LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Friday,
April 16, 1993
The House met at 10 a.m.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): It is my duty to inform the House that Mr.
Speaker is unavoidably absent, and therefore, in accordance with the statutes, I
would ask the Deputy Speaker to take the Chair.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to present the
petition of Liette Carr, Frank Henry, Todd Bone and others requesting the
Family Services minister (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider restoring funding for the
friendship centres in
* * *
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to present the
petition of Dolores Sandy, Wendy Rankin, Ileine Hanna and others requesting the
Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) consider holding public hearings on wide‑open
Sunday shopping throughout
* * *
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to present the
petition of L. Alexander, S. Pruden, V. Pruden and others requesting the Family
Services minister (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider restoring funding for the
friendship centres in
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to present the
petition of D. Corbett, Jessie Keeper, Eddy Cobiness and others requesting the
Family Services minister (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider restoring funding for the
friendship centres in
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to present the
petition of Matt Burnett, Denise Flett, Frances Thompson and others requesting
the Family Services minister (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider restoring funding for
the friendship centres in
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of the House to have the
petition (Mr. Leonard Evans) 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
* (1005)
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have reviewed the petition (Mr. Dewar), and
it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: 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
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member for
Mr. Clerk: 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
* * *
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) and it complies with the rules and practices
of the House. Is it the will of the
House to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS fisheries are a vital resource
industry in rural and northern
WHEREAS there are over 800 commercial
fishermen netting some 12 million pounds of fish each year on
WHEREAS the high costs of supplies and
shipping fish to market are putting ever more pressures on the commercial
fishing industry in this province; and
WHEREAS the provincial government reduced
the Northern Fishermen's Freight Subsidy Assistance Program for commercial
fishing by over $90,000 in 1991; and
WHEREAS this subsidy is vital to the survival
of the commercial fishing industry; and
WHEREAS restoring the Freight Subsidy to
the level of previous years would make fishing in northern
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Introduction
of Guests
Madam Deputy Speaker: I would like to draw attention to all members
of the House to the public gallery, where we have with us today, from
I would like to draw attention to all
members of the House that seated in the public gallery, from
I would also like to draw attention to all
members of the House that we have eight visitors with us this morning from the
MGEU Women's Committee, under the direction of Chairperson Louise Hodder.
On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you this morning.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Employment
Enhancement Program
Impact of
Reductions
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, we have been asking a
number of questions about the long‑term cost benefit of some of the
spending decisions made by the provincial Conservative government.
In the budget tabled before this Chamber,
there is a reduction of some 23 percent in the spending in the employment
enhancement programs of the provincial government. This employment enhancement program goes for
programs like employment centres, employment programs across the province. We are quite concerned about the impact of
the spending cuts on the employment opportunities and the long‑term
economic benefits for the province.
My question is to the Premier. Do they have any studies to indicate that the
spending decisions to cut some $3 million out of the program is cost benefit to
the
* (1010)
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Madam
Deputy Speaker, the programs that the member has referred to have now been
integrated into the Department of Education and Training, into the Advanced
Education and Skills Training part of this department.
The benefits of that change are that now
those programs become part of a continuum of skills training programs that are
offered by this province, and individuals now have a greater ability for access
and a greater knowledge of the kinds of programs that are available to them.
Mr. Doer: There is no continuum for the people in the
I want to table a study that was conducted
by the Policy and Planning Branch of the government in November of '92, which
clearly states that the centres are cost effective, that they in fact produce
for $1 spent, $16 of benefit to the province.
They even talk about, in a three‑month follow‑up of data,
that 35 percent of these people in centres are employed with an additional 15
percent enrolled in future training programs.
I want to know the long‑term cost to
the people of
Is it not going to cost us more money and
have greater numbers of people not being able to access employment and training
in the province with the decisions made by the Conservative government?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Deputy Speaker, Manitobans will still have
access to those programs. We have been
very careful to make sure that the services have been maintained in parts of
In the Parkland region, which was
specifically referenced, we will make sure that through the services offered by
Also, those people will now have available
to them the resources of the advanced education and skills training part of our
department so that we will be able to look at the whole range of skills
enhancement and skills training programs that will be available to those
individuals.
Mr. Doer: Madam Deputy Speaker, obviously the government
is not making any economic decisions in their budget on the basis of long‑term
benefit to the people of
The reports clearly say, without the human
resource programs and the human resource centres in their community, people
currently on social assistance would be condemned to further dependence and
lengthened stays on assistance.
It further says, the data shows a
significantly higher proportion of HROP and HROC clients leave the social
assistance caseload rolls due to the reasons attributable to the program
participation.
* (1015)
Is this the policy of the provincial
Conservative government, to have higher dependency, more people on welfare,
rather than training and employment programs in the
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Deputy Speaker, again, I will tell the
member that these particular programs were part of a reorganization. They have
been brought into the Department of Education and Training.
The services now, we believe, will be much
more efficiently offered because they are now part of a continuum of service,
and it will allow those Manitobans to have a full view of the kinds of services
and skills training that are available to Manitobans.
Human
Resource
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, the same report that my Leader
referred to that was conducted by the Policy and Planning Branch on November 5,
1992, refers to the work of the Human Resource Opportunity Centres, and I
quote: There is a continued and growing
need for proactive programming which assists the employment‑disadvantaged
Manitobans to enter or re‑enter the labour force.
It also goes on to say that the fact that
current demand exceeds program and centre capacity, human resource opportunity
programs and Human Resource Opportunity Centres continue as relevant policy
instruments designed to fight poverty and meet the equity objectives of
government.
On the basis of those recommendations and
statements in the government's own report that was conducted only a few months
ago, I want to ask the Minister of Education, who is now responsible for
employment enhancement programs, why the Parkland Human Resource Opportunity
Centre was selected for complete closure rather than the treatment that was
given to all of the others, which we think was wrong anyway. It was the cutbacks, but at least‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Madam
Deputy Speaker, as the member knows and Manitobans know, yes, very difficult
decisions were made, but to make sure that there was a provision of service,
there will still be service offered through
As I have said to the member, these
programs have just been integrated into the Department of Education and
Training, and we are looking at how we can most efficiently service the needs
of the people of the
Mr. Plohman: The
How can the minister justify the complete
closure of this program in light of those facts?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Deputy Speaker, again, the answer does
remain the same.
We had to look at where the services could
be offered, how the services could be supported in a regional manner. In the Parkland area, the service will be
provided from
We have, as I said, only just integrated
this particular program into the Department of Education and Training, and we
are now looking, with the continuum of service, how to support the people of
the
Mr. Plohman: Madam Deputy Speaker, in view of the fact
that there are 18 referral agencies, many from the Department of Family
Services, in the
I want to ask the minister now: How much money, since she said the
I am told there is‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said to the
member, these programs have just been integrated into the Department of
Education and Training. We are now
looking at the needs of the
We are now looking at how we can best
assist the people of the
Court of
Queen's Bench
Orderly
Payment of Debts Program
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Madam Deputy Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Justice.
We have recently learned that the Orderly
Payment of Debts Program administered by the Court of Queen's Bench has been
eradicated by this minister.
As the minister's own Estimates book last
year said, the Orderly Payment of Debts Program is designed to assist persons
who have become overwhelmed by debt.
Through this program, debtors are able to pay their debts without being
sued by their creditors.
Why has this minister ended this program,
the only result of which can be to force more Manitobans into bankruptcy? Why has he ended this program which made
eminent sense for people attempting to retire their debts in an orderly
fashion?
* (1020)
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Deputy Speaker, the honourable
member speaks of eradication and uses language like that. He needs to understand that we are in a very
difficult fiscal environment these days.
If he has been listening in this House and
if he has been listening to what has been going on across the country, he will
know that some difficult decisions have to be made.
This decision was not made easily
either. We think that people who find
themselves in these financial difficulties, though, can find assistance
elsewhere, and it does not need to be a service provided by government.
As I say, these decisions are not easy
decisions, as the honourable member's question would suggest.
Mr. Edwards: As I read to the minister, the sole purpose of
this program is to save lawsuits, expensive lawsuits to administer by the
government, expensive for the people involved.
Why would the minister cut a program whose
sole purpose was to help Manitobans also experiencing financial difficulty to
retire their debts in an orderly fashion so that creditors can get paid, people
do not have to sue, taking up the time of courts and judges? Why would he get rid of a program whose sole
purpose was to allow people to pay their debts?
Mr. McCrae: I have already answered the honourable member
in my previous answer, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Edwards: Madam Deputy Speaker, finally, for the same
minister‑‑the minister aspires to be a federal politician.
My question for the minister: Is the minister suggesting or is the minister
in any way proposing that the only recourse left, the appropriate recourse for
people in these circumstances, is the bankruptcy act? Why is he vacating his responsibilities‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Deputy Speaker, I aspire to serve the
people. That is what I have been doing, and that is what I propose to continue
to do.
