LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
OF
Wednesday, April 14,
1993
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Walter
Wozny, Eleanor Hall, L. Stevenson and others requesting the Family Services
minister consider restoring funding for friendship centres in
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
* * *
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Rick Barnard, Cory
Barnard, David Berg and others requesting the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) to consider restoring what was an excellent program, the student
social assistance program.
Mr. Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Dewar). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will
of the House to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
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
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of
honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon, from
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Education System
Violence Prevention
Programs
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy
Premier.
All members of this House have
unfortunately been attending community meetings, where parents, teachers,
administrators have been talking about the rising violence in schools, both
perpetrated by people within those schools and people operating from outside
within the school system. We have even
raised this question as late as December 9, 1992, in this House, when we asked
the government for their action plan dealing with kids across all disciplinary
lines in government departments.
The government received a report in June
of 1991, talking about the challenges of kids and the challenges of children,
working across many departments in government, Mr. Speaker, and calling on the
government to take an action plan for these children across the many government
departments that impact on their lives.
This report was prepared by the school trustees, The Teachers' Society,
the Association of School Superintendents and the Association of School
Business Officials and presented to the government in June of 1991.
I would like to ask the Deputy Premier
(Mr. Downey): What specific action has
the government taken on the many concerns and recommendations that are
contained within the report that was presented to the government some time ago?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Acting
Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I rise as the
Acting Minister of Education and, too, want to note this incredible vexing
problem and tremendous concern that the government has with respect to the
increasing violence within our schools.
Mr. Speaker, Manitoba Education and
Training has initiated the following measures to assist school divisions to
combat the incidence of violence in schools.
I will just introduce three of those items at this point.
* (1335)
Mr. Speaker, anger management initiative,
I am led to believe at least 80 persons within the school system serve as
resource persons in the area of dealing with behaviourally disordered
disruptive students. Discussions also
will be held with the Departments of Health and Family Services to plan a
series of interdepartmental workshops on service networking, collaboration and
delivery of programming for children with special needs. Lastly, the Curriculum
Services Branch is preparing a violence prevention curriculum support document
for the middle years, Grades 5 and 6, which is expected to be available in the
spring of 1993.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, this report was prepared in June
of 1991‑‑an early warning system on the problems across disciplines
of government, an early warning system that I think has been amplified by
meetings all members of this Legislature have attended with literally hundreds
of parents and teachers prior to the incident being reported this morning.
Mr. Speaker, the government yet has not
responded to the bodies that have developed this report. It has not yet responded. In fact, the report recommended a response
from government by December of 1991. It
has not responded a year and a half after the request for a response by the
government.
At the same time, parents and teachers are
calling for greater relationship and partnership between the community and the
parents dealing with the kids. As
recently as last week, Mr. Speaker, the Philippine Association called for
liaison officers to work with violent kids, violent gangs, nonviolent kids with
many challenges in the schools‑‑called on liaison people.
Why has the government not publicly
responded to these proposals? Why do
they not have a public action plan, a public protocol to deal with these
issues? Why are we having
interdepartmental committees when the whole community, including education
professionals and parents, are calling out for a partnership solution, not an
interdepartmental committee?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the member. Certainly, this is a community problem and
therefore should be dealt with with the community at large.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae)
informs me that we have 63 Youth Justice Committees across the province that
are attempting to deal with this and other problems associated. As I indicated in my previous answer, the
three examples that I offered were not exclusive. There are many other actions that are taking
place in this area. Sixty‑three
Behaviour Management and Violence Prevention Programs have been funded in 15
divisions through the Student Support Grant Program. Twenty‑two schools in 10 divisions
received funds to provide additional guidance and counselling services to
assist at‑risk students.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Child Care
and Development Branch has recently developed a leaders manual entitled Working
Effectively with Violent and Aggressive Students, and rural and urban school
divisions will have had training with this topic complete by April 1993.
Mr. Speaker, we have taken into account
many of the recommendations of the report.
The department has put into place a significant number of action
recommendations and has acted.
I, again, agree with the member and Leader
of the Opposition, this is a community issue.
Indeed obviously, as I am reminded by my colleagues, there is some
responsibility also of those who are the keepers of the home to try and provide
guidance to their children and indeed all of the youth who enter our public
school system.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, that is why many of the
communities are calling for a public action plan, so they can become part of
the solution. They do not believe that an
interdepartmental committee is dealing with the recommendations that this
government has had for close to two years now.
Many of the other recommendations in this
report go on to cite the challenges of kids who have been involved in the
justice system, kids who have been involved in handicap problems and call for a
greater sensitivity to a pupil‑teacher ratio, which, of course, has been
eroded by the funding decisions made by the government and particularly eroded
this year with a 1.2 percent decline in support to our public education system.
I would like to know from the
minister: With all the cutbacks that are
taking place, including in the public education system, what will be the
greater challenge of these cutbacks on the already stretched resources in our
public education system?
* (1340)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, the member does not quite know the facts, and
although he is aware, because we have announced that there has been a reduction
with respect to the public school grant, I remind him that the department spent
$2.9 million on support programs for violence in schools in 1992‑93.
Furthermore, I am reminded by the
minister, in discussion with her, that our funding model has been changed this
year so that this type of student‑‑and I am talking now about those
within Levels II and III who sometimes carry more of the violent
characteristics, that that level of support will receive significant increase
by the changes that have been introduced by the minister with respect to that
level of funding.
Mr. Speaker, we have, within the
tremendous pressures of funding within government and also within the
Department of Education, tried to make the changes necessary to help in a more
direct fashion, on a day‑to‑day basis, within this area.
Ford of
Employment Losses
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, this government has talked a
great deal, in its last couple of budgets and throne speech, about the
investment climate in
My question is to the Deputy Premier (Mr.
Downey): Can the Deputy Premier explain
to Manitobans why Manitobans continue to lose jobs to other provinces and why,
in this particular instance, the government has not had consultations with Ford
of
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, certainly we are concerned any time there is
any job consolidation in other parts of
I will deal partly with the preamble of
the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) when he talks about jobs and
remind him‑‑this is August of 1992‑‑there are 14,000
more jobs in
It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, we never
get a question when CIBC acquires a company like Comcheq and makes a decision
to locate their head office right here in
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, that was a poor, after‑the‑fact
rationalization, as was the minister's defence yesterday, or lack of defence,
of the jobs that may be in jeopardy at MCI as a result of corporate dealings in
the
Motor Coach Industries
Dial Corporation
Holdings
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a letter
that was tabled on Monday with the Ontario Securities Commission, at which time
it was learned that Dial Corporation is in discussions with MASA, which is the
Mexicana d'autobus
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member for Flin Flon, kindly put your question, please.
Mr. Storie:
My question to the minister is:
Will he now acknowledge that there is something more serious going on
behind the Dial Corporation's purchase of a bus manufacturing plant in
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, we know the position of the NDP when it comes
to trade issues. We know the position
that they want to build the walls and boundaries around the
Dial Corporation, back in January of 1993,
acquired a 10 percent interest in a bus manufacturing operation in
* (1345)
We had discussions again yesterday with
Motor Coach. We have had ongoing
discussions with Motor Coach, and they are quite confident in terms of the
performance of this facility and the job opportunities staying at the current
levels and representing other opportunities.
The kind of fearmongering that they do
when it comes to trade issues does not do the employees of Motor Coach any
good. It does not do the owners of Motor
Coach or Dial any good; it does not do any Manitoban any good, and I would
suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that should come to an end.
Mr. Storie: These vague assurances from the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism do not do anything to inform or make Manitobans
feel more secure.
My question is: Can the minister explain to this House what
this agreement between MASA and Dial means when it says manufacturing at MASA's
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I have already outlined for the member for Flin
Flon exactly the discussions that we have had with Motor Coach Industries, the
senior personnel here in
Obviously senior management in
They have received assurances in terms of
the opportunities here, and I have already outlined the position of Dial in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Storie: So the minister can be informed, I will send him a copy, Mr.
Speaker‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member does not have a point of order.
APM Management
Consultants Expenses
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, yesterday another 140 jobs were
lost at St. Boniface Hospital directly as a result of funding cuts from the
government to St. Boniface and other hospitals.
Since health care funding is at a premium,
can the minister advise this House whether the $800,000 in potential expenses
for travel costs and hotel costs to be paid to the American consultant by the
minister will come out of the hospitals' existing budget, or will the
government provide funds to pay for those costs so that the hospital budget can
pay for much‑needed patient care and not for
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend would know
that any potential expenditure that any of our hospitals would undertake would
be part of the global funding that is provided by government annually.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the
question. I will phrase it again to him.
Will the potential $800,000 in expenses to
be paid to his U.S. $3.9‑million consultant come out of the existing
hospital budgets which have been cut back, or will the government provide
funding to those budgets to pay for those expenses so it does not go away from
much‑needed patient care?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, lest my honourable friend run away with his
rhetoric, let me tell my honourable friend that the two hospitals, Health
Sciences Centre and St. Boniface, their boards, their senior management
encouraged government to engage APM. It
was not an initiative that government in any way, shape or form pushed upon the
respective hospital institutions.
Mr. Speaker, the reason why the teaching
hospitals, St. Boniface, Health Sciences Centre, their boards, their senior
management wished to engage APM was so that they could maintain the level of
patient care, the numbers of procedures undertaken by each facility, that
caregiving staff could increase the amount of time they spend in providing
hands‑on patient care to Manitobans who were ill or in admitted for
surgery, and have the advantage of significant budget savings.
That is why this government agreed to take
the monies from Lotteries, the casino, to provide the funds for that contract,
Sir.
* (1350)
Income Tax Act
Dr. Connie Curran
Exemption
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) as president of Treasury Board.
How can the minister explain to
Manitobans, who are facing tax increases as a result of his budget, why he
allowed Connie Curran to apply for an exemption under the Income Tax Act to not
pay taxes on her $3.9 million when the minister knows full well that the 70‑year‑old
agreement between
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, again, I realize my
honourable friend wants to have the issue as being "an American" and
all of the rhetoric that he can attach with his union friends around Americans.
Mr. Speaker, why do you think the senior
management of St. Boniface and Health Sciences Centre, the boards of those
respective facilities, why do you think that they wished to engage this
consulting firm if they did not believe that they could maintain their level of
service, increase the amount of hands‑on patient care by caregivers and
reduce the budget?
Now, Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend did
not acknowledge that when in government, New Democrats hire American
consultants. They hired them to study
the home care program. I wonder what has
changed‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Provincial Sales Tax
Rebate
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
This government has tried to tell
Manitobans that their most recent budget is fair to all taxpayers when in fact
it is not fair to all taxpayers. Mr.
Speaker, this government has opposed the GST, the goods and services tax,
seeing that as a consumption tax. It is
a regressive tax. Well, the same
principles apply to the PST.
I am asking the Minister of Finance
today: Is the government considering
implementing any sort of rebate so that it will make the PST a less regressive
tax?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, we have amongst the richest
credit system and support of the lower‑income people who pay the
provincial sales tax. It is the cost‑of‑living
tax credit and is on the T1C‑1 Manitoba form, in case the member is not
aware of that.
Business Arrears
Listing
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Can the Minister of Finance table in this
House, and if he is unable to table, give us a reason as to why we cannot‑‑the
public does not have the right to know, according to this government, who these
individuals are who are abusing the tax?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, this is different. What the member is suggesting is that I try
and gain access, by extension, to the federal government and they tell me who
is in arrears of all their personal income tax, and I provide that list to the
media. Indeed, if his name were one of
them, what he is saying is, share that information publicly. I will not do that; neither will I do that
for any business or anybody else. I
cannot believe that the member across the way would suggest that the Minister
of Finance in any jurisdiction should make public all the private affairs that
an individual or a corporation or a company has with government. I find it absolutely unacceptable.
Mr. Lamoureux: Well, Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Finance saying that
the public has no right in knowing who is not paying their taxes? We are talking in excess of $9 million. He is talking about having a fair budget‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
This is not a time for debate.
Mr. Lamoureux: My question to the minister, Mr. Speaker,
is: Is the Minister of Finance saying
that the public has no right to know who is not paying their taxes?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I am in a state of shock. What the member is saying is that the public
has the right to know of every one of us who does not put a cheque in with the
filing of our tax form on April 30. That
is exactly what the member is saying.
Now, if he is saying that he wants to know
the list‑‑
An Honourable Member:
Business, retail.
* (1355)
Mr. Manness: Oh, just the business.
I see, Mr. Speaker. So there are
two classes of filers in this country, one the business people. Indeed their arrears should be made public
where individuals should not. Well, I
hate to tell him, I hate to tell people, the reality is that when you pass tax
law, it has to be made fair and the same for everybody.
With respect to his question, if he wants
to know why there is $9 million in arrears, Mr. Speaker, I can assure him that
most of that $9 million will come in because I have attached liens to property
to make sure that it does come in. I can
also tell him that in case he does not know it, we are in the midst of a recession,
and some of the commissioned agents who have collected tax revenues have not
followed their agreements and have not remitted their funds to government to
the extent that they have used it for their own purposes. The heavy hand of the government will step in
and try and collect those monies.
Fishing Industry
Northern Freight
Assistance Program
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): My question is directed to the Minister of
Natural Resources.
Mr. Speaker, people in northern
Since fishing is a vital industry in
northern
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I have to acknowledge the
information that the honourable member for The Pas puts on the table is
correct, that we did reduce the Freight Assistance Program, but in applying the
remaining $250,000, we prorated it, or proportioned it specifically to impact
most directly on the northern fisheries, on the understandable theory that they
faced the highest freight costs, and this was assistance on behalf of the
taxpayers of the province to help in those fisheries. I can appreciate that the fisheries industry
is not in the healthiest state that it should be, but I can assure you that the
southern fishermen, particularly those on
Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the same minister to tell this
House how he expects those fishermen in the North, particularly those in the
isolated communities such as
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, commercial fishermen in
Mr. Speaker, you know, I have never made
it a secret. I quite frankly welcome the
questions directed to me by the honourable member. I would simply ask that he encourage the
official opposition from time to time to remind themselves that there are other
vital interests of concern in the province that have a claim on the resources
of this province.
I get asked a question once or twice
during the length of a sessional period, before we get past the important
prioritized social services items that‑‑these items, I happen to
agree with him. They impact directly on
the livelihood of many, many northern producers in this case.
Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is, the people
living in the North traditionally have been‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
I would like to remind the honourable member, this is not a time for
debate. The honourable member for The
Pas, with your question, please.
* (1400)
Northern Co-ops
Auditing Services
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): My question to the same minister is: Why did the Minister of Natural Resources
agree to cut auditing services for those co‑operatives in northern
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural
Resources): Mr. Speaker, it is simply a question of
applying those resources that are available to my department in the best way
possible. I take this advantage again to
the honourable members opposite, those who revel in the cancellation of the
Conawapa project, those who show no support for Repap in the North and yet, at
the same time, want this government to provide employment opportunities in the
Mr. Speaker, in general, let us get with
it. Let us understand that wealth has to
be created in this province to provide the social services, to provide the jobs
that we require in this province.
Child Care Centres
Space Definition
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Family Services put out a
press release on cutbacks to his department, he announced a reduction of 400
spaces in child care. Now that letters
have gone out to child care directors and home child care providers, we see
that the director of the child daycare office is using the word
"cases."
Since child care spaces are often shared
by more than one child and since many children are enrolled part time, since
many parents are working part time, I would like to ask the minister if he
could clarify for the House the distinction between a reduction in 400 spaces
and 400 cases.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister
of Family Services): Well, quite clearly, Mr. Speaker,
the department was funding some 10,000 subsidized spaces, and we have indicated
that there would be a reduction of 400 spaces to 9,600.
Mr. Martindale: The minister did not answer the question. Could he tell us, what is the difference
between spaces and this letter which refers to cases? Can he tell the House if the current
situation is correct, where two or three children are using up one space, if
that is going to change as a result of talking about cases?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated that we are
putting a cap on the number of spaces that we fund, that we subsidize, and that
we are working with the various daycare centres to see that in the
implementation of this, it has a fairness about it as we implement it across
the system.
