LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday,
April 13, 1993
The House met at 8 p.m.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY (continued)
BUDGET
DEBATE
(Fourth
Day of Debate)
Madam Deputy Speaker
(Louise Dacquay): To resume debate on the proposed motion of the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), standing in the name of the
honourable Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), who has 12 minutes
remaining.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to be able to continue the debate on the budget,
and I am pleased to see the widespread support for it.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
I indicated‑‑[interjection]
Well, the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) is maybe wavering a bit in his
support, and I sense that he is learning a little more with each passing day
about the department for which he is now the critic, as he has an opportunity
to understand that right across this nation reform is taking place in health
care and that
I urge him to stay tuned to what is
happening in other provinces to see that difficult decisions are being made by
other governments. Again, it brings back
that thought that when New Democrats are in government they realize some of the
difficult decisions that have to be made, but New Democrats in opposition never
seem to come around these problems to the point where they can offer concrete
solutions.
I refer again to an article in recent
times in one of the local papers where it says:
NDP needs to come to grips with the real world. As long as the member for Kildonan is in
opposition, I am afraid that he is not inclined to come to grips with the real
world. I would ask him to take a good
look at what is happening in health care in
It is time, if there is a plan that he and
his caucus has in that area of health care, that he will bring it forward and
offer some concrete solutions. Perhaps
in Estimates he will do that. The fact is that we have been listening and all
we have heard is rhetoric, condemnation and criticism without any real options,
without any real forward thinking on it.
Members from the second opposition party and members on this side and, I
expect, members of his own caucus realize that, that pretty soon those real
recommendations of change will have to come forward from that member. Perhaps he is going to get the opportunity a
little later tonight to put some of those thoughts on the record.
At any rate, I think the article in the
local paper of a few weeks ago is correct, that the members of the Manitoba NDP
still are not realizing that in the 1990s there is not additional income to
government, that there are very, very difficult decisions to be made.
I pointed out to the member for Brandon
East (Mr. Leonard Evans) prior to the supper break all of the reforms that have
taken place in the social allowances field that he as minister had the
opportunity to bring forward in the late 1980s, but he avoided those
decisions. He did not bring those
reforms forward. Instead, the priorities
were elsewhere.
Well, I can tell you, Mr. Acting Speaker,
that Manitobans realize that this government is here to preserve the vital
services in Health, in Family Services and Education with some very, very
difficult decisions.
In this Department of Family Services,
even though government revenues are flat, the increase in spending in Family
Services will again be amongst the highest in government, in excess of 4.5
percent. In order to maintain our
expenditures and increase some of the expenditures in social allowances, some
very, very difficult decisions had to be made.
These are the decisions that members of the official opposition have
always avoided. These are decisions that
they want to, from the luxury of opposition, criticize at this time.
I have challenged members present to bring
forward some options in Family Services where we can do some cost‑cutting
measures, where we can do some economizing in order to be able to address the
tremendous increased costs in social allowances. Again,
* (2005)
That is why ministers and Premiers in
those jurisdictions are talking about completely revamping the way social
allowances are distributed there, a fact that is also being discussed in
Alberta at this time. It is also a
factor that President Clinton has noticed in the
So to do this, we have had to ask some of
our external agencies to do with less, to manage with less. I can tell you in meeting with the Child and
Family Services agencies, their presidents and their directors, they are going
to meet that challenge. They accept that
they too must be part of the solution, that they can find those savings from
within and still provide the services that are needed there. They are prepared to accept that challenge
even though members opposite perhaps are trying to misconstrue some of the
comments that are made. There is a
recognition. There is a recognition of
the challenges that face them, and they feel that they can do that.
We have also had to make some adjustments
in the Day Care line, where we ask all of the families who are accessing
subsidies to pay a small portion of the cost.
As I had indicated earlier, we have seen dramatic increases in the
amount of funding that goes to the Day Care line, some 100 percent increase
over the course of five budgets where that line has increased from somewhere
around $26 million or $27 million to this past year over $50 million.
So in order that we are able to sustain
programs like that, we have had to make some minor adjustments in terms of
looking at the number of licensed spaces that are in existence in the
system. We have also had to look at the
subsidies and put a cap at this time on the subsidies at $9,600.
I say to you, Mr. Acting Speaker, that the
boards and the people involved in daycare I think will make those adjustments.
Some will have to use their surpluses and manage through this very difficult
time and, just as with the restructuring two years ago with the proper
decisions made at that level, they can certainly do so.
Some of the other decisions that we have
had to make are reflective of the fact that we have had a 10.6 percent increase
in the Income Maintenance line in this budget.
As I have indicated in the past, it is the volume of cases that is going
up so dramatically. If we are going to
preserve our ability to address that volume, some of these other changes have
had to take place.
We know what the alternatives are in other
provinces. If we are going to keep
everything that we did last year, we would have to look at the sales tax, as
B.C. and
We have made a decision not to and, as a
result, we are eliminating some of the programs. One is the student category, and we have had
an opportunity to discuss that.
We have also had to eliminate some of the
funding for groups that bring forward and advocate for various groups in
society, but as I indicated, we have heard those groups. They have brought forward ideas in the past.
Some of them in the social allowance
field, such as the WORD group and the SACOM group, have existed without
government funding. I am sure that they
will continue to exist and bring forward excellent ideas and recognize the
reforms that we have put in place in the past number of years and recognize the
cost to government.
The government of
* (2010)
The previous minister is here this
evening. He knows those were changes
that he would have liked to have brought forward, but the priorities were not
placed on Family Services at that time.
There was more priority put on the creation of those green signs that
went up all over the province and the spending of resources on very, very short‑term,
make‑work projects which did not train people to have long‑lasting
jobs across this province.
Now we are saddled with that debt, and as
part of that burgeoning debt, that has created the situation where the
Department of Finance is the fourth largest spender in government to pay for
those expenses of the previous government.
We are on a course now with this budget to bring in a balanced budget
later in the decade. Other provinces are
also moving in that direction.
It appears to me that the only people
opposed to that are the members opposite who, as the columnist indicated, have
not come to grips with the real world and do not realize that there is a finite
limit to what government is able to do.
I can tell you, and I am sure members
opposite are finding this too as they travel in their constituencies, there is
widespread support for the challenge that we have taken on to reduce that
deficit year over year in the next number of budgets to the point where we no
longer are spending more dollars than we are taking in. That is the track that other governments
across this nation are on, and it is only the official opposition here in
On the other hand, the other opposition
party talks about enhancing our income without saying that they would raise
taxes. They talk about finding additional resources, enhancing their budgetary
abilities. The only thing they are
saying is that they would increase taxes, the sales tax, the personal income
tax, the corporate tax. I can tell you,
from the decisions we have made, that is just not on.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Acting Speaker, it is April. Those of us
who remember back to school and university days perhaps also remember that
April has a double edge to it. It is the
time of spring, but it is also the time of exams.