Child Care
Centres
Subsidized
Space Reductions
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): The Minister of Family Services said in the
House yesterday that no child care centre would lose more than one space.
Since Kings Park Day Care lost five
subsidized spaces, Agassiz lost 14 subsidized spaces, Ryerson lost 20
subsidized spaces, Campus lost 15 subsidized spaces, will the Minister of
Family Services explain the contradiction between what he said yesterday in the
House and what is happening at child care centres across
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I can assure the member, the confusion is in his own mind.
We have indicated clearly that we had
10,000 subsidized spaces, and we are reducing that through attrition to
9,600. The member is wrong when he says
that there are centres losing the numbers of spaces that he has indicated. We will manage the system so that centres
will have a minimal impact from this decision.
The fact of the matter is, I think perhaps
what centres are telling him is that they had eligibility for subsidized spaces
for all of those spaces that they are licensed for. We have taken the average number of
subsidized spaces that they have had over the last few months and reduced that
by one.
Mr. Martindale: Will the Minister of Family Services now
admit, since he would not earlier this week, that as many as 800 or 1,000
spaces may be lost, not the 400 that he announced, since a letter from his own
Child Day Care office, dated April 8, says that spaces includes part‑time
enrollment as well as full time?
* (1025)
Mr. Gilleshammer: The arithmetic on this is really quite
simple, and I will repeat it again for the member.
The number of subsidized spaces that we
found ourselves with in recent times was 10,000 subsidized spaces. We are going to have that reduced to 9,600
through attrition. There will be the
loss of some 400 subsidized spaces from what we have had in recent times, and
we will manage the system so that no centre will be impacted to any great
extent.
Mr. Martindale: The Minister of Family Services should at least
have the‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member please put his
question now.
Mr. Martindale: Can the minister explain why he is
implementing a series of cutbacks which will force part‑time employees
particularly to either not find child care and drop out of the workforce, or
not be able to take a job because they cannot find child care, or to leave
children at home before and after school, a made‑in‑Manitoba, home‑alone
policy?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Deputy Speaker, what the member has to
realize is that we have a budget that this year will print higher than last
year's print in daycare, a budget that was nearing $50 million. Our commitment to daycare is very obvious
when we spend those kinds of dollars.
If you compare the expenditures in daycare
of
What we are saying is that we cannot
continue to see the system grow in terms of the call on public dollars the way
it has in recent times. We have made
some fundamental changes where we are asking people who access daycare and
access subsidies to make a greater contribution, and we are putting a cap on
the number of subsidized spaces in this coming budget.
Women's
Programs
Ms. Becky Barrett (
I would like to ask the Minister
responsible for the Status of Women:
Since many of these negative changes that the government has undertaken
impact most severely on women in
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, I find it more than a
little ironic that the member opposite, whose party, when in government, did
not seem to have any care about raising women into the upper echelons of
management in the Province of
In five years that number has gone up by
more than 50 percent to 42‑‑42 people who are women. As a percentage of the total positions in the
executive level of the government of
* (1030)
In addition to that, Madam Deputy Speaker,
during the period of time when New Democrats were in office, the best they
could do in terms of their own appointments to boards and commissions was to get
somewhere just over 30 percent of their appointments to boards and
commissions. We are all the way up to 43
percent, the target that has been set by women's groups.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, on a point of order. Beauchesne
is very clear that answers to questions should relate to the matter raised and
be brief. The Premier can practise his
budget speech all he wants, but he cannot hide the fact that this government is
cutting women in the civil service, cutting child care spaces, has cut back in
terms of‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable government House leader, on
the same point of order.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, just because the members opposite are getting their butts whipped in
response to all of the questions‑‑the opposition House leader
cannot rise on a point of order. The
House has worked well all week.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would remind all honourable members that
points of order should be strictly relevant to the point of order being
addressed. I thank you for your
advice. I would also remind all
honourable members that both questions and answers should be as brief as
possible‑‑the clock is running‑‑and answers as well.
* * *
Ms. Barrett: Madam Deputy Speaker, on behalf of all the
women in
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I remind the honourable member for
Women's
Issues
Child Care
Accessibility
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member please pose a
question now.
Ms. Barrett: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the
Minister responsible for the Status of Women why she has not spoken with her
colleagues in cabinet, in particular the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer), letting them know and educating them to the fact that the single
largest impediment to women's ability to access equally the workforce in
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am certain all members would like to hear
the response from the honourable Minister responsible for the Status of Women.
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for the Status of Women): Madam Deputy Speaker, the statistics that we
saw in the paper this week do indicate that women are moving in the right
direction. Understandably, we have a
long way to go.
We have indicated always that the key to
women being able to achieve some of the nontraditional jobs and enter some of
the nontraditional professions indeed is the education system, where women and
young girls are encouraged to ensure that they maintain the maths and the
science courses that will enable them in future life to enter those
nontraditional fields and achieve to the same extent that men have in the past.
On the issue of child care, my colleague
the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) has already indicated that
in this province, we spend almost $50 million a year. That is four times as much as her NDP cousins
in the
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that we
have made a commitment through our child care system and the enhancements that
this government has made over the last five years and five budgets, and we will
continue to ensure that we accomplish the best system possible for women in
Women's
Programs
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for the Status of Women): Madam Deputy Speaker, my colleagues and I
continually are looking and striving and trying to find ways to ensure that the
women in
I do want to say, too, just as a follow‑up
to my Premier's first answer, that when the NDP government was in power, they
never had any women in senior administration at the deputy minister level. We have now two women who have the most
senior positions within government as a result of our Premier's and our
government's decision to promote women within the civil service and try to
encourage women throughout
Provincial
Sales Tax
Broadening
Impact on Retail Sales
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): I have a question for the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism.
One of the many criticisms, Madam Deputy
Speaker, of the federal government's decision to introduce the goods and
services tax was its timing. It was felt
that introducing such a tax, as the country was slipping into recession, would
deepen the recession. In fact, that has
been borne out. That is why many
economists call it the "made in
I would like to ask the Minister for Industry,
Trade and Tourism‑‑[interjection]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Alcock: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like the
minister to be able to hear the question.
I would like to ask the minister if he or his department has studied the
Finance minister's (Mr. Manness) decision to withdraw another $40 million from
consumption in this province, and what the impact will be on retail sales in
this province, given that February this year over February last year they were
down nearly 7 percent.
* (1040)
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Deputy Speaker, when the member
talks about taxation issues, I want to remind him of the significance of
taxation issues such as decisions of holding the line on personal income tax,
and I know he is very interested in what this is capable of doing in the
Mr. Alcock: Madam Deputy Speaker, given the experience
with the federal tax, surely the minister or the minister's department studied
the impact of this decision to broaden the provincial tax. Surely they studied the impact of that on
provincial retail. Now the evidence that
is in right now is that it is already suffering. We are already hurting‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member please pose his
question?
Mr. Alcock: What did his study show about the impact of
this decision?
Mr. Stefanson: Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not have all of
the statistics in front of me, but of what I recall in terms of retail sales in
the last few months in
I believe, in December, as an example,
that our increase from December the year before was some 9 percent, significant
growth in the retail sales tax sector, Madam Deputy Speaker, so there has been
continual growth, and we have confidence that there will be.
I also want to remind the honourable
member of the importance of holding the line on the overall tax. At 7 percent, we now have the second lowest
retail sales tax in all of
Mr. Alcock: In information released on Wednesday, I would
like to remind the minister that department store sales are down 7.3 percent in
this province. Consumer bankruptcies are
up 7.6 percent in this province. Now,
surely, the minister has earlier access to that information than I do, and
surely, when they are working up the budget, they have an opportunity to look
at this and to determine the impact of a further $40‑million grab from
the retail sector.
What have his studies shown about the
impact of this decision on consumer bankruptcies and retail sales in this
province?
Mr. Stefanson: I am sure the honourable member knows, when he
refers to department store sales in the city of
I have also outlined for him the benefits
of holding the line on personal income tax, putting $600 million back into the
economy of
Our growth in personal disposable income
in 1993‑94 will be more than double the growth in
Agriculture
Industry
Safety Net
Programs
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Madam Deputy
Speaker, over the course of the last three or four years, there have been a lot
of discussions between the provinces in western
The third line of defence has been on the
table and discussed. About all we got
out of that discussion is the federal government‑‑at least the
previous minister indicated that it was a federal responsibility. I have looked at the revenue incomes. Whether you look at the gross incomes or
whether you look at realized net incomes, the
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, although the
member tries to paint a gloomy picture about rural
Yes, we have all had to accept less and
keep our expenses down. The farmers have
done that for 100 years in this country, and they are doing it very well in '92
and '93.