Mr. Martindale: Will the minister then inform people in the
child care community, both boards and directors and parents, as to what the
actual situation is, since there is a great deal of confusion there? People are very concerned that if they lose
their space, they are not going to get it back if they cannot find employment in
two weeks, because this minister has cut the number of weeks searching for
employment from eight weeks to two and, for people going back to university and
for people who find part‑time jobs, will there be a space available?
Mr. Gilleshammer:
Mr. Speaker, clearly we have said we are going to limit the subsidized
spaces to 9,600. We know that there may
be people coming on stream who would be able to access a subsidized space
because they qualify if that space existed, and we are faced with the prospects
of waiting lists.
WRAP Legislation
Government Commitment
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Environment.
On October 30, 1989, Michael Bessey, then‑Secretary
to the Treasury Board, wrote a memo to the Premier. I am prepared to table that memo here this
afternoon. [interjection] And I
acknowledge that the New Democratic Party has talked about this memo; they
talked about it prior to this budget in which we have seen a 56 percent
reduction in WRAP funding.
In that memo, Mr. Bessey said that
"the legislation as drafted" was "for the most part,
cosmetic." He went on to say that
it was "light weight legislation."
Well, Mr. Speaker, we passed that legislation because we took the
minister at his word. He said it would
be a catalyst for action. So far, we
have a file folder full of press releases, action plans by action
committees. It is all rhetoric.
The fact is this government has cut waste
reduction by 56 percent in this budget.
How does that cut square with their commitments, going on three years now,
of action and a plan and a strategy that would work for waste reduction in this
province?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of
Environment): Mr. Speaker, contrary to
the view of the Liberal critic, people from across the country do still copy
our WRAP legislation as a way of achieving a 50 percent reduction of waste in
this country.
Mr. Speaker, the critic would like to
think that the change in the Department of Environment reflects at all on the
commitment that we have in terms of getting on with the reduction of waste in
this province. He knows that we are
about to announce a tire program for removal of tires from waste in this
province. We are working with the paper
industry to retrieve their waste. By
August 1, we will have a decision on the beverage container industry. He had better hope we do not get it all done.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the great government of tomorrow. Everything is
tomorrow. Everything is coming up roses
tomorrow with this government.
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question for
this minister: He talks about overall
problems with finances. Why has this
branch suffered the single largest cut in his department, a 56 percent
reduction in funding, when overall the department had an increase in funding of
4.5 percent in this year's budget? Why
have they singled out waste reduction as the least important part of what they
do?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, the member looks at the superficial figures in
the Department of Environment. I would
invite him to get into the Estimates process, where we will show him that those
employees are now doing very much the same work within other sections of the
department, and we are in fact accomplishing as much today and will accomplish
more tomorrow as we were yesterday.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, that is no comfort. This government, in its entire WRAP history,
has put forward one regulation. It is a
half‑baked‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
I would like to remind the honourable member, this is not a time for
debate.
Beverage Container
Regulation
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Why, after three years, has this government
only been able to come forward with one regulation dealing with beverage
containers, which is toothless, which is the industry's preference‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of
Environment): Mr. Speaker, one of the strengths of
the Department of Environment has been that we have been working with the
community, which we are regulating in order to bring into place regulation and
programs that are effective and have the co‑operation of the public and
the regulated body. I would think that
the member should be very cognizant of the fact that the beverage container
industry, while they do not like the idea of possible deposits on the 1st of
August, they are going to have to be ready for that or an alternate system.
Farmers Alfalfa
Product
Government Assistance
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, Farmers Alfalfa Products in
Dauphin has been operating since 1986 as a farmers‑owned co‑operative,
processing alfalfa into pellets for export.
This operation fits in precisely, I believe, with the Minister of
Agriculture's so‑called priorities on agricultural diversification and
value‑added processing, and provides 25 local jobs in the
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of
Agriculture if he will confirm today that this indeed does fit in with his
priorities for diversification in agriculture and, if so, what action this
minister has taken to assist the operation in Dauphin to remain open and viable
in employing people in this province?
* (1410)
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of
Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, there is no question
that I promote diversification and value‑added industries, but the bottom
line always is, it has to be economically viable in the marketplace in the long
run. That is an ultimate necessity.
I will tell the member that, yes, we
understand there are some difficulties there.
We had a mission to
The alfalfa plant at Dauphin is‑‑there
are government officials working with the people at the plant, trying to
restructure the process so that they can be able to serve the export market in
a viable context in the future.
Farmers Alfalfa
Products
Government Assistance
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, the plant has explored all
options, and they are now down to a week or two in existence before they are
going to have to make a decision with regard to closing down.
I want to ask the Minister of Industry,
Trade and Tourism: Since this plant has explored all options and has received
not even a ray of hope with regard to financing, what action has this Minister
of Industry, Trade and Tourism taken in response to the letter that he
received, dated February 18, from this organization sent along with‑‑to
himself, also to his colleagues? Yet,
there is no meeting or response. What
action has he taken on that?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, just confirming what the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) has said, officials from our government have been in
contact. I would not necessarily agree
with the member that there is no ray of hope, but I will certainly follow up on
further matters this afternoon.
Mr. Plohman: Will the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism get together with his Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) and the
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), who also received this request?
It is a desperate request. Time is short. They need to raise a substantial sum of money
for conversion. They have raised $80,000
from their shareholders already. They
need $200,000. What hope is this
minister going to offer? What action is
he going to take with his colleagues?
Mr. Stefanson: I have already indicated, Mr. Speaker, that we
will follow up on the matter. We have
been in contact, and as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) outlined,
clearly the first decision has to be whether or not the operation is
economically viable in the long term.
Obviously, we will do that entire assessment and make a decision on its
merit at that time.
Gross Revenue
Assistance Plan
Information Release
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I want to ask the minister why there has
been such a delay in getting the information to farmers. They do not know what their coverage is going
to be. They cannot do planning for their
spring seeding. When are they going to
get their information, and why is there such a delay?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of
Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, in case the member has not been
checking her mail, she will find that the interim cheque for GRIP‑‑second
interim cheques totalling some $67 million are now in the hands of farmers as
of this week.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENTS
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 be able to
acknowledge the New Year celebrated by Manitobans of Laotian, Cambodian, Sri
Lankan and Tamil heritage over the next few days. As integral members of our
community, they take great pride in the continuation and the preservation of
their ancient and honourable cultural legacies.
We, as Manitobans, cherish the freedom and
the opportunity to express and to foster all aspects of our cultural heritage‑‑our
languages, customs and traditions. This
freedom takes on a special significance in light of current world events. We are again reminded, other countries do not
embrace the concept and ideals of multiculturalism as Canadians do.
Manitobans of every origin firmly believe
that openness and acceptance are fundamental to promoting understanding, mutual
respect and harmony amongst all peoples.
I ask the members of this House to join
with me in extending our best wishes to all Manitobans who proudly proclaim the
heritage of Laotians, Cambodians, Sri Lankans and Tamil people. I hope that the
New Year brings them health, happiness and prosperity and a continuation of
their pride in being part of our rich and diverse multicultural society. Thank you.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
BUDGET DEBATE
(Fifth Day of Debate)
Mr. Speaker: On the adjourned debate, the fifth 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 thereto, standing in the name of the honourable
member for Kildonan, who has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I hope that some members
opposite, particularly the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has had an
opportunity to review the comments I made yesterday when I commenced this
debate concerning some of the positive suggestions that we have on this side of
the House to offer in terms of the health care field.
Just in summary of my comments yesterday,
members opposite always claim that the opposition only offers negative
criticism, and I say they do not do justice to what we offer. In fact, they play games by not paying
attention to the positive aspects, and I hope the minister will list the
comments. I do not want to repeat them
in my remaining minutes, but I hope he will go over them point by point and
read the suggestions we made that would improve the health care system in this
province.
It is of paramount importance and
something that the province requires, and I hope he will take the time and
energy to do so with respect to the suggestions we made.
Now, where I left off yesterday, Mr.
Speaker, was at the point where I indicated that the minister had engaged the
services of a U.S.‑based consultant, Ms. Connie Curran, an APM
associates, company, enterprises, limited, inc., inc., at a cost of $3.9
million to the provincial Treasury, probably the biggest‑‑I do not
know, but I would assume‑‑consulting contract ever entered into in
the history of the province.
In addition, there are clause provisions
in that particular agreement requiring the hospitals who are contracting
agencies to have to pay up to an additional $800,000 in expenses out of their
hospital budget, out of the budget that pays for patient care to those
particular consultants.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the
concerns we have with that consulting contract is that it was not
tendered. In a question asked by members
on this side of the House of the minister as to whether there was any tendering
process, the minister stated, and I am paraphrasing, but it is something to the
effect that: Oh, consulting agencies had
an opportunity to participate in this contract.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I followed up on
that. I approached a senior person at a
large consulting firm‑‑and I will tell you, I cannot reveal the
firm's name nor can I reveal that person's name because they fear their
contracts or future contracts could be jeopardized if I were to give the name
out‑‑but I said to that firm that has done work for government of
all political stripes in the past, could you have undertaken the project that
Connie Curran has undertaken with Canadian consultants? I was told pointblank, yes, and that was only
one firm that I approached.
At that point I had no need to approach
other firms. I asked that person at that
firm if that firm was asked or in any way contacted about this contract, and we
were told pointblank, no.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is what is
wrong with the Connie Curran contract.
That is what is wrong with this minister's secretive, under‑the‑table
approach to government in health care reform.
I indicated in my comments yesterday that
they do not pay any attention to what is happening in the public, and they do
not listen to the public. They do not
listen to the phone calls; they do not answer the letters; they do not deal
with these people, which is why they are forced to come to us. That is symptomatic of the problem out there.
They do not talk to anyone else. They contact their agency, and now they are
paying $3.9 million to an American consultant, plus $800,000 that could go
directly for patient care, to save $45 million to $65 million on the basis of
what that consultant says, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is already after‑‑[interjection] Pardon me, $45 million to
$65 million after they have made millions of cuts already to those particular
agencies. That is one of the major
problems with that particular contract and with that particular agreement.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the members make
light of the fact that we talk about a
That is right. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) says
the problem is we do not even know what our costs are. I agree. One of the major problems throughout
the government, be it education, be it health services, is we have no idea
whatsoever about the costs.
* (1420)
I do not see Connie Curran, in fact,
providing us with that information either.
I do not even see that in the contract for $3.9 million. It is not even provided for. We do not even have‑‑and that is‑‑I
agree. The minister has focused on one
of the major problems. We do not have a
proper database. We do not know‑‑[interjection] We do have statistical
data here, I agree, but we do not have a database on which costs are based to
make our determinations. This consultant
will not even do that for us. This
consultant comes in with a fancy program.
I hope it works. I hope we can
save money. I hope we can improve
patient quality care. I am very suspect,
given the whole meanderings around this particular contract and all of these
negotiations.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I turn from this
particular issue. Although I could probably spend the rest of my remaining few
minutes on it, I want to touch on other areas.
I want to touch on the fact that the
minister broke his promise stated in the May 1992 action plan where he promised
no user fees will be introduced. Yet, in
this budget, we see user fees introduced.
The minister knows, members on that side know it is very much a sore
spot. I explained yesterday why we think
it is a problem, why the user fees on hospital supplies, colostomy bags and the
like is a serious, serious problem, why I think they will regret it and why I
think it goes counter to a promise made by the minister when he said they would
not introduce user fees.
There is no accountability, Madam Deputy
Speaker, in the health care reform process.
Yesterday, when we heard 141‑plus people were being laid off at
St. Boniface, the minister could not answer whether this was in addition to the
380 that had already been announced in November or whether this was part of the
380 that were announced in November. We
are still not clear. Although it is my
assumption‑‑I am concluding that it is additional.
One of the problems is we have no
information, no accounting from that government, no responsibility. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) talks
about having no data on cost and the basis of decision making at the hospital
level. We do not have it at the
governmental level. This government will
not come forward and tell us how many beds have been cut. They will not come forward and tell us how
many jobs have been cut. They will not
come forward and tell us what services are in place in the community to replace
those job losses, to replace those bed cuts.
Of course, I know why the latter, Madam
Deputy Speaker, because they have not put in place any programs at the
community level to replace the bed cuts and to replace the jobs lost to patients
in the hospital setting. I know that not
only from anecdotal information that has come our way but from the statistical
data that has come out.
I see that my time is rapidly drawing to a
close. I implore members of the House to
review the B.C. model with respect to health care. I think there is some indicative stuff in
there that would be very, very helpful to any government undertaking reform,
Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑the appointment of a provincial health
council; a policy framework that focuses on disability, mentally ill, poverty,
children and youth, women and seniors, areas and things that are overlooked by
this government; the Ombudsman authority extended to hospital boards and
functions; the client‑centred services through community health centres;
a provincial health council and the setting up of representative bodies in the
community that advised the government on the change prior to the change being
put in place‑‑overemphasis‑‑prior to the change being
put in place, not after the process is in place, something that was sorely
lacking and missed by this government.
On that note, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have
much to talk about‑‑the co‑ordination of approach that our
Leader mentioned today that is sorely lacking in this government, this pigeonholing
and department‑by‑department review of functions and not bringing
it together, as well as some of the alternatives that we have suggested.
Thank you very much.
Hon. James Downey (Minister of
Northern Affairs): Madam Deputy Speaker, let me at the outset say
how pleased and privileged I feel I am to be in the Manitoba Legislature at a
time when the province is, what I would say, at a real crossroads, when the
uses of public monies have never in the history, to my knowledge, have had so
much attention paid to them in the manner in which they are spent; that never
have I been involved or can I recall when the public of the province or in fact
of the country have paid so much attention to the political process and the
individuals who are involved, and the mannerisms in which they carry out their
public duties.
One can give credit to, either negatively
or positively, whichever today's paper or today's media has portrayed them or
him or her as, but it is largely to do with the capabilities of the media and
the modern technology, which in fact we all have available to us and are
available to the public at large. So I
say, for democracy, it is extremely, extremely important. We, Madam Deputy Speaker, should thank
ourselves that we do in fact have such a system available to us.
I want to, as well, at the outset‑‑and
I know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) in his opening of the Budget
Address, and I say, as well, I am extremely pleased to have been in cabinet and
to be involved with a government that has tabled for the sixth year in a row a
budget of this kind, of this time in our provincial history, a document that
expresses pretty clearly a fair and balanced approach to the expenditures of
what are scarce taxpayers' resources. I
say how pleased and proud I am to stand with our Premier (Mr. Filmon) and with
our Minister of Finance, our government, in supporting this year's budget.
The significance of a budget to the
province and to the country, Madam Deputy Speaker, is something that was
brought to me as a very young person in growing up. I had a very close association with my
grandfather on my mother's side whom I had the privilege to spend a lot of time
with, as he spent considerable years living in our home and living with us, as
my sisters and brother grew up in the farm community.
As a young person, one could quite often
distract, or try to, or in fact‑‑not consciously, but would
interfere with his listening to what was going on in current affairs on the
radio. That was prior to television. He,
particularly at a time of the year when the budget was being brought down
either for the province or the country, was always glued to the radio.
Of course, if there was an annoyance or
some noise from some of the grandchildren, it was very disturbing to him. He would immediately bring them to attention
and sometimes used very persuasive disciplinary measures which got your
attention which, by the way, I do not think in any way deterred from or hurt
the individuals that the application of such measures were applied to, but it
was pretty effective and I thank him for that.
More importantly, what I thank him for was
the attention that he brought to me of how important a budget for a province or
a country really was. It is a matter of
telling the people of the province whose money is being spent, the policy
directions that the government or the province are taking, extremely important
in a free and democratic society. That
is why at the outset I express very, very clearly how important it is that the
message be communicated to the public at large and everyone understand what is
happening.
If we do not, we take our system for
granted and we drift and we drift and we drift.
Quite frankly, we end up in a position where it can, in fact, be out of
control. People blame the system and
then challenge the system. You have
confrontation. You have all those kinds of undesirable things taking place in a
society which none of us want. So for
that I say thanks, and I very much appreciate it, the upbringing that I have
had and the attention that was brought to me and the importance of it.