I remember that double‑edged sword
that we always used to feel in
That double‑edged sword I think is
there, Mr. Acting Speaker, for students today.
If you are out at the university today, you will find of course the
barbecues on the residents' balconies. You will have to duck the flying
Frisbees. You know that students have
rediscovered the library and textbooks.
They, too, I think are primarily thinking of exams and of their own
futures.
It is a double‑edged sword for
today's student as well, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Today's students in high school, college, university, face a very
uncertain future in
As I listened to their concerns this
spring at the university and on the doorstep, they spoke primarily of the
difficulty of finding summer jobs. I
know those of you who have children in this age group or who have spoken to
those people in your own constituency know that this is prime, uppermost in
their minds.
* (2015)
They need the means to find the increased
fees for next year. For those of them
whose parents have been laid off or who now have only one income in the family
where perhaps there had been two in the past, they are finding there is a
tremendous and increased urgency for that search for a summer job.
We know that the numbers of summer jobs
are down, whether they are those which are being offered by the federal
government or those by the provincial government or by those who are struggling
in
An increasing number of my students, Mr.
Acting Speaker, are also mature students, people who have already been
unemployed or in some cases have already lost their family farm. They are in university for a very short
period of time in their own minds. They are there to get the qualifications
that they believe will give them a job here or elsewhere outside of the
province. They are very serious. They are in a hurry, and they are very committed. They have to spend their time very
efficiently at the university.
Their concerns are that the rollbacks and
the clawbacks to universities in this budget are going to leave them in the
lurch. The support programs that are so
necessary for them to make efficient use of their time, the counselling
services, the financial assistance, the tutoring programs, the ones that enable
them to concentrate all their energies on their library and on studies and on
their essays, are the ones that they feel are going to suffer and those are the
ones that have enabled them to survive in university and which have prevented
them from falling through the cracks in what can sometimes be a very large and
impersonal system.
All students next year are going to have
to cope with the changes to the federal student loan plan which will insist
that students take four courses to qualify for a loan. It is a Catch‑22 situation, four
courses makes it very difficult for you to take on any extra work. The loan itself is not enough to see you
through the increased costs and increased cost of living, increased taxes that
everyone is facing in
The combined effect of the policies of
this Tory government and their colleagues in
Indeed, Mr. Acting Speaker, I have often
thought that it is an irony that this Tory government which is spending so much
money on cosmetic advertising to encourage people to consider education as an
investment for the future, to encourage them to stay in school, to go to
college and university, also ensures and encourages that those families and
individuals will also and should also in their minds go into debt to do
it. How odd then it seems to me, how
ironic that it does not seem to make any sense to Tory governments to invest in
the future in education. All their budget decisions, it seems to me, are based
on an underlying assumption that education is a drain on the public purse. They never see it as an investment of the
future of the province and yet there are crucial decisions facing
We must find ways to expand post‑secondary
education in all its forms, whether it is on the shop floor, or whether it is
in community colleges or universities, or whether in continuing education. We simply have to expand that post‑secondary
education in
Do we accept the closing of the first year
of the Faculty of Arts, the last of the open faculties in
* (2020)
In every level of education there have
been cuts from every budget since 199l.
It seems to me, Mr. Acting Speaker, that all we hear from the Premier,
from the front benches, from the Minister of Education, is cliche after cliche,
rhetoric after rhetoric, about education being the key that opens the doors to
the future of
Mr. Acting Speaker, if I were to pick one
area of long‑term significance for the future of
If
It is an investment which will serve us
all in the production of doctors, teachers, farmers, scientists, researchers,
innovators, film makers, writers.
Without such investment, Mr. Acting Speaker, we are destined to become a
smaller province and even lower wage province with a high proportion of our
public costs being spent on welfare, as they are now, and social services for
the disaffected. We are destined to
become an aged province with an annual exodus of our young, trained or
untrained. Our economic policies will be
reduced or restricted to chasing smokestacks, to finding larger and larger tax
breaks for corporations to offer us jobs for a few years until they find some
other low‑wage mecca elsewhere in the globe.
In
It is a question of setting
priorities. It is a question of looking
to the future. It is a question of a
vision for
Even
* (2025)
But what do we see in
The English language training, the basic
education, the adult education, the literacy programs in the workplace, that is
where they have chosen to cut.
It is a government with only one tool in
its tool bag‑‑cuts. It is a government without ideas and without
vision. We know that people across the
globe and across
Some of them, like
It is better to be in education or in a
job than it is to be unemployed or on welfare, but the only answer, the only
single answer this government has is to cut.
Cut spending and cut jobs. Expand the welfare rolls, cut the places in
community colleges. Expand the welfare
rolls, and close the first year of the last open faculty at the university. Expand
the welfare rolls, cut the places in adult education. Expand the welfare rolls,
cut the monies to municipalities which provided for job creation. Expand the welfare rolls, and cut the
programs to single mothers and the young people on social allowances, and have
them sit at home instead of having them in education, where they should be and
where they want to be.
The message that comes through in this
budget is that there will be no part of the economic recovery generated in
Look at the advertisements that
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please. Could I have those honourable members wanting
to carry it on do it in the loge so I can hear the honourable member for
Wolseley.
Ms. Friesen: Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.
I was drawing the members' attention to
the way in which
What could we put, it struck me, against
those
We simply cannot stand up to those
advertisements and say: Look, here is
* (2030)
There is no plan, no sense of vision, no
direction to the future from this government.
It is simply a government adrift.
We are going to put against those New
Brunswick advertisements, that
We have a young and growing aboriginal population
whose access programs have again been cut, who have lost their institutional
support such as friendship centres and whose political voice, the Assembly of
Manitoba Chiefs, this government rarely wants to hear.
The northern college has lost 14 percent
of its funding and the Distance Education section of the department, which
might have had the opportunity to expand the range of options and the
availability of the beginnings of post‑secondary education in many of our
northern and rural communities, was largely cut in the new changes in the
Department of Education.
Where is the investment in research
facilities that
There seems to be no imagination and no
vision, no innovation, no assistance even to school boards, trustees and
teachers to help them find ways of doing more, perhaps, Mr. Acting Speaker,
collectively, with the less that this government is prepared to give to
education. There is simply a minister
who sits and essentially says, cut, cut.
Where is the planning for co‑operation,
for regionalization of programs, for some kind of collective action to help
these people get through the difficult situation that this government is
putting them in?
It seems to me, as I hear from many of my
constituents, that it is so very difficult to get through to any government
office these days, that this entire government is on call forwarding, passing
on to others the problems that they have created.
