic growth in the history of this province? If he has, it sure has not worked and he has
not passed it on. This province is going
further and further back in terms of our political and economic ranking in this
country. They have no ideas for the
increase of wealth in this province, to retain people in this province.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, let us talk about some of the rhetoric of the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Doer), because I actually agree with some of his rhetoric if
you take it for what it is. He has the
right lingo; that is for sure. Let me
just quote in particular‑‑this is Hansard for April 7, 1993‑‑the
Leader of the Opposition. Here is his
statement: "I believe that
Manitobans need an alternative vision, . . . ."‑‑I agree with
that‑‑". . . a vision of co‑operation, a vision of
really working together in partnership of business, labour and government going
forward with a real economic agenda, not just economic slogans."
I
do not disagree with a word of that, Mr. Acting Speaker. The only thing that I
cannot understand is how it ever came from the lips of the Leader of the
Opposition. Alternative vision, vision
of co‑operation, vision of working together, partnership between
business, labour and government‑‑where were they when they were in
power? Not one of those things was ever
worked out on the floor of this Legislature when they had a majority. They talk about this government causing all
kinds of strife, parents are fighting teachers, teachers are fighting school
boards. Well, I remember, when the Pawley administration was in, we had some of
the biggest fights in the history of this province. They were the party of division.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, labour and business under the Pawley regime had the worst
relationship in the history of the province.
Ask anyone who had to participate in that forum. Well, ask Bernie
Christophe. Now, they were happy because
Mr. Pawley toed the line, gave him what he wanted. They were happy. But when the New Democrats
are in power, they punish business. They punish business. When the Conservatives are in power, they
punish labour.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, is it not time that the pendulum stopped swinging and we got
off of it and we said, we have the same goals, we have the same interest‑‑a
job, an economy where businesses can make a reasonable profit, because if they
do not make a profit, they do not stay in business. That is something the New Democratic Party
has never had a whiff of understanding, that business has to make money or they
do not stay in business, or they go somewhere else.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, conversely, what this government, the Filmon government, has
never understood is that they need and should seek, in a co‑operative
fashion, to get the participation of labour.
Both sides are at fault. I have sat on committees in this Legislature
and heard the same level of rhetoric from the Chamber of Commerce that I have
heard from the Manitoba Federation of Labour.
They are no better. They come to
this House playing out a political agenda.
Why? Because they know that the
Conservatives and the New Democrats will play right into it.
These two parties thrive on that
division. Do not ever let them say that
they want co‑operation and participation.
They do not. They thrive on that
division. It defines them in terms of
each other. They go to the electorate
with it every election, and they play it out on this floor every day in order
to divide Manitobans and pit them against each other so that they can define
themselves politically come election time.
Now, Mr. Acting Speaker, it is time someone,
some party, showed leadership and rose above that, but it can only be somebody
and it can only be some party that has not previously sold its soul to one of
the sides of the occasion.
The
truth is that both of these other two parties come to this House with debts
well entrenched to the sides of the business‑labour equation. They come with debts well entrenched on the
other divisions that we see worked out on the floor of this Legislature: rural, urban, north, south, aboriginal, nonaboriginal,
poor, wealthy. Those are the divisions
that these parties define themselves by.
Do
they come in a true spirit of co‑operation? They talk it.
They talk the lingo. They talk co‑operation,
visions of partnerships. Mr. Acting
Speaker, you have been around this House for a few years. None of that is what these parties are
after. They are trying to define
themselves, maintain their political constituency for the next election, maybe
expand it a bit, but just hang on. The
way they do that is to play to the divisions which exist. They talk about getting rid of them, but they
do nothing but exacerbate them in the rhetoric and the policies that they bring
to the floor of this Legislature.
It
is time that somebody, some party, showed leadership and brought those parties
together. I do not say it is going to be
easy. Everybody is used to this
game. It is very comforting to know who
your enemy is because that helps you define yourself‑‑well, I am
not them. It is a wonderful thing for
people. It makes it easy for them, and
they can have nice shotgun responses to issues because they just listen to what
the other side says, and then they say the opposite. It is easy.
It is lazy.
What is difficult, what is the challenge in
today's world is to move past that and to say, well, is it not time we
understood we have the same goals‑‑north, south, rural, urban,
multicultural, nonmulticultural, aboriginal, nonaboriginal, business,
labour. We all have the same interests.
I
have been in this House now for five years, and do you know what has occurred
to me is that on the level of rhetoric, on the level of what we say we ascribe
to‑‑quality health care, quality education, a good social safety
net‑‑on that level there is not much to choose between these
parties. We all have the same rhetoric
about what we believe in.
But
the reality is that we have now had 18 years in a row of deficit
financing. We are losing the forest for
the trees. It is not which bed or which
schoolroom or these types of things. Those are important today. They will be reported in the Free Press tomorrow. That will happen. But it has been 18 years in a row of deficit
financing.
Eighteen years from now are we still going to
be having these debates? Are we still
going to be saying the same things? I
dare say if either of these two parties is in power, we will, because that is
the reality, the way these parties define themselves. They define themselves as opposites because
it is a wonderful thing.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I see you giving me the proverbial "T" with your
hands. I am not sure what that
means. Maybe I will ignore it. I notice my book is covering the red light.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, let me conclude by saying that I remember in the 1990 election
when the Leader of the Opposition said one day, I think, on TV: We will not have any new taxes for 10
years. That is what he said, the now
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), and you know what, maybe he became the
Leader of the Opposition by saying that.
Maybe he did. Maybe that is
political reality, but it was absolute hypocrisy on his part.
*
(1620)
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please.
The honourable member's time has expired.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): It is
always a privilege to rise in this Chamber and be able to participate in what
certainly has become perhaps the most important debate that we conduct in this
Chamber. I say that fully acknowledging
the importance of the Throne Speech Debate in which we all participate which
sets out the rough and the visionary goal posts that government strives to
attain.
Certainly in these last number of years, the
issue of budget, the budgetary question, the question of taxes, the question of
deficits have become all‑important, so perhaps even more important than
in the past, the Budget Debate has assumed this role unto itself, although, Mr.