I, as well, feel very honoured, Madam
Deputy Speaker, to be able to serve with a government, with a group of women
and men of such integrity and determination to carry out an extremely difficult
task in extremely difficult times. I, to
a person, believe that every man and woman in this Legislature believe they
have a responsible role to carry out and are sincerely trying to do so.
* (1430)
I find it unfortunate‑‑I am
not going to name any members or anyone, because I believe it is important not
to do that, but I hope we do not see too many activities like those which took
place in Question Period a few days ago when there was in fact reference made to
the children of a member who is trying to, in her best way, carry out a job on
behalf of the people of
Let me specifically say, Madam Deputy
Speaker, how proud and privileged I feel I am to serve with a cabinet and a
caucus group of people who have put forward one of the toughest documents that
this province will have seen in some 15 to 16 years that I have served in the
Legislature, tough because it is never easy to make. The integrity of individuals who put forward
such a document is always an important part of it. I believe that the Treasury Board of this
government, that the cabinet of this government and the caucus of this government,
in the acceptance of the decisions made and the process which they have gone
through is one that not many people in today's society would want to have to
deal with.
It is always popular when you are handing
out or giving money to individuals or to groups in society out of the Treasury
of any government. You are always
extremely popular but when the time has come‑‑and it has come,
because we have seen it not only in
You have three basic options when you are
developing a budget. You can take the
route which historically in the past quite a few years has been the route of
least resistance. We have seen it happen
federally under the Pierre Elliott Trudeau government. We have seen it happen under many other
governments throughout the country where in fact it was easier to raise taxes
and continue to spend money. That was
always and is always the route of least resistance. You have the ability through law to take
money from those people who are working in your society to pay for the services
that are deemed essential by those people who are elected politically. That has got us into, Madam Deputy Speaker,
considerable amount of trouble as a competitive situation throughout the world
and we have now to face that issue.
The other option which has been equally as
easy, but delaying the pain, has been that of the increase of deficit spending,
that you spend today to tax tomorrow on those people who are generating the
wealth that produces the programs which we all depend on. We either have the taxation of today which
you can do; you can deficit spend and continue to provide the services, or,
Madam Deputy Speaker, the path which we have taken and many other governments
are taking‑‑in fact, I do not know a jurisdiction anywhere that has
not had to come to grips and they are dealing with that third option‑‑and
that is the one of reducing the spending for the people of the
I take my hat off to those people,
whatever political stripe, however it has had to come about, that they have
come to grips with that because I think collectively, and I say this genuinely,
I have not heard the members opposite, although we accuse them of saying you
want to tax greater or you want a greater deficit, I do not think genuinely
anyone wants to continue to see the first two options followed. If they do, it is in the Budget Debate that
they should stand in their places and honestly say, I mean honestly say, you
should not have cut this program, but you should have in fact raised these
taxes to pay for it, or you should increase the deficit.
Well, there is big debate over the
deficit. The members opposite say there
was something about our reporting of a deficit which was somewhat greater than
we had anticipated, but it was not, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the expenditure
side that caused the problem. It was on
the revenue side, which we had absolutely no control over. So what we are doing, and have done, is
reported the facts as they are there for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness).
Unfortunate as it is, we truly intended to
keep our spending down and to come closer to balancing our budget. It was not doable so we passed that
stage. Now we have had to face further
expenditure reductions which will give us over a period of time a balanced
budget, which I have not heard anyone disagree with. I have not heard one person in this
Legislature disagree with a balanced budget.
Again, if they do, let them stand in their
place and tell us that they do disagree with a balanced budget, but it has to
come about because if we do not make that decision and drive to that goal then
there are those who will drive us to that goal whether we like it or not.
So there are three points that have to be
made. You can take the decision to
increase taxes, which is not in the cards.
In fact, I remind members again‑‑and I do want to
acknowledge the media because it is not always that we feel we get fair
reporting, as the members opposite feel that they do not always get fair
reporting.
I do happen to point out, and I think it
is noteworthy at this time, that the approach that the Progressive Conservative
Party and the government of Gary Filmon, the honourable Premier of this
province and his caucus have taken on is the right approach. I say that genuinely, and I comment on the
media that have reported it.
When you go back to the Free Press, I
believe it was March 1, when it says, Tax breaks to fatten wallets, what that
is saying‑‑not us saying it, not anybody who is of political
nature. It is what the Conference Board
of Canada said, that with the measures that
Think of it. Think of $600 million in the pockets of the
An Honourable Member: So last year's was just an accident, and this year's is just
another accident?
Mr. Downey:
Unfortunately, I have explained precisely why our deficit was higher
than what it was projected, because of the revenue side.
Now, the member again‑‑and I
want to challenge the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) who is now critical of
last year's deficit. How can he
criticize last year's deficit? What would
he have cut last year from the spending of the province? Would he have reduced Family Services? Would he have reduced health care
funding? Would he have reduced
Education? [interjection]
Okay.
He said from his seat that he would have cut Education. He said he would have cut Education. Now at least he is coming forward fairly and
honestly saying he would have cut Education.
* (1440)
Point of Order
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, the member for
Arthur is misusing something I said from my seat. I said that the 150‑percent increase to
private schools in the province cannot be justified. Yes, I would have certainly saved the
province some money by not implementing a 150‑percent increase in private
school funding.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Flin Flon does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Downey: I attempt, Madam Deputy Speaker, to speak the
truth and speak it from the heart. I
would hope he would not question that. [interjection]
Okay, thank you. He is now onside again.
Madam Deputy Speaker, so we have said
higher taxes are not the answer. Higher
deficits are not the answer. Reduced
spending‑‑at least, I would ask my colleagues in opposition to
agree that reduced spending is the direction that this province and this
country has to go.
Can I get some indication in the speeches
that they are going to give that this is in fact an acceptable principle? If it is not, please say so. Then we know and the public know what some
alternatives are. But they have not, you
see. That is part of the problem. They are playing this‑‑[interjection] Well, but that basic
principle, does she agree with the basic principle of reducing spending, rather
than the first two options of tax increases and larger deficits?
An Honourable Member: You never mentioned increasing revenue, Jim.
Mr. Downey: Well, the revenue side of it comes from
taxes. The revenues come from taxes.
Anyway, that is a point that I think at
least our society has to agree on, and I think it has. I think right from the President of the
Can I further go on by saying as it
relates to cabinet‑‑[interjection]
It might be worthwhile, eh? All I am
doing is bringing to the members' attention the fact that I predicted some two
years what would happen, and I think in fact that is one prediction that
hopefully will come about.
Let me further add that we have a very
dedicated‑‑and I say this particularly for the people that I have
working for the departments that I am responsible for, a dedication of the
Civil Service that cannot be questioned.
I honestly believe the majority of the
employees of government are serious and genuinely interested in what we are
doing. [interjection] The member for
Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) says that it was big of me to say that. Well, I do not consider it anything but the
way I feel, that I honestly believe the employees of government are trying to
make it work. They are trying to maintain
job security. They are trying‑‑[interjection] Well, the member for Flin
Flon (Mr. Storie) refers to political hacks.
I do not consider the people who work for me, who work for him and work
for the former government, as political hacks. I call them professional civil
servants.
Yes, there are people of different
political persuasions who work for all kinds of governments, and I do not
consider them political hacks. I
consider them having the right to express themselves politically as they so
feel, not political hacks and degrading them in that kind of a manner. I say they are genuinely hard‑working
people who want to make this thing happen.
They are not happy about paying greater taxes. In fact, I think they want to be some of the
ones who have the $600 million in tax savings in their pockets, because that is
the problem.
What governments continue to do is take
off the top of everybody's pay cheque without their control, without their say,
the cost of running government.
Management has the same deductions taken off as everyone else has. It is the government that takes the cheque
and takes that amount off. Management,
whatever level you are in‑‑government takes that money.
It is our objective to take less from that
line, not more, but to take less. I
think, from the case I am laying before this Legislature, that it is in fact
happening. I am proud and pleased to be
part of a government that is seeing the kind of activities, the responses and
the results that we are getting. But I do say genuinely that those people who
work for government I take my hat off to because they have to deliver some
tough and difficult programs and messages.
Let me proceed, Madam Deputy Speaker, to
make a couple of other points that I think are important. When we deal with public issues and we have
had to make the tough decisions that I have referred to for agencies and/or
those individuals depending on government for funding, I think the application
of the policies of this government again have been fair and equitable.
Let me use the example, and I again
comment about the educational system in this province. I think it is important when the funding for
our school divisions are carried forward from the provincial budget, that what we
have had to do as people elected and responsible for the global tax monies
within our jurisdiction, that the same kinds of principles are carried out
within those jurisdictions which we fund.
Yes, there is local autonomy. Yes, there are local school divisions that
are elected to give the kind of direction, the kinds of programs and policies
that reflect those individual communities, but in the global sense, because the
monies which we give them we are held responsible for, I think in the same
context their administration of their local authorities should in fact reflect
what we have had to reflect in the larger picture.
That is where I have some difficulty with
the members opposite in not coming forward and speaking clearly as to where
they stand. Example: We have said we would expect the school
divisions of this province to carry out the same kind of opportunity, difficult
as it may be, that if you are going to, in some way, reduce the costs of
education to the taxpayers, that there is an enabling legislation and an
ability to do so, to take the professional development days of school teachers
in this province and not pay for them‑‑not harsh, not extremely
cruel, but a fair application of a policy for the general purposes of solving
the problem.
You know, I, for some reason, am missing a
point, but I noticed‑‑I think it was the Leader of the second
opposition party last week or someone from her party, when a comment was made
that for some reason, the application of more money to education automatically
means a better education, I think she took exception when our Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey) made a comment along that line. Nobody has yet convinced me that
automatically more money going to education or more money automatically going
to health care service at the end of it equals better service or better
education.
An Honourable Member: Does that apply to private schools too?
Mr. Downey: That applies in anything. [interjection] I can defend it in
Eighty percent of the money goes to pay
salaries, so if you increase the money to the educational system, then you are
increasing the salaries of individuals.
Are they working longer days to teach the children that much
longer? Are they giving them more
courses in schools? Are they extending
the school day or the school week? That
does not automatically come.
What the member is trying to say is more
money equals better education and that is not true. It is how the money is channelled, spent and
targeted and the policies that are established as it is within any other government
forum. It is how you spend it and the
integrity and the direction that the money is given more than it is the
quantity.
* (1450)
I want to deal with another area. I know that members opposite quite frankly
have not been able to give us any alternatives, and that is being noted in the
public. What is as well being noted in
the public is the last week since we have tabled the budget which, by the way,
I am pretty pleased with and I say that the people of the constituency which I
represent are indicating as well that they are extremely pleased with it. It is, in today's terms, a conservative
budget.
What I have not seen are the alternative
decisions that the opposition members would make. In fact, we have had over a week of Question
Period and debate and I have yet to pick a speech or a question in Question
Period that I could say, this really shows the integrity of the opposition and
the sincerity of the opposition, in a global sense, dealing with this document.
I am sorry one of the leadership
candidates for the Liberal Party has not risen to what I would consider the
challenge that the current Leader who is stepping down has taken upon herself
to, in a global way, give the people of
I give credit where credit is due. [interjection] No, as an
individual. She came forward as an
individual. She built to a maximum of
some 21 seats, and that was no easy task, because what was there I believe was
some global leadership and some alternatives.
That is no longer with the Liberal Party, I am sorry to say. It is the current challenge.
The New Democratic Party I guess have not
got a central focus. They really have
lost‑‑what I would have thought they would have really shone on was
an opportunity to show how they would deal with the current financial issues of
the province. They quite frankly have not given the people of
They line up with all the groups that are
prepared to come to the steps of the Legislature and say, we are with you, we
would not cut that, we would not reduce any spending, we would not bring in
line or reduce some of the advocacy funding, we stand shoulder to shoulder with
them.
Well, what is the alternative has to come
forward, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sorry, it just is not there.
Could you give me, Madam Deputy Speaker,
an indication of how much time I have left?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. Downey: Eleven as in one, one?
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is correct.
Mr. Downey: Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have tried today
to not come across as extremely negative in my comments. I have tried to be constructive. I have attempted to point out how important
it is as elected members of not only this Assembly but of the House of Commons
and, speaking of the House of Commons, I know we have several members in this
Chamber who feel they would be able to serve their constituents better in a
larger arena for which it is extremely important that people are prepared to
put their names forward. At the same time,
I should comment that I am extremely proud as a Progressive Conservative‑‑and
I think I should say this at this time‑‑of the quality of people
who have put their names forward to take on the leadership of the Government of
It is extremely important that people come
forward and do that, because, as I said at the outset of my speech, there has
never been a time in our history that people have come under such scrutiny as
they come under today in their activities, personally, as it comes to the
spending of the funds that taxpayers put forward. There will never be a time probably that
there is such scrutiny and such importance placed on the activities of
individuals and how they perform in a public manner. Probably it is the toughest time ever to be
in public life.
I say that from my own experience as to
the last 16 years and the importance of how we all have to be not only seen to
be doing the right thing but doing the right thing. That is extremely important.
An area which I want to touch on because
it is important to the future of the province as well is some of the positive
growth policies that have been established and some of the things that we have
done. Probably the most outstanding is
the fact that our policies will leave $600 million in the pockets of taxpayers
by the year 1994‑‑probably the biggest single impact that the
province will see on the expenditure side.
Let me deal with some Crown corporation
issues which I think are important, as I have had the privilege of being
responsible for several Crown corporations.
I am pleased, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I had the responsibility to be
responsible for ManOil, not so happy that ManOil was established initially
because it cost the taxpayers, under the former administration, some $16
million, but I am pleased that we were able to divest of the Manitoba Oil and
Gas Corporation to a private company, which has turned that company into a
major economic generator and job creator for the province, and it is a Manitoba
company.
I am extremely pleased and proud of the
fact that we have the McKenzie Seeds organization. I give full credit to the management, to the
the board of directors and to the employees of that company for making two
years in a row in excess of a million‑dollar, bottom‑line profit
for the Province of Manitoba. Projections are that it should even grow from
that particular point.
Let me as well say that I am pleased with
the performance and the activities of the Manitoba Mineral Resources
corporation, which has worked hard to try and encourage and foster in the
development of new mining activities and mine operations in Manitoba.
The Communities Economic Development Fund,
I say to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, is a tool to assist northern and native
remote communities in the financing and activities that are related to daily
operations and lives. It is, in fact,
operating and performing in as difficult a situation as it is, but it is doing
a good job for the people of northern
I am pleased with those, Madam Deputy
Speaker, and the speed at which we were able to put them through committee
without a lot of questions and a lot of difficulty.
Let me say as well that I do not think it
was wrong public policy when the government moved to divest itself of Channel
Area Loggers and Moose Lake Loggers. It
turned over to those communities the opportunity to direct their own self‑operated
corporations without government having to be involved in their daily lives and
the operations.
Time will tell, but, at this point, Madam
Deputy Speaker, I am satisfied, as the minister who is charged with the
responsibility, that it has been the right thing to do. I am extremely pleased that I have been given
the mandate and the support of our Premier (Mr. Filmon) and my colleagues to
proceed with the settlement of some of our Northern Flood outstanding flood
issues. I am pleased that the
So when the members from the northern
portion of this province stand and say we have not done anything for the North,
in fairness I would like them to recognize that there has been some things
done. We are very close to completing‑‑hopefully,
the community will accept it in Nelson House‑‑a settlement of the
same agreement. York Landing have
indicated their desire to end the long‑term outstanding issues, and we
have had indications from the other communities that they would like to
proceed.
The
I am extremely pleased that we have been
able to start the process for the introduction of overland Hydro service for
the nine communities in the northeast corner of the province that have been
denied the same kinds of services that you and I have enjoyed, Madam Deputy
Speaker, in southern Manitoba. It is not
only right, it has to be done so those individuals can enjoy the same kinds of
services that we enjoy. Those are the
kinds of things that I ask to be judged on.