If we listen to the Chamber of Commerce,
the future for education in this province is indeed bleak. In their latest newsletter they tell us the
question that we have to ask ourselves is not, how will we survive with 2
percent less in education this year, but, quote, rather, how can I significantly
improve the quality of education with 25 percent less.
That is the word from headquarters. That is the word from mission control
downtown. Is that the route this
government is going? We have no reason,
they have given us no reason to expect anything better.
The second area, Mr. Acting Speaker, I
would suggest, of long‑term significance for Manitobans is the attack on
the public sector that has been a fundamental part of all the Tory reforms of
the last five years but which have reached a new virulence with this budget of
1993. By reducing the funds for public
education and increasing the support for private, elite education over the
years, the Filmon Tories are making choices that will affect the future of
They are spending public money on a form
of education which may have some training merit, but which is not open to all,
possibly not even all within the company which is offering the training, only
to those who are selected by management, on what basis we do not know, and over
which we have no influence.
When the Filmon Tories cut literacy
programs and cut the entry level secretarial and other skills at
In education they have cut the public
sphere and expanded the private and individual training. It is more expensive. It is more exclusive. It is less likely to result in a portable
credential, and indeed it is difficult to believe that any sensible person
would reject the cost‑effectiveness and the international recognition
available in public education.
Fundamentally, Tories reject the public
sector. Their attacks this year and last
year on public sector workers should really be seen in this context. Even if there had not been a financial
crunch, there would have been attempts to change the nature of government in
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is
an ideologue, as close to Hayek as anyone I have ever met in government. He believes that government should be
minimal, that it should be the purchaser of services from the private sector,
and that is the road he is taking us down, some years a little faster than
others.
When this government gave public money to
Dave's Quick Print to train workers to take the place of Queen's Printer
workers, it was merely reflecting the vision of the Minister of Finance. The privatizing of the sign shop in Dauphin,
the privatizing of agricultural labs, the privatizing of data services, the
turning over of roads to volunteers, the privatization of the therapists in the
Department of Education, the turning of them into private contractors is all
part of the same pattern.
In all of these changes, it is likely that
the wages of the majority will decline, enabling us to compete eventually on
the same level playing field as
The public sector, the museum, the
gallery, the zoo, the community clubs, the schools and colleges, which I heard
the member across the way simply refer to now as the public trough‑‑yes,
that is exactly what they think of it.
That is why this government has no sense of vision and no perspective on
the future of
Beyond that sense of equality that the
public sector gives us, the provision and maintenance of public services in
health, parks, transport, et cetera, enable us all to have some access on an
equal basis to some of the elements of a common minimum standard of
living. The attack on public services
puts this in jeopardy. The loss of a
thousand civil servant positions, the loss of trust of our public servants as
this government broke its promises again and its contracts yet again with its
own labour force are all part of this drive to diminish the role of the public
sector in
* (2040)
When Tories diminish the public sector,
they are not only altering the social relations of our community, they are also
taking large areas of our daily life out of the light of public
accountability. It is a policy which
fits well with the broader goals of the national and multinational corporations
who form such a substantial part of the list of financial supporters of this
and every Tory government.
Limited government means limited public
accountability. That is the political
environment of choice for those whose goal it is to maximize the profits for
their shareholders, but it is not necessarily in the best interest of the
community of
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is widely
recognized, not only in the press but across
But he no longer has the luxury of those
good economic times when he and his colleagues in cabinet were on City Council
and created those huge capital debts and left us with an overextended suburban
city. He is no longer leader of the
opposition when he could launch his political attacks on the government of
Howard Pawley who had a lower debt, were committed to public education, had a
lower unemployment rate, and in 1988 left them a surplus of $58 million that
even his own minister now admits to.
In a few months, the Premier will no
longer have Brian Mulroney to kick around or to fight elections against.
An Honourable Member: Kim Campbell.
Ms. Friesen: Kim Campbell‑‑will he be fighting
the next
I had the pleasure of talking to a Tory
pollster on my phone before I came here tonight, a polling company which did
not exist in the phone book which only had two questions: Are you going to vote Tory, and, what is the
issue? That is what they are phoning
around for this very night as we speak.
I am sure that the Tory polling and the Minister of Education's (Mrs.
Vodrey) focus groups have told them of the anxiety and uncertainty that is
present at all levels of our community.
Indeed I think that the public relations,
the marketing of this budget, you know, the Finance minister with his head in
his hands, the most difficult decision in my life, et cetera, all of these are
attempts to play on Manitobans' fear of the future I think are indications that
the government does understand some of the apprehension and the anxieties which
are out there in the community today.
How much more reprehensible it is, Madam
Deputy Speaker, then to offer a budget of no hope, to offer a budget which cuts
people off from any opportunity, which cuts off their ambition to improve their
lot, a budget which tells them not to expect any assistance from their
community, from their neighbours, and a budget which is couched again in the
big lie that this government has maintained since its inception, that it has
not raised taxes. Now to this outright
deception they have added another insult to the collective intelligence of Manitobans
that we are all being asked to share the pain equally.
As I reflected on the quality of
leadership which the Tory front bench is offering, I was reading at the same
time the autobiography, a West Indian autobiography, C.L.R. James, a writer on
international affairs particularly known for his sports writing but also a man
with a very international outlook who, in reviewing the affairs of his own
life, the international events of wars and destitution and famine and changes
in colonialism and imperialism that he had seen, said he finally came to the
conclusion that old empires would fall, times would pass, new empires would
take their place; the relation of countries and the relations of classes all
would change. But what I discovered, he
said, is that it is not the quality of goods or their utility or perhaps even
their distribution which matter, but it is that sense of movement of a
community, not where you are or what you have, but knowing where you have come
from, where you are going and the rate at which you are getting there.
It is that sense of perspective. It is that sense of historical context, and
it is that sense of purpose which we expect from our political leaders to give
people that sense of context and direction that they are taking us.
This budget has told us where the debt is
going and how the minister plans to deal with that, but the government, the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) has given us no sense of where we are going as a
community. Nor is this an accident or an
oversight, because this government fundamentally believes that it is society's
role to fulfill the goals of the market economy. It is society's function to serve the
economy. The Premier himself believes
that his only job is to stand aside and let the market rule.
We believe and I think most Canadians
believe that economies should serve societies, that they should serve clear
social goals. Our main focus as a
community should be directed to how we are going to face the future in a new
How can we create a new
Should we not expect a budget to address
those issues? Should we not expect some social vision from the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)? European political commentators have written
recently on the loosening of the bonds between the citizen and the state as
right‑wing governments like the Manitoba Tories have continued their
undermining of the social role of the state.