Acting Speaker, there is hope.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
When I listened to the member for St. James
(Mr. Edwards), I must acknowledge, although I think I have not attempted to
hide my favouring of my choice as to who will assume the leadership of that
party but, in listening to the honourable member for St. James today, I want to
come back and show that there is hope, that there is a quality in the member
for St. James' contribution today on this budget speech that is akin to the
wise words of a person of whom it is written in the very first book, Genesis,
of our Scriptures, Joseph, on whom an entire economic theory was built, John
Maynard Keynes, the Keynesian theory, and now, we have it from the member for
St. James. There is a common thread
linking them, and I will attempt to pull in those threads from what I heard
today.
First, Mr. Speaker, I re‑enter the
debate with the ringing words of my colleague the Minister of Environment (Mr.
Cummings) still fresh in my sound as we adjourned this debate last
Thursday. He was hurling the accusation
across to members opposite, as indeed all of us have. I have heard it from the First Minister (Mr.
Filmon). I have heard it from certainly
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). I
have it from the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer). Most of us on this side have hurled an
accusation across to members opposite to the point that it is troubling me, and
I wish to collectively apologize for all of them, because what we are doing,
quite frankly, is not fair.
You
see, Mr. Speaker, we have often countered the carping and the whining from the
members opposite with, what is your alternative? We have heard it not once. We have heard it 50 times. What is your alternative? Well, to be fair to members opposite, we know
deep down in our hearts, and we know that they know deep down in their hearts,
there is no alternative. There simply is
no alternative, and so I think we ought to acknowledge that and not make their
job more difficult by constantly asking them for what their alternative is,
because there is none. There is not an
acceptable alternative. [interjection] Well, the honourable member says he gave
one. Indeed, he did.
You
know, Mr. Speaker, I want to just spend a moment. The honourable member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale) in his contribution to the Budget Debate waxed eloquent by quoting
Scripture to us, and I for one find it passing strange that we are so reluctant
from time to time to quote from that book of guidance. I note in this week's national magazine of
Canada, Maclean's, hardly a religious magazine‑‑not the United
Church Observer or something; it has been called our most popular secular
magazine‑‑which has as a featured article the, encouraging for me
but I am sure somewhat surprising to some, fact that God and religion is very
much alive, that 78 percent of Canadians acknowledge the Christian faith. That does not include if we add our Jewish
friends, if we add our Muslim, Hindu and other peoples who believe in some form
of a divine being. Obviously, there is a considerable belief among Canadians,
as done by a very sophisticated poll.
Mr.
Speaker, we politicians, we pay a great deal of attention to polls. There is a rumour that within my family, the
national party, we are about to elect our next Leader because of what the polls
tell us. Well, I could be wrong, but I
am inclined to believe that influences, you know, decisions of import on a
regular basis. I know that we make a lot
of decisions as government, as members of the opposition, based on polls. It is strange, therefore, that we are so
reluctant to acknowledge what 78 percent of Canadians acknowledge to be true,
their belief in Christianity, their belief in the risen Christ. I think it is appropriate that on this Easter
weekend we feel comfortable to talk and, from time to time, seek guidance in
the books of both the Old and the New Testament that have served mankind so
well over the years.
I
come now to the point, because I did not have the opportunity to do my research
as did the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) when he had the Bible at hand
and could quote and read back the actual chapters. But I do recall that in the very first book
of Scripture, Genesis, there was a wise man in the ancient land of Israel named
Joseph who was called to the court to his king, to his leader, in the ancient
land of Israel because the leader had been troubled with a dream. We could paraphrase that in our terms, like
our Premier, our Leader, has been troubled with a dream and he calls on his
economic advisor, the Minister of Finance, who was Joseph then, to interpret
the dream.
What was the dream? The dream was, Mr. Speaker, that this leader
saw seven fat, healthy animals come forward and then followed by seven lean,
mean‑looking animals who devoured the seven fat animals. He saw seven healthy ears of corn spring out
of the ground to be followed by seven lean and unnurtured ears of corn that
devoured the fat ears of corn, and he called all his wise men around his court
to have somebody explain to him the meaning of this dream. Nobody could explain to him except it was
rumoured that there was this one Joseph that could come and explain the dream
that this leader had.
Of
course, most of you, I would like to think, are familiar with the story. The story was simply and correctly
interpreted that there shall be seven good years, seven prosperous years,
followed by seven bad years, and a prudent king, a prudent leader, a prudent
government would set aside stores of grain, stores of food during those seven
good years so that the people would not hunger during the seven lean years.
*
(1630)
Well, that is from the very first book of
Scriptures, from the earliest recordings of man. Really not that much different than John
Maynard Keynes espoused in his Keynesian theory on modern democracy, modern
governments that essentially said, in good years of economic growth, in years
of good revenue growth for governments, governments should not just be providing
those services to the people who are called upon for that day but they should
set aside some for the lean years that might follow, and that is what Keynesian
economic philosophy was about.
The
trouble with Keynesian economic philosophy is what the honourable member for
St. James (Mr. Edwards) alluded to just a little while ago. So we have from the very beginnings of
recorded history of man, as recorded in the Book of Genesis, the Keynesian
economic theory that really found its wherewithal in the post‑Second
World War economic period of our western democracies‑‑to the member
for St. James pointing out to us, and correctly so‑‑what is wrong
with what has happened in these last 17 or 18 years is that we have broken
those rules, whether they are Joseph's, whether they are Keynesian, or our own,
because we did have seven or eight good years in between that period of 17
years of steady deficits.
An Honourable Member: You were here.
Mr. Enns: Yes, and we sat on the opposite side.
An Honourable
Member: It was '78 when the
deficits first started.
Mr. Enns: We sat on the opposite side. In '81 we were already into what was then
talked about a very serious recession, in '80‑81, and in '78 and '81 we
were cleaning up the mess that we were inheriting which was not bad yet. The real trouble came in the six unbelievably
good years of double digit revenue increases for the government, and yet we
could not contain our deficit habits.
I
mean, gentlemen, could we even envisage revenue growths of 12 percent or 14 percent
or 15 percent? But that is what
happened, and on top of that the deficits were piled on by the Pawley
administration. The honourable member is
correct, that what it has placed us in is the very difficult task that the
first charge on the government expenditures is that unacceptable $500‑550
million interest charge which hires not a single nurse, pays not for a single
hospital bed, paves not a single mile of highway, provides not a single
training spot for a young person trying to upgrade his learning skills. That is the legacy we have left. We do our federal government a disservice
when we do not acknowledge that, as difficult as it has been for them, they had
much the same legacy left to them, in this instance, by a Liberal
administration, but they have, and I wish to acknowledge this, brought at least
their 12‑month, their year‑to‑year spending, under control.