Canadian
Wheat Board
Barley
Marketing
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Although he has said he has not seen the
Carter report, and this is another report that is going to have tremendous
impact on the farmers, it is public knowledge that the recommendation is to
change the method, weaken the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board and open up
the border to the
Can the minister tell us today whether he
has taken a position on that? Is he
supporting the Wheat Board and keeping the barley sales under the Wheat Board,
or is he supporting the duel system as recommended under the Carter report?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): I cannot believe
that member. She says she has not seen
it; she knows it is not released but yet I am supposed to comment on it.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, that member
should at least have the courtesy of waiting to see what it says before she
makes all these rash assumptions.
We have sold incredibly large amounts of
grains and oilseeds and meats to the
That is the largest growth anywhere, and
we as a country have penetrated that market more than anywhere else.
When I look at that report, I want to be
sure that we are continuing to penetrate that market to the best possible
extent, and we are returning the maximum amount of net income to the farm gate
of the farmers of
Ms. Wowchuk: All major farm groups have seen the
report. Other governments have the
report. It is strange that this minister
has not seen it.
Will the minister tell us, when he finally
sees the report, how he is going to get the message out to farmers. Is he going to hold public hearings on this
report? Is he going to listen to the farmers,
or is he going to do the same thing that he did on the method of payment? When farmers were opposed to it, he is still
supporting it.
Mr. Findlay: She is talking about a committee of 19 people
who were on the review. Yes, the farm
organizations were represented. Yes,
they may have seen it, but it is not released until Monday or Tuesday.
[interjection]
I have already given my position, to the
member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman). I am
interested in the farmers of
That member over there wants to continue
to predict the gloom and doom of
Historically over time the realized net
income has averaged‑‑[interjection] I listened while that member
asked the question, and I would ask her to return the courtesy of listening for
the answer. Thank you very much.
Realized net income in rural
I remind the member that the farmers are
doing reasonably well under the conditions we are in. We are in a recession. It is a worldwide recession, regardless of
what anybody else says, and farmers have adjusted effectively.
I can tell the member that many segments
in agriculture are doing very, very well.
* (1050)
Manufacturing
Industry
Employment
Decline
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Just under the wire, but it is important.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a question
for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness).
It is regarding the sad state of manufacturing in this province.
In March, manufacturing jobs increased in
all of
Will the Minister of Finance now
acknowledge that his financial and his economic policies have not created any
manufacturing jobs, indeed have allowed a serious decline in manufacturing jobs
in this province?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I am so happy that the member for Brandon East made it under the wire,
or made it just before the wire and got his question in. It would not be a Friday without a question
from the member.
I remind the member, as I have on several
other occasions in answers to virtually the same question, that
Madam Deputy Speaker, this phenomenon does
not pertain specifically to the
It is a worldwide phenomenon and, of
course, as a manufacturing province, we are part of the global manufacturing
situation.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENTS
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder if I could
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable First Minister have leave
to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Filmon: Madam Deputy Speaker, today, Friday, April 16,
corresponding to the 26th day of Nissan of the Hebrew calendar year 5753, marks
the beginning of Holocaust Awareness Week.
It is sad to think that around the world
people are gathered to recognize tragedy, one of the greatest tragedies of
recorded history. The reality of the
Holocaust and the effect it had on countless millions of lives is something
that cannot and must not be swept aside or forgotten.
The Holocaust is an ugly example of human
cruelty and hatred, the systematic, deliberate and senseless drive to
exterminate an entire people‑‑six million Jewish lives lost to the
Holocaust. Five million more joined them as victims of the most systematic and
barbaric extermination of a race in human history. One‑third of the Jewish population of
the world perished horribly. The sheer
number of lives lost is staggering.
Holocaust Awareness Week serves to remind
us of the dangers of hatred. So too does
the Holocaust memorial on our
Today the names of more than 3,700 of
these innocent victims are recorded there, people who have surviving family,
relatives or friends living in
So during the Holocaust Awareness Week,
Manitobans join people around the world in remembering all those who lost their
lives, and regardless of each of our cultural backgrounds, I believe we can all
recognize the hurt, the pain and the tragedy that hatred of others brings. That is only too painfully demonstrated by
the Holocaust.
The tragedy is that around the world,
hatred based on culture, heritage, religion or the colour of our skin is still
flourishing. It is causing suffering,
violence and death. Holocaust awareness serves to remind us that stopping this
cycle of useless hatred does not begin in other parts of the world. It begins in each one of us around the world,
in our hearts, in our minds, in our homes and in our communities.
I urge all Manitobans to do their part to
end the cycle of hatred which begets tragedy, such as holocausts, by treating
those who share our communities with respect and equality. Holocaust Awareness
Week also serves to remind us that our freedoms and rights in
The revolt of the
It is painful to remember the injustices
of the Holocaust. However, it would be more painful not to remember, for it is
only through this effort that we can ever hope that the emotions which bred the
Holocaust will ever truly be a part of our past with no place in our future.
The Holocaust Memorial Committee in
It is my sincerest hope that all
Manitobans will join in its observation.
As freedom‑loving people, it behooves us not only to remember but
to do everything in our power, individually and collectively, to strive for a
world of mutual harmony and understanding among all people.
I know all members of the House will want
to join with our Jewish citizens and all people of good will everywhere in
recognizing Holocaust Awareness Week. It
pays solemn tribute to the victims of this unparalleled attempt to destroy a
people as well as to the indomitable spirit of a people to overcome tragedy and
to survive.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
It is a time for all of us to remind
ourselves and all Manitobans of the significance of the Holocaust to our lives
and to commemorate the six million Jews who perished. Nothing brings that reminder more stronger
and clearly than the experiences of those who went through the Holocaust.
I want to today acknowledge in particular
a constituent who has stood up over the years to speak about this tragedy, this
shameful part of our history and acknowledge the work of Nina Rosner who has,
in a documentary "Return to Buchach," clearly helped the whole of our
community and the whole world to understand the significance of the Holocaust
for all of our lives.
I also want, in these few moments, to
acknowledge the ongoing work in our community, and particularly in the Jewish
community, to fight against any other acts of genocide, any other tragic
attacks on an entire people and note particularly the work of the Jewish youth
association to draw our community's attention to the acts of genocide in the
Bosnia‑Herzegovina region.
Today is the start of a very important
week that has been organized by the Holocaust Memorial Committee of the
Winnipeg Jewish Council in conjunction with the Shareth Hapleita and the YMHA,
Jewish Community Centre.
As has been acknowledged, this week
commemorates a very special part of our history, the 50th anniversary of the
foremost act of the history of the Jewish people, the revolt of the
So today, on behalf of my colleagues, I
join with the Premier (Mr. Filmon) in thanking all those responsible for organizing
Holocaust Awareness Week and begin this week by greeting all Manitobans in the
name of peace with the one word that says it all, shalom.
* (1100)
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I neglected to ask for leave of the House,
which I assume I would have received, for the honourable member for
Does the honourable member for the Maples
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would also like to join
with the Premier and the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylysia‑Leis) on
this very, very tragic moment, and a very painful part of our history, the
history of tragedy and ignorance which cost so much in human suffering, and it
almost eliminated one race from this earth.
It seems that we, as a human species have not learned from that mistake,
and many things are happening today in the world which are not of the same
significance, but they are also of the same pattern. It is so tragic that with so much technology
advance, so many things are happening, but we have not learned that we should
respect each other, try to understand each other and make sure that we do not
hurt others.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Mr. Speaker, I can relate to this week in a
more meaningful way, because I come from a minority in a country, in a part of
the nation where many things are happening which are not acceptable in advance
in a humanistic society as in the west.
We are very fortunate in this country, as the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has
said, that we are not to be afraid of saying what is right and what is wrong
and speak our mind and fight for human rights. I think we should not take that
privilege for granted, and we should continue to work because there are always
chances that somebody, somewhere, still have the same ideas.
Let us continue to work together to make
sure that we can make a better place for all of us, not only in this country
but in the rest of the world, because it does not really help if one part of
the world is going through hell while the other part is still enjoying,
because, Mr. Speaker, things will not change unless we all work together.
So I join with the Premier and the members
of this House in conveying our message to the Jewish community that our
sympathies, our strength, is with them.
We hope that we can all learn from this, a tragic mistake, and hopefully
that mistake will never be repeated for any other culture in the world.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton) have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, on a somewhat different note I
would like to draw attention of the House to the fact that today is Good Friday
for the many Manitobans who are of the Orthodox faith. For many Ukrainian Orthodox, Russian
Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, this weekend is Easter weekend, and it is a
particularly important part of the year for many Manitobans. I know in our own case, we drove down
yesterday. My family‑‑in
fact, I have the privilege of having my in‑laws here from
I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker,
that (Greek spoken). Happy Easter, Christ is risen. Thank you very much.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Dauphin have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask members of
the Legislature to join with me in congratulating the Dauphin Kings junior
hockey team on capturing the Manitoba Junior Hockey League title on Wednesday,
April 14, at the St. James Civic Centre by defeating the St. Boniface Saints in
four straight games.