As Martin Woollacott put it in February this year, quote: The bond between nation and citizen is in
danger of snapping. Our economic crisis
is going to become unmanageable unless we can find a language of common appeal
which brings us together.
In this budget, we find no such common
bond, only an assault on the poor by those who temporarily hold the reins of
power. As states fail to honour their
bond with their own citizens, so citizens withdraw their allegiance. We face a future like that of
As a community, I think, we face the
prospect of a loss of confidence, and our recent history has brought us to
this. The retreat from governance by
this and other Tory governments has weakened the ties that bind us to each
other in a diverse multicultural community such as we have in
When we thus reduce the role of the state,
we are gradually but inevitably diminishing our public and formal sense of
responsibility for each other and our sense of who we are. Multicultural states
may be, as Benedict Anderson would argue, imagined communities, but they are our
larger community in
Recent commentators who have looked at the
impact of the last 20 years of the free market and its governments have
underlined the changes in community confidence that all of these have
eventually brought. The loss of
sovereignty to larger trading blocks and the loss of democratic control to
transnational companies have all been significant, but equally so has the
growth of unemployment in states where previously the citizen could count on a
policy or even a prospect of full employment. It was one of the conditions of
citizenship for so many people since the Second World War, and the state, just
as it is here in
* (2050)
If there is to be a restoration of
confidence in government, in the community, in our self‑confidence, it
has to begin, it seems to me, with some of four pillars of common sense.
We must have a clearly articulated goal of
full employment. Citizenship requires it.
We must have an education system,
particularly at the post‑secondary level, which teaches and educates in
many ways a much more substantial proportion of our population.
We must have a firm commitment to a public
sector which expresses our sense of equality and which encompasses the basic
decency and fairness of Manitobans, and we must have a Premier and a government
who can be trusted to keep a contract, who have the honesty to call a tax a tax
and whose instinct is to protect the poor and the powerless.
We need a government with the experience
of community development in job creation, committed to public education and
dedicated to the idea that
Mr. Jack Penner
(Emerson): Madam Deputy Speaker, it gives me a great
deal of pleasure to rise today to congratulate our Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) on a finely crafted budget and a presentation of a plan for the future
economic stability of this province.
I am, I suppose, somewhat amused when I
listen to the Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer) and his dissertation
of our Leader and his criticism of our Minister of Finance and the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) of this province.
I want to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
if this province had continued on the economic path that the socialist
government of the previous number of decades in this province had been allowed
to be maintained, had the electorate chosen to re‑elect those who now sit
opposite, I fear that we would be in a very similar type of a situation that
The reason I say this, Madam Deputy
Speaker, is because the mentality of those who have governed in this province,
that mentality simply dictated to those people governing here, that in order to
solve a problem you have to throw money at it.
The more money you throw at a problem, the easier it will go away. I make the case before this House today that
that is why the unemployment rolls in this province have been as high as they
were and are on the downward trend in this province because of the budgetary
finesse and the budgetary daring that this government has chosen to implement
over the last four years.
I say to the members opposite that had we
kept on increasing expenditures in all of the departments, as the honourable
member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) just indicated we should, had we kept on
spending without concern for those who have to, in the final analysis, pay the
bill, we would, in fact, break the backs, or have broken the backs of our
children and their children. So it is
time we realized that we must spend within our means, and those of us who think
that we can wildly spend without consideration of who pays the bill sometime
down the road or who pays the interest cost of debt that we incur today are
only fooling themselves. I think we have
in this province fooled ourselves for too long, because it is the financial
institutions, not within this province, not within this country, but financial
institutions outside of this country that have told provinces such as
That is the situation that we face in this
province as well. If we would do as the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms.
Friesen) said we should do, if we would just continue the mentality of spend,
spend, spend, borrow, borrow, borrow, we would soon have borrowed ourselves
into oblivion. We would in fact be faced
with a situation whereby, whether we chose to or not, we would have to face the
socialist type of approach to government that countries such as the U.S.S.R.
and other socialist countries have faced for the last 70 years and look where
it got them.
Let us take a real hard look today. Let us look at agriculture and let us do some
comparisons. Let us look at the U.S.S.R.
and look at how efficient their productive system was. I just heard the member
for Wolseley say that we are in fact selling off agricultural land to the
private sector. Who best can operate and
who best can produce food in this province than the private sector farm
community? We have not had‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Ms. Friesen: On a point of order, before the member gets
carried away and so that he does not get too much into this I did say
"lab," not "land."
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Wolseley does not
have a point of order. It is a dispute
over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Penner: I apologize if I have treaded on the sacred
feelings of somebody who has just caused us to listen to three‑quarters
of an hour of dissertation as to why they should be in government and we should
not. Let me tell you, Madam Deputy
Speaker, it is my view that the people of
I had the opportunity to attend today two
functions, and we have heard some criticism about the education system in this
province and the so‑called decrease in spending to education in this
province. Well, let me say to you that I
attended today a graduation exercise of 30‑some‑odd students who
were not in the normal classroom setting.
These students went to school at the Friesen college. It is a newly opened college, which is a
college that teaches business and the practical application of business on the
job.
Madam Deputy Speaker, these people learned
the art of printing and the printing industry, and these 30‑some‑odd
students were graduates today of that industry, and they will contribute to the
wealth and the well‑being of the people of this province. They will be able to approach the workforce
with confidence that they have the ability to provide the services that are
needed today in today's society and be productive citizens of this province.
I congratulate those graduates for taking
the initiative to further their education on the job, Madam Deputy Speaker, on
the job. And the Friesen college was
largely funded by a program that we initiated, the Workforce 2000 program,
which, if you look at the budget, contributed almost $3 million toward the
betterment of adults and those in this province who want to increase their
knowledge and be able to become better equipped to serve the businesses they
work for.
* (2100)
Madam Deputy Speaker, as you can also see
in the Workforce 2000 presentation that was made only a short while ago, the
business community in this province contributes another almost $6 million to
that program, so we, in fact, attract private sector funding to education on an
ongoing basis, which I believe is very beneficial to education as a whole.
When you package those amounts of money,
the total amount comes to almost $10 million, and if you subtract that amount
from the amount of the so‑called decrease in education spending that the
opposition socialist party refers to, you will find that we are almost equal to
the same amounts of dollars spent only in different areas and in different ways,
and different sectors pay in a different manner for the education of some of
our people in this province.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that truly
that is the way of the future.
Education, in my view, will be an ongoing thing, that people will refer
time and time again back to, to ensure that they are, in fact, able to meet the
demands of a very quickly changing world.