We
are now in
It
is fairly easy when you single out a particular program which may be a
relatively modest amount of money, but as our Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
indicated on the day of the budget, it is the million dollars, it is the
$50,000, it is the $30,000 that helped make him at least begin to address the
problem and collectively put together a hundred‑million‑dollar
reduction in overall government spending for the first time, and I am sure the
honourable members will not abuse themselves to not acknowledge that.
You
know, we can fight about what should be done with respect to stimulus for
economic development, what kind of particular economic development we should be
after. There is no one magic
formula. I happen to have a very strong belief
that the future of this province in terms of economic growth is very much tied
to the availability of water, that we could tremendously expand the
opportunities of this province in an environmentally acceptable way, in a
friendly way, to do those things that are natural to us in the further growth
in our processing, in our food, diversification of our agricultural capacity,
utilizing those things that we already have.
That is not to say that we should not travel
the world, as indeed my Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Industry,
Trade and Technology (Mr. Stefanson) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
do from time to time. It is not to say
that we should not be looking to bring the big ones to this province, but we do
ourselves, in my humble judgment, a disservice if we do not do those things
that governments really are meant to do.
That is to provide the climate, to provide the
infrastructure that allows 101, 1,001, 10,001 individuals to make their own
private decisions as to whether or not they want to build a business, whether
or not they want to hire two, three, four, five or 10 people, and you do that
in communities like Carman, Morden, Winkler, Portage, throughout this
province. That is where our growth comes
from. That is where our stability can
come from.
In
the portfolio that I happen to have some specific responsibility for, I have to
know that the availability of water is an extremely important part of that
function, and so my direction and my lobby, quite frankly, within my government
is to ensure that we make available those supplies of water.
We
have a plant providing 500, 600 quality jobs to people in rural
Now, Mr. Speaker, we may not be able to do
that, because we allow ourselves to be cowed, or are too timid about the
responsible use and allocation of a renewable resource like water, of which we
have plenty. We are using one‑tenth
of the resource now. We can provide
thousands of more jobs. These are jobs
paying $15, $16, $17, $18 an hour. These
are jobs that could be available in much greater form if we have the political
courage and the will to assure that we provide the basic infrastructure, water,
roads, the kinds of services that local governments, towns, communities, are
called upon to service this kind of an industry.
So,
Mr. Speaker, we can argue the different approaches that governments ought to
take, not to take, with respect to how we create a better employment situation,
how we create a better economic opportunity in this province. But surely there is no serious argument that
can be made by any members opposite that unless we bring spending under control,
unless we undertake, commit ourselves to several years of spending less than we
take in so that we at least make some inroads on the debt, then it is all for
naught.
*
(1640)
Mr.
Speaker, there were different times when it was not that possible to make this
argument, but it is so today. There was
a time when this argument could be put in very partisan lines. Oh, it is the Liberals doing it wrong, it is
the New Democrats doing it wrong, or it is the Conservatives doing it
wrong. That argument does not hold water
in
No,
Mr. Speaker, it is not a partisan question.
It is really, in the final analysis, a question of very basic
economics. We are paying, paying, paying
too much of our tax base, our resources, into an unproductive area, namely to
faceless, financial gurus housed somewhere in
You
know, one of the things I always like to remind my constituents, when I have an
opportunity to talk to them about the public debt, is that there is a very
fundamental difference between a government being in debt, like our debt that
we have, and the debt that I have with the local credit union or the Bank of
Commerce. Now, I borrow some money to
buy some cattle from a bank or from a credit union, I am actually expected to
pay it back. The credit union, when I
borrow $30,000 to buy some nice heifers‑‑I am going to borrow some
more money to buy some more heifers, by the way; the cattle market is still strong‑‑but
when I borrow that money, the bank or the credit union or my brother‑in‑law
or my friend, they actually want me to pay that money back with interest. But when governments borrow money, they never
have to pay it back. Nobody wants them
to pay it back. The people that borrowed
us the money never want to see it paid back.
That is the big fundamental difference.
All they want is the interest.
There is no safer place to have their pools of international money in,
to have billions of dollars loaned out by the American government, by the
British government, by the Canadian government.
All they want is the interest payment.
They only get nervous when all of a sudden a government, and it has been
tried‑‑Cuba did it, for instance, many years ago when they came
in. They just said, no, we are not going
to pay off any of our debts. Well, they
are still driving 1947 Chryslers in
So
that is really the situation that we are in, Mr. Speaker. Can we manage our
debt? You know, I think what is finally
coming home to more and more people‑‑we get responsible people like
the Leader of the Liberal Party federally saying that he is going to do away
with the GST, or the New Democrats. What
are you going to do, gentlemen? We know
darn well that there is not a‑‑the GST, which happens to be a
pretty fair tax in today's society, is here to stay. The Canadian public is not going to let Jean
Chretien off the hook by saying, well, we are going to study it for a year, but
try to leave the impression that if you vote Liberal we will not have the
GST. That is just plain nonsense.
The
New Democrats, they are at 9 percent because they are floundering around,
wondering what they are doing. People
that suggest that this country, Canada, can live, that we can run a hospital,
that we can pay for a teacher, that we can afford a university‑‑without
trading with the world, where are you?
If you do not want free trade, then write off the
There is no question. Of course, the Liberal Party, of all,
historically a party that ran on reciprocity, a party that I am ashamed to say
my federal party opposed, because my federal party years ago were the defenders
of big business. Not today. Today it is the Liberal Party, the Liberal
Party that has forsaken its roots, the Liberal Party of all people, the very
name‑‑liberalized trade. They
know darn well‑‑Paul Martin knows.
Paul Martin knows that he will do nothing to take away the free
trade. Free trade‑‑our
future lies in trade. And allow the New
Democrats to sink into oblivion beyond the sunset, and we will sing them songs,
we will carve on their epitaphs. On the
tombstones erected in the trash bins of history, we will carve some suitable
epitaphs for them about being the last visible, detectable dinosaurs seen
roaming this part of the great plains country.