It is my pleasure to congratulate all 21
players who have formed a very closely knit unit this past year and have won
and lost together and lately, of course, mostly won together. That is a credit to the captain, Pat Mullin;
the coach, Lyle Stokotelny; and manager, Cam Alf; the trainer, equipment
manager, scouts and all members of the executive of the Dauphin Kings. I want to congratulate all of them for this
tremendous accomplishment, the first in Dauphin in the last 10 years.
The organization has placed an emphasis on
developing local talent, and this has paid off this year with the
championship. I join with the community
and the whole
Thank you.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
BUDGET
DEBATE
(Seventh
Day of Debate)
Mr. Speaker: On the adjourned debate, the seventh 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) in amendment thereto and the proposed motion of the honourable
Leader of the Second Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs) in further amendment thereto.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): I am pleased to rise today, Mr. Speaker, to
add my comments on the most recent budget by this provincial government, but I
thought I would start off by having a bit of a quiz.
I will read a direct quote from a
document, and maybe members here can put the challenge out to them to see who
made this statement. The quote is: Deficits are not the answer. They add to the future costs, squeezing out
services and adding to the tax burdens.
An Honourable Member: Gary Filmon?
An Honourable Member: Roy Romanow?
Mr. Reid: No.
An Honourable Member: Grant Devine?
An Honourable Member: Bob Rae?
Mr. Reid: No.
An Honourable Member: Jack Reimer?
Mr. Reid: No, not even close.
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Clayton Manness?
Mr. Reid: Clayton Manness, Minister of Finance. That was the correct answer. The member for Selkirk wins the prize,
1992. It is nice to see that the
Minister of Finance finds humour in his statements that he made in last year's
budget, but I now draw to the Minister of Finance's attention and to the honourable
members opposite some figures from the most recent budget, 1993‑94 budget‑‑[interjection]
another failure, as the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) states.
In 1988‑89, of course, there was a
balanced budget in this province. We had
$58.7 million in the bank when we left office. [interjection] It is right here
in the documents. The Auditor of the
province has indicated that is the case.
The government did not have the opportunity nor the time to modify the
budget that was brought in by the Minister of Finance, prior to this current
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). So he
implemented the budget that was brought down by the previous government. Therefore, we will take credit for the $58.7
million that was left in the bank‑‑a balanced budget, Mr. Speaker.
Since that time we have seen massively
growing deficits in the
I will quote from the current financial
statistics in the current budget: For
the financial year 1989‑1990, the deficit was $142.4 million for that
year; for the next year, 1990‑91, the deficit over doubled to $358.9
million, a significant increase in the deficit position of this province.
Then for the years 1991‑1992, the
Minister of Finance brought down another budget, his fourth budget which showed
a deficit of $324.3 million. If that was
not bad enough, this past financial year, as we have seen in the figures that
have been released and quoted in this House during this budget debate, the
deficit has over doubled from the previous year to $762 million.
Yet the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld)
in the comments that he has made, said that the government neglected to include
$100 million on top of that $762 million, bringing the total deficit of this
province for the year 1992‑93 to $862 million.
Now if one was to add up all of those
deficit budgets that this Minister of Finance and this government has brought
in, one would find that figure is in the range of $2 billion in deficit budget
position; $2 billion that this government has overspent in its position of
operating the finances of this province.
* (1110)
If one was to take into consideration that
the current interest rates‑‑and I am not exactly sure what the
world market interest rates would be‑‑but if one was to take the
domestic interest rates of this country in the range of approximately 8
percent, one would find on that $2 billion of deficits adding to the debt of
this province, Mr. Speaker, that we are incurring in this province, as the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and others in his cabinet and caucus like to
say from time to time‑‑have added $156 million in yearly interest
payments that the Province of Manitoba and the taxpayers of Manitoba have to
pay on top of the deficit that this government has rung up during its term of
office.
Now if one was to take that figure to 8.5
percent, we would find that there is $166 million in extra interest payments
that we have to make. So when they talk,
let them not be hypocritical when they talk about who is contributing to the
debt of this province and the interest rates that they are incurring for their
mismanagement of the finances of this province.
The minister indicates during his Budget
Address and in his document that there was a miscalculation. He underestimated the transfer payments from
the federal government; he underestimated the revenues‑‑just a
small mistake, Mr. Speaker, just a $200 million mistake.
Now he wants us to believe and he wants
the taxpayers of the province to believe that he is going to reduce the deficit
to such a position that he is going to have a balanced budget, I believe it is
within two to three years. If it had not
been for that $200 million mistake that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
had made in his budget calculations from the previous year, we might be
inclined to listen to him, to his estimates and his forecasts and maybe to
believe him. But I find it very
difficult, on top of that $200‑million mistake that he made during the
current year, how we are going to see a balanced budget within that period of
time.
He talks about reducing the predicted
deficit, for this current year, of $330.5 million. Well, if we are going to see more mistakes
like the $200 million that we have seen from this minister, then I believe we
are going to see a significantly higher debt in this province.
There is a perception in public that the
current government, and I believe all Conservative governments in the country
would like to encourage the general population to believe that they are better
managers of the economy. But, if you
look, in reality, this is not borne out by the mistakes that they have made in
the management of the economies of this province, the increased joblessness in
the province and the dire economic straits that we find ourselves in, forcing
this government to take the actions that they have, so they say. We believe that some of the decisions that
they made and the directions they made are not the proper directions and are
not in the best interests of the people of the
In my comments today, I will deal with the
impacts of the budget upon my own constituency, and the phone calls and the
letters that I have had to my office over the course of the last week since the
budget came down. I will also talk a bit
about the Highways and Transportations budget and the recent comments that were
made during a press release by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr.
Driedger). I will also talk about the
minister's much touted fuel tax rebate that he has given to the railways and
the impact that it is going to have.
First, I would like to talk about the
impacts that this budget is having upon my constituents. Since the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) made his announcement about the funding for child care spaces in
the province, I have received several phone calls by single parents in my
constituency, very concerned single parents who are not going to be able to
move their children from their subsidized spaces into the before and after
school programs.
In my community of Transcona, we only have
two before and after school programs.
There is a great need for expansion in those programs as those who are
unemployed or those who currently have employment or those that find themselves
in circumstances beyond their control, require those type of services. Yet we see that this government is cutting
back funding for those spaces.
One letter I have here says that a
particular centre is in need of partial funding for 15 additional spaces
because of children who will move from the kindergarten program into the Grade
One program. Yet this government, this
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) does not recognize that need
within the community. These parents are
going to have to look around for unlicensed spaces within the community, if
they exist. There will be no control or
no regulation over the operation of these unlicensed spaces, and the parents
will have to potentially put their children at risk because the homes into
which they are putting their children have not been given the thorough check
required of all licensed spaces to ensure that they comply with the regulations
of the province.
So it puts the parents‑‑and I
will quote from the letter that was sent to me:
What alternatives are available to us in order to provide adequate child
care for our children? My constituent,
Mr. Speaker. It goes on to say that she
called five home daycares that were operating near her home. None of them had spaces available at that
time, and of the spaces that she called, the home daycares that were available
in the community, there were no spaces available for the children coming out of
that kindergarten program. So there are
going to be 15 children from the families in that area who do not have spaces
available to them.
Now, this woman has to make the decision,
as she is a single parent, on whether or not she is going to put her child in
an unlicensed daycare if they are available or into a babysitting service. If they are not available, she is going to
have to seriously look at, unfortunately, removing herself from the
workforce. In that situation, she would
find herself being forced to apply for the social assistance program, something
she desperately wants to avoid.
She wants to remain a productive member of
our community and she wants to be able to provide, to the best of her ability,
for her child. But she finds that she is
up against a brick wall here and a very uncaring, unconcerned government. She is into a desperate situation here.
So I ask the Minister of Family Services
(Mr. Gilleshammer) to seriously reconsider the decisions that he has made and
the impact that it is going to have upon the families, particularly the
families as I point out here. There are
others that have called me, Mr. Speaker, on a similar problem.
As I indicated yesterday, and the Minister
responsible for Seniors (Mr. Ducharme) might be interested in this, I received
a letter from another constituent concerned about what this government has done
with the Pharmacare costs in this province and how the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) has, through his department, taken and removed certain medications
from the list, the Pharmacare list for the reimbursement of the necessary
prescription drugs in our province.
This constituent indicated that she had
phoned the Minister responsible for Seniors on March 5, 1993, just about a
month ago, has indicated to me that when they called the office of the Minister
responsible for Seniors, was going to indicate that the Pharmacare program had
refused to pay for three prescription drugs that are necessary to allow the
individual to live through a certain amount of pain that has impacted on her
personal life as a result of a car accident, where there were injuries to the
discs in the back and neck of the individual.