I want to talk, and I will conclude my
remarks, on Hydro because it is extremely important that I do so. Hydro has been a major generator of wealth
activity for the economy of
* (1500)
I believe, and I say this without
political tarnish or without political credit to anyone, that the further
development of the
Madam Deputy Speaker, I fully supported
the development of the Conawapa project and the sale to
What I have difficulty with is the members
opposite not being honest with the people of Manitoba, putting their position
forward as to whether they wanted Conawapa and the sale or whether they did
not. I can go through litanies of
comments and speeches made by the members opposite where they in fact wanted to
take credit initially for it. Then they
were opposed to it. Then they were for it. [interjection]
Well, the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) should in fact then stand in his
place and put his position forward.
But it was the government‑‑I
am sorry, it was the corporation of Ontario Hydro that came forward and said
they wanted the delay, and it was Manitoba Hydro who said, these are the
conditions if you delay that you have to meet.
They said they would not meet those conditions and, in fact, cancelled
out of the deal. I had no choice. It was not the government's choice. It was
Ontario Hydro and Manitoba Hydro that carried out that particular decision.
Something equally as important that has to
be debated in this Legislature, as does the Crow rate have to be debated, is it
in the best interests of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro to continue to bill and
promote the movement of hydroelectric power out of this province to create jobs
in other jurisdictions? I say that we
have to put every effort forward, and will be, to develop employment and jobs
in
As D.L. Campbell put in rural electrification,
as the further development took place on the Nelson River for job creation and
training for our northern and native people, it is important that we continue
to develop our electric source using it to generate jobs and economic
activities in
One of the things that Manitoba Hydro has
done to do that is to keep the lowest costs for hydro rates in North America
right here in
The projections are that Hydro has been
our big economic generator, it will be our big economic generator, and I am
pleased to be the minister responsible for it.
I conclude my remarks by saying, we live
in a global economy, we have to position ourselves to compete in that global
economy, and it is this government that will put us in the right economic
position to do that. I am proud to be a member
of the Legislature in this government that will do it, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Well, I was wanting to start off by
talking about the deficit and go through what I believe government should be
doing in order to ensure that we have the services that we have today for
tomorrow.
I will acknowledge that the deficit itself
is in fact a problem. You know, it was
not that long ago when Maclean's had an article that kind of caught my eye when
it talked about awash in red ink. In
this particular article it talked about the government debt as a percentage of
gross provincial product. You have from
coast to coast a percentage of debt which will have to be paid at some point in
time, the lowest being B.C. at 14 percent to a high of
I personally believe, very much so, in
Keynesian theory. I had the opportunity
to take economics in the two short years that I was at university, and I took a
look at the Keynesians' approach to deficit and the impact or the role that
government has to play in society, in the economy and so forth.
You know, Keynesian theory would say that
during good times, governments should withhold spending, that that might be the
opportunity to be able to put aside some of those priorities in terms of
potential projects that could be delayed, and that during bad times, during
recessions, government should be spending, Madam Deputy Speaker, to try to
create some activity, economic activity.
I believe that all political parties, different levels of government,
did not necessarily do what was in the best interest at the time of all of us,
not only in the
When the revenues were coming in, in
particular in the '70s and early '80s, mid‑'80s, actually throughout the
'80s, when we saw revenues coming in, there were governments that continued to
spend money, of all political stripes, so that now we are in a situation where
we see that the deficit itself has to be addressed. It is one of the fastest growing departments,
not only in the
Madam Deputy Speaker, I recall when the
government brought in its first budget, when they created the Fiscal
Stabilization Fund. That was at a time
in which the government could have in fact had a surplus budget, but chose to
borrow the money in order to manipulate the deficit, the annual deficit of
future governments, in particular, future Conservative governments, in a
relatively short time period. When the
Fiscal Stabilization Fund was first introduced, these were the type of comments
that I made at that time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that the
government, in fairness, has to be more open with the public and this Chamber.
For the last 40 minutes, I listened to the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) talk
about the responsibility of the opposition parties in providing that
alternative. One detects from what he is
saying that he is disappointed in the opposition parties. Well, I, too, am disappointed‑‑in
the government. I feel that the
government should be more open in terms of what is actually going on, but
rather we see a sleight of hand here and a sleight of hand there, whether it is
the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, whether it is forecasts that make them look
better at the time the budget is being presented or not.
* (1510)
The current deficit fight, in part, is
going to be taken in from the VLT revenues.
I have been watching the whole VLT issue and commenting on it when I had
the opportunity to. The government has
demonstrated very clearly that they do what they feel is in the best interest
of the government and not in what is in the best interest of this particular
Chamber or the people of Manitoba.
The government did make a commitment. The commitment was to take the VLT revenues,
and put them into rural
One has to ask the question why they do
that, Madam Deputy Speaker. They do that
because they want to mislead Manitobans with respect to the whole issue of
gambling. The gambling has been an issue
which this government has never really addressed inside this Chamber, because
they continuously tie it in‑‑I personally think it is sad to see a
government have to rely on VLT revenues in order to now, they say, reduce the
deficit.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the VLT revenues,
for all intents and purposes, was never really generated to help the hospitals
or to help rural
The government always asks for answers,
that they want to know in terms of, well, what would we do if we were in government;
it is easy to criticize. I would
suggest, in particular to the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), that if he listened
to what was being asked during Question Period, if he would listen to some of
the speeches that are in fact being given inside this Chamber, he would find
that there are a number of ideas that are coming from the opposition benches.
There are lots of buzzwords that the
government likes to use. They talk about
TQM or Total Quality Management or spending smarter. The buzzwords are all fine and wonderful but,
unless we start addressing some of these issues that are out there that would
in fact make a difference‑‑and it does not have to be spend, spend,
spend, to the minister. I am sure if she
is patient she will find out a number of ideas that I will be pointing out.
I want to comment with respect to the
taxation, because it is a question which I had asked today. There are different types of taxes, as we all
know, progressive to regressive tax policies.
A progressive tax would be a personal income tax. A regressive tax would be a consumption tax.
Madam Deputy Speaker, how does this
government relate to regressive versus progressive? Is this a fair budget in that context? If we take a look in terms of what it is they
have done, the government is quite pleased to stand and say for five or six
consecutive budgets now, we have not increased personal income tax. That might be the case, but you have
offloaded taxes to municipalities, to school boards which rely on property tax,
which is not a progressive tax. It is
not based on ability to pay.
If we take a look at the specific question
I asked today, the government opposed the GST, at least in part, I believe,
because they said it was a regressive tax.
The PST is just as regressive. If
you look at what the federal Tories did, at least they came up with a system to
make the GST that much more of a fairer tax.
What the government has done with the PST is to expand it, to broaden
it, and that is not a progressive tax.
It is, in fact, an unfair tax.
At least they could have had the
integrity, as a government, when they stand and say that it is a fair tax, to
have some sort of a rebate or to ensure that those who do not have the same
ability, because it is a consumption tax, are given some consideration. Madam Deputy Speaker, that has not been done.
We have seen, in terms of gas, the gas
tax. Actually I was fairly impressed
when the government came up with the gasohol idea. I think it is a good idea. In fact, it is one of the ideas that I had
mentioned at the party's annual general meeting. If government wants to promote from within,
gasohol is an excellent idea, and if we follow it through‑‑you
know, it was indicated to me that if the state of
We produce gasohol in the
I want to talk a bit about the property
tax because again if you look at regressive versus progressive, you find that
the government is once again favouring the regressive tax over the progressive
tax. Again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I find
that is unfortunate.
We are again talking about individuals
that are being treated not according to ability to pay. I find that is somewhat unfortunate. I find a few days back I had asked a question
about the property tax. Something that
this government, the provincial government, can only address.
I represent a riding which happens to be
in Winnipeg School Division No. 1. If
the government was wanting to do something positive, I highly recommend that
they listen not to what I am saying, but I believe to what a majority of
Manitobans are saying. That is that you
have to look at the property tax, and there is a way in which this provincial
government can restructure it in such a way that we are paying a fairer tax.
What I am referring to is the school tax
portion on the property tax bill. I use
the example of a $70,000 home. If you
happen to live in Winnipeg School Division No. 1, in a $70,000 home, your tax
is $1,034.52 from what I understand. In
Madam Deputy Speaker, if you look at the
demographics, in particular in the city of Winnipeg, you would find that the
average income is much lower in Winnipeg School Division No. 1 than it is in
Winnipeg school division No. 2. This is
not an issue that the school trustees can deal with. This is only an issue which this provincial
Chamber can deal with, and this government is refusing to deal with that
issue. What they are doing is they are
even making it worse. From a $350
credit, they are now saying it is going to be a $250 credit. Again, no basis on ability to pay.
* (1520)
This government argues that their budget
is fair. When you deal, Madam Deputy
Speaker, with the taxation policies of this government, it is not fair. When it comes to dealing with issues that
could make the taxation fairer, what is this government doing? It is doing nothing.
Today I asked a question about the
collection of the business retail sales tax that is left outstanding, in excess
of $9 million‑‑and a note to the member for La Verendrye (Mr.
Sveinson), I understood what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) said. I do not believe that the Minister of Finance
gave justice to the question because if you listen to what the Minister of
Finance said, he contradicted himself.
He said, why, we cannot make this information public. Would you make it public? Then he says we are going to push to collect
those taxes. We are going to put a lien
on those businesses.
The Minister of Finance should know if you
put a lien it becomes public, so if it is a question that it is public
information, why does this government refuse to let members, the public, who
have a right to know, why do they refuse not to allow that to occur, Madam
Deputy Speaker? The Minister of Finance
understood the question, he just refused to answer it. I am disappointed that he does not feel that
Manitobans have the right to know in terms of these businesses that are not
paying, remitting the provincial sales tax.
As I started at the beginning of my
speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, I talked about education and the preservation of
education. I wanted to start off in
terms of dealing with some of these reform issues by talking about education,
because I believe that the way
There are many different inequities in our
educational system from nursery school to high school and through high school,
and this government is refusing to deal with that issue. They have put it on the back burner. For whatever reasons, Madam Deputy Speaker,
they are refusing to deal with that issue.
That is irresponsible.
The government says they are going to cut
2 percent flat from our education, and I am going to comment in terms of what
the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) had to say about quality of education a
bit later. But 2 percent‑‑if
the government wanted to save money and improve the quality and equity in
education instead of being so artificial, why do they not look at restructuring
the number of school divisions in the city of
We have the highest administration costs
in
Madam Deputy Speaker, in terms of private
schools, one of those issues that it would probably be best to not comment in
terms of too much detail, there are some things that could be done and should
be done dealing with the private schools.
I will get other opportunities to deal with that particular issue.
I wanted to comment on the quality of
education. This is something that I
personally had taken offence to the other day, and I do not know why the
government took it as so offensive in terms of what it is that I had to say.
I wanted to say what the Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey) said, and I am going to quote from Hansard. It reads:
"The member does I believe make an error by suggesting that the
number of dollars put into Education is strictly what maintains the quality of
education or dictates the quality of education, because we know that that is
not necessarily true."
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, if the
Minister of Education, as opposed to saying that, said, we are going to put a
cap or we are not going to spend more money on public schools or make
statements of that nature, I might disagree with her in some areas, but to say
that it does not have an impact or to imply it does not have an impact on
quality of education I think is wrong.
I could bring in the private school issue
here. Why do people bring their children
to private schools? For a number of
different reasons‑‑religion, for prestige and for quality. [interjection] Well, to the Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), now is she being cheap? Is she being cheap with her cheap shots? The other day when I stood up and said just
something similar to that, the government thought I was being cheap.
An Honourable Member: Did you think what I said was cheap?
Mr. Lamoureux: Well, no, I did not. No, I did not.
Some individuals do say the reason why
they send their children to a private school and pay‑‑[interjection] I just went through the
three of them. It is because of the
quality of education. That is at least
in part why they pay the thousands of dollars that they do. So for the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey) to say that quality of education has nothing to do with money, or to
imply it, is wrong, and this is what she implied.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are some
things that could be done. I have an
educational work group in my own riding.
We talk about the quality of the education and things that could be done‑‑things
such as discipline within the schools, things such as the curriculum, what
should be included, what may be spent too much time on, the number of hours
that are actually being put into the classroom and so forth.
I know that I have actively surveyed my
constituents through different means, and I can say that they generally feel
the quality of education is deteriorating in the
* (1530)
I want to comment briefly on post‑secondary
education. You know in our colleges in
the
An Honourable Member: When did he come?
Mr. Lamoureux:
I do not know the actual date, but I can get that information if the
minister approaches me later and asks for it. But in fact this particular
individual came back to
This misplaced priority from this
government is going to cost the
What they did is they gave each college
the opportunity to have their own board of governors and those‑‑[interjection] The Minister of Consumer
and Co‑operative Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) is quite exercised, Madam Deputy
Speaker, and I wonder if she might be able to contain herself for a bit. Anyway, the colleges and the board of
governors probably would have worked a bit better had we had one board because
then there would have been more co‑operation‑‑[interjection] Well, if the Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs had been listening, she would not be asking.
With respect to our universities, the same
thing could apply. If the government
wants to do something, why do they not look at things such as our boards to
foster better co‑operation amongst our universities?
You know, Lloyd Axworthy had an idea with
prairie integration. If you go a bit
further and you talk in terms of the universities and you say that in the
prairie provinces‑‑and some would argue one could even include
western Ontario‑‑if there was a better co‑operation amongst
our universities, or more barriers taken down, if you will, you could have
better courses being offered or made available, a higher level of expertise at
our different universities.
Is it necessary, Madam Deputy Speaker,
that if under a system of co‑operation amongst the prairie provinces a
university would be responsible for the graduation of our doctors, another
university might be responsible for our registered nurses? In order to maintain a certain standard, you
need to have a certain number graduating.
If you got that sort of co‑operation,
you would see in fact that we would have better facilities‑‑universities,
that is‑‑and provide more opportunities amongst the
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. If the
honourable members wish to carry on a conversation, would they please move to
the loge or outside the Chamber?
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Deputy Speaker, how much time do I have
left, because I do not want to miss out on everything I was going to say.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has nine minutes and 21
seconds remaining.
Mr. Lamoureux: Well, I am going to have to comment on health
care and health care reform. You know,
we as a caucus have been very supportive in terms of what the government has
been doing. Our health care, in part, in the
The idea of deinstitutionalizing is a good
one if, in fact, it is done in a proper fashion. Everyone benefits if you have seniors who are
in a hospital who could be in a personal care home and seniors who are in a
personal care home who could be in an independent, detached, single dwelling if
we enhance our senior home care services.
If we do that, in fact, we will have a
cost saving, and we will deliver a better service. But, when it comes to the issue of health
care, I think what we need to do, as Legislature, is to debate the issue of
medicare. What is health care?
Time after time we hear, well, that is a
user fee, that is a deductible; you are putting into jeopardy the health care
system. It is easy to fearmonger when it
comes to health care, something that we all value as a sacred trust. I know I personally do, and will do what I
can to ensure that we do have universal‑‑the five fundamental
principles of our medicare system for the generations to come. But I do believe we have to address other
issues of health care reform.
What is health care? Eye examinations? Is that classified as health care? We charge in
Madam Deputy Speaker, another issue is the
health care professions themselves. The
LPNs have been belittled and have been played down. At what expense? I think we have to start working with our
health care professionals, maybe looking at the possibility that doctors do not
necessarily have to be the only access point to our hospitals, to our personal
care homes, to our walk‑in clinics and so forth. Is there a need for that? Can we not have other professionals such as
the B.N.s, a nurse practitioner have access to delivering some of these health
care services, something that does need to be looked at?
Labour training and retraining‑‑I
want to talk very briefly about Partners for Skills Development. This is a report that was given to the
government in 1990 from a committee that the Minister of Education established
back in 1989 known as the Skills Training Advisory Committee.
It had six major recommendations: First, to develop a provincial labour
strategy; improve a public school system; strengthen the community colleges;
four, facilitate human resources planning and training; five, to revitalize
apprenticeship systems; six, to address the education and training needs of our
aboriginal people.
* (1540)
Madam Deputy Speaker, this government,
with the possible exception of No. 3, has virtually done nothing to address the
labour training and retraining needs of the
Our manufacturing industry had 62,000
people in 1989 compared to 51,000 people in '92. These are major structural changes, and this
government is doing minimal in terms of addressing those issues.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the environment, we
have suggested to this government time after time that they need to implement
programs that could make a difference. I
will give them credit, as I say, on the gasohol, an excellent idea.
What about putting a refundable value on a
beverage container, something that we have been pushing for for a good period
of time; the whole issue of water diversion and what is happening there. There are a lot of things that could be done
if the government was prepared to take action.
With only a couple of minutes left, Madam
Deputy Speaker, I do have to comment on, very briefly, a direction that this
government is going in terms of political grants, if you like.
MIC has been slowly tortured by this
government in favour of politicizing multicultural grants. The Heritage Federation‑‑the same
sort of action we have seen there.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to make a
challenge to the government. This is to
the REDI program, the Rural Economic Development Initiative program. If the government wants to be sincere, why
does it not establish a board which could be based on volunteers, because I
know the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is all gung ho on volunteers. Why does he not base this board on volunteers
from the associations such as UMM or MAUM, get representatives from possibly
Keystone, individuals who are into the rural communities and allow them the
opportunity to make the decisions, at least in part, on where that money or how
that money could be better spent so that rural economic development in the
province of Manitoba will in fact happen?
The problem with that, Madam Deputy
Speaker, is it will depoliticize it to some degree. Past actions from this government show that they
would not necessarily favour something like that, but they could take that bold
initiative and act on that particular issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I had the
opportunity to speak on a number of different budgets and throne speeches. Every opportunity that I do get up to stand
and speak in this Chamber I try to provide ideas for this government to act
upon. When the Deputy Premier (Mr.
Downey) says that we have a responsibility to provide the alternative to this
government, I can tell the Deputy Premier that the Liberal caucus has provided
numerous ideas and initiatives that would make the quality of life in the
Whoever wins the leadership of the Liberal
Party, we will continue to provide the alternatives to Manitobans as this
government continues to govern, because this government has not been addressing
the issues that we feel would enhance the quality of life. I strongly urge the government to take very
seriously what opposition members are saying and listen and possibly read what
the Deputy Premier had to say. We will
get a better sense of co‑operation in this Chamber if, in fact, there
were some areas in which government acted upon and gave credit to where it was
warranted. Things could be done to
strengthen the legislative committees that are there, better ways in which
including all members in this Chamber‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member's time has expired.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of
Labour): Madam Deputy Speaker, it gives me great
pleasure to rise in my place here today to join in this debate on the budget as
a member, of course, of cabinet and of the Treasury bench.
Oui, et aussi pour moi c'est un honneur et
un plaisir d'etre le ministre responsable des services en langue francaise.
[Translation]
It is also an honour and a pleasure
for me to be the Minister responsible for French Language Services.
[English]
I wish to thank my colleague and
friend the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) for his good wishes on that
appointment.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there has been an
ongoing debate across the aisle the last few days about remarks made by the
member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), which he reiterated in the course of his
address to the budget and many on this side of the House. I would like to add my observations or
comments to that debate, because I think it is a good point to be made.
There may be disagreement over the
specifics or intent, Madam Deputy Speaker, and certainly others may comment on
that. But when I review Hansard and I
look at the comments that were made, I believe in the remarks made in Question
Period on April 8 by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), there was
certainly an implication made, whether it was intended or not or whether or not
it should have been brought forward in much greater clarification, which
certainly I would admit that time in Question Period does not allow.
There was certainly an implication made
that equating the dollars spent on education‑‑but I think one could
argue, and I would argue in any area of government‑‑that the
dollars spent equate with equality of‑‑in the case of the member's
question‑‑education, but certainly if one expands it to any service
government provides.
Madam Deputy Speaker, when I review
Hansard, the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), in the cut and thrust of the
Question Period responded, I think, and I support her remarks wholeheartedly,
that one should never make the error of equating quality with dollars spent
because they do not necessarily‑‑and I use the minister's words‑‑do
not necessarily equate. Just because we
spend more money or we reduced expenditure in a particular area that we in fact
are going to make things better or worse.
The reason I raise that, I know the
Minister of Education certainly did not appreciate, nor do I think anyone on
this side, the member's comments that simply because the Minister of Education
chooses to educate her children in a private school that has a rather large
expensive fee, that somehow she herself equates expenditure with quality.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. If the
honourable member for
Mr. Praznik:
Madam Deputy Speaker, as I indicated, or am about to indicate, as you
look at the private school system, the independent school system in Manitoba,
you will see that there are many of those schools where the cost of educating a
student is significantly lower than the public system, and many would argue
that the quality of education in those institutions is appreciably better.
* (1550)
I am not going to debate the merits of
whether that should happen or not‑‑that is a debate we have had in
this House‑‑but I think that proves the point wholeheartedly. I know I have constituents from the area in
which I grew up in the Lockport‑St. Andrew's area who use the Holy Ghost
School on Selkirk Avenue, St. Alphonsus in East Kildonan where the tuition is
just a couple of hundreds of dollars, not the thousands that the member for
Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) implies.
They have chosen those schools not just
because of the religious element of an education, but also because they feel
their children get a better quality of education than they do in the public
system. There are certainly some reasons
for that, requirements of the school, the ability to impose a disciplinary
regime, a host of very legitimate reasons that make the difference. I think the point is proven that with the
right combination of circumstance and the right combination of structure and
the right people, with less money you can have better quality, that dollars do
not always or necessarily equate to quality.
Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the items in
this debate that I have seen come forward time and time again as members
opposite have engaged in this debate is making just that point, that somehow,
because we are not spending more, that we are destroying the basic
infrastructure of government and destroying the quality.
Madam Deputy Speaker, when I was first
elected to this House in 1988‑‑and six of the seven members of the
Liberal Party were elected in that election, there were many on the New
Democratic benches, actually none who came in in that particular election, some
on this side‑‑and the first budget in which I voted as a member of
this Assembly, we voted to expend some $1.3 billion to health care in this province.
This budget that we are now going to be
voting on will expend somewhere in the order of $1.8 billion for health care in
just the space of five years. If you do
some quick calculation, if you assume
The budget for the Department of Labour
which is under $17 million, the increase in health care, I mean we are a matter
of in just a few days our budget would be consumed by the Department of
Health. New highway construction in this
province has been in the neighbourhood of just over $100 million dollars or
$100 dollars per person. The increases
to health care have consumed five times roughly the annual expenditure on our
new highway infrastructure, new construction in this province. [interjection] Madam Deputy Speaker, the
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) asks me to speak of the debt, and I am going to
get to that later on in my speech.
The point that I make is that we as a
Legislative Assembly year after year, for decades, have voted greater
expenditure to department after department, to outside agency after outside
agency, and yet we are faced with this continual barrage of arguments and
claims that quality has declined. We are
not meeting the purpose.
We have to ask ourselves as legislators of
all political parties, and I do believe there are members in the opposition who
do put this question. I know I have had
the opportunity to join in discussion with the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock)
in public discussion, and I know he shares many of these views in terms of
looking at what we are doing. We may
disagree on some specifics and certain avenues, but certainly a member who
looks at this question, as I have and members on this side of the House have
looked at, and said if we keep voting more money to all of these areas of
government and the demand keeps growing, what are we getting for our
expenditure?
Can we justify as legislators, in the case
of health, increasing the health care budget in just five years by the
equivalent of 10 percent of the total provincial budget from $1.3 billion to
$1.8 billion without asking what are we buying with that additional money? [interjection] Of course, we have to ask
that. The member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie) says no, maybe we should not ask that question. Of course, we have to ask it. Yes, we have to
ask it and we have been, and not always do the answers come back as we expect
them to be.
I think if one looks at the work done by
the ministry of Health, the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and those involved
in health care, in the management of our health care system, if you look at the
work done by the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation, you see very quickly
that our system has built into it so many things we have come to take for
granted that are not necessarily what they appear to be, are not necessarily
providing services that Manitobans think they are getting and certainly cannot
afford.
I am reminded from the Action Plan for
Health Care Reform of the case of rural cases coming to our urban hospitals and,
certainly, our two teaching hospitals. I
am reminded of the data that the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation
produced that showed very clearly that, although the two teaching hospitals did
garner the most complex rural cases coming to urban hospitals, they also had
fully a third of their rural cases, the case of the two teaching hospitals,
were in the least 10 percentile of complexity.
We were treating cases in our most expensive, sophisticated teaching hospitals
that could have been dealt with, one would argue, in either other
So do we have a better health care system
because we are expending money more than we should be or need to be expending
on providing health care to our citizens?
Is that good quality health? I
would argue not, nor is it good value for our dollars. Madam Deputy Speaker, this kind of microscope
under which Health is now finding itself is what this government is doing and
intending to do to each and every part of government expenditure.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we started talking a
little bit about education. That is a
very difficult issue, because I think, as the Minister of Education has said on
a number of occasions, there are a host of factors that do not make the
scenario a simple one. One thing is for
certain. We as a society have put
expectations on our educational system that were not there just a decade ago.
I had the privilege of attending four public
forums on education in my constituency and the constituency of the member for
La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) as the
One parent, I remember very clearly, made
the point that if their child was in hockey, they had to be responsible for
transporting their child. If their child
was in the basketball program, somehow the taxpayer had that
responsibility. The school made the
point that when they called for volunteers‑‑one particular school
in Agassiz School Division‑‑to drive the students on the team to
games, they did not have one parent come forward to take on that role.
So, without putting the blame on anyone,
let us just look generally at the demands that we as a society placed on our
school division. Certainly, in the area
of social services to our students, we have seen a great demand on our school system
to not just be our educators, but certainly be our counsellors, our surrogate
parents, to provide a host of services that just 10 or 15 or 20 years ago were
not expected of the public school system.
So those demands have all been placed there. Of course, the reality, though, is we have
fewer students in our system today than we had a decade ago, some 20 percent
less, I believe, and yet in real dollars we spend considerably more on those
students. Granted, as I pointed out,
part of that are those expectations, those additional things we have to do, but
education has to go under the microscope.
* (1600)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I must admit that as
I watched television this week and saw Mr. Clifford of the teachers' society on
television speaking about math exams and the national math exam, I was somewhat
disappointed. Because we who vote a
billion dollars, one‑fifth of our provincial budget, to education, we who
are expected to rise and vote that sum of money each and every year, have a
right to ask, how do we stack up to the rest of at least our country?
There are a variety of ways to do that,
but there must be some objective criteria, and in what other area other than
mathematics? Mathematics is the ideal
candidate to objectively test how we stack up in terms of our curriculum, how
we stack up in terms of our teaching, how our students are doing compared to
the rest of the country. It is not a be‑all
answer. It is not going to solve every
problem or give us all the data, but it certainly gives us some. Yet there was in the educational
establishment Mr. Clifford saying, we do not want that.
How does he then ask this Legislature, we
as the elected representatives of the people, to continue to vote large and
ever‑increasing sums of money to education if we are not seeing what we
are getting for it? Are we getting value
for what we are spending? That is a
question that we have a right, on behalf of the people of this province, to
ask.
I must admit I was somewhat taken aback by
Mr. Clifford's reluctance to see us have that legitimate question answered, at
least in some fashion. It does say, to
me at least, we have problems there if we are afraid to have that issue dealt
with.
Madam Deputy Speaker, just further on the
point of education, we hear the platitudes all the time about education being
fundamental to our future. There is no
doubt about that. I have to ask again,
as a member of this Assembly who has voted now on‑‑this will be my
sixth budget, with each year this Assembly voting more and more money to
education, and yet what I hear back is cutbacks again, decrease in quality, we
cannot handle all of the problems. What
is happening within the system when we continually vote more money as
legislators to education, and yet the cry for more, more, more resources
continues to be heard?
It certainly asks at least that one
fundamental question, what are we truly buying with the billion dollars we vote
on behalf of the people of this province for education? That is a legitimate question. I do not know all the answers. I know the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey) is in the process of finding them with the university review, et
cetera, but the question is a legitimate one.
The education establishment cannot just
expect the 57 members of this Legislature to automatically vote them such a
huge sum of money every year without knowing what we are buying for that on
behalf of the people who contribute that money through their taxes. That just cannot continue to happen. We have to know what we are buying for that.
I want to make the comment clearly that
just because wage increases go up, which is the largest part of that, does not
necessarily mean‑‑75 to 80 percent of the cost of education is
wages and benefits. Simply because those
wages and benefits are not increasing annually, does that affect the quality of
education? You know, one should say, no,
it should not.
Are people saying to us that because
people expect to not have an increase, that they are going to teach less or
they are going to provide poorer quality in their teaching? I would think not. I do not think that is consistent with most
teachers in this province, who are very good people who try their best, so equating
dollars spent with quality is not necessarily an equation you can make.
There are so many issues that have to be
dealt with in that area, but just voting more money is not going to necessarily
result in improvements to our educational system. We have seen that in the past. We will see it in the future. Maybe legislators in the past, including many
of us here, had the luxury of voting on budgets that provided whatever
increases were required to meet wage and benefit demands, but we do not have
that luxury any longer. So we must ask
again, in education, as in health, as in our social services and every part of
government spending, what are we getting for our dollar? Are we getting the value that we expect? Can we do it better for less? That question has to be answered.
What I find sad about this debate, and I
do not expect members opposite to always agree with the conclusions that we
would reach on this side, but what I find particularly sad from members of the
New Democratic Party is their total failure to ask those questions about
quality. Maybe like opposition parties
always try to be, they have become part of the bandwagon that says, spend more,
you get more quality, not asking the question, what are we getting for what we
are already spending? They are not
asking that question.
They are in fact saying, shovel in more
money and you will get better whatever it is, without asking, are we getting
anything worthwhile now or what are we getting now? What value and quality are we getting
now? They have totally ignored those
questions. Perhaps they would have
different conclusions or different answers to those questions than us, but they
are not even asking the questions, and that is what is very much very sad about
this debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker, health, education,
certainly in the area of social services, Manitoba has built up over a 20‑
to 30‑year period one of the richest social safety nets in our
country. We are indeed one of the only
provinces, I believe we are the only province, to have virtually a full
Pharmacare program for all of our citizens.
Most provinces, if not all of the others, provide for young people and
the elderly and those who have a chronic illness that requires an expensive
drug but, for other citizens, they are on their own, so we have a very rich
system.
We provide foster parent rates that are
higher than
The question, of course, is, can we afford
that? What we have as a government tried
to do is maintain as much as we can with the resources that are available to us
as a government.
We have struggled. Ministers like our colleague the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), the
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), the Treasury Board ministers have
struggled over the last number of months with those very difficult decisions
for the purpose of maintaining as much as we can possibly maintain and afford.
Members opposite, of course, would like everything to be kept, but they offer
no way of funding other than tax increases or more borrowing.
Well, more borrowing is not going to be
the answer because that will come quickly to an end, and significant tax
increases, we have had some in this budget, but certainly not the kind that
members opposite seem to be calling for.
If there is one major difference between
members of this side of the House and members of the New Democratic Party, and
perhaps this will be the issue on which the next general election is fought, it
is whether or not one wants the provincial government to hold the line as much
as it can on taxation, recognizing that there is very little additional money
to take out of the pockets of Manitobans, or are they prepared to pay a lot
more in taxes which the New Democrats would appear to advocate, without even
asking what we are buying for those dollars, which the New Democrats
continually fail to do. So this may be
the division in the politics of this province, and knowing my constituents,
knowing the incomes of my constituents, I know that there is virtually no room
to go into their pockets to take out more money.
I just share with members opposite, last
week I spoke at a health forum sponsored by community health and the hospital
in
*
(1610)
There were seniors there who said, Mr.
Praznik, we do not need to necessarily have our cleaning paid for. We are doing well on our pension. We are prepared to pay some dollars towards
cleaning, but find a way to do it so that our home care staff who come to see
us on things that you do pay for can also tag on, and we will pay them to do
that cleaning. There was a willingness
to pay for some of those services because people were prepared to do their
share, and it was pleasing to see. I
think if members opposite asked that question and were prepared to listen to
many Manitobans, they would find that there is a much greater understanding and
appreciation and support for those small contributions to maintain a very rich
system.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if there is, I would
at this moment‑‑I know that there is quite a debate going on across
the aisle. I would like to make some
reference to the member for
Well, the member for
I want to say, back to the tax credit for
a moment, so this tax credit came into play.