But when you listen to the opposition
members today and over the last four or five days of the debate of this budget,
you would believe that these people had in fact no vision at all. They sit
there and they say that we must do things as we used to do or else we are on
the path of destruction. Well, let me
say to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the only way to ensure an economic disaster
in this province is by maintaining the path that the NDP government was on
prior to us taking over.
Some people would say that we in fact were
not tough enough in the application of reduction of spending, and I believe,
Madam Deputy Speaker, that in some areas we could have made more revisions to
our spending Estimates. When I look at
the budget and the percentage of reduction in the various departments, I would
propose to you that there is room to define even more closely our expenditures
for a future period of time.
I see this budget as a four‑year
guide that will lead us, in the final analysis, to a balanced or a better than
balanced budget, and if our revenues keep on increasing ever so slightly over
that four‑year period of time, the people of this province will be in an
excellent competitive position to attract not only industry but to attract
people to invest internally to expand our business sector and our service
sector.
That is where the employment opportunities
are. When I visited the D.W. Friesen
plant today, and we looked at their operation employing better than 400 people
in a small rural community, and when I looked at the graduates who had just
graduated from the D.W. Friesen college and how they applied their skills to
compete in the international marketplace, I saw a sense of pride, not only in
the owners but in the employees as well, because they were proud of what they
did and who they worked for and how they were able to contribute to their
community.
I have heard on a number of occasions,
whether it is the critic for Health on the NDP side, whether it is the critic
in Education, whether it is the critic for Agriculture, talk about not spending
the entire amount of a budgeted line in a given department.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, on our farm
and in our business, a budget is simply a guideline that we set for ourselves
so that we can sort of determine a path for the operations of that given
business or given farm. It is a
guideline that we try to stay within.
They are estimates of income and estimates of expenditures over a period
of time. I do not think government is
any different than a business is or a farm is, and when we do not spend, for
instance in our fertilizer line, the total amount of money at the end of the
year, we do not go to all extremes to ensure that all the money will be
gone. If we can, in fact, negotiate a
better price for the fertilizer than what we had estimated it would cost, we
save money at the end of the year, and there will be a surplus shown in that budgeted
amount. I do not think that government
is any different.
The experience that I had when I was the
Minister of Rural Development indicated clearly to me that if we could buy the
material that we wanted to buy at a lesser price than what we had budgeted for,
we would have a surplus at the end of the year in that line. Similarly in Health, if we can do things
economically and serve people better at the same time, we are going to end up
with, in a given line, a surplus.
Should we go out and ruthlessly at the end
of the year make every effort to spend every dollar that we can to satisfy the
needs of a printed number?
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is what the NDP
philosophizes to do, and that is what they say we should do. Well, that is what they have done for the
last 15 years prior to us taking over government. What did it get us? It got us a debt of which we incurred some
$550 million worth of interest on, which our children, your children and my
children, are going to have to keep on paying the bills for, whether we like it
or not.
Can you imagine the kind of additional
health care, the additional education, the additional natural resources or the
additional expenditures that we could encourage industries to establish here to
provide jobs, with $550 million annually?
Had they been fiscally responsible, had they chosen to not spend beyond
their means, we would not only have a balanced budget this year, we would have
a surplus of some $300 million.
We could have reduced the taxes by a very
significant amount. The honourable
member for
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have heard from
people whom I have had the opportunity to talk to over the last week, and I
have talked to many. I think I visited
virtually every coffee shop in my constituency over the last week. It gave me a great deal of pleasure and gave
me a desire to come back here to relay some of the things that I have heard,
because they were congratulating this government on its budget.
They were in fact telling me that we
should have taken more of the property tax credit, because they said we are
only fooling ourselves, because the property tax credit is taking it out of one
hand and giving it with the other. They said
we should have taken it all because it is only a fudging of numbers. I think they are right. We should in fact have reduced the property
tax credit by $325, and then the taxes would really reflect what the true costs
are of operating within a given municipality.
* (2110)
I recognize that it is not always possible
to do that, and when you give something away one year, that it is three times
more difficult to take it back the next.
Therefore, I have a great deal of reservation about providing credits
and all those kinds of things because I believe that when you stop them‑‑and
there are times when you must stop them‑‑people in fact look very
critical, but this time around they were not critical.
This time, they congratulated this
government for taking the right kind of action, for reducing our fuel to our
transportation system, that our transportation system could in fact be
enhanced, that we could in fact remain viable, because farmers in this country
and in this province depend probably more than any other sector of society in
this country anywhere else, because our agricultural produce depends on a good
solid transportation system, whether it be through the highway system, the
railway system or other means or by water.
We depend on a good transportation system to move our goods to market.
That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is what we
have targeted, in a large part, provincial and federal dollars to, to ensure
that the transportation system will in fact be in place. We have done some other fairly innovative
things, I believe. We have encouraged
industries in this province, and that is not a new phenomenon.
I can look at the sugar industry in this
province; that is a relatively unique industry.
It takes a product from its rawest form, processes it, packages it and
sells it across the counter in this province.
There are very few other industries like it. Yet that industry competes
directly with subsidized industries, I should not say "subsidized,"
with tariff industries in every other sugar‑producing country in the
world.
I was talking to some of my American
friends over the weekend. One of them was
the vice‑president of the Crystal Sugar Company and he produces sugar
beets right across the border from me.
He was interested in why this country, why
We, Madam Deputy Speaker, asked our
province and our federal government and the producers to join together in what
is called a tripartite stabilization program and are asking producers to pay
into a plan to maintain an industry that is being largely abused by foreign
interests. The competition is not real
competition that we face, or that the sugar producers face in this province,
and that
The 800 producers in
Let me ask those opposite whether that in
fact is true competition, whether that is productivity by the raw producers,
and whether they can in fact be said to be competitive? I think they are more than competitive. I am not sure whether the refinery, whether
the sugar factory in this province, will in fact run this year, because
producers have told me very loudly and very clearly over the last week that
they simply will not plant unless they get a competitive and a fair price. That to me is only fair.
There are other industries in this
province that we can look at that have had a tremendous impact on the farm
sector. The other one is, of course, the
oil crushing industry. The honourable
member for
Would it not have been for a small
industry such as CSP Foods‑‑who were at first known as CVO, and it
was a plant that was owned by farmers, operated by farmers, built by farmers. Had it not been for CVO that had demonstrated
that you could in fact produce economically an oil, an edible oil, from a plant
that grew well in western
Those pioneers, in my view, need to be
congratulated for having the vision, and I believe that we have young people in
this province today that have that same kind of vision if we only allow them to
exercise and encourage them to exercise them, but that means that we must get
government out of their hair. That means
that the over‑regulated system we are into must be dealt with, because I
hear time and time again people saying, why must we have more regulations than
legislation? Why must we be bombarded
with rules and laws that do not allow us to operate as we will? Why do you not allow us to be truly
competitive?