The individual, as I said, called the
minister's office on March 5 and wanted to speak to the Minister responsible
for Seniors. Well, the Minister
responsible for Seniors never did return that phone call and, on March 9 or 10,
as is indicated in the letter, a woman from the minister's office called back
about the medication. But the individual
who received the call, the individual from my community that received that
call, wanted to speak directly to the minister.
Of course, the minister could not take the time to speak to that
constituent of mine about the concerns that my constituent had.
* (1120)
This individual, Mr. Speaker, is 72 years
old and wanted very desperately to speak to the minister to relate her concerns
to the minister. My constituent got
angry when they could not speak to the minister, and it was always someone in
the minister's office who was intervening in the process.
My constituent mentioned two or three
times during the conversation that she wanted to talk to the minister because
it would be too hard for that individual to try and get hold of the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) because of the perceived time constraints on the Minister
of Health and his department. Not once
did the staff in the Minister of Seniors' office mention that she would speak
to the minister about my constituent.
The prescription drugs that my constituent
is required to assist her with her condition totals about $225, something that
Pharmacare has refused to pay. Now this
is an individual who is 72 years old and is widowed. She has, of course, very limited means of
income. That is why she desperately
wanted to have some of her costs recoverable from the Pharmacare program.
My constituent goes on to say that Mr. Orchard
has put the cheaper medications on Pharmacare and took the most expensive ones
off and says that she does not wish to take any medication but has no other
choice, and yet she finds she is compelled to pay the extra costs that are
affecting her.
It goes on to say that, and I will quote
from the letter: Mr. Reid, I am a senior and 72 years old on low income trying
to keep my head above water. As you have
noticed in my writing, I have arthritis in both my hands and have had two
operations on them years ago as my fingers used to get numb. I reinjured my back because of falling on an
icy sidewalk almost four years ago, so I have trouble keeping my home clean and
vacuuming, and shovelling the snow. I
cannot afford to pay someone to shovel the snow as they would want to be paid
for five hours. I worked hard all my
life and paid taxes, et cetera, and now no one cares, but keep on raising taxes
on my home. I do not get enough of pensions
to live on, so do not pay income tax now and cannot deduct my medication on
income tax.
What bugs me is that the minister, Mr.
Orchard, has $6 million to give away to a consultant from the
So my constituent, Mr. Speaker, is 72
years old and a senior on fixed income, a widow, and realizes that the
decisions that this government has made are seriously impacting upon her
quality of life and are doing nothing to assist her in maintaining that quality
of life.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I will quote from
the letter. It says: Sorry for the long letter, Mr. Reid, but I do
hope you give Mr. Orchard and the Tories an earful.
It says:
What a‑‑expletive deleted‑‑government.
So you can see that people are being
impacted, and it is the people that are least able to assist themselves and
defend themselves, the poor, the disabled and the sick in our communities that
are being picked on by this government.
My colleague the member for Kildonan (Mr.
Chomiak) has raised questions in this House, and, I must admit, they are very,
very serious questions. They have
serious ramifications for us in this province.
When we look at the untendered contract
that was awarded to APM and associates, Connie Curran, in effect, and her
colleagues for $4 million of tax‑free money. It is like winning a lottery for them. There is no doubt about that.
On top of that, it is our understanding
that this American‑based consulting firm is going to receive another up
to $800,000 in expenses. The question
was asked the other day by my colleague the member for Kildonan what the per
diem was going to be for these consultants coming to this province, something
that the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) refused to answer.
Now it appears by the answers that were
given by the Minister of Health during the course of all the questions that
were asked by my colleague that there is a hidden agenda or a secret agenda on
health care reform in this province.
Even though the Minister of Health has put forward his health care
reform document, he does not seem to be complying or sticking to that document
in any way.
They say that there will be potential
savings for the
The minister has broken his word from the
May 1992 health action plan that he tabled when he said there would be no user
fees in this province. I have indicated
in my comments in the letter from this constituent of mine, this 72‑year‑old
woman, that she is now paying those user fees that this government said that
they would not implement.
The government will not tell us how many
bed cuts there are going to be for the hospitals of this province. Are they going to eliminate hospitals in this
province, Mr. Speaker? That is one of
the questions we are having to ask.
Are they going to replace those hospital
beds and those necessary essential services in the hospitals with the community‑based
care like they say they are going to do, because I have not seen any of that
community‑based care in my community?
I talked with the residents of my
community who rely on home care services and those who provide the services in
my community and those who have been employed there for some time. There has been no increase in community‑based
care.
Yet we see $4 million in an untendered
contract given away to an American health consultant to come into this province
to tell us how to Americanize our health care system. Tax‑free money, Mr. Speaker.
Yet we see, when we look at the American
health care system, that their administrative costs are 8.5 percent of their
overall expenditures. When we compare
that to what we have here in
So how can we call in an American
consultant that cannot even manage their own health care systems in their country,
telling us how we are going to chop our programs when we are at least 6 percent
below them in administrative costs?
Maybe they should be going back to their
own country, improving their system first, before we decide to hire them to
come into this country and tell us how to run our health care system.
Why can we not consult with the people who
are employed in the health care system in our province already and let them
tell us how to improve it? The people
who work the system know those jobs better than anybody else in this province,
better than anyone in this Chamber.
If I was in the government's position
today, what I would like to do is have a consulting group, a working group,
come together to tell government how best to run the health care system in this
province, not to bring in outside consultants who have never worked in the
system in the province and do not know the daily problems that we have here.
We need to have the experts, the professionals
in the health care of our province, tell us where we can make those
improvements, and that is where I think we should be heading, not the direction
that this government is heading now.
We see the government cutting back on the
medical coverage that they have, and they provide to those who are disabled in
our communities. Cutting back, forcing
people now to go out and buy their own crutches, as if they can afford to buy
that, forcing these people now to go out and buy colostomy bags. Is this something that we are doing to help
these people?
I mean, we have to be serious with what is
happening. These are the people who are
least able to defend themselves in our society and provide for themselves, and
yet it is those types of people, the disadvantaged, the disabled and the poor,
who are being targeted by this budget.
I have to shake my head, Mr. Speaker, when
I look at the impacts that it is having and the people who are being impacted.
Now I realize that the government is, by
their own comments that they have made in their budget document, in serious
financial condition. They would like to
say that they would like to be fair to everybody in the province by spreading
the pain, but the only people who I see being seriously impacted by this budget
are the people who are least able to defend themselves, the sick and the
disabled, the elderly. So I do not see
how we are spreading the pain here.
Now we have another program that this
government likes to talk about. They
like to, as we have seen in past budgets where they give $7 million in tax
breaks to corporations for training.
* (1730)
I have asked questions of this Minister of
Labour (Mr. Praznik) here over the course of the last year, year and a half,
two years nearly. I asked him and his department
to provide some kind of training programs for the employees of CN Rail,
residents of my own community and others who live in the surrounding community
who are employed at the railway jobs, who are finding themselves either
unemployed or in a position of potentially being unemployed, as we have seen
with the recent announcement for another 700 job cuts this year, to provide
them with the necessary skills to give them that portable ticket, that portable
skills ticket, to allow them to go out and seek other employment.
After a year and a half of waiting and
having meetings with the Department of Labour, the Minister of Labour (Mr.
Praznik) has the gall to stand up in this House and to tell the residents of my
community and those who are employed in CN Rail, that it is now a federal
government responsibility, that he is not going to take any initiative to
assist those people to achieve the necessary level of education and training to
provide them with those portable skills so they can move into those other jobs
that may be available after they get laid off from the railways. That was the statement that he made in this
House here, and I can assure the Minister of Labour that those comments will be
taken back to those who are employed within the railway industry who are going
to find themselves laid off.
On top of that, Mr. Speaker, we find that
this government has cut back, as we have seen the demonstrations on the steps
of this Legislature over the course of the last two or three weeks, on the
Foster Family Association providing the necessary support services for the
foster families of our communities. Now,
if the government thought that there was a necessity to trim some of the
spending, it might have been wiser for them then to consult with these different
groups that provide this counselling service, and to say it is necessary for us
to cut back 5 percent or 10 percent in the funding that we provide for
you. We know that will be a tough
decision, but that is something we feel that we have to make. Instead of that, they chop all the funding for
these agencies and impact them directly.
There have to be other ways to make the
decisions that they have done. They talk
about the friendship centres around the province, where they have eliminated
the funding to the friendship centres because they call them advocacy groups,
which is a total misinterpretation of the work and the efforts that these
agencies provide to the people of the province.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
The government does not realize that these
agencies provide crisis counselling; and, as the member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie) has pointed out in this House on several opportunities during Question
Period and during his debate, these friendship centres provide that crisis
counselling.
Now, the people who are requiring this
service, who reside in the community of Flin Flon, will have to travel some two
hours to The Pas to receive any kind of crisis‑counselling service. How does a spouse, whether it be a man or a
woman, and/or children who find themselves in an abusive situation‑‑how
do they find within their means in a crisis situation the ability to drive that
two hours to The Pas after they have been subject to physical, emotional or
sexual abuse? How is that helping those
people? I fail to recognize or realize
how this government's decision to cut back the funding is going to help these
people.