But those of us with vision understand that trade is vital to the
interests of this country and vital to the solution of this problem. What we need to do in the meantime, have the
courage of our convictions that we cannot be all things to all people.
We
have to also, with some integrity, I suggest‑‑I am looking directly
at the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) who, I think, always
contributes in these debates with some integrity‑‑that when our
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) or when our Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard) or when the Premier (Mr. Filmon) says, look, we have been able to
offer a level of social service above and beyond any in the country or in the
world, but because of today's circumstances, we have to slightly reduce them or
indeed cut some of them right off, that that is not a big sacrifice to ask.
Mr.
Speaker, to play the game as is played, and I suppose it is effective in the
business of politics that constantly equates the impact on those of lower
economic standing, of lower income levels, well, the simple truth of the matter
is, if there were an equal number of Jimmy Richardsons in this province, you
know, the tax‑the‑rich theory could apply, but it simply does not
work that way.
The
honourable member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) raises the legitimate question
about brain drain out of our province, the young people, educated, talented
people, leaving our province. They do not leave simply if there is not work or
economic opportunities provided here.
They will also leave and have left indeed in droves when we are
seriously out of step in terms of economic opportunities that their publicly
paid for education enables them access to.
If somebody can make 10 percent or 20 percent more relatively at the
same wage level in another jurisdiction simply because our tax structure is
that punitive, that is where they will be working, whether or not there are
jobs here.
So,
Mr. Speaker, this budget has a great deal that commends itself to this
House. It ought to ask all members to
examine themselves in a way that perhaps has not happened on too many occasions
in this Chamber, about what really the alternatives are to what the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) is offering in this budget.
I
close by that because in fact the Minister of Finance kind of apologized to all
the members opposite. We have taunted
across the way, you know, what is your alternative, when deep down in our
hearts, there is no alternative, and they know there is no alternative.
I
see the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), he may be looking at the good book
right now, our Scriptures. If he is, I
would ask him to check on Genesis, that particular chapter where Joseph was
called upon to interpret the dream of where seven fat cattle came out, followed
by seven lean cattle, and were devoured by them, or where a healthy, nourished
seven ears of corn grew out of the earth to be consumed by seven lean and
undernourished ears of corn. Whether or
not that ancient Biblical advice that was given to ministers of finance‑‑in
those days, they were called dream prophets.
They explained and interpreted dreams of their leaders, of their
premiers of the day. But they were the
early ministers of finance.
*
(1650)
We
have not followed that good advice. We
have not set aside in those years where revenues were double digit. We have not controlled our spending in those
years to offset the coming lean years.
That, quite frankly, is the same misapplication of the Keynesian theory
which essentially said the same thing.
So,
Mr. Speaker, I urge honourable members opposite to rethink their position on
this budget. I think honourable members
opposite should listen to the wealth of information that has been provided to
them, that is, indeed, a departure from the practice of some standing, the kind
of information that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and this government
has shared with the members not only of this Chamber, but with members of the
broad community, about the overall nature of our financial condition.
That ought to be a sober reflection on all of
us, because this is not a one‑shot effort. There is not a playing of catchup next year
that I see in this budget. This is a
restructuring of overall government capacity to be involved in the affairs of
all our people in this province, and we will have to adjust to it.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Mr. Speaker, I accepted the honourable member
for
What does this story show to us? What does it prove? In my opinion, all it shows is that
governments and people who rule in society are all subject to the vicissitudes
of development in the external world over which sometimes they have no
control. There are some good years,
years of plenty, that happen in society as attested by the so‑called
business cycles. There are some bad
years and some good years, and it is the function of those who are in temporary
stewardship of society to adjust and adopt the policy that will best promote
the welfare of those whom they are in charge.
Now
let us ask a question. Is there anybody
of the members of this Assembly who is without debts, anyone who can stand up
and say he has no debt? Is there any
nation in the world today that can say with veracity that it has incurred no
debt? The truth and the fact of the
external world is that the public debt is a phenomenon which is universal. It is true of all economic systems, of all
governments, from the most advanced to the most industrialized, from the
richest nations of the world like the
The
question really is this, the basic issue about which even many economists are
at odds with one another. The real
question they ask is, is the public debt truly an economic burden? If it is, then we must tighten our
belts. We must get rid of the public debt. We must make sacrifices because it will be a
burden. If it is not, if it is a
necessary precondition to the maintenance of our national income, our national
prosperity and our national standard of living, then we must manage the public
debt as carefully as we can, as wisely as we can, using fiscal theory and
fiscal rationality. That is the issue.
In
this contribution, Mr. Speaker, in this debate on the budget, I will deal with
that basic issue by recounting all the reasonings of those who are saying that
the public debt is an economic burden, as opposed to those economists who are
saying that the public debt is not really a public burden.
To
those who say that public debt is an economic burden, what are their
reasons? What are the reasons they say
this? What is their
rationalization? In the first place,
they say that the public debt discourages the creation of income. How is that? They say that because of our
progressive tax structure, the progressive tax structure inpinges heavily upon
income from property, upon income called capital gains, and because it
militates against the income from property, it reduces the demand for
investment funds. Therefore the public
debt reduces the expansion of capital.
If the public debt charges are then taxed away, entrepreneurs or owners
of property, owners of business, would stop all investments. That is their first reason‑‑it
discourages the creation of income.
The
second reason is, if the wealth of the country, the national income, if a major
portion of that wealth is run through the tax mechanism and then distributed by
government to the holders of government bonds, the holders of public debt, then
there will be a weakening of the connection between the contribution to
economic production and the ultimate income that is enjoyed by the people. For example, if the debt charges in the form
of interest payments being made by the government to the holders of government
bonds constitute 25 percent of the national income of this country, or any
country, then it means that the economic producers who produce the goods and
services in society will have to surrender 25 percent of their income to the
government, which the government then gives away to the bondholders, the
creditors, who made no contribution whatsoever to economic production of goods
and services. That is their second
reasoning.
The
third reasoning is, since the creation of large debt means that there will be
created a class in society called the rentiers, there would be a large
membership of that group in society consisting of individuals and institutions
who then will exert political pressure on the government so that the government
will favour retrenchment and deflation policies demanding that the government
reduce drastically the needed social services and government services. This is exactly what we have been witnessing
at the present time, so how true it is therefore the statement of the preacher
in Ecclesiastes which says, that which is has already been and what is to be
has already been, that what we have seen, the seven fat cows and the seven lean
cows, that has been repeating itself throughout history and it has so happened
that these are the seven lean years of this government.