We have a situation whereby we could
probably provide all the, or almost all the, product that is needed in
Yet we put regulations, restrictions,
prohibitions in place that do not allow access into the
* (2120)
So when I talk to my U.S. neighbours,
friends of mine, whether it be about the sugar industry, or whether it be about
the wheat industry, or whether it be about the canola industry, or whether it,
in fact, be about the bean industry which is gaining strength in southern
Manitoba and will gain strength because new varieties are coming out that need
shorter seasons to grow and mature in, so again, they say, we are willing to
provide industries, to build industries in co‑operation with you, if you
are only willing to co-operate with us.
I have heard the honourable member for
Whether it is in transportation, whether
it is in industry, or whether it is in our most basic ability, the raw
resources, it is time that we recognize the need to free up the basic producer
from the kind of controls that they have been subjected to by the federal
Liberals over the last 30 or 40 years and the socialists in this province over
the last 15 years.
If we have the vision and the will to do
that, we will in fact find that the revenues that governments such as ours need
to operate to provide the basic services in health care and education and
family services and many other services, that those revenues will start
climbing, be it gradually, but they will climb, and then governments will have
the resources without spending, without overspending, without borrowing huge
amounts of money, will have the resources to provide the services that my
honourable friends opposite talk about.
But we must stop spending more, and that is what this budget refers
to. We must start increasing our
revenues, not by increasing the percentage of tax taken, but by the amount of
revenue generated through the sale of goods and commodities and services.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have talked
during the last five days about various initiatives that have been taken. There is one that I want to spend some time
on tonight, if I may. That is, of
course, the need for water in many of our communities in this province.
I come from an area where water is at a
premium, and we regard good quality water very highly. Many of us have spent tens of thousands of
dollars to ensure that we in fact have water supplies on our farms and in our
homes. We started building a pipeline
system less than 10 years ago, Madam Deputy Speaker, and a treatment plant that
now serves some 700 families in the R.M. of
It causes me to wonder whether there is
any compassion at all or whether there is any desire at all to create a larger
economic base in this province, or whether we in fact want to withdraw and
decline our numbers, as members of some organizations have said we should. I am appalled, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I
hear the leader of an organization say that southern
That is what some of us face, and, Madam
Deputy Speaker, I say to you that we should be somewhat innovative. I propose to you, as I did to my cabinet
colleagues when I was in cabinet, that we should look at a land and water
strategy in this province, that we should seriously consider building
structures that would store water in this province that communities could in
fact access and use. That, in my view,
would be a tremendous revenue generator for this
The
Those are the kinds of things that this
budget addresses and, if we can bring our overexpenditures into line, if we can
cut our interest cost, then we will have the financial resources to do those
kinds of things. That is the vision that
our socialist friends on the opposite side of this House simply never had,
never will have nor do they want any part of.
They stand there and criticize those communities that want to and those
communities that would and those communities that will be innovative and
progressive and build this great province of ours.
Thank you.
* (2130)
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Madam Deputy Speaker, actually, I think that
members opposite often have a script that is given to them by their
communications czar and leader, Barb Biggar, that says there are three things you
must do in all debates in answering all questions and in dealing with
everything in the Legislature.
Firstly, you must refer to other
provinces. You must refer to
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have sat here all
day listening to debate. I have listened
to several members on the opposite side.
I have listened to several members on this side. I thought the member for Broadway (Mr.
Santos) made a very excellent speech dealing with economics and I hope members
opposite learned something from that discourse.
I thought the member for Wolseley (Ms.
Friesen) made a very eloquent and moving statement tonight dealing with a
vision and a philosophy, something that members opposite and the government
opposite totally lacks. I think that
very moving statement capsulized something that is evident from this budget and
is evident in this government. That is,
it is an ad hoc government. It is a
government lacking in vision. It is a
government lacking in direction and, more importantly, it is a government with
no plan.
There is no plan on that side of the
House. How else could you explain a
government that has been bent on deficit reduction, that has been bent on
cutting programs, that has been bent on stepping aside, that has the highest
per capita deficit in provincial history?
They have the highest per capita deficit in provincial history, and that
is the government opposite that says they are going to balance the budget in
four years.
They have had six years, and they have
moved us to a point where per capita we are the highest in
Point of
Order
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Just a
question. I wonder if the honourable
member would mind tabling the memo that he is reading from.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable Minister of Natural Resources
(Mr. Enns) does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Chomiak: I guess Point 5 of Barb Biggar's strategy,
Madam Deputy Speaker, is: Interrupt as
much as possible to move them off their train of thought. But I am surprising them, my train of thought
really is not that lengthy. It is very
short, so interruptions‑‑
Point of
Order
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): I was just following Point 5.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr.
Ernst) does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Chomiak: Which leads us to Point 6, Madam Deputy
Speaker. You know I get tired of hearing members opposite constantly claim that
we do not offer suggestions, we do not offer advice. The member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), the
member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) offered very‑‑and I hope members
read their speeches again and take some information from that. Perhaps they get back to cabinet and try to
develop a plan at least, try to develop a plan.
Let me cite an example of something that I
have been‑‑[interjection] The member from Roblin‑Russell (Mr.
Derkach) is saying, he is not listened to around the cabinet table.
For two years now in this House I have
been asking members about the approach to government, the co‑ordination
of services, and I know the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and the Minister
of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) have had on their desks a report from the Manitoba
Association of School Trustees, the Manitoba Association of School
Superintendents, Manitoba school association of business. The ministers have had this report on their
desks since December 1991, asking for a reply by December 1991 for a co‑ordination
of delivery of service. Now this report does
not say spend, spend, spend. This report
says, by a better utilization of resources, by a better co‑ordination of
resources, you could still offer the same services, and it does not take a $3.9
million consultant to tell you that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
And you know what, Madam Deputy
Speaker? There has been nary a word or
reply from the ministers with respect to this.
In fact, the situation has become worse.
Last year, they cut a program in health; they did not tell the
Department of Education.
This year the Department of Health is
cutting a program, for example, and I raise this in the House, there is a
program, the rehab program was cut. The
nurses from the rehab program, four nurses working half‑time, went into
the schools and started delivering services to special needs children. Now that was in place of teachers' aides and
teachers, and I do not want to get into that particular topic because I could
probably spend my entire 40 minutes on it, but the point is that they were
offering this service at a very low cost as a prototype based on a B.C. model
of a prototype program to special needs children in the schools, and we asked
the minister to consider extending the program, and the minister stood up and
said, there will be announcements in due course or announcements will be
forthcoming, which is something we constantly hear. As I understand it, the program is dead. Those students are not receiving the service
and that is unfortunate.