On top of that, this government has cut
back, eliminated the student social allowance program. I have a young woman in my community, she is
a single parent who, immediately after that announcement was made by this
government, called my office and told me that she is currently going to
school. She had a high school education,
and she was going to school to upgrade her skills to allow her to move into the
workforce. She is a single parent with a
very young child who is trying to upgrade and make a better life for herself
and her child.
Now this government has taken away and
removed that funding for that individual and others like her in the
province. So now she has to make a very
serious choice. Does she remove herself
from that education program because she has no family to go back to? Her father is dead and her mother is disabled
and unemployed. Does that individual
then have to quit her education and training opportunities and go back and stay
at home with her young child and put herself and her child on the social
assistance welfare rolls of this province?
How is that helping this individual to become a better person, to become
a more productive member of our society?
Now again, if there had been a need to cut
some of the budget, the government could have gone along and said, well, we
have to seriously look at cutting back maybe 5 or 10 percent. People might have
understood that. The government has said
often enough that we are in difficult financial times but, when you totally
eliminate programs like that that are meant to help people, these programs that
you have eliminated will not help the people by the decisions that you have
made.
I want to move on now, Mr. Acting Speaker,
to talk a bit about the Highways and Transportation budget and the decisions
that were made by this government to reduce the locomotive fuel tax by 3.5
cents a litre.
We have said for a long time, and I
listened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) give his explanation to some
questions yesterday, when he said that they had reduced the fuel tax on various
modes of transportation in this province that it was to help the transportation
sectors.
Now, that may be a good move. That may be a positive sign for us in this
province. Time will tell whether that is
the right move.
The Minister of Finance also said during
the answer to questions that were put to him that we had, as a government, when
we were in office raised the taxes up and up to the 1992 level when we were in
government and that revenues were climbing but, at the same time, the Minister
of Finance forgets to tell everyone that the revenues of the railways and the
transportation modes were climbing and that they were in an extremely high‑profit
picture.
I know that for a fact because I have seen
the financial statements for the railways of this country. I know they were making money. In fact I think it was seven out of the 10
years prior to this government coming to office that railways were in a
profitable position. So they could
afford to pay those taxes, Mr. Acting Speaker, even though they did not like to
pay them. I am sure they are no
different from a lot of Canadians that would like to minimize their taxes and,
in a sense like that, that would be the appropriate goal for them to go after.
Then I see this government come
along. Last year, they reduced the fuel
tax by one cent a litre and it cost the provincial treasury $1.4 million, I
believe it was, something that the province could not afford to do because it
was costing us revenue from this province that we desperately needed to operate
the programs of this province.
Now this government has come along and
reduced the fuel tax by 3.5 cents a litre, which is costing us another $3
million per year of revenue that we desperately need to run the programs.
What we have said to this government over
a period of time now is, if you are going to reduce the fuel taxes for the
transportation modes of this province, whether they be trucking, railways,
airlines, whatever, that we tie job protection to that fuel tax reduction or
elimination, as the railways were looking for, something that this government
did not do.
When I have talked to the employees of the
airlines, I have talked to the employees of the railways, I have talked to
employees in trucking, not one of them agreed with this government's position
to give fuel tax rebates to the modes of transportation without tying some sort
of job protection to it, something that this Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
and this government fail to recognize.
(Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Speaker, in
the Chair)
I tell the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
that if CP Rail, as the announcement came out yesterday, said they were going
to bring 165 new jobs to this province, something that had been rumoured for at
least a month before the decision was made and announced, that is a positive
announcement. We would like to see jobs
coming to this province.
At the same time, CP Rail, in an earlier
announcement this year, said they were going to move some 300 jobs to
What this government did not know, and I
seriously think they got snookered on this, is that the CP Rail shop in Moose
Jaw is not capable of handling the locomotive complement that was going to be
transferred to Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.
So the question I ask: Is that a ploy on the part of that railway in
particular to encourage this government to give a tax rebate or a tax exemption
or a tax reduction? Was that a ploy on
their part? Time will tell if it was.
On top of that, the question I have for
the Minister of Finance, (Mr. Manness) now that he has given that 3‑1/2
cent a litre fuel tax rebate, has CN Rail come to the Minister of Highways and
Transportation (Mr. Driedger) or to the Minister of Finance and said, we are
going to rescind our decision to eliminate 700 jobs in the province of Manitoba
this year?
I do not hear any answers from the members
opposite. I take it then by that that
there is no decision and that there will be no job elimination announcement
coming out saying that we are going to rescind that decision by CN Rail.
* (1140)
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Oh, the old heavy
union blackmail bit.
Mr. Reid: Heavy union blackmail bit, the Minister of
Finance says.
Now, the Minister of Finance gives a
rebate to the railways of 3‑1/2 cents, so what is he going to do? He is going to say, well, Mr. President of
the Railway, we are going to give you this tax rebate and we trust you that you
are going to do the right thing to help us in this province. Yes, that is exactly what they are going to
do. They are going to run those unit
trains through this province and they are going to not create any more
employment. In fact, we are going to
continue to lose those 700 jobs that were announced this year already in this
province, many of them in my own community of Transcona.
Now, is this Minister of Finance going to
give another tax incentive, another fuel tax rebate next year with no job
security, no job protection, no job creation or incentive attached to it? Tremendous negotiator‑‑he is sure
doing a lot to help us in this province.
On top of not getting any job assurances
or protections in this province, he is giving away the revenue, the necessary
revenue that we need in this province to run the great programs that we rely
on. I hope I am wrong when I say that
the railways will not rescind their decision.
I would like to see those jobs remain in this province, because our
history, our base of our province is built on transportation. That is our foundation in
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
We have lost 5,000 jobs since this
government came to office, 5,000 jobs in transportation. I personally believe that is going to
continue to happen, that we are going to continue to lose jobs despite the fuel
tax rebate reduction that this government has given, because they have no
assurances of employment levels in this province, something that I think they
should concentrate on.
The government has said in the
announcement by the Minister of Highways and Transportation that he has
maintained his provincial Highways construction program for this year, for the
current year, as it was from last year.
Yet I see here, Mr. Acting Speaker, in
actual fact the Minister of Highways and Transportation has used money from a
federal‑provincial joint venture program to improve the highways of our
province. They have used that federal
money to cover up the reduction in the monies that this province had put into
the capital works programs for Highways, some $10 million reduction in the
capital program for this province.
So this government is trying to use smoke
and mirrors to fool the people of the province when they say they are
maintaining their provincial budget, their commitment to highways in this
province. On top of that, the only money
that they put into programs, the federal‑provincial programs, are for
highways in the southern part of the province.
Now, it is great for a person like me and
maybe other members of this Chamber here that maybe live in and around the
community of the city of
We have heard questions in this Chamber
here today about Highways 391 and 394, 395, I think it is, that desperately
require some kind of capital investment in the highways program. Instead they
have cut back the funding to highways in this province. [interjection] That is
right. There are many communities in the
northern part of the province that have no roads.
I read a quote from the Manitoba Heavy
Construction Association: The provincial
government's announced 1993 Highways capital program of $110.6 million
represents a substantial slash of the $27.4 million or a 19.85 percent cut over
last year's budget, not the 5 percent that was claimed by the government, end
of quote.
Another quote from the same document,
Manitoba Heavy Construction Association says:
The provincial government took the money and substituted its financial
responsibilities with the federal contribution.
Even the people who rely on that money for
their employment, job creation program and revenues in the
It goes on to say that even the hard‑pressed
We need a public works program in this
province, something this government is philosophically opposed to and that even
the construction industry says we should be moving towards, usually their own
supporters.
I hope this government realizes the folly
of the decisions that they have made with respect to the budget in this
province and that they go back and reconsider the decisions they have made and
make some internal adjustments within their department to recognize the needs
of the province of Manitoba and to reinstate some of the programs that I have
mentioned here that have been seriously impacting upon the lives of the
families of the province of Manitoba, the sick, the disabled and the poor in
the province of Manitoba.
With that, I thank you for the opportunity
to add my comments on the budget here today.
Committee
Changes
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): The honourable member for Gimli, with
committee changes.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the composition of the Standing Committee
on Privileges and Elections be amended as follows: The member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the
member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings); the member for River East (Mrs.
Mitchelson) for the member for Morris (Mr. Manness); the member for Portage
(Mr. Pallister) for the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine).
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): On the motion of the honourable member for
Gimli. [agreed]
* * *
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Acting Speaker, I will begin my comments
by indicating indeed what a great pleasure it is for me to stand here today and
speak in support of the sixth budget that this government has brought down in
the last five years and say that I am extremely proud to be a Manitoban.