*
(1700)
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
If
those are the arguments of those who say that public debt is an economic
burden, let us look at the other side of the coin. What are the other economists saying, those
who are saying and arguing that the public debt is not really an economic
burden for the economy? What are the
reasonings? They say we have to first of
all make the assumption that we have to limit the public debt into what they
call domestic or internally held debt.
That is the major assumption that I have to be starting with because the
external debt is no doubt destructive of any economy.
What about if all the debts of government are
owed to its own citizens? What will be
the dispassionate objective analysis of these economists? What will they be saying? They say if the debt is owed by the
government to its own citizens, it is an internally imposed public debt, it is
not an economic burden. Why? Because it
simply means that one segment of the population owes another segment of the
same population and from the perspective of the entire population, the entire
nation, it simply means that assets and liabilities will cancel out. That is therefore really no economic burden
from the point of view of the entire economy because what is owed by the debtors
to that creditor is wealth on the side of the creditor although liabilities on
the side of the debtor, and since assets always equal liability they cancel out
each other if the debt is owed internally within the same country or the same
territorial unit.
The
second reasoning they say is this, that public debt, if it is in the form of
government bonds, and usually it is‑‑you have to buy government
bonds. You know how we buy government
bonds. If you can afford it, you buy it
outright. You pay the cost of the bond
and then you get your premium as interest income. If you cannot, then you subscribe to some
employment kind of system where you pay it by installments as you get your
salary‑‑
An Honourable Member: Payroll deduction.
Mr. Santos: Yes, deduction in order to get the bonds. Whether it is by installment or outright
purchase, the bondholders will be buying this government bond. What will the holders of the bond do with
this public security? Well, these are securities
backed by the government. They have
credibility themselves, and the owners of these bonds consider themselves
wealthier than before. Therefore, the
holders of these bonds, the banks, the individuals, the insurance companies
find maximum security in this bond, and whatever else is left with their trust
fund they will invest the remainder of their funds to the productive industries
and they will promote new industries.
This has been documented by the history of
English debts in the 19th Century, because these are secured securities by the
merchants. They invested it in some of
their trust funds. They invested it, and
they promoted the development of new industries. Hence the promotion of national income, the
prosperity in
A
third reasoning is this. Now, if public
debts are in the form of domestic, internally held government bonds, and if
they are held by the same proportion of those who pay the taxes‑‑in
other words, the taxpayers are also the holders of the bond‑‑those
who pay taxes on their interest income from the bond which they receive in one
pocket as interest income and then they pay it out in the form of taxes are
simply transferring the same money from one pocket to the other pocket. So that is not really an economic burden for
the economy.
If
I were a holder of bonds and I receive interest income and because my interest
income is at the top of my salary income, they will have to tax the interest
income. Then the money I received as
interest income I have to pay to the government in the form of taxes. So it is simply one pocket giving to the other
pocket the same amount of money, passing through the same individual. Therefore, it is not really an economic
burden on the part of the economy.
Now
all these reasonings are fine and good.
The question is, which one is correct?
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
The
honourable member for
Let
me remind the honourable member from the opposite side that our economic system
is basically, and they will agree with me, a system of private property which
Adam Smith had described as a free enterprise system in which the people depend
on the profit motive in order to provide the driving power for economic
activity.
This is provided primarily in the sphere of
private investment in order to produce goods and services needed by the members
of society. That is the nature of our
economic system.
Now
the question is: Is there really no
alternative? There is considerable
literature on a new approach to this inescapable fact of modern life which is
the existence of public debt.
An Honourable Member: This vexing problem.
Mr. Santos: This vexing problem, according to the member
for
Now, similarly, these new facts of social and
economic life, if we want to map it out in the old traditional fiscal theory of
the balanced budget, it is like putting new wines into old wine‑skins. What we need is a new approach, a new theory,
a new fiscal policy, a new way of looking at the public debts. Otherwise, both
of them will be destroyed.
Now
what is this new approach that the economists have been talking about? What is this new theory?‑‑[interjection]
No, it has nothing to do with Karl Marx.
This is what they call, the term they use is‑‑[interjection]
I have to get it correctly, yes, the proper term. They will use a different terminology that is
not value laden, because the old term "deficit spending" has
accumulated some negative values and therefore they have used what they call
functional financing. It is governmental
functional financing. In other words,
you have to look at the role of government in relation to the public debt and
in relation to the charts of the prosperity and welfare of the people which
they govern.
An Honourable Member: Make sure the Minister of Finance is getting
this, eh?
Mr. Santos: Yes, it is intended for everyone who has ears
to hear.
What is the central idea here? The central idea is that the first financial
responsibility of all government is to keep the total rate of spending in the
economy on goods and services closely in line with the level of current prices
for those goods and services that are being produced in the economy.
*
(1710)
An Honourable Member: What does it mean?
Mr. Santos: Well, what will it mean when the total
spending exceeded the amount of goods and the level of prices that are current
in the economy. What will be the result?
An Honourable Member: Inflation.
Mr. Santos: Inflation.
On the other hand, if it is less than the current level of prices, what
will be the result? Unemployment. So
either way, you have to watch this difficult task of government in managing
that total public spending.
If
there is a threat of inflation, that is to say, the total spending in the society
exceeds the current level of prices, what is the responsibility of government?
An Honourable Member: Taxes.
Mr. Santos: Yes, the government should correspondingly tax
away some of those spending powers so that the level of spending will coincide with
the current level of prices.
What happens the other way around, if there is
underspending by the public sector, by the citizens in the economy, what is the
responsible role of government? The
responsible role of government, of course, is to itself provide the needed
spending in order that there be equality between the total spending and the
total level of prices in order to prevent unemployment, which this government
refused to do and which this government, therefore, is negligent of its own
responsibility as government. They would rather see people line up and being
unemployed rather than balance the budget through deficit spending.
This government, therefore, clearly showed by
its action, despite its word, that it is not prepared to deal with the
unemployment problem in this province or with this country. On that score, this government has failed as
good managers of the economy. They care
not about the people themselves. They
care not about whether they were employed or unemployed, in order that they can
just stick to their old wine‑skin of trying to balance the budget.
The
second role of government, according to this new approach, is that the
government should borrow only when it is desirable that the taxpayers should
have less money and should have more government bonds. Alternatively, the government should repay
the debts in the form of the bonds and have the taxpayers have more money and
less government bonds. In other words,
the government steers in both directions, resulting, in either case, in the
most desirable level of public spending and the most desirable level of
investment that keep the total spending coincident or coincide with the current
level of prices in order to control either inflation or unemployment, both of
which are able of destroying the economy of a nation. That is the role of government.
This government refused to deal with the
problem of unemployment and in that sense had neglected and failed in their
capacity as the stewards of the welfare of this nation.
In
other words, what this new functional financing is doing is that the government
either expends or restricts the money as needed in order to control both the
evils of inflation and the evil of unemployment; and secondly, either to reduce
or to increase the money or the government bonds, as the case may be, through
government borrowing or through government taxing operations. That is the function of government.
This functional approach to public debt
rejects as unworkable the traditional orthodox belief about balancing the
budget over a fiscal year, or even over a number of several fiscal years,
through any arbitrary period. It rejects
that idea of balancing the budget. It is
simply not workable.
What did it replace instead? This new approach has substituted a new
mechanism in place of the old wine‑skin of balancing the budget. What is this new mechanism? This is the new mechanism of adjusting the
total spending by using the governmental power‑‑either the power to
tax or the power to borrow. In either case,
the government is trying to avoid the evils of inflation as well as the evil of
unemployment. If the government steers
too far on one side or the other, the government will be negligent in its
responsibility to take care of the prosperity and the wealth of this
country. That is the role of government.
Now, if that is the argument on the
materialistic economic side, I have another argument for the nonmaterialistic
spiritual role of government. This
government is entrusted not only with the welfare of the physical body of human
beings, it is also in charge of providing every man, every woman in this
country and this province with dignity and self‑respect. Because only when the weakest, the most
humblest element of society is given that dignity and self‑respect, being
the link in the chain of humanity, only then can we have the prosperity that we
are looking for in our country.
If
this government begins cutting essential public services like the services to
educate our children, the education services, if this government begins cutting
on essential services like public health, and it begins charging even patients
and senior citizens, who the best years of their lives they have contributed in
building up this country, what kind of responsibility is that? It is untenable. It is not defensible because this government
will be oppressing the children; this government will be oppressing the senior
citizens; this government will be oppressing the patients who are already in
their deplorable situation.
*
(1720)
This government must strive to do whatever is
true, whatever is honest, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely. Is it not lovely to defend the sick and the
poor? Is it not lovely and honest to
defend the children with dental care? Is
it not honest and dignified to uphold education of our youth in order to
prevent the more terrible social ills that will bemoan a country with an
illiterate and uneducated citizenry?
This government has the obligation not only to
provide essential goods and services by sustaining economic activity through a
balancing of inflation and unemployment, but it also has a responsibility in
upholding the dignity of every human being, of every Manitoban, in order that
society may be worthy of being a civilized society. How can this government do that? By encouraging self‑development of the
human personality intellectually, physically and materially.
The
secret of self‑development is, of course, the development of self‑confidence,
but if even our network system of social assistance is degrading the very poor
and the very dependent in our society, totally ignoring their rights, that is
not conducive at all to the development of human dignity. It is, again I say, oppression of the oppressed,
especially so if they are using public power in order to oppress the weakest
members of society.
Again, in Ecclesiastes is said: Again I saw under the sun, those who are in
power, they oppress those who are without power.
What can these people do, they ask. They cannot do anything because they are
powerless, because the powerful are using power for oppression. Because of that, internal justice will demand
that they be removed from their positions of temporary governance of this
province and this community.
Well, the word "oppression" is a
terrible thing, but it is being done day by day. Look around you, how those people with
resources oppress those without resources, how those people in power oppress
those without power, how they use their position in order to take advantage of
other people. This is a terrible thing
to happen, but it is happening.
What is the solution to all this? The solution is simple if we only learn how
to follow it. The solution is the golden
rule. What does the golden rule
say? In fact, it has been stated a long
time ago: And he opened his mouth and
said, teaching them, saying‑‑it has been said of all time by them,
thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy. That was the old Mosaic Law. That is the old law of an eye for an eye, a
tooth for a tooth. That is the old law.
What is the new law? Again I say unto you, love your enemy, bless
those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who that
despitefully use you and persecute you that you may be children of your Father
which is in heaven. For he maketh his
sun to rise on both the evil and the good, and he sendeth his rain on both the
just and the unjust. For if you love
only those who love you, what reward have you?
Even the publicans do the same.
If you salute only your brethren, what more do you do than others? Even the publicans saw. Therefore I say unto you, if you are to become
children of your Father you should try to follow him. Be perfect even as your Father is perfect in
heaven.
That
is a difficult thing to do, but if we only have followed this law of love and
use the power of love in order to uplift those who are in desperate situations
in life, it would have been a better society.
But if we are always adhering to the love for power in order that we may
be able to exert our ego and our superiority over others, there will be
terrible things that will happen as a consequence of that love for power. The power is given to those who are able to use
it as a steward of the public welfare, even of the poorest among the
people. They should be able to have that
compassionate attitude to help those who need help and to share it and empower
those who are powerless in order that our democracy may truly be called
democracy, otherwise it will be the rule of the few, the rule of the elite, who
only are concerned about themselves and are no longer responsible for the
welfare of others who are less fortunate. [interjection]
Everybody is concerned about everybody else,
but we are not asking that they only give what is the crumb that is falling
from the table in the form of charity.
What we are asking is the even, equal, equitable distribution of all
resources of society in order that everybody may share the blessings. After all, it is commonalty of all humanity
that we need all these blessings.
They say, maybe it is equality of pain, but I
have stated before that we are all subject to the vicissitudes of the economic
reality of social and economic and political reality. If it happens to be the seven
years of famine, then everybody should share equally in carrying the
burden. But how can it be said that this
government has undertaken what they said they will do when they have granted
$1.5 million to the businesses and taken away the support from the senior
citizens? How can we say that this
government is sharing equally the burden of taxations when they have continued
the support for the businesses and yet they have taken away even the very
medicine and drugs that are needed by the poor and the sick senior
citizens? It is not so, because our
actions speaks louder than our words, and the actions of government, by their
deeds, they shall be judged and by the measure they mete out, they shall
themselves be measured again. That day is coming, and it will come, that we
have to account, whether as an individual or as a group or as a government, for
everything that we do and especially so, the accounting would have been
stricter if we had the responsibility and the power that we did not exercise
for the benefit of those who are in under our charge and under our
obligation. That should be the
prevailing philosophy of anybody who is given the temporary position of power
and responsibility in our society.