I want to share with members, and I do it with I am sure some fear as to
what others may comment to me later. I
would like the member for
My wife and I got married in 1984. We bought a small home. It was a joyous
occasion. We bought a small home in
You know, in the
Now, given the variety of tax credits that
are available to families with incomes under $15,000 and seniors, those should
pick up a significant portion of that bill.
So I say that this is not an issue that we have contrived in the, you
know, dark of night to somehow terrorize property owners. It has been brought out after probably a
decade in this province of recognition that we should have some minimum tax,
that every resident of the province who owns property‑‑remember,
owns that property, has had the wherewithal to purchase it and maintain it‑‑should
make some minimal contribution to their services, including education, of
course, which is part of the property tax.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I say, there will be
some who will find that that minimum tax‑‑now they have to pay up
to a couple of hundred dollars‑‑it may seem like a great increase
to them. I do not want to undersell that
if one has a low income, but the tax credits are available. For many it will be the first property taxes
that they have ever paid in their life.
Several of my neighbours, people when I
was paying $21.43 who were paying nothing, will now have to pay some minimal
tax. They admitted to me at the time
that that was fair and everyone kind of smiled about it a little bit in Garson,
but there is that basic sense that people who could afford to own a piece of
property should have some minimal contribution to the services that support
that property‑‑fire, police, garbage pickup, disposal of garbage,
all of that street cleaning, all of those costs. Certainly not hugely onerous‑‑again,
for the most poor, the tax credits will provide some relief.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to as I wrap
up‑‑I believe I have about five, six, seven minutes left. I want to touch on the issue of the other
provinces in
I have noticed all members of the New
Democratic Party who have spoken in this debate have very regrettably, I
believe, ignored the three provinces governed by their political brethren. It is somewhat disconcerting, I think,
because the people of
It is interesting to note in the throne
speech that was brought down in Toronto yesterday, and I would like to quote
from that just because I know members opposite in their blindness would just
simply ignore this throne speech, but I quote from the Ontario NDP government
throne speech: If we ignore this
commitment, the deficit next year will rise from approximately $12 billion in
the fiscal year just ended to about $17 billion in '93‑94.
At the current rate of growth the total
provincial debt would rise to the unacceptable level of $120 billion by 1995‑96. At that point interest payments on the debt
would begin to eat into our budgets for central services such as health care
and education.
* (1620)
I go on to quote: Our plan to put
I further go on to quote: Our challenge is to turn the need for cost
reductions into an opportunity, says the
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure
there are some members opposite who wonder when my colleague the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) has time to go and write the throne speech for the
government of
If one compares our per capita debt, what
we will be borrowing per person in
Just so it is simple enough for some of
the members opposite to understand, that means for every $1 we borrow on behalf
of our people in this province,
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
But I think the shining star has been what
we have been able to do in
I challenge members of the New Democratic
Party, for once in the years that I have been in this Assembly, to attempt to
deal realistically with the problems facing this province, to at least
recognize that there are provinces like Ontario, Saskatchewan and British
Columbia that are having to deal with the same problem that we are having to
deal with, and to get down to the business of this province in a realistic
fashion instead of attempting to be all things to all people, and living in a
world that is quickly passing away, if it has not passed already.
Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker, for the
opportunity to contribute on this debate, and I look forward to the comments of
other members.
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):
Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik)
for that lecture on trickle‑down economics, one that is discredited now
across the world, for the Margaret Thatchers, the Ronald Reagans, the George
Bushes, the Brian Mulroneys and the Gary Filmons of this world.
Trickle‑down economics simply does
not work. It ends up, as we see here in
The first year, just after we were
elected, in the very first budget brought down, the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) in a very vindictive, a clinically vindictive move, closed the
Last year when the budget was tabled the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer)‑‑again, I suppose he
looked at a political map, how they determined how to bring about some of their
cuts. They looked at Selkirk, and they
looked at the Selkirk Human Resources Opportunity Centre, the training plant,
and they decided that they would close this particular facility. So Selkirk,
first of all, it was the school of nursing, and then last year was the training
plant, and this year they have cut funding to friendship centres across
If you look at a map, again you will notice
that every friendship centre except for one is in the constituency represented
by a New Democrat. There is one, I
believe, in the riding of
It is apparent to all of us within the
Metis and aboriginal community in this province that this government truly does
not understand aboriginal or Metis people.
They do not understand the link that friendship centres have with other
social agencies in our community. This
is the International Year of the World's Indigenous People, and it was in this
particular year that the government decided to blatantly attack aboriginal and
Metis people in this particular budget.
I bring to members' attention that the
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) has a resolution, Resolution No. 32, the
International Year of the World's Indigenous People. I am certain now that, after he had a chance
to review the budget and see the cuts to friendship centres and other
aboriginal groups, he is going to have to rescind that. He is going to have to take that back and let
maybe one of us bring it forward because obviously he will be too embarrassed
to speak on this particular resolution when the time comes up, considering the
cuts that his government has brought about in terms of aboriginal and Metis
people here in Manitoba.
I just want to respond to the Minister of
Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey).
In 1988, it was just after the election and it was in the fall of that
year, I was chosen as a delegate representing the Selkirk local of the Manitoba
Metis Federation at the annual convention.
That year, it was held here in
The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.
Downey) was there, and he spoke on behalf of the government. I believe the Leader of the Opposition, the
then‑member for
* (1630)
So after the proceeding, I remember I went
up and I shook his hand. I was so
thrilled, you know, I was shaking the hand of a cabinet minister. I doubt if he will remember that but I
remember that quite well. I remember
those comments. [interjection] No, he
was not concerned how I voted, but it was interesting that he mentioned that at
the time. It was something that stuck
with me obviously ever since.
This particular Year of the Indigenous
People, this is the year the government decides to cut funding to friendship
centres. I doubt if any members opposite
have ever visited a friendship centre.
Obviously, if they had a chance to understand some of the services that
they have provided to native and non‑natives in this community, they
would not have taken this type of really cruel and unusual punishment dictated
toward this very useful organization within our community.
I guess I had the privilege years ago of
working for the Selkirk Friendship Centre.
After that I sat on the board of the Selkirk Friendship Centre, so I
have a good understanding of what friendship centres provide to Manitobans and
to aboriginal and nonaboriginal individuals within our community.
I had a chance to meet with the board of
directors of the friendship centre and they provided me with some information I
would like to provide to my colleagues here today dealing with some of the
programs and participation levels that aboriginal people take within the
friendship centre movement.
The government is always responding to our
questions; in their feeble answers, they have often stated that friendship
centres represent a relatively small portion of their budget. In fact, in Selkirk, the situation represents
around 30 percent of their budget and the money is earmarked by, I believe,
government to be used for a specific purpose.
They receive about 70 percent of their
core funding from the federal government through the Secretary of State. That money is specifically to be used for
administration, for the salaries of the director, the assistant director, the
referral worker, the bookkeeper and, I believe, the secretarial staff. This particular money that the province
provided, again, the purpose of this money was to provide counselling services
and programs.
You cannot take money from the core and
use that for counselling and other programs.
Only the money that was provided by the provincial government was used
for that particular purpose, so by cutting out that funding there they are
ceasing friendship centres from providing counselling services to aboriginal
and nonaboriginal individuals, and also because this unfortunately will mean
the ending of many of the programs offered by friendship centres here in
Manitoba. [interjection]
Well, yes, as a matter of fact, the member
for
I have a letter from the executive
director where she states that she is saddened and shocked to hear that the
Selkirk Friendship Centre had its grant cut from the provincial government.
The Friendship Centre has an important
role to play in our community in regard to service for aboriginal
citizens. These grant dollars covered
costs for counselling programs, peer counselling, summer recreational camps and
so on.
She goes on to mention that the shelter in
Selkirk had a very strong connection to the Friendship Centre, and I remember
when I was working there that we had a very good relationship with Nova
House. We provided them with space, we
provided them with our counselling support, and the relationship was very
positive. I fear now that aboriginal
women and children in the community will now suffer because of this lack of
link between those two organizations.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the Selkirk Friendship
Centre provides here in Selkirk, for example, peer counselling, and there were
approximately 40 participants in that.
There was a youth club, there were about 2,000 participants in that. There was a drop‑in centre, around
5,000. They provided sports. These are some of the programs that are now
in jeopardy because of the government's vindictive behaviour towards aboriginal
people: hockey, 450; broomball, 600;
baseball, 500; basketball, 480.
They have a Christmas party every year
which I had the privilege to attend in my role as MLA in Selkirk, approximately
200. There was a summer camp that I
remember when I worked there. I had the
opportunity and the chance to participate in that particular program. We would go up to Albert Beach and we would
take a number of aboriginal and Metis youth with us. It provided them with the opportunity to
spend some time away from Selkirk, a chance that they would normally not have. I know there was what they call the slow‑pitch
tournament. They had, they still do
have, a very significant library on aboriginal issues. They have language classes. I know they were teaching Cree and Ojibway
and Saulteaux, beadwork classes. They
had very significant dance classes. It
was very popular, I remember that.
They had native awareness activities where
they would go into the school trying to explain aboriginal issues to the
students. I participated in that. I
remember we had Ernie Phillips there that one year when I had the opportunity
to participate in that. Shingoose, I know, from
Peguis Days was held at St. Peter's
Church. I remember I went there last
year. I do not think any representative
from the government was there. I believe
they were asking about that. They have an annual event. Every year the Festival on the Red has about
2,000 participants. They have lacrosse,
Canada Day celebrations.
That totals up to participation levels of
around 25,000 individuals, and they say that they do not provide direct
services to the government so this is why we should cut their funding. Yet here are some of the counselling services
they provided‑‑native and cultural awareness programming in the
schools and in the community. They have
approximately 4,000 referrals.
When I was there, I participated in the
referral program. They provide counselling on domestic violence, alcoholism and
abuse issues, grief, death and mourning counselling, reconciliation and
restitution, suicide prevention, crisis counselling, spiritual concerns.
I know one of the counsellors who
unfortunately will be losing his job in a matter of months. It was his role to provide counselling in
aboriginal spirituality and he was just taken on in that role, and I know that
he was very well received by the aboriginal and Metis community in Selkirk and
area.
They also will provide services in anger
management, creating greater self‑esteem.
A thing that many aboriginal and Metis people often lack is self‑esteem
and self‑confidence, and there they would help many individuals trying to
overcome these difficulties the aboriginal people often face.
* (1640)
They got into a particular counselling
format, traditional parenting, family roles, elderly. Now we spoke many times in here about the
particular problems that are facing elders in our communities, particularly the
aboriginal and Metis elders. They were
there providing some services for elders, marital relationships, counselling at
healing lodges, again trying to provide services in the traditional ways of
aboriginal and Metis people. Education
counselling‑‑I know one of the counsellors quite well, and it was
her role to attend one of the schools in Selkirk where there was a high
proportion of aboriginal and Metis students, and it was her job to talk to
aboriginal people.
I know when I was there I would go into
the junior high and it would be my job to meet with young aboriginal men,
aboriginal boys, to speak to them about some of the issues that are particular
to aboriginal people. I know that once
we established a very good rapport, I would say that it was a very successful
situation, very helpful for them and very helpful for me as well.
Home visits, they provide. One of the counsellors would go out into the
homes of individuals, aboriginal people.
Another thing they would do would be providing assistance in the filling
out of the income tax forms. Part of my
job was to do that, and I still receive inquiries from individuals whose taxes
I have completed in the past asking me once again to help them with that
particular task.
Parenting programs, they would do resume
writings, references. Another function
they had was to distribute clothes to needy families, and one of the esteemed
members of our community, Metis Senator Elsie Bear, played a very large role in
the distribution of clothes to families in Selkirk and northern reserves that
are close to Selkirk, Berens River and Bloodvein, Scanterbury and other areas
where there was a need for clothes, and you would go into her house and she
would have her floors and all of her furniture covered with clothes donated by
individuals, which she would then distribute to families in need‑‑a
remarkable woman.
Some other areas of work or networking
that they were involved with was the law courts and the aboriginal justice
issues that are facing aboriginal people.
The Selkirk restitution, reconciliation committee was a juvenile
committee to help with young offenders.
I remember that quite well. I was
actually on that particular board.
I was on the social studies study group,
where we would attend with other teachers to raise aboriginal issues, to make
sure that these issues were not ignored in the school division, not ignored by
the RCMP, not ignored by the school divisions and so on. Some of the other tasks, of course, that they
provide are job referrals, further upgrading and further post‑secondary
training, and they would often put on community workshops for aboriginal and
Metis people within their community.
Just the other day I had the privilege of
attending with some of my colleagues up to
They were saying that this will really
hurt this particular co‑op and other ones within that general area. If they were from
Governments do not recognize the
importance of co‑ops to rule in northern areas where the population is
low and transportation costs are high.
The co‑ops are needed for industrial development in that
particular area. [interjection]
Well, the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer)
chirps from his seat there, but he should be standing up and rescinding his
resolution that he put forward here, International Year of the Indigenous
People. How could he possibly do that
and sit around the same caucus table as his colleagues who are slashing
aboriginal programs? He must be ashamed
of himself. He is ashamed of
himself. He spends all of the
government's money sending out ridiculous statements, his leaflets without his
picture, across his constituency and across
We were out in
If he knew anything about it, why would he
be slashing the valuable programs related to the friendship centre movement
here in Canada, and why, when we were in meetings yesterday in Berens River and
Bloodvein, was there such discontent amongst the aboriginal members of that
particular community? If this minister
knew anything about northern and native affairs, why would he let them cut the
Northern Freight Assistance Allowance? Why would he let the minister of co‑operative
development slash assistance in terms of co‑ops?
This particular co‑op, now they have
to pay their own auditing, before a service that was provided to them by the
department of co‑op development.
But the minister decided, well, we have got to save a few bucks here,
let us save it on the backs of aboriginal and Metis people. So that is what they did, and they did, you
know‑‑they have got to save a few bucks, so let us save it on the
backs of aboriginal and Metis people.
It is clear that they do not understand
aboriginal or Metis people, and they really do not seem to care a great deal
about aboriginal or Metis people. It is
probably, as the Minister of Northern Affairs says, they do not vote the right
way. They simply do not vote the right
way, so let us cut them. That is exactly
the Conservatives' philosophy.
* (1650)
So now these co‑ops, and this
particular one, will be forced to pay for their own auditing services, which
was at one time provided by the government.
They are finding this to be a very
difficult, very much of a hardship for them to deal with, other than the other
issues that all fishermen across this province are facing, but northern ones
even more so, because of the high costs of shipping their fish.
Price is another example. They are faced with equipment costs going
up. I believe they are saying they spend
$100 a day on fuel costs.
An Honourable Member: At least a hundred.
Mr. Dewar:
They spend at least $100 a day on fuel costs, and as you can imagine
right now for example, the only way you can get into
The boat which leaves Selkirk‑‑actually,
it is a boat that is docked and operates out of Selkirk‑‑will not
be in operation until ice leaves the lake, and now the winter road is closed so
the only access you have to that particular community is by air. Air of course
is very costly.
Another concern they raised in terms of
transportation costs is that particular boat that leaves Selkirk, it is
rumoured that the owner has sold the boat.
So now they fear that option of transportation is lost to them as
well. I believe that the owner of that
particular boat, the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) is very familiar with, a
fellow by the name of Ed Price, I believe. Apparently, he has sold his boat and
he is leaving. It is a shame because
that is the only boat that leaves from Selkirk to go north, and one time
Selkirk had many. The marine history of
Selkirk is quite deep and quite long.
This will be the end of it with the closure of this particular ferry.
So we are seeing again that this
government, in its attempts to utilize it policies of trickle‑down
economics, is once again hurting aboriginals, hurting Metis people, hurting the
most vulnerable people in our particular province. We can look at such things as economic
growth, and it appears that after the 1990 election
We want to talk about fairness. You could talk about fairness in a particular
situation, where we were saying instead of cutting friendship centres, for
example, the government responded by putting $7 million in corporate
training. Instead of cutting student
social assistance, they could be cutting $15 million in their Vision Capital
Fund. They have $12 million in I, T and
T grants to corporations and they cut to MAPO.
They give $3.9 million to the Minister of Health's (Mr. Orchard) friend,
Connie Curran, and they cut the Flin Flon Crisis Centre, for example. They have a 2 percent cut to schools and
universities and a reduction, of course, in daycare centres and so on.
I believe it was in 1990 in the Leaders'
debate, in August of that year, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) stated: Our commitment is not to raise taxes. Then he said on the 25th of April 1991: This
province cannot bear any more taxes.
Then in September of 1991: We
recognize that the first thing government must do to encourage economic growth
is to step aside‑‑similar to what the Minister of Labour (Mr.
Praznik) mentioned earlier on in his speech, Mr. Acting Speaker‑‑step
aside and let the private sector take over, but we see that this is
unfortunately not working in this province.
In 1988‑89, the government had a
surplus of around $58 million. It was
mentioned right here in the budget document itself. In 1992‑93, the government now has a
record deficit of 672. Even the member
for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) took issue with the Minister of Finance's (Mr.
Manness) own accounting methods and was trying to clear up the issue regarding
this particular situation in his comments where he was stating that the deficit
must be recorded properly, which is significantly higher than what the Minister
of Finance brought down in this particular document.
Every year all the government ministers,
whenever there is a building they open or building they close, there is always
someone there who cuts a ribbon or presents a plaque on their behalf. Now, I wonder who is going to be the one who
will be presenting the plaque to the Minister of Finance for having the highest
deficit in the history of the
Well, we see the Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae) will be leaving us. The Minister
of Justice, he is having a hard time. The Minister of Justice is having a hard
time with the government line, so he is going to be leaving us soon for the
greener pastures of Kim Campbell. [interjection]
Yes, I am sure aboriginal people will be disappointed with that, with his
particular departure.
I enjoyed making a few comments this
afternoon on the budget. I just want to
again sum up. In this particular Year of
the World's Indigenous People, how could this government in good conscience,
how could the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) stand up when this resolution
comes up and speak in favour of the year, recognizing the Year of Indigenous
People? It is a great concept, no doubt,
but why they have cut funding to friendship centres and to the Assembly of Chiefs
and why they have cut assistance to aboriginal fishermen co‑ops? They are going to have to explain that. I am going to be interested in listening to
that debate to see how they do it.
The other thing I will be doing, of
course, is that next Monday I will not be able to extend my support to this
particular document. Like the rest of my
colleagues, I am afraid I will not be able to vote for it.
Thank you very much.
Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of
Government Services): Mr. Acting Speaker, first of all,
it is a pleasure to speak on the sixth budget brought on by this
government. I did not participate in the
throne speech.
First of all, maybe I would like to make
the odd comment in regard to the budget process that this government went
through. I know it was a very, very difficult process and a very, very long
process for the ministers.
I know myself, I wish to congratulate the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). I
would have to say that through the whole process the Minister of Finance is an
individual who is very fair with everyone.
The only one who can appreciate that is one who goes as a minister
forward‑‑I am talking about during the budget process. Each individual minister, as he goes through
the process, is put through the same type of rigmarole and same type of‑‑but
he makes his judgments without any prejudice whatsoever. I must congratulate
him on his dedication and hard work in bringing forward the decisions and very
difficult decisions.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the best way to
explain the process that our government went through this year‑‑and
I guess the main idea, very, very shortly, you would have to try to do a
comparison of this year in business. If
you are in business and a company finds that its revenues are down, and if it
does not raise the price of its product, he has to decide that he has to find
ways of reducing his costs. I think this
budget emphasizes that very, very well, and our government has done that.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I am very proud of the
work. I will go into the type of work,
because we are talking about my particular department, Government Services,
that probably of all the departments has to go through that process of making
things more efficient and reducing its costs.
I am very proud of the work of my staff at Government Services. I will also talk a little later of what the
Seniors Directorate has done throughout the past year in these very difficult
times of restraint.
I am encouraged by the support that my
staff has provided in actively bringing forward ideas, suggestions and plans
that will effect positive and economical changes that are necessary in
government.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the Department of
Government Services is fundamentally a central service agency to government as
such. We strive to provide service
excellence to our clients promptly and cost‑effectively, and we try to do
that.
* (1700)
In our ongoing evaluation of service to
clients, I think the most important question that we ask throughout government,
the question that we raise is, how can we do things better? In our department that is the main
question. The exercise that follows
helps public servants and elected officials alike to seek newer and better
answers to service delivery questions.
I think a very important component to the
query of how can we do things better is effective utilization of information
technologies. When one examines the day‑to‑day
operations of government, it is rather easy to take for granted the simple
tools like the telephone and the computer, but in reality the cost associated
with each individual activity performed by government when added together is
enormous, whether it is the cost of making one phone call instead of six
through a conference call or retrieving information in five minutes instead of
two days. If each take is performed
productively, then the public service will be that much more effective in
providing services to the public.
Mr. Acting Speaker, this statement is
rather elementary. However, the point is that we as government are charged with
the responsibility of being fiscally responsible with the precious limited
resources that we have, especially during these times, so that we are able to
fund priority services to all Manitobans in the areas of health, education and
family services.
Throughout the past year in our quest of
finding ways of doing things better and given our limited financial resources,
I would like to describe some of the activities by the four divisions in my
department. Firstly, since I have been addressing
the important application of information technology, I think it is rather
appropriate, Mr. Acting Speaker, that I begin by describing the work being done
by the Telecommunications branch and Supply and Services division since I
regard effective communication as a fundamental building block for efficient
government operations.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the ultimate objective
of the branch in a communication network is using new technologies while
enabling all government departments to realize cost savings through quick
turnaround times, increase service levels, greater co‑ordination and, of
course, being competitive in the marketplace.
These efficiencies will be realized when clients fully understand the
use and potential of available equipment and services.
Mr. Acting Speaker, as stated in the
throne speech, our Telecommunications networks play a vital role in our ability
to do business and compete in international markets. It is, therefore, crucial that we as government
respond to technological developments at every opportunity expended on
capturing the dynamics of change to further obtain lower cost communication
services for the people that we serve.
We are proactively doing what we said we would do. We are strengthening our telecommunication
services and meeting the difficult challenges and opportunities.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the Office Equipment
Services branch was fully implemented and the microcomputer repair service for
government departments is now on board.
The initiative represents a very, very important cost savings to the
department. The Land Acquisition branch
has been completely organized and is looking forward to its move to
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
A year ago, the department introduced and
reformed the first SOA. That was the
Fleet Vehicles branch, and it was converted to an SOA a year ago. The management reform initiative enables the
agency to provide rates and maintenance services on a complete cost‑recovery
basis. Greater management flexibility is
offered to the organizations to facilitate the achievement of these very, very
important goals and objectives of this SOA.
This year, Mr. Acting Speaker, we will be
introducing our second SOA. It was
created by the department effective April 1, and that is the Materials
Distribution agency. It will now have
the opportunity to operate on the same flexibility as the automobile SOA was a
year ago. I think the goals will be the
same, and that is the goals of distributing and supplying and to become the
supplier of choice for the
Also, this particular department will
provide the moving and storage and disposal services, and this opportunity will
provide clients the ability to choose to patronize the agency because of its
superior quality and the pricing and the service it will offer.
Also, as of April 1st, the Air/Radio
Services Branch of Department of Highways and Transportation was transferred to
my department, and I regard this move as a very logical one, for the program
fits well within our service delivery mandate as a department, and I look
forward to working with them.
I know that many members around this room
utilize our postal services, and I realize the cost is very important. Especially some more than others utilize the
savings that we try to work, and we have saved approximately $2 million during
the interdepartmental mail services throughout the last year and a half.
So the members, I know, utilize this, and
they are the ones and the taxpayers get the benefits and the advantage of these
maximum discount price structures available through Canada Post.
The
Mr. Acting Speaker, I am also proud that
Also in the past year, the Accommodation
Development Division of my department is carrying on a first that has never
been done in government, at least in Government Services in
They have established a database for our corporate
accommodation planners, and this database also provides the accommodation
consultants and leasing of some more accurate and more currently accommodation
information than ever before.
We are presently working at reducing the
leasing budgets for review of all these properties to identify opportunities
for reduction.
* (1710)
Mr. Acting Speaker, by conducting the
review we are able to determine whether space is officially utilized and
whether the program delivery still requires the amount of space allocated. Our
goal in reducing the leasing budget is to fully utilize our own space, when the
opportunity exists at the time of the lease expiry to terminate that lease by
moving occupants to another longer‑term leased premise or to an owned
premise.
A recent example was a land value
appraisal from the
Mr. Acting Speaker, we have heard the
members from across the way in the last several days talk in regard to
sustainable development initiatives.
They go on and they go on and they talk‑‑we looked through
our records to see whether they did anything where it is right before their
eyes when they were in government under Government Services and, of course, we
looked through‑‑like most other things they talk about, they really
did nothing with what was available.
In our sustainable development initiatives
in the short period of time we have been in government, and through a goal set
by my colleague the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) to reduce the waste
by 50 percent by the year 2000, Government Services has implemented several
waste reduction programs. Paper Rescue
in 1992, for instance, 42 government‑owned leased buildings have
participated in this collection of the paper program, and a hundred tons of
paper was collected. To the member for
Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), take note‑‑she is always talking about
trees‑‑the saving of 1,700 full‑grown trees. I call her my tree doctor, Mr. Acting
Speaker. We have some fun in Government
Services. It is not all work.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
I have to maybe mention something that
happened this winter in regard to the tree doctor from Radisson. I got called out of a meeting by one of my
staff and they were quite alarmed because the press was saying as a result of
the member for Radisson, they were cutting down a tree on the side of the
grounds. It was a pine tree and the deal
was we were cutting down a pine tree because we were going to use it as a
Christmas tree. This member for Radisson
was running around all over the place, to the press, going around.
I got the story from Mr. Roger Brown, who
has been with us for 17 years and who is our head gardener. He says, Gerry, the tree is 40 feet tall, we
saw it in the summer, it was dead. The
bottom part was dead and the top part, we saw it, we could probably use it for
a tree somewhere in the winter. He said
we could probably save a thousand dollars.
Why cut it down in the middle of the summer? When I confronted him with this, Mr. Brown
says to me, Gerry, why would anybody ever think I would cut down one of my
trees on my property? If anybody ever
talked to Mr. Brown, he would understand.
To end the story, the press by this time found out that the member for
Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) got her story all crooked.
I looked out the window and to try to get
some credibility back, she is out there gathering the good parts of the bottom
part of the tree. There are a few good
branches. She is gathering them up
outside, and she is going on to try and get somebody to say that this was a
good tree we cut down.
I often wonder that, you know, most people
do not know a good tree from a bad tree, and even a skunk would not know a good
tree from a bad tree. Mr. Acting
Speaker, I must say that some credibility was lost to the member for Radisson,
and I wish she would apologize to Mr. Brown. [interjection] I can imagine what you have been going through with
your ducks and geese, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) is saying.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I just wanted to give
you some information. It is often said
that we are not involved in sustainable development, and I must say that I will
give you an idea. It might be boring to
some of our members, but I will get it on the record anyway.
We collected about‑‑oh, I
guess 3,432 cubic yards of cardboard was collected in 1992 from the 16
government buildings. All cafeterias
have collection bins for aluminum soft drink containers, as they are working
through. Seven government locations are using
various methods to compost kitchen food preparation waste. An estimate of 20 tons of this waste will be
composted and diverted from landfills in 1993. [interjection] Yes, that much.
Approximately 14,530
Mr. Acting Speaker, with these programs
and those implemented by other Government Services divisions, I think an
average of 27 percent waste reduction in government‑owned buildings was
achieved in 1992, surpassing the interim goal of 20 percent waste reduction set
for 1995. That I think is a great
achievement for the success of this program, and I thank the employees.
Other sustainable development initiatives
worthy of mention include the program of water conservation. This program is in the early stages of
development. For the '93‑94 year,
there will be approximately a 5 percent water consumption reduction in
government buildings.
Water savings procedures are a standard
practice in the grounds maintenance. As
many of the members out there that park their cars realize, we pump the water
from the river. Then they come to
complain to me as minister because the cars are dirty from the water, but that
is just another way of trying to carry on with this initiative that we have.
We are also reducing the usage of harmful
cleaning products. Purchasing, testing and evaluation of new environmentally
friendly products is an ongoing program with the department.
The Power Smart program, as you all know,
throughout the province was established by Manitoba Hydro, and Hydro is now
looking at Manitoba Government Services to fulfill a very, very important role
in establishing the program as a viable means of reducing electrical usage.
Mr. Acting Speaker, Government Services
has initiated a plan to access the selected government facilities, and this
prioritized list of buildings has been established to identify possible energy‑saving
measures throughout our buildings. The
department will also benefit financially, and so will the taxpayers of
It is clear that our government is
committed, regardless of what has been said across the floor from the other
side, who I must say did very little while they were in government in regard to
sustainable development. It was not too
difficult to get up these large important percentage numbers because when you
are starting from someone who had nothing, to having that challenge, it was
very, very easy on behalf of the employees.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I know that a lot of
the members sit around and they wonder what Government Services did. I know the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway),
when I first got up when I was Minister of Government Services, I talked about
Housing and Urban Affairs, and so if anybody is to blame for the information
coming out now, I will blame the member for Elmwood, because at that time he
said, why do you not speak about your own department? Now I have taken the time
to speak about the department that I am involved in.
Mr. Acting Speaker, we also are involved
in refurbishing the used furniture by the workshop and the private sector. The Materials Distribution agency
redistributes furniture now throughout the government to extend its useful life
instead of purchasing new furniture.
This initiative contributed to a 90‑percent reduction in new
furniture purchases in '91‑92 compared to the previous year. Also it keeps people working.
Another important factor, I know that to
the members from across the way, the Fleet Vehicles agency‑‑and we
talk about refined oil. I know the
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) will be interested in this, because he was in
the oil business before. He will not like what we are doing, but the Fleet
Vehicle Agency uses refined lubricant oil supplied in bulk containers for the
provincial fleet wherever this product is available‑‑windshield
washer fluid and antifreeze, of course, but the most important thing is the
used parts that are sent back and rebuilt. Currently this includes the drive
shaft, starters, alternators, these types of things. Also I think the most important thing is the
stats this year show that we purchased 21,000 litres of oil and we returned
20,000 of refined oil.
* (1720)
To that member across the way, for Elmwood,
and to the member for Brandon over there who likes to use stats‑‑we
like to throw stats across the floor‑‑we also have reduced the
distances and reduced the consumption of petroleum products by the province.
Mr. Acting Speaker, just to go on, I think
a very, very important part is that some years ago, '88‑89, started by
another minister, we started a barrier‑free access program. That was to renovate the provincially owned
buildings in response to our commitment to the Decade of the Disabled and fulfilling
that commitment. All the members have to
do is take a look up there and see the new Speaker's Gallery that is completely
accessible by the handicapped, and other buildings have been identified. Also,
if they will look at the west side of the building‑‑it will soon be
completed‑‑the redesigned ramp we will be providing, that very,
very important commitment that this government‑‑unfortunately again
the previous government, who started the Decade of the Disabled, I think in
1980‑81‑‑and it took this government in 1988‑89 to do
something in regard to the disabled. We
do more than just talk about it; we do it.
Mr. Acting Speaker, there have been many
things. I heard a comment the other day
in regard to that there was just a buzzword about Total Quality
Management. I have to say that our
department has been more than just buzzword in Total Quality Management. Our staff have been very, very involved, and
we have done many, many things in Total Quality Management.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I could go on and on
and on about the success stories, about the fine work our department has been
doing in Total Quality Management. Our
committee‑‑[interjection]
You like the flowers in the front?
Especially the ones in the front, right?
Mr. Acting Speaker, it is teamwork and
team building that has helped with Total Quality Management.
I must mention though and go on in regard
to our Seniors portfolio, and before I do that, maybe I could give you an
example of what the previous government had been doing the last several
years. Just an example on paper towels
in the Legislature. Through many, many
years, linen towels were supplied in the Legislature. Linen towels in the Legislature cost us
$6,500 a year. Paper towels today cost
us $1,300 a year. In the Law Courts Building‑‑$4,100
savings in the
Mr. Acting Speaker, I must say that I
would like to at this time speak in regard to my Seniors portfolio that a lot
of us enjoyed. I know the Deputy Premier
(Mr. Downey) was one of the first people to hold that portfolio along with the
honourable member Mr. Neufeld who enjoyed it also. We were the first ones, and we have shown
leadership in
Under the two previous ministers‑‑since
it was established in '88‑89, these ministers consulted with Senior
organizations throughout the province, and through these consultations
indicated that financial abuse was the most identified form of abuse. I have explained in the House previously the very,
very important work and the things that have been done through financial
abuse. Now our government is working
diligently in finding ways to educate and alert seniors to the dangers again of
further financial abuse.
We established in 1989 the Outreach
Offices in
Appropriate brochures were developed in
the last couple of years and printed in several languages to reflect the
multicultural makeup of the
Mr. Acting Speaker, in fulfillment of a
promise made during the last throne speech, our government is proactively co‑ordinating
resources to develop multidisciplinary teams to respond to elderly abuse cases
throughout the province. The work is
scheduled to begin this month and the teams will be functioning this fiscal
year in assessing the elderly abuse.
Mr. Acting Speaker, in addition, our
government established the Seniors Directorate Information Line to assist
seniors throughout the province.
On March 9, I personally made a brief to a
subcommittee in
Mr. Acting Speaker, the work that we have
been doing has been received positively and very enthusiastically by seniors,
professional organizations, educators and many levels of government. It is through ongoing effort and co‑operation
that the quality of life for seniors will be improved and the financial and
elderly abuse alleviated.
Mr. Acting Speaker, as Minister
responsible for Seniors, I also had the pleasure of attending the first federal‑provincial
ministers' conference on Senior issues last November in
* (1730)
Mr. Acting Speaker, we have been asked to
host the federal‑provincial conference of '94 and we will do so.
As minister responsible for EMO, I was
very happy that my department will be distributing emergency brochures for
seniors that will provide information on what to do in emergency situations
such as storms and floods and fires, et cetera.
The brochure will be available for distribution shortly.
Mr. Acting Speaker, our government is
committed to meeting the needs of
I will not be sending out, I hope, any
letters like I received on March 26, 1993.
Can you imagine that I got a letter from the Minister of Social Services
who was the Minister responsible for a Seniors' directorate in
Listen to this one. They just established the Seniors'
directorate. Now it will be eliminated
with the exception that they are allowing it now to be involved a little bit in
the social services.
This is what they have done in the
Mr. Acting Speaker, our government is
committed to meeting the needs of
Though how boring some of these facts have
been to you, it is my job as a minister to bring the information forward
because I am involved in Government Services.
I know, as the member for
As the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae)
said, another thing is the Remand Centre that was finally built, that the
previous government had probably forgotten about somewhere in the tracks. I
know the Justice minister was over there for the opening, and there are
comments from the other side of the House in regard to the building. Well, I tell you, that building is completely
usable; the one I saw from Flin Flon just recently where 38 percent of the
building cannot be used because they have built a ceiling and you cannot put a
second floor, a wasted space around a cubicle.
So anybody who wants to go up can look at a building up in Flin
Flon. I noticed that the same minister
that signed that one is the one that built the bridge, so I can understand why
we got a building that is 38 percent not usable. I am glad he did not build housing, that is
all.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I also am proud of the
accomplishments of my department in the last several years in regard to my
department. The last few days we have
heard about management and financial mismanagement and these types of
things. I have to mention that, for on
the record, under the NDP government, they have proved beyond a doubt that they
cannot manage our economy. They showed that when they were in government.
Mr. Acting Speaker, and for the member for
Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), I will give him some information. During the NDP administration, the general
purpose direct debt rose by $1.5 billion in 1981 to $5.2 billion in 1988. On a per capita basis, this represents an
increase of 240 percent from $1,399.82 in 1981 to $4,762.08 in 1988.
This represents a staggering burden for
each
Mr. Acting Speaker, our government has been
able to combine prudent financial management with compassion. This is illustrated by the fact that we spend
a greater portion of our budget on social services, namely Health, Education
and Family Services, than the NDP government did. Our government spent 61.2 percent on social
services on an average basis compared to the NDP, when they were in power, in
the 59 percent bracket. The evidence is
clear; NDP financial mismanagement abounds.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I would just like to
mention one more point. The Leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Doer) was very proud, and this is what he said, he was very
proud of Premier Rae's 1991 NDP budget with its 13.4 percent increase in
expenditure.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
During the 1991 Budget Debate, he
asserted, and I would like to read that.
Here is what he said: I like the
fact that he gave 8 percent to Education.
I like the fact that he gave 7.8 percent for the university. I like the fact that he is raising the
spending of the province in long‑term solutions to get people working
again. I like the fact that private‑sector
investment is going to grow in
If you want, here are his final words that
he said in 1991: If you want to debate the
That is what the Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Doer) said in 1991. He said that he
would debate it and debate it and debate it.
That tells the story right in here.
I would like to talk about the old
socialist type of saying. I would like to maybe quote, and I will finish with
this, Magnus Eliason. Everybody knows
Magnus. Everybody respects Magnus. Here
is what Magnus said at a convention:
What can we do about reducing deficits?
It is a big issue and something we should be talking about.
Then he goes on to say: While health care is sliding, should we be
paying for abortion on demand? We just
take it for granted that we should be paying for it.
Here in 1988, March 7, Magnus Eliason
talking about reducing deficit and, yet, now that they are in opposition they
are going on and on about spending money.
In 1988 Magnus talked about that, and we all know how such a fine man
Magnus Eliason is. We all respect Magnus
Eliason.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to
the speech on the budget but, before I do, I would just like to say that we
have had some critic area changes and I have new critic responsibilities. I was former critic for Energy and Mines, and
I always looked forward to going into Estimates with the Minister of Energy and
Mines. He was very co‑operative,
and he gave good answers and I learned a lot.
I am looking forward to going into Estimates with the Minister of
Housing (Mr. Ernst), which is my new critic area.
When I talk about going into Estimates
with the Minister of Housing‑‑just for the House's information,
there were vandals that got into 515
So when we look at this whole budget
process, that is the kind of initiative that helps people, and people
appreciate. Sure, right now they are looking forward to getting their pool
table and their exercise bike, and hopefully that will be coming shortly.
* (1740)
But when we talk about the budget, it was
interesting to hear the Minister of Seniors mentioning so many programs that
were cut in
You know, $50 is a lot of money for
seniors. What is going to happen is
individuals who do not have the money or do not have the family support to buy
crutches or walkers, they are going to try and do without. What is going to happen, Mr. Speaker, is they
are going to slip or fall or stumble.
They are going to end up in the hospital and it is going to cost us a
lot more than $50. I think that is being
very, very shortsighted. I do not know
why, when he is talking about the cuts to
When you need crutches or a walker to even
get across the street, it is very, very difficult. So now to target the disabled and seniors in
that fashion, I think it is wrong, because our seniors are the ones who broke
the ground, made this country what it is, and yet, why cannot we even have a
little bit of services that are in place and keep those services for our seniors?
Then you look at the $75 property tax fee
that is going to hit everybody. That is
going to have a real dramatic impact on senior citizens and low‑income
people who are just barely trying to keep their own homes. What is going to happen is some people are
going to lose their homes, and they are going to try and get into housing
units, and then we will have to end up subsidizing those units, so it will
probably cost us more anyway. To me that
is very, very shortsighted.
If you look at the whole budget, we hear
about the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) saying it was fairness and it was
equal to everybody, but if you look at the decreases that happened, it is
equivalent to 5.7 percent of taxes. That
is equivalent to personal income taxes, and if it is supposed to be so fair and
if people are accepting that, then why are we getting copies of letters that
the MLAs opposite are sending out to their constituents to put a spin and to
explain the budget? If it is a fair and
a good budget, it should be able to sell itself, so why are these letters going
out to constituents?
There is a real positive spin to it. In fact, I was reading‑‑from the
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer)‑‑a copy of his letter, and it was
trying to put a positive spin, that it was equal and everybody had to share the
same pain. If that is true, then why do
you have to try and sell that? People
should be able to understand that.
An Honourable Member: Keeping my constituents informed.
Mr. Hickes: Well, that is for sure, keeping them informed,
but you forgot to mention what I just talked about, the $50 fees for crutches
and the bandages and the walkers, $75 for senior citizens who are trying to
maintain their own home, and the cuts to student social assistance programs,
the cuts to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, cuts to MKO, the cuts to
friendship centres.
The member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) was
speaking across the hall to the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), and I saw that
same nice little document when I was in Little Black River, and to indigenous
people, it was a day to recognize. That
is nice; it is really nice. When I was
there, they said, who is this? They
said, is that the minister that has to do with Native Affairs? I said, no.
I said, that is not the minister.
Well, why did we get this? I do
not know. So they said, well, what is
this all about? Because it looked all
official and it was really nice. They even had it on their wall and it looked
really impressive, very impressive, and they thought he was the Minister of
Native Affairs. Maybe next shuffle he
might be. You know, I hope he does get‑‑[interjection] Well, maybe he will get
into a different one, but if he is moved into the cabinet I think that would be
good because the member is very hard working.
I see him at a lot of functions and he is very well liked and respected
out there.
In all fairness, when we look at fair
taxes, fair cuts, if you look at the whole areas that were cut pertaining to
aboriginal people, a lot of it was targeted directly at the aboriginal people. If you look at all the cuts to the friendship
centres, and I mentioned the cut to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, the MKO,
and they are wondering what happened.
Like, what did we do? Why are we
being cut 100 percent of our funding?
I guess the only answer that could be
given to those aboriginal organizations is, because you are doing what you are
supposed to be doing and standing up for the people you represent. That is why they are in those positions and
that is why they do get funding to try and service the people that they do
represent. You know most of those
aboriginal organizations and the leaders that come out to these gatherings and
these meetings are from remote communities.
It is very costly for the chief and councillors and representatives from
those communities to‑‑most of them have to fly out, and they do not
have access to funding. So that funding
was very important for them to get the information to take back to their
people.
So when we talk about fairness to all
individuals across
One of the areas that was cut was the MAPO
program, and I hear the Premier (Mr. Filmon) during Question Period saying,
well, there are other services to pick up the services that were cut. Well, the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer)
should know that a lot of individuals who go for meetings with their
counsellors and their social workers are very intimidated, are very scared, and
with the perception that, if I say or do anything wrong, those individuals have
the authority and the power to cut me totally off. A lot of people do not know how to stand up
for themselves, and a lot of people will not stand up for themselves. So that Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Organization was very important to a lot of individuals' lives, because they
were the spokesperson, and they were the ones that did the leg work and sat in
on a lot of those meetings. Because,
like I said, the people do not understand the system and are very, very
intimidated.
So when the Premier says there are other
services to pick up the agencies that were cut, that is wrong. What will happen is that individuals who do
not have the resources, do not have the ability to stand up for themselves,
will not be able to and will be left on the side. The next thing you know we will hear more
about them in the press and in the paper or something tragic will have
happened.
* (1750)
One of my new critic areas that I really
look forward to and that is really important to me is dealing with Native
Affairs. I was at a meeting yesterday
and I was really surprised. I was in
Bloodvein and
That is right. You get subsidy from the federal government
and provincial government through various programs. If you need it, it is there. You have GRIP and you have NISA, all those
other programs that are there. But the
fishermen, the only program they had assisting them was through either CEDF
loans or through freight subsidy programs, and the price of fish that they were
receiving has increased very little if any, but their price of operation has
greatly increased. The price of gasoline
has increased.
An individual was saying, even if they hit
a reef and they break their propeller, to get a new propeller flown in because
there are no roads going in, it will cost them $15 minimum in freight for a
little prop to come in. That is what
they have to pay, and yet their freight subsidy was cut from over $300,000 to
$250,000, so they cannot afford that.
They do not have a road. You probably have a road going to your farm,
and if you want to operate your vehicles, your combine, you probably have the
access to use purple gas which is much cheaper than gasoline. The fishermen do not have that option. The fishermen have to pay the full gasoline
price, and that has to be brought in by barge or brought in by airplanes, and
it costs more per litre for gas in remote communities than in Gimli or
communities that are accessed by roads.
So when we talk about fairness, if you cut
the freight subsidy, how is that being fair?
The fishermen were telling us yesterday that they will barely even be
able to make ends meet. They said because the perception is that because they
are employed as fishermen, they will bring in an income‑‑they have
families to feed, and they have zero income coming in‑‑they cannot
even go for social assistance. The
community will not give them social assistance because the community views them
as being employed as fishermen. Even if
they bring in zero dollars, they still cannot even collect social assistance to
feed their families.
It is very, very hard on them. They were saying, well, if there is no road
out of here, at least why can we not keep that freight subsidy or build a road
in? Either one or the other, so at least
our cost is not‑‑our costs in the remote communities, they were
saying, are a heck of a lot more than, say, fishermen in the community of
Gimli, because they can put everything in their truck and they can drive it
out, they can haul it out with their vehicles, but there they cannot do that. So they were very worried about that.
Another blow that is coming to the
fishermen is in
Do you know what else? If whitefish is lumped in with rough fish,
you will not get the subsidy for your packaging. Did you know that? So that is going to be another cost on
fishermen. Yet whitefish is a good fish to eat‑‑[interjection] He is from Gimli; he
should know that. Whitefish are good
fish to eat, but it is a marketing that has to take place.
You go into a community like Flin Flon in
northern
Like I said earlier, if you go to northern
That is the kind of stuff I hope that the
government will look at and talk to Freshwater Fisheries and get them to start
aggressively marketing the fish that we have for sale in
Also, when we look at northern
An Honourable Member: Then why did you vote against the budget, George? The last three budgets have done nothing but
try and promote exploration and development, and you voted against us.
Mr. Hickes: Well, do not cut it now. That is only one part of the budget. There are even certain parts of this budget
that I would agree with; well, it is true.
But overall, with some of the cuts that I just‑‑[interjection] No. You have to look at the overall budget‑‑overall,
because of the cuts I have mentioned and some of the negative things that are
impacting the working poor, the visible minorities, the aboriginal people, that
I cannot support the budget, but bits and pieces, sure.
I bet that, if you did an honest survey
with your members, there are certain parts of that budget that they would like
to see out of there. You would not get
100 percent agreement. You know that
yourself. If it is such an easy budget‑‑[interjection] Okay, but if you agree
with it 100 percent and you figure it is a very fair budget, why are you
putting those letters out to the constituents?
I have never seen that before where MLAs
of the government have to put a certain spin on something to their
constituents. Why? Why then? What is the reason? A good budget should be able to sell itself. You should not have to put a spin on it. The
people should say, yes, it is a good budget.
We support it 100 percent. You should
not have to get it‑‑well, you would not have to go out there and
sell it. I read your letter. I have seen other‑‑[interjection] Well, I do not know why
he will not put his picture on it. He
should have put his picture on it.
The other things that were cut pertaining
directly to aboriginal people were the cuts to the friendship centres across
I totally, totally disagree with that
because friendship centres are not advocacy groups. They are a service-helping group for
aboriginal people. In fact, when that
was announced, I got a call from the Tache nursing home in St. Boniface, and they
said, what are we going to do? We have
aboriginal people here at the Tache nursing home, and their friendship centres
were coming to take the individuals who were at the nursing home out for
visitations, for entertainment. They
were coming in bringing ethnic foods and cultural foods and taking them out for
entertainment, and that was from the Tache nursing home in St. Boniface. That is where I got that phone call from.
I said, well, you phone your MLA and phone
the minister that is responsible for that, because I do not agree with those
cuts. Friendship centres, if you look at the services they provided for years
and years, always provided‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. When this matter
is again before the House, the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes)
will have 19 minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House now
adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).