I am extremely proud to be a member of the
Progressive Conservative government in the province of Manitoba under the
leadership of our Premier Gary Filmon and our Finance minister (Mr. Manness)
for the time and effort that has gone into trying to bring in a budget that
could be as fair as possible in some very difficult economic times, not only in
our province but indeed right across the country and throughout the world.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to start my
comments by saying that I was born and raised here in the city of Winnipeg to a
very hard‑working family where my father, after his service in the Second
World War, got a job at the post office in the city of Winnipeg and worked
until his retirement at age 65 in that very same job, starting off sorting mail
and ending up as a supervisor in the mail distribution area.
My mother stayed at home and raised her
three children, and, I must say, I believe she did a fairly decent job‑‑we
are all working, productive members of society‑‑and also had a
major impact on the first and formative years of instilling some of her values
into my children, which I will treasure always.
As I started to say, my father did work at
the same job for all of his working years, and it was in the days, Mr. Acting
Speaker, when people did not have credit cards.
My father never owned a credit card throughout his lifetime. He believed that you worked and you saved
your money and, when you could afford to buy something or purchase something,
you purchased it and, if you could not afford it, you did not buy it.
I think those are the values that he
instilled in me. That is why today I
philosophically believe with the direction of the Conservative Party and why I
became an active, working member of that party and chose to run for elected
office to see whether in fact I could help to make a difference.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to start my
comments by quoting one of Peter Warren's comments that was made on Tuesday,
March 16, 1993. He said, and I
quote: While there must be some sympathy
for the handful of social agencies who lost their funding in the big provincial
slashback yesterday, let us be absolutely clear about some of the other groups and
the basic reason for Clayton Manness having to wield a tomahawk. The provincial Conservatives were left with a
garbage bag of a budget from hell by Howard Pawley's New Democrats.
That is the end of the quote.
* (1150)
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples):
Who said that?
Mrs. Mitchelson: For the member for The Maples' information,
that was Peter Warren on March 16, 1993.
I know that when we took office as
government in 1988, that is exactly what we were faced with after six very
short years‑‑I guess they might be very long in the minds of many
Manitobans‑‑and mismanagement by a government led by Howard Pawley.
I know that some of the members over on
the opposite side of the House in the NDP ranks were not a part of that
government so do not have to accept the responsibility, but there are several
in the front benches in the official opposition, Mr. Acting Speaker, that were
part of the decisions that were made during those six years when the public
debt grew from $100 million to $550 million, yearly deficits of $500 million,
when inflation was in the double digits and times were good. We know and we have seen the legacy left by
that NDP government. Just a couple of
examples‑‑and I know the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) knows
very well about the $30 million that he squandered and the decision that he
made to build a bridge to nowhere north of Selkirk. That happened to be a priority of that
administration.
We also do know and have heard many times‑‑and
I saw first‑hand when we were in opposition the money that was squandered
on the sands of
Mr. Acting Speaker, in 1988‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please. Could I have those honourable members wanting
to carry on a conversation do it outside in the halls or in the loge so that we
can hear the honourable Minister of Culture?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Speaker, I appreciate your calling
those members to order who have chosen for some reason or other not to listen
to my comments. I believe they are
important comments and comments that need to be put on the record. We need all Manitobans to know what we were
faced with in 1988 when we came to government and some of the very tough
decisions that had to be made as a result of the legacy that was left by the
former administration.
If I can just talk about what has happened
over the last couple of decades in
Mr. Acting Speaker, we know today
throughout the '90s that the anticipated growth in income is going to be around
3 percent, and that is a third of what the growth was back in the 1970s. When
you look at where government gets its revenue from, we look at personal income
taxes, we look at corporate taxes and we have to look at consumption
taxes. We are not going to have the
major increases in those taxes. Because
of our decision through the last five budgets not to increase those taxes and
trying to leave some money in the pockets of Manitobans, we are not going to
have the dollars and the increases in revenues that we saw in the '70s and the
'80s.
Reality has come home, and we do now need
to look at how we can try to better manage and try to manage the finances and
the tax dollars which ultimately come from Manitobans to best deliver the
programs and the services, especially on the human services side of government,
that Manitobans have come to expect. We
are no longer going to see major increases in government departmental spending,
and I know back in 1988 every department of government did receive an increase
in their budget.
There were different amounts. Some departments experienced greater
increases than others, but indeed we were all looking at increases in our
budgets and we were able to implement new programs that would enhance the
quality of life and the lifestyles for Manitobans, sometimes not looking back
to some of the programs that had been in place for 10, 20, 30 years and
reassessing and re‑evaluating whether they were still priorities today.
We have to face reality today. We have to face the fact that there are not
going to be major increases in revenue because we have made a conscious
decision to try not to increase taxes to any great degree. We are going to have to look at ways to
manage better and spend more wisely so that we can indeed protect the human
services that Manitobans have been accustomed to receiving.
So, Mr. Acting Speaker, that leads us to
our 1993 budget where we have basically again not raised personal income taxes.
We have not raised the sales tax, and we have not raised corporate taxes to any
great degree.
There have been some minor tax increases
that have been made to try to generate a little more revenue, but we have tried
to spread those revenue‑generating taxes fairly and evenly so that all
Manitobans share in the pain of coming to grips with the decisions that we have
made.
As a result of the budgets and the
measures that this government has undertaken over the last number of years, I
just want to quote from a Winnipeg Free Press article that indicates that tax
breaks will fatten the wallets of Manitobans, and I quote: Most Manitobans will bring home fatter pay
cheques for the next two years without having to put the squeeze on their boss,
the Conference Board of Canada reports.
When taxes, benefits and inflation are
deducted from salaries, the average worker's take‑home pay will increase
by $215.44 this year, and $363.68 next year, thanks to federal tax relief and a
provincial government that held the line on taxes, board analyst, Paul Darby,
said.
I go on further to quote: It is like getting more bang for the
buck. Pay cheques will actually go
further this year, in part because the recession has driven prices down but
also because the tax load has been lightened.
* (1200)
Mr. Acting Speaker, that means several
millions of dollars more in Manitobans' pockets so that they can make the
decisions on where they want to spend their hard‑earned money rather than
having government take that money out of their pockets and try to make those
priority decisions for Manitobans.
That is what I believe should happen. I believe that Manitobans should have the
opportunity to make the decisions on where they spend their hard‑earned
dollars, and it should not be government that is making those decisions for
them.
What has happened as a result of
governments that have year after year after year increased taxes, taken dollars
away from Manitobans and made those decisions for them? It is a situation in which I believe
Manitobans are supportive of the decisions that have been made by this
government to ensure that they have more control over their future and their
destiny and their children's and their grandchildren's future.
I have listened intently to a lot of the
comments that have been made by opposition members of the House on what they
call concrete suggestions on how they would have handled the budget
differently.
I know that it is extremely easy, when you
are in opposition, to make recommendations and indicate what you would do, but
indeed we see right across the country that when NDP governments and Liberal
governments are in power in other provinces, they are making many of the
decisions that we are making today, or have made to date. They will continue to because they know that
the well is dry, Mr. Acting Speaker. We
want to try to maintain the kinds of services that Canadians have come to expect. We cannot keep spending and keep taxing in
the manner that we have in the past.
We see what is happening in B.C.‑‑I
suppose one of the provinces that has not been hit quite as badly by the
recession as some of the others. They
still seem to feel able to continue to tax and spend more. Mr. Acting Speaker, we know that they are
going in a completely different direction from anyone else right across this
country or any other government right across this country.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
What the NDP in this Legislature in
opposition talks about and what the NDP government in power in
Mr. Speaker, I just want to relate
personally an incident. I have a sister‑in‑law
who lives in
I want to relate just in the last year‑‑and
he is a teacher by profession‑‑I had a phone call from my sister‑in‑law
to tell me that finally her friend had seen the light. They went through a pretty exercised time, I
guess, in B.C. with the teachers, and he ended up on strike and walked the
picket line for a few weeks in opposition, of course, to the Harcourt
government in B.C. As a result of those
activities, he tore up his New Democratic card and sent it in to the party with
a scathing letter saying that all is not well and I do not believe in the
policies of the New Democratic Party anymore.
I guess we celebrated somewhat when my sister‑in‑law said,
and I quote: Red is dead.
Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to hear
when those who think differently than I do philosophically and politically
sometimes come to see the light and realize that the New Democratic Party is
not always the be‑all and the end‑all.
Obviously what we are seeing happening in
B.C. is not what those who traditionally vote and support the New Democratic
Party believe should be happening. So I
take some delight in that small victory, and I am glad that slowly but surely
people are coming to their senses and realizing that what the New Democratic
Party in opposition says is not necessarily what they do when they become
government.
Mr. Speaker, we see right across the
country from budgets that have been brought down that there are difficult
choices and difficult decisions being made, but I think that in some provinces
we are seeing some terribly draconian measures.