That is an example of a program at very
low cost that would cross departmental boundaries, that would cross
departmental pigeon holes and that would help the children of this province,
but that suggestion has fallen upon deaf ears.
Numerous suggestions, in fact most if not all of the suggestions from
this side of the House, fall upon deaf ears.
Members opposite like to turn it around
and say, you offer no constructive criticism, all you offer is criticism and,
yet, when positive suggestions come forward, they completely ignore them. They
completely ignore them and they come back with their four or five points that
they have been told that they must respond to or they must say, and so they
cheat the process.
If we on this side of the House are accused
of only carping and being negative, those on that side of the House are equally
guilty for not responding to the positive suggestions and for not proceeding on
that basis.
Madam Deputy Speaker, indicative of what
happened in the budget last week is a phone call I received from a nurse's
aide. She phoned me and said, it is extraordinary what they are doing in terms
of what is happening in nursing homes and personal care homes and the stress
that has been put on the staff and the pressure that has been put on the staff
and, incidentally, that very same nursing home was mandated to have its
administrative staff cut by 10 percent when there is only two staff, which is a
difficult process, mandated by the Department of Health.
* (2140)
She said, I wish you would ask Premier
Filmon if he would come and spend some time in our nursing home just to see
what is happening in terms of care. I
said, well, I will not ask Premier Filmon.
Because I am the Health critic, I will ask the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard), but, I have to say, the reaction from that otherwise objective and
caring individual was quite surprising when I suggested that I would make that
very suggestion to the Minister of Health.
She did not respond very favourably, to put it mildly.
This is not an attempt to get personal
but, rather, this is an attempt to indicate the utter feeling of hopelessness
that members in the community have with respect to the Department of Health,
with respect to the minister's so‑called reform plans and with respect to
what is happening in health care today.
It extends across all boundaries, and it is very, very sad because if we
wanted a climate of reform, we would want a climate where people are willing to
go along and are trusting.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. Perhaps we on this side of the House blame it
wholly on the government but, certainly, the government blames it wholly on us
and, in fact, I often get the impression sitting in this House that the only people
in the minister's view who are in opposition to health reform are the 19 New
Democrats sitting on this side of the House.
I know that not to be true. In fact, it is my opinion that the vast
majority of Manitobans do not agree with what is happening presently in health
care, largely because they do not know what is happening, largely because the
minister has not communicated, largely because they have refused to communicate
with respect to health reform.
Now, I will turn to my comments with
respect to the budget. I want to deal with a number of issues.
First is the rule of law. I was very disheartened to hear the comments
of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) with
respect to the Sunday shopping law and the fact that that law, despite the fact
that it was not passed by this Legislature and was not law, was not being
enforced by the government. I think that
is unfortunate because if there is any principle that governs us in this
Chamber and our system of government, it is the rule of law, that no person is
above the law and that the law applies equally to all, that no one is above it.
In this case, we are dealing with a law
that is not being enforced, notwithstanding all of the Premier's (Mr. Filmon)
comments with respect to the fact that it is a regulatory‑‑all of
that is excuses. The fact is the Sunday
shopping law, if passed by this Legislature is one thing, but the manipulation
and the disrespect being shown by this government does not bode well and is a
terrible example to our youth and to society in general.
As the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld)
indicated, a $862‑million deficit is the largest per capita in provincial
history, and it is a sad comment in the last six years under this
government. The worst aspect of this
budget is the mean‑spirited nature of this budget. Now, I do not think‑‑the member
for Rossmere was quite defensive in his comments. He seemed to indicate that we on this side of
the House did not believe that the members on that side had any feeling or did
not care. I think I speak for all of us
in that this certainly is not the case.
I do not think that members on that side
care any more or any less than us on this side of the House. We are all here to do our jobs, and we all
believe in certain aspects. However,
when it comes to competence, that is an entirely another question. I do not believe that members on that side of
the House have competently handled the affairs of this province for the past
six years. I believe that this budget is
a example, an illustration of an incompetence and something that I strongly
believe should result in due course, when the election comes, in the removal of
that government from office.
The first issue I want to deal with, with
respect to this mean‑spirited budget, is the imposition of user fees. I feel very strongly about this, and I think
the people of
If you are in a hospital and require
certain of these supplies, they will be provided under our universal health
care plan, but now if you are removed to your home, if you are moved out of a
high‑cost institution‑‑something we all are advocating, a
movement from high‑cost institutions to home care‑‑if you
move into your home‑care facility, you have to pay for those supplies on
your own. I think that is wrong. I think it erodes the base of medicare. I think the fence around medicare is slowly
eroding, and the imposition of user fees on those particular supplies is
particularly galling.
Let me deal with the issue of ostomy,
those people who have colostomies, the 1,800 people in
They have no choice but to require these
supplies and what has this government said?
This government has said you will now have to pay a user fee. You will now have to pay a tax on these
supplies. I think that is small‑minded. I think that is unfortunate. I think the government could certainly do
itself a good deal of public relations by removing that particular provision
from this budget. If they are listening,
if they care, and I believe they do, then I think that provision should be
removed because I think it is particularly poorly implemented and it is, in
fact, a user fee.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the personal care
home rate, the increase of 74 percent in one fell swoop is unprecedented in
this province. No warning. We asked in Question Period whether or not the
minister would consider raising the threshold, and I would like the government
to consider that. Raise the threshold at
least in terms of what you allow people to keep and what you do not allow them
to keep. That would be fairer. We are asking that and we are suggesting
that.
I have received numerous calls on the
daycare situation, on the increase in the daily rate and on the cutback in
subsidized spaces, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The typical call is an individual who is considering having to now go on
social assistance or quit their job and/or quit school because they can no longer
pay the increased rates by this minister.
That is unfortunate. As the
member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) eloquently put it, why is welfare the option? Why can we not provide the service to those
who require it?
Foster care cuts, Madam Deputy Speaker,
are another area that we have received numerous calls on, and it is unfortunate
with what this government is doing. When
it comes to the opposition, we have to speak for those women and men, mostly
women, who require daycare. We have to
speak for those families who require foster care assistance. Who speaks in this Legislature for the
children, the tens of thousands of children that have had their dental care
cut? The members opposite speak nary a
word, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are
speaking on their behalf. Who speaks for
the children in pediatric surgery? Nary
a word from members opposite.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)
relies on Aggie Bishop. I do not know Aggie Bishop. I am sure she is quite competent. The
Minister of Health has not yet answered a question in this House directly on
the pediatric bed closures, and I will get into that later, Madam Deputy
Speaker. Who speaks to the lineups that
are forming in the hospitals? We have to
speak because no one on that side of this Chamber will do that. Who speaks for the elderly that have seen
their cutbacks? No one, unless we on
this side of the House speak up for them.
That is our role. That is our
responsibility not just to them but the people of
I want to get into health care extensively
in my comments regarding the budget.
Firstly, I would like to ask something that I have asked the minister
time and time again in the period of time since I have been the Health critic,
and that is, where are the alternative services in place that were
promised? They are not there. Now I know the minister talks about
Concordia, Deer Lodge, King Edward, the municipal hospitals, and the announcement
that came July 1990, I believe‑‑[interjection] May 1990, the member
for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) indicates.
He talks about that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that is it.
* (2150)
We have not seen any increases. Now we have seen a supposed saving of $6
million in the 74 percent increase in nursing home fees. We have seen a saving of millions of dollars
by imposing user fees on those that require hospital supplies. I would presume that money will go into
increased home care, although I suspect it is going into deficit reduction. So those people who are paying for the supplies
now know that they are paying down the deficit of
I would like to deal extensively with the
pediatric beds issue, which is something that has been‑‑and I think
it epitomizes part of the difficulty with health care reform. I will go through it, and I will kind of
indicate how we got involved in this in a big way. We got involved in this in a big way, Madam
Deputy Speaker, because we were phoned by parents, not one parent, not two
parents, not three parents, not four parents, but maybe a dozen parents, maybe
more. And we got phoned by doctors who
said, we have talked to the minister and we cannot get a straight answer, and
we do not know what is happening in terms of pediatric beds at St. Boniface,
and we do not know what is happening in terms of pediatric surgery and the
consolidation of pediatric surgery at Health Sciences Centre.
I went out and met with some of those
groups. I had numerous meetings, and it
was always the same. They had phoned the
minister's office and heard one thing from the minster. They had phoned the deputy minister's office
and heard another thing from the deputy minister, and they had phoned then the
head of health reform and had heard another thing, Madam Deputy Speaker. In other words, the plan was not clear. Indeed the plan was, to say the least,
chaotic, and it was not clear where they were going.
So I asked questions in the House, and do
you know what? We got different answers
from the minister. The minister was not
clear, and he was very circumspect in his response because he was not giving
out the information.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is
unfortunate. We had a ward providing
excellent care at St. Boniface Hospital, and an initial report that said close
most of it but maintain 15 beds for in‑patient and five beds for
outpatient surgery, and the assumption was that this would continue on. But sometime between that announcement and
early spring, all the beds were being closed, and do you know what? When our Leader asked that in December, that
question, the minister used statistics, but he used them wrongly. He had used statistics based on a full‑capacity
hospital. He did not use statistics
based on the actuals. But the minister
manipulated the statistics and made his political arguments, got us to the
point where the pediatric ward closed.
The jobs are lost and parents who have been taking their kids there for
10, 15 and 20 years were told, forget it.
Then, Madam Deputy Speaker, we had a press
conference to try to alert it. The
minister used the response I had said on CKND, took it out of context, of
course, but I expect that from the minister, and tried to imply that we were
fearmongering. That does not matter. The point is that we suggested, keep the ward
open for 18 months. See what the needs
were at the Health Science Centre. See
if there was overflow like there was, as we were advised, three times in the
last year. Keep the ward open. If after
an 18‑month period there was no need to maintain a pediatric ward in St.
Boniface, then revisit the issue. But
no, the minister stood up in the House and said he had a final report that said
otherwise, although he would not release the final report. He would wave it in his hand, he would not
release it, like so many other reports, so we are left with that.
With regard to surgery, we had the deputy
minister saying, yes, in‑patient surgery will be moved to Health
Sciences, but all other out‑patient surgery will remain at the community hospitals,
in recognition of the fact that the minister's own document says, Health
Sciences Centre, $800 a day; community hospitals, $400‑plus a day. It is cheaper to do it at community
hospitals. We will keep the day surgery for children at community hospitals in
the community where they recognize them.
That is what the deputy minister said.
But do you know what? That is not what the head of health reform
said. The head of health reform said, it
is all moving to Health Sciences Centre, and then nobody knew. And now we know, and there have been letters
and faxes and all kinds of information, we all know it is all going to Health
Sciences Centre. It is all going, and
that is contrary to the government's own plan.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is contrary to
the government's own plan, but they are all doing that anyway. We raised the fact in this House that they
are expanding surgery in hospital rooms that are not even by modern standards‑‑that
do not even meet the minimum requirements of the minister's own
department. That is no reflection on the
very good work undertaken by Health Sciences Centre and on the very good work
undertaken in those operating rooms.
Nonetheless, they are putting in 3,000 new procedures into crowded
rooms, but the minister came out of the House, I believe, and indicated to the
press that it was not an important issue.
I think otherwise.
We are moving to a point where they have
now moved all the surgery‑‑and I think it is clear that all surgery
is now down at Children's Hospital‑‑contrary to their own health
action plan and with no analysis that has been presented publicly, not one
analysis presented publicly, that says it is cheaper and proper and more
efficient to do it in the one facility.
So I think that the pediatrics issue must
be revisited, not only the St. Boniface decision, but the whole question of the
surgery with respect to the minister's health reform plan.
Now today we have heard 141 layoffs at St.
Boniface Hospital. I ask the minister,
is this part of the 380 layoffs that were announced in November as part of
health restructuring? [interjection] What was the answer, the member for Arthur
(Mr. Downey)? Could you tell me? I do not think anyone in this Chamber‑‑I
went out in the hallway and I listened attentively to the minister as he was
scrummed. Then I asked the media after,
did you understand what the answer was?
No one understood what the answer was.
I think that is sad.
I think it is sad when 141 people lose
their jobs, and we in this Chamber cannot ask the minister whether this is part
of the plan or whether it is in addition to the plan and exactly what that is
all about. It is tragic that they lose
their jobs, but I think it is tragic for this Assembly and for the
democratically elected members of this House when we cannot get a straight
answer as to why this is happening and what is happening.
An Honourable Member: It would help if you had asked a straight
question. You get so carried up in your
rhetoric that the question‑‑
Mr. Chomiak: The member says that I get so carried
up. I would hold my questions up against
the member's questions when he is opposition any time, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I think, notwithstanding that comment,
that the question was very clear, and the answer was as imprecise as possible. I think that is sad, because we do not know
what is happening in terms of health care reform, and it is affecting the
entire health care community in the entire
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to
turn to a couple of other issues concerning health reform, and one of them is
concerning the government's decision in these times of restraint to spend $3.9
million on a consultant, probably the largest consultant contract ever entered
into and forcing St. Boniface and Health Sciences Centre, forcing them to pay
her expenses and those of all her associates up to a maximum of $800,000‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) will have 10 minutes
remaining.
The hour being 10 p.m., this House is
adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).