All
those who share in the benefit must also share in the burden, a general
principle of equity and justice. If some
of our segments of our society are sharing in the benefit and they are sharing
in a larger sense, the principle of equity requires that they should also share
in a larger sense in the obligation to sustain that economic prosperity and
that national income.
What we are saying is that the corporations,
those who have possession and stewardship of the wealth, should also share in
the burden by contributing a greater proportion as they prosper in the taxation
and in the carrying of the burden of civilization. Failure to do that is irresponsibility. Failure to do that is violation of equity. Failure to do that is violation of justice.
*
(1730)
In
this country, it has been shown historically, if you look at the records, the
corresponding proportionate contribution of the corporation has been
diminishing gradually, whereas the proportionate contribution of the individual
taxpayer has been heavier and heavier each day.
That is not equity; that is not justice.
When they are, by the nature of things, in the possession of the wealth,
they should by the same rule be able to bear a greater burden of the tax
burden. That is justice.
In
this regard, Mr. Acting Speaker, I rest my case.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): It is a
pleasure to join the debate on the budget for 1993.
I
sense from all sides of the House there is tremendous support for this
budget. I am interested in listening to
the comments that people are making, not only in
I
would like to use the first part of my remarks to talk about some of the
comments that have been made and some of the realities that are out there and
perhaps talk about my department in the latter part of my speaking time.
The
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), in Question Period and in his remarks on
the budget, indicated that there are difficult choices to make, and I think it
is a great breakthrough that we have reached that point where the opposition
realized that there are difficult choices, choices that are being made across
this country. I will maybe make some
comments about the throne speech in
But
there are difficult choices to make. All
of us have had an opportunity to visit in our constituencies over the past
weekend and, I am sure, have received comments similar to the fact that there
is recognition that governments in the 1990s are in the most difficult position
that governments have ever been in. The
revenue that was increasing year over year in the 1970s and 1980s is no longer
there, and as a result governments across this country are making those
decisions to try and live within their budgets.
People are asking, is there fairness in this budget? The answer is coming back very clearly, yes,
that the vital services that people in Manitoba depend on from government have
been preserved. They appreciate that
fact and recognize that the government has made the correct and proper decision
on preserving those vital services in health care, in Education and in Family
Services.
I
would refer the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) to the throne speech in
I
would perhaps take this opportunity to refer to some clippings that have come
my way over the last few months. In
January, members of the NDP held a press conference to criticize the government
on the economy, and reporters were anxious to pin down the member for Flin Flon
(Mr. Storie) and the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) and say, okay,
you are being critical of the government, what solutions do you have? Very clearly, they had no solutions other
than to call a conference on the economy, which had already been done. Of course, the age‑old solution of the
NDP governments is the make‑work projects. When the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Doer) was not
an elected member of the House, he criticized that government but now is
putting forth that idea as the way to stimulate‑‑that was his way
to stimulate the economy, the make‑work projects.
When the Leader of the New Democrats was asked
the day before the budget what he would criticize, what he would do if he was
on the government side, he refused to say.
He had no solutions. He had no
answers, and from the luxury of opposition he is there to criticize but offers
no concrete solutions.
Now
the second opposition party, of course, is also critical, and I have noted with
interest that a number of their members talked about revenue generation. Revenue generation in the Liberal Party means
taxes, except they do not want to use that word. The member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) in his
comments the day before the budget says, yes, tax lightly. Increase the income taxes, increase the sales
tax, increase the corporate taxes, but do it lightly. The member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) from
his seat agrees with that, that a Liberal government, their solution would be
to increase all those taxes to pay for services and not have to make the
difficult decisions on the expenditure side.
In
another article that a journalist from one of the local dailies wrote not too
long ago, the headline reads: The NDP
needs to come to grips with the real world.
I can tell you that in opposition they are in that place where they do
not feel they have to come to grips with the real world. I can tell you that governments in
The
author of this article says they are trapped in another era. They are trapped in that era of the '70s and
the '80s when it was spend, spend, spend and tax, tax, tax. I recall somebody saying not that long ago
there was not a tax that the NDP did not like, and there was not a tax they did
not hike. That would be their solution
from opposition, but I can tell you when they achieve government elsewhere,
they of course speak differently.
In
the throne speech that was read in
He
said recently that governments can no longer afford to pay people to sit at
home. President Clinton has said the
same thing in the
*
(1740)
Well, we have problems with the federal
government and the Canada Assistance Plan in trying to implement that in any
province in
I
can tell you that the reality is when NDP governments are elected in those
provinces, they have to make those same difficult choices that governments in
other provinces have had to make. As the
member for
The
member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) has acknowledged that many times, that
governments have to make those very difficult decisions and offers his
criticism of almost each and every decision without offering any
alternatives. I have challenged the
member for Concordia. I have challenged
the member for
They have offered none, Mr. Acting
Speaker. They have come forward with no
new initiatives, no new ideas, no new thoughts on how they could do any reform
within the Department of Family Services without spending more money.
I
can tell you that this department, this government does not have that luxury,
and that reality is well known out there.
We have watched as the City of
They are well supported by people in rural
Manitoba and people in urban Manitoba who recognize as we do that we have to
make those difficult decisions, that we no longer can simply, as the Liberals
would have it, access more revenue or, as the NDP would have it, simply
criticize those decisions without having any fundamental solution that they can
put forward.
Members of the New Democratic Party in this
House are often talking about the lack of funding for daycare, in fact, have
referred to some structural changes that we have made as an offloading on the
public and on parents.
I
challenged the member for
I
can tell you that other provinces are struggling with the same issues. I apologize for perhaps misleading the House
the last time I spoke on this when I said that we spend three times more money
than
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please. Could I please have those members wanting to
carry on a conversation back and forth in the loge, and I would like to hear
the honourable Minister of Family Services.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Acting Speaker, I know that members
opposite do not like to hear some of those criticisms. They have found no way of saving money within
Family Services. They have offered no alternatives
other than to spend more money year over year, throw more money at the problem
without making any structural changes, without making any reductions, without
making any modifications, simply spend more money at it.
And
when they look at the broader picture and you say, well, where would you make
those changes, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) always comes back to the
private schools issue and does not recognize that there are dozens of private
schools out there. The member for
Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh) and others speaking earlier pointed out to members
opposite that they want to talk about elite, private schools and never mention
the many, many private schools across this province which are doing a
tremendous job and are an alternative that parents have the right to access.
So
they seem to think there are some big savings there, and of course they come
back to the corporate tax, that there are corporate tax breaks. Yet what did the government of
The
Health critic of the NDP acknowledges that they did the right thing, yet he
does not stand up in this House and say that we cannot increase corporate taxes
in
Mr.
Acting Speaker, there are many areas that the Health critic of the NDP likes to
bring forward, but if he would read the throne speech from Ontario today on
health reform, the Minister of Health in Ontario is saying exactly the same
thing as our minister is saying, to reform, to make changes, and I urge him to
wait for that budget to come down to see what changes are taking place there.
I
urge him to look at the budget in
The
member, who is new of course to the critic's role in Health and I think is
getting a good education since the House opened, has not come forward with any
ideas on reform, does not recognize what is happening nationally and
internationally in health. He simply
wants to spend, spend and spend more money. Of course, that comes with the tax
hikes that go along with that.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, social allowances, income security is often the area that
members opposite want to criticize, particularly on the rate. I have told them that
*
(1750)
Last year for the first time ever, this
government recognized that additional assistance, additional income for the
disabled was a priority. Members
opposite when they were in government chose to ignore that.
Last year for the first time we created a
monthly benefit of $60 for disabled clients of income security, and this year
we have increased it an additional 10 years, again, a tremendous change in
income security that goes unrecognized across the way.
This was not a new issue. It was an issue that the member for Brandon
East (Mr. Leonard Evans) ignored when he was minister. In those times of tremendous new revenues for
government, he chose not to move in that area, did not see it as a priority.
This government last year for the first time
created that income assistance, and it has certainly been well received in the
community, an additional expenditure to government last year I think of about
$8 million, the addition this year of another million‑dollar‑plus
benefit for disabled social allowance recipients, a tremendous reform that
again members opposite when they were in government chose to ignore. It was not a priority. They did not think it
was important. They chose to make their
expenditures elsewhere.
We
also added another reform last year which is the exemption of children's trust
assets. Previously, children who were
part of a family unit on social assistance could have their trust assets
considered as income, and we made some changes so that an exemption of $25,000
was established for children's trust assets held on behalf of a child 18 years
of age resulting from funds that had been accumulated.
We
also added some assistance for school supplies in our budget last year. Effective in August of 1991, dependent high
school students in social allowance households were provided an allowance of up
to $80 for the purchase of school supplies, again, a reform of the system that
members opposite do not want to talk about, they do not want to mention. Yet, these are ongoing reforms that have
taken place.
Last year, we had to make a decision on the
goods and services tax. The credit that
came to low‑income families,
We
made a major change last year in the exemption for liquid assets.
Again, the member for Brandon East (Mr.
Leonard Evans), who was the minister for a number of years, chose to do nothing
on the issue of liquid assets and did not think it was necessary for
individuals and families to be able to accumulate some dollars for making major
purchases. Again, that was a reform that
came in a little less than a year ago, in April of 1992.
The
municipal assistance regulation was something that we debated in this House
last year. It was known as Bill 70. We were faced with rates across this province
where some municipal corporations paid out rates that were far less than the
provincial rate, and a couple of municipal corporations had a rate higher than
the provincial rate. Last year, in this
House, we passed that legislation to standardize those rates, so that all
Manitobans would have equal access to social allowances and also would have
equal access to the rates that they could access.
We
also made a change in November of 1992 on wheelchair transportation for social
reasons. In meeting with advocacy groups
from the social allowances field, they put forward a case that the regulations
were too restrictive. As a result of
those thoughts brought forward by the advocacy groups, we made the change to allow
more discretion in how social allowance recipients who required wheelchair
transportation accessed that funding that was available, gave them more freedom
to use that transportation when they saw fit, not restrict them to particular
times of the year, particular months, but they now have the ability to make
those decisions. [interjection]
The
member opposite said they still do not like it.
I point out to him, all of these reforms that I am going through for his
benefit were changes that the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) chose
not to make when he was minister. These
were not priorities that the government of the day saw when they were in
government, yet in opposition they have all kinds of ideas on rates. These are reforms that they ignored for many,
many years.
The
last reform I would mention is the extension of health benefits, again another
item brought forward by advocacy groups from time to time. These advocacy groups had indicated that
health benefits should be extended to people as they transition into the world
of work, something that made a lot of sense if they were deliberately making
the decision not to access jobs simply because they were going to lose their
health benefits, the benefits that they could have for optical needs, for
pharmaceuticals, for dental work, and they chose not to go to work when a job
was offered or a job was available because of the fear of losing that health
card.
Certain recipients, sole‑support parents
and disabled clients were allowed to keep their health card for up to a
year. Again, members across the way, of
course, are silent on what is regarded as a major reform. Again, the member for Brandon East was
minister of this department, and when he had an opportunity to make those
reforms, chose not to. He preferred to
put those green signs up and provide make‑work projects across this
province.
The
member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) talks about them counting flowers and doing
work that had no lasting benefit, doing work that this government is now paying
for, spending money in those days that they did not have any income for, yet we
are paying for that debt today.
So
I urge members opposite to recognize the tremendous reforms that have taken
place in the social allowance area over the last three years and to recognize
that those reforms are very positive.
Again, the Premier of Ontario today is finally
saying that
This is the area within the Family Services
budget where we make the largest expenditures.
We have had to make some minor changes this year simply because the
volume and the expenditure that we are facing here in
In
British Columbia and Ontario, they are talking about 12 to 15 percent, and they
have the problem many times over that we in Manitoba are facing, and even in
these difficult times, we have put forward these reforms, and there is a
recognition out there that the‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will
have 12 minutes remaining.
The
hour now being six o'clock, I am now leaving the Chair and will return at eight
o'clock.