I hate to be terribly critical or
condemning of other governments of other political stripes that are having to
make the difficult choices and the difficult decisions. I do have to say that where New Democratic
governments who have raised provincial sales taxes as their answer to fighting
the unique or not so unique problems, I suppose, that they have in their
provinces are certainly somewhat more regressive than the decisions that we
have made. We have not raised the
provincial tax here in Manitoba in this budget, and it is interesting when we
hear criticism from the opposition that we are harmonizing the GST that we see
articles that come from newspapers in B.C. that talk about the B.C. government
extending the provincial sales tax to other items and the same criticism is
coming to their cousins in British Columbia.
So, Mr. Speaker, the decisions we have
made are not decisions that are unique only to Progressive Conservative
governments but, indeed, they are decisions that NDP governments that are in
power are making right across this country, and I make no excuses for the kinds
of decisions that we have made to try and generate revenue while holding the
line on spending also. For every dollar
that we have raised in taxes in
* (1210)
We do know that there have been some
difficult choices and some difficult decisions made in this budgetary process,
and none of us take any great delight in some of the decisions that have had to
be made but, if we are to continue to try to provide the very valuable services
that Manitobans have become accustomed to in health care, in education and in
family services, Mr. Speaker, those tough decisions have to be made.
I would believe those kinds of decisions
are going to be made again in next year's budget so that indeed we can ensure
that some of the universal services that Manitobans have been accustomed to
will continue for many, many years to come and that our children and our
grandchildren will not be burdened with the debt and the interest on the debt
coming out of their pockets, that they will not be able to have a health care
system or education or the social safety net that we have in place today.
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did
not talk about what some of the Liberal governments across the country are
doing also. You know,
Their 11 percent sales tax, not seven
percent, but 11 percent sales tax will be applied to more items, somewhat like
what the province of B.C. is doing, somewhat like we have done within our
budget this year.
The prescription drug program for the old
and for the poor will be slashed by millions, Mr. Speaker. If you look at a comparison of
It appears to me that we, on behalf of
Manitobans, are moving in the right direction and the Liberal Government in
So the decisions that they have made have
taxed their citizens in a much greater way under a Liberal administration, yet,
we hear that the Liberals in the
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about one of
the highlights of my last month or so as Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship. I had the opportunity to
meet with the municipal heritage advisory councils, councils that were set up
as a result of the new Heritage Resources Act.
Volunteers from throughout the community who come together have
established, at the local level, committees to enhance the heritage in their
own communities, to work closely with municipal governments.
Mr. Speaker, I am just looking for a paper
here. I had the opportunity to meet with
them, oh, a month or so ago, and they held, for the first time ever, their
first annual meeting in
Mr. Speaker, they applied to my department
for a $1,000 hospitality grant, which is not unusual for a small community
organization, and we granted that $1,000 to them. Their total budget was $4,161.98; those were
the total revenues that were generated and of that over half of the dollars that
were generated came out of those volunteer pockets. They paid their own way, they paid their
registration fee to come together as a community, a heritage community
organization, to discuss and debate issues that were of concern.
Mr. Speaker, when all was said and done,
after the conference was over, they spent $4,131.67, so in fact they had a
small surplus of $30.31. They came in to
see me just to update me on what a positive conference they had held, and when I
looked at their financial statement I commended them and I said, well, you know
it is really nice in my department to see a financial statement that has a
surplus. They said to me, yes, we did
have a surplus, and with that they handed me an envelope with a cheque made out
to the Minister of Finance for $30.31.
What they said was, you were good enough
to help us with a small hospitality grant.
We felt, as community leaders and as volunteers in the community, that
we know how difficult it is for governments today to have to make decisions and
to have to spend money, and we believe that if we had a surplus left over, that
that surplus really should go back to the
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would call those
people who belong to that volunteer community, to those municipal heritage
organizations throughout the province, leaders within our community, because
they understand the difficulties. They
were not prepared to just keep that money, but they felt that it belonged back
to the taxpayers and to the people of
Now, it is only $30, but I was extremely
pleased to see that we had volunteers within our community who were willing to
pay their own way and did not want to be any extra burden on the people of
* (1220)
Mr. Speaker, I did want to talk briefly
about the decision to shut down the Queen's Printer operations in my department
because it is an issue that has been raised in this House, and there has been
some criticism of that decision that was made and also some criticism about
whether we treated our employees in a fair manner. There is not any decision that is made within
government that does reduce the number of positions that is not a difficult
decision when you are dealing with human lives, but I think this government has
treated the employees, in circumstances where we have downsized, in a very
humane and sensitive manner.
I want to tell you that of the 39
positions that were deleted in the Queen's Printer, I believe there are only
seven employees to date, in a very short period of time, who have not found
employment elsewhere or have taken early retirement.
I just want to show you and read through
very quickly some of the positions that have been filled by workers in the
Queen's Printer. We have two driver
examiners in the Department of Highways.
Of course we have administrative secretaries who have found work in
other departments. We have a building
service worker, a storekeeper, a postal clerk, a trades helper, two Employment
Standards officers‑‑pardon me, that is not two. That is one Employment Standards officer, a
lab assistant, a clerk of the court, a purchasing agent. So we have been able to assist many of the employees,
and that is just to name a few.
Many of the employees within our Queen's
Printer were redeployed into other areas within government, and we are still
working with the seven who are still having some difficulty finding
placement. So contrary to what some of
media reports have said, we have been extremely sensitive to those people who
have found that their jobs have been deleted.
Mr. Speaker, it is incumbent upon us as
government to ensure that we use the taxpayers' money of
One of them was the Queen's Printer
service. As a result of the decision to
downsize at the Queen's Printer and contract out some of the business, we have
to date saved over a million of taxpayers' dollars. I believe that Manitobans expect no less of
their government than to try to find more efficient and effective ways of
delivering those kinds of services so that that money can be spent on
education, on family services and on health care in our province.
I make absolutely no excuses, Mr. Speaker,
for the kinds of decisions that we have made to try to ensure that we can
protect the vital services, even at a decreased amount than what has been spent
in the past, because we have said many, many times that not necessarily does it
take more money to have better service.
We know as a result of many of the decisions that have been made in this
budgetary process that we have tried to preserve wherever possible the kinds of
services that Manitobans have come to expect while looking at areas where we
could find efficiencies in management and efficiencies in trying to deliver
government services to the people of Manitoba.
We know from the comments that I have had from
my constituents and many of the people that I have talked to over the last
couple of weeks since our budget has been introduced that they believe we have
been fair. Some people that I talked to
really believe that we did not go quite far enough, that there could have been
a larger decrease in the deficit.
We tried to be fair. We tried to take into account some sense of
maintaining wherever possible the social safety net, our health care and our
education. I think we have done a good
job of that.
I would be remiss if I did not, just at
the end of my comments, indicate that I am extremely pleased with the health
reform initiatives that are ongoing. I
am extremely pleased that in my community, the northeast quadrant of the city
of Winnipeg, we have, as a result of health reform, 60 new beds at Concordia
Hospital for extended treatment and 240 new personal care home beds that will
be up and running for the seniors in Manitoba and in our community. That is part of health care reform.
We hear the opposition many times just
being critical and saying that nothing is happening in the community. I will tell you that in the northeast
quadrant of the city of Winnipeg, and I would hope that the member‑‑I
did not hear the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) make a comment about the 240
new personal care home beds and the extension of beds at Concordia Hospital as
a positive initiative undertaken by this government to try to enhance our
communities, his community and mine.
Mr. Speaker, I stand here today saying that
I support this budget wholeheartedly and hope that some members opposite will
see the light and support us also.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I recognize that this group has‑‑I
want to pay tribute, they are a good group of people; they were able to do
that. But I think the minister is
overlooking the fact that there are many volunteers in this province who cannot
afford it, but they have things to offer.
It should not only be rich people who can volunteer their services. There should be the ability for those who are
not so wealthy to attend conferences and participate in groups and offer their
information and their knowledge towards different organizations.
Many of these poor people cannot afford to
go to conferences and have suffered in many ways under the cuts of this
budget. So I do not think that we should
be looking at volunteers and saying that they should pay their own way, that
government should not have to offer them supports. There are many knowledgeable people who do
not have the fortune to have the resources, but they have an awful lot of
knowledge that we should be able to‑‑and they should be able to
share and participate. Because they do
not have money does not mean that they should not be able to participate. Those who can, fine, but we have to leave
that ability there for those people who do not have the resources with them to
offer their services.
Mr. Speaker, as we look at the budget, one
of my colleagues talked about spring, a time of growth, and compared this
budget to spring. Unfortunately, when we
look at this budget, I do not see very much hope, as we do when we think about
spring.
I had the opportunity yesterday to speak
to a group of students who wanted to know about what the government's role was
in education and what their hope was in this province. As I talked to those students, I told them
what I thought.
I believe that it is government's
responsibility to give every person in
People change their careers many times,
and government has the responsibility to make that education available to
everybody.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for
The hour being 12:30, this House is now
adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday.