LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Friday, April 29, 1994

The House met at 10 a.m.

PRAYERS

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

PRESENTING PETITIONS

Child Care System

Mr. Harry Schellenberg (Rossmere): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Chris Woloshyn, Ron Steventon, Steven Moldowan and others requesting the Legislative Assembly urge the provincial government to consider restoring funding and accessibility to high‑quality, affordable, non‑profit child care with decent wages for all child care employees.

Curran Contract Cancellation and

Pharmacare and Home Care Reinstatement

Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Don Murphy, Belen Faderon, Kris Faderon and others requesting the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Premier to personally step in and order the cancellation of the Connie Curran contract and consider cancelling the recent cuts to the Pharmacare and Home Care programs.

APM Incorporated Remuneration and

Pharmacare and Home Care Reinstatement

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): I beg to present the petition of Josie Demedash, Elaine Fraser, Ken Strick and others requesting the Legislative Assembly urge the Premier to personally step in and order the repayment of the $4 million paid to Connie Curran and her firm, APM Incorporated, and consider cancelling the recent cuts to the Pharmacare and Home Care programs.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill 207‑‑The Workers Compensation Amendment Act

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that leave be given to introduce Bill 207, The Workers Compensation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail, and that the same now be received and read a first time.

Motion presented.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, from 1966 until 1988, full‑time municipal firefighters sustaining an injury to their hearts, lungs, brains or kidneys were presumed to have sustained such injury as a result of their employment as a firefighter. In 1988, the regulation providing protection was struck down by the courts. Since that time, firefighters have been without such disability protection. This bill will restore that protection.

Motion agreed to.

* (1005)

Bill 201‑‑The Health Reform Accountability and Consequential Amend ments Act

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg), that leave be given to introduce Bill 201, The Health Reform Accountability and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur l'obligation redditionnelle en matière de réforme de la santé et apportant des modifications corrélatives, and that the same be now received and read a first time.

Motion presented.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to plug a huge gap in terms of the Legislature, in terms of the lack of accountability relating to health reform. This bill seeks to provide for accountability by the government in terms of its health reform process. This bill will provide for public hearings. This bill will provide for public consultations. This bill will provide for an ombudsman or another individual to intervene in decisions in the health care system. This bill will provide for the release of information and documents for the first time dealing with health reform.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very positive bill that will allow the public to have input. It will allow for discussion. It will allow for information and will allow for accountability by this Legislature for the actions of the government with respect to health care. I am sure all members of the House will join us in supporting this very positive action, The Health Reform Accountability Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 204‑‑The Regulations Amendment Act

Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), that leave be given to introduce Bill 204, The Regulations Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les textes réglementaires), and that the same be now received and read a first time.

Motion presented.

Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, just briefly, this is actually a companion piece to The Small Business Regulatory Relief Act that we introduced a few days ago.

Mr. Speaker, since 1972 the Standing Committee on Statutory Orders and Regulations has been obliged, in effect, to review regulations created by government on an ongoing basis. For a lot of different reasons, that committee has not successfully done its duty in terms of the review of regulations, and this particular amendment is going to ensure that small business regulations in particular are sent to that committee, considered by that committee, and there are a number of criteria in the bill that will require the government to consider ways to make sure that regulations are applied to businesses based on their ability to cope with the regulation. There will be a requirement to assess the economic impact on small businesses, and it will require the government and the minister responsible for that regulation to be accountable.

Mr. Speaker, those are things that I think the small business community want, and I urge all members of the House to support this legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Introduction of Guests

Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct all honourable members to the loge to my left, where we have with us this morning Mr. Harold Taylor, the former MLA for Wolseley.

On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this morning, sir.

Also with us this morning, seated in the public gallery, from the Teulon Collegiate we have thirty‑five Grade 11 students, and they are under the direction of Mr. Al Reinsch. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer).

On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this morning.

* (1010)

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Tourism

U.S. Marketing Strategy

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).

Jobs is a very important issue for all of us. One of our industries that is very important in terms of jobs is our tourism industry.

We have lost close to 2,000 people working in tourism since the government has been elected, and we have seen a decline in terms of tourism visits from the United States from in 1987 and in 1988 over 400,000 visits to a number now that is below 300,000, a loss of some 100,000 visits from American tourists.

At the same time that the government has increased its overall communications budgets in four or five years by 28 percent, they have decreased their tourism spending in United States markets by some 78 percent.

I would like to ask the Premier: What has been the impact in the decline in this priority area in terms of tourism marketing, the decline in the spending in U.S. tourism marketing and increase in overall communications budgets in the province?

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I do not accept in any way, shape or form the numbers that the member brings to this House, but I do say, what this government has done to encourage tourism to this province have been some major tax relief and some of the activities that have been carried out by this government in seven budgets now without increasing any major taxes, sales tax, corporate tax, creating an environment where people can, in fact, compete in their businesses, whether it is tourism, manufacturing or anything else.

We look forward to expanding the tourism ministry significantly over the next year or so.

Tourism

U.S. Marketing Strategy

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, and maybe the minister will not accept the numbers, but he should know that those are his numbers. They were handed out under his signature in terms of the Tourism Outlook book in 1994. They were contained in a Conference Board report that his department commissioned for Manitoba Tourism Outlook in 1994, so I know he does not read his material, but he should know that they are his own numbers.

The Lotteries budget for advertising in 1987 was some $350,000. It is now running, at 1992, at $1.2 million and the government has now added another $500,000 to its advertising for its latest advertising activity, and even every newspaper in Manitoba has massive ads from the provincial government.

Why has this provincial government decreased the spending in advertising to attract people to Manitoba, decreased the number of dollars being spent by 70 percent on advertising for bringing people to our great province, and increased by fivefold their advertising in Lotteries to promote the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba?

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Act): Mr. Speaker, I can advise my honourable friend the Leader of the official opposition that a significant part of the Manitoba Lotteries corporation advertising, not government advertising, Manitoba Lotteries corporation advertising, is directed at U.S. markets on a joint basis to attract Americans to visit our facilities here in Manitoba.

In terms of the awareness program, as I have indicated previously, a large number of calls that come to the Manitoba Lotteries corporation are calls to find out where the money goes. They want to know where the money goes, notwithstanding the fact that it is contained in the Estimates of the government.

They still want to know, so as a result, the Lotteries Corporation is responding to that request to the public by advising them where it goes.

Tourism

U.S. Marketing Strategy

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we have a situation now where government is spending close to $2 million inside our own province to promote the good work of the Conservative Party, allegedly, and at the same time we are spending less than $40,000 in terms of advertising in the United States.

Now, this is a billion‑dollar industry; tourism is a billion‑dollar industry. We have lost 2,000 people working in that industry from 1988 to 1994.

Will this Premier reallocate the priorities and spend more of our marketing dollars on promoting our great province rather than promoting the Progressive Conservative Party in Manitoba?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will tell you one thing. Nobody is ever going to turn to the Leader of the Opposition for promotion of our province.

Nobody in the history of this Legislature has ever taken such a negative, black, critical view of this province and its people as that member and the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), who runs around the province, who puts her name out on folders in the United States trying to convince people not to come to this province, promoting negativism all the time, destroying jobs, destroying economic opportunities and in every way, shape and form speaking negatively about this province. That is a tragedy‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

* (1015)

Point of Order

Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): On this potentially auspicious occasion you would hope that the First Minister would provide some leadership and at least provide correct information to this Chamber. He knows full well that the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) was not in any way connected with the pamphlet that he is talking about. He continues to‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order. That is clearly a dispute over the facts.

* * *

Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I am doing a service to the people of Manitoba by pointing out the negative, doom‑and‑gloom approach of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and every one of his members.

They have been more critical, they have been more damaging to Manitoba's interests than any people who have ever sat in this Legislature by continuing to work against job creation, against investment, and even attempting to discourage people from coming to this province.

They ought to be ashamed. They ought to hang their heads in shame.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, the Premier's attempt to substitute personal invective for policy is one of the disgraces to Manitoba.

Post‑Secondary Education

Government Policy

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, this government has reduced operating grants to universities for the last three years to the tune, for the University of Manitoba, of over $11 million. Yet, in spite of the Roblin commission, in spite of appointing members to the UGC, in spite of appointing members to all the boards of governors, after six years there is no public policy on the future of universities from this government. The only conclusion that we can draw is that the policy is to reduce the size and reduce accessibility.

I want to ask the Minister of Education: Will he confirm today that that is their clear goal for universities in Manitoba?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I categorically deny the assertion made by the member for Wolseley.

We are at this time reviewing the recommendations of the Roblin report. We fully expect to be making as a government a public statement with respect to a number of those recommendations, but certainly one thrust particularly dealing with some of those recommendations that are purely within the area of universities themselves will be a greater challenge to the university community through our province to integrate some of their affairs, because we are long past the time where every institution can offer training in all areas.

Obviously, this will be one of the challenges put out to the university community within our province.

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, the universities do know that next year they will have no choice but to cut programs.

I want to ask the minister: Will he tell the House which programs his representatives on the boards of governors of the universities are expecting to cut? What is the public policy direction to those members on those boards that is coming from this government?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, what I find kind of strange about the question is simply that most people in the real world understand that during these times difficult decisions have to be made.

Certainly, this government has been dealing with that for four or five years. What I find even more supportive of our approach is the head of the students at the university also recognizes that large administrations have to look internally. The only people that seem not to understand that fact are the members who sit to your left.

So, Mr. Speaker, the real world dictates that all public‑funded institutions have to look internally to try and deal with the very real reality, the reality of having to deal with decreased funding during these periods of times.

Now, this is not Alberta, where there was a 21 percent reduction to universities over three years. What we have been dealing with is reductions on the margins. We have had to deal with it as a government. Corporations and households have had to deal with it across the land, and I dare say, all public‑funded institutions are going to have to deal with it also.

* (1020)

Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, well, we know what public choices this government has made in education.

Funding

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I want to ask the Minister of Education now to take those thousands of education dollars that he has put into Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pepsi‑Cola, IBM, Budget Rent‑A‑Car, Bob Kozminski, lottery advertising, take that public money and put it into the public education system.

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, all the venom in the question of the member for Wolseley will not be able to distract from the fact that $1 billion dollars has gone into public education in this province, $1 billion dollars.

That has been on the backs of all of those citizens of our province who have had to deal with markets and indeed with earnings, who have had to pay by way of consumption taxes and income taxes, all of that amount of money.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is, what the member is wanting is to charge and tax the living daylights out of our citizens, and we will not do it. We will not do it. That is what the members want.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Are we done? The honourable member for Wolseley and the honourable First Minister (Mr. Filmon), if you want to carry on with this discussion, you can do so outside the Chamber. Right now, we are going to move along with Question Period.

Post‑Secondary Education

Funding

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the minister's comment that the government is reviewing the Roblin commission report, because they have already in fact breached it on fairly substantial areas with respect to their budget.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by quoting page 92 and the recommendation under Chapter 11, specifically that report states, "across‑the‑board undergraduate tuition fee increases be avoided and that the present level of tuition fees be maintained." The budget contained a breaching of that recommendation with a 5 percent cap, but worse, today we learn that the University of Manitoba, through so‑called student fees, is going to be adding a further $50 on average for a full course load on the average student at the University of Manitoba.

My question for the minister is: Clearly, this adds insult to injury, Mr. Speaker, with this further increase. It exceeds the 5 percent cap, which was bad enough in and of itself.

What is the minister planning to do to deal with the University of Manitoba on this clear breach, in our view, of the Speech from the Throne, at least in spirit if not in letter?

* (1025)

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I am having trouble deciding where the Liberal policy is on this issue.

I know what the NDP policy is. They want free tuition to students and, indeed, they want higher and higher salaries for all those who work at the university. That is the NDP and, of course, the highest taxes.

As far as the Liberals, we did not dictate that universities should impose a 5 percent increase on tuition. We capped it for the second year in a row.

I dare say, the student union groups who I have had an opportunity to dialogue with respect to this issue are very supportive, very supportive that we put these caps into place.

I am led to believe we are the only province in Canada that has caps in place, and we did that, of course, because we sensed exactly what would happen flowing from the question from the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) that indeed if we did not put these caps in place then, in these times of reduced funding, what would happen is, the administration would just go and rip it away from the students.

So that is why we put the caps into place, but we did not dictate that the university had to increase it by 5 percent. We were hoping that they would freeze it at zero, but there was a cap in place.

Now, the member says we are outside the bounds of the spirit of the recommendation. I say, we are right in keeping with the spirit of the recommendation, because we have held down tuition to the students of our universities.

Mr. Edwards: This minister has read that report, Mr. Speaker.

Let me give you one more of Mr. Roblin's statements: Across‑the‑board cuts are the road to mediocrity. That is what Mr. Roblin said.

This government did not just put in their so‑called 2.7 percent cut; in fact, it was 3.7 across the board to those institutions. They breached it when they put those cuts into place, and they put us, clearly, on the road to mediocrity.

Now, I would like the minister to stand up and tell the students of this province how they are going to maintain access to post‑secondary education, which every rational economic growth plan tells us is essential to economic growth, how this government is going to achieve that with across‑the‑board cuts to these institutions which clearly result in increases of at least 5 percent and in excess of 5 percent this year to the students.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, what we have here then, we have a Leader of one of our provincial parties saying that money guarantees excellence. That is the essence of the question.

If he would read all the recommendations, what Mr. Roblin said was: Until the universities come to grips with their own problems internally, freeze the level of funding. That is the essence of the question. The member purposely leaves that out.

Mr. Speaker, our global funding to universities was down 0.6 percent. It was flat, in keeping with the recommendation of the commission. So the member purposely selects one of the recommendations. If he wants to take all of them into context, he will see, basically, we have kept everything that is in place, and we will be coming out with a policy statement and indeed a charge to universities flowing from the recommendations that are contained within the report.

Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, that is right. Monies available for students do deny access to education. That is what this is about, and it does come down to money when students cannot afford to go to post‑secondary education.

Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister: Why, if he is reviewing this report, did he specifically go against Mr. Roblin's recommendation and statement that across‑the‑board cuts are the road to mediocrity? Why has he put us on that road?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I look at the recommendation that said that funding to universities, until we come to grips with the reality, that we are offering too many courses, that we had to, firstly, ask our universities to integrate their services. I put the focus on there.

If the member says that 0.6 percent down is across‑the‑board cuts and if he is saying mediocrity will result from that, I say to him that his definition that mediocrity as a result of a fraction of a percentage down, then I dare say that he is trying to make political gain with respect to a number dealing with a fraction.

Mental Health Care

Emergency Services

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, when a recent documentary and public outcry was heard respecting the line‑ups at emergency rooms, particularly as they relate to psychiatric patients, the minister promised action.

I would like to ask the minister today: What action has he taken to alleviate the problem, particularly as it relates to psychiatric patients in the line‑ups in emergency rooms?

* (1030)

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have been very pleased over the course of the last few months to be involved with consumers and providers of mental health services in a number of announcements which indicate a change in direction in mental health in Manitoba.

We have been providing in communities in Manitoba a variety of services that have never existed before in places in Manitoba where people have never had mental health services before.

The honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) will recall, we announced acute care beds for Thompson as well as services in the community. I believe there were about 40 health care jobs involved in Thompson.

The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) and the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) will recall an announcement for the Norman region respecting acute care beds in that area and other community services, I think in that case amounting to about 20 jobs.

In the Eastman and Interlake area, we were pleased to announce Crisis Stabilization and other community‑based mental health services, amounting to some 28 jobs.

The honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) will recall a visit I made to the Selkirk Mental Health Centre and talked about the future of that centre and the fact of how pleased we are that we are going to finally in Manitoba have a secure forensic unit.

Throughout the city of Winnipeg we have been announcing changes in partnership with the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Salvation Army and many other consumer groups in provision of community‑based mental health services.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the minister, I read all those press releases over and over again and those photo ops that he attempted.

But how can the minister say action is taking place when as recently as the day before yesterday three psychiatric patients were lined up in the hallway of St. Boniface Hospital?

One was in the grieving room, one was in an office and one had been there for at least two days, Mr. Speaker, waiting for service and waiting for a bed.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing those issues to my attention. I will look into them immediately and make inquiries as to how those circumstances occurred, but I do say to the honourable member that part of the whole thrust here is to try to ensure that consumers of health services and mental health services are aware of the community‑based services that are available.

Attached to Sara Riel, we have, Mr. Speaker, a crisis stabilization unit in St. Boniface that is also there to help to take pressure away from emergency rooms, but I will be glad to take under advisement the specific cases to which the honourable member referred.

Mr. Chomiak: I thank the minister for that response. It is the same one he gave to a radio station that did a documentary on this issue at least three weeks to a month ago, Mr. Speaker, and obviously nothing has been done.

(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)

My final supplementary, Madam Deputy Speaker, is: Does the minister not realize that these five patients who are waiting in the hallway, one for at least two days, require full‑time, 24‑hour care by extra staff after this government has closed beds, laid off nurses, require full‑time, 24‑hour care, constant care by additional staff to look after these patients?

This no way resembles any kind of health reform. Is the minister aware of that fact?

Mr. McCrae: Madam Deputy Speaker, in a health care system which deals with crisis circumstances day in and day out in our province, I am sure the honourable member will be bringing to my attention specific incidents, but those specific incidents need to be looked at and reviewed and steps taken to try to prevent problems from occurring in the first place.

But, Madam Deputy Speaker, the honourable member cannot support mental health reform on the one hand and then use a situation of the kind he has referred to, to try to bring discredit to a system that is changing, and changing for the better for consumers of health care in Manitoba.

For 20 years, governments in this province hesitated and did not move with respect to mental health reform.

Thanks to my predecessor, the people in the mental health system in Manitoba and the consumers involved, we are working toward a far, far better system of mental health delivery than we have ever had before and, without doubt, the best in the country.

Youth Crime Summit

Recommendations

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Deputy Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.

Following the minister's summit on youth violence and crime about five months ago, the minister accepted just nine proposals of over 700 recommendations from that summit. She apparently rejected the dominant message from that summit, which is that there has to be a new era of youth and family supports and that government policies have to be measured by their impact on families.

Once again, as she did with the task force on drugs, the minister turned her back on hundreds of volunteers who gave freely of their time and advice.

My question is: How can this minister justify her comments at the conclusion of the summit when she said to Manitobans, please watch and listen, you will hear again what you said today, in government announcements you will hear what you said today?

How can the minister justify those comments, given the mere nine points that survived at the hands of this government?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Deputy Speaker, the issue here is youth crime. This government has a nine‑point plan for youth crime, and I ask both other parties: Where do you stand?

We have not heard one word of support from these other parties. I took to Ottawa on behalf of this government and the people of Manitoba the toughest‑‑[interjection]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The clock is running. Whenever you are ready.

The honourable member for St. Johns, with his subsequent question. I apologize. The honourable Minister of Justice, to complete her answer.

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Deputy Speaker, again, I pick up where I left off before the members attempted to simply continue shouting and failed to take a stand on the issue of youth crime and violence.

At this point, I challenge the critic for Justice from the New Democratic Party, the critic for Justice from the Liberal Party. Both of their Leaders, stand up. Tell us where you stand on youth crime and violence and tell the people of Manitoba where you stand on the Young Offenders Act.

Point of Order

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, we did not rise on a matter of order when the minister was given a second chance to try and answer the question, but our rules do require that answers be brief and relate to the matter raised. This minister is consistent and has refused to answer any of the questions asked by our member.

We would like the minister to follow the rules and finally answer some of those questions.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson does not have a point of order.

Youth Crime

Prevention Programs

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): It is unfortunate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that with such a serious issue as rising youth crime in this province, we have yet to see any program put in place by this minister following her announcement of the nine‑point plan.

I ask the minister: Will she please get on from her talk and just start taking care of business and restore Manitobans' confidence in our justice system?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Deputy Speaker, of course, as the member well knows, the nine‑point plan dealt with the major issues that were brought forward by Manitobans at the summit for youth crime on violence. As the member knows‑‑but, of course, he did not attend‑‑we already have held the ASAP conference that was held April 7.

That was a program in which front line workers, teachers and community services workers were trained to deal with these issues in the front line. I come back to challenge the members on the other side.

This government, Madam Deputy Speaker, has moved and moved quickly in the area of youth crime and violence. We have had the toughest position on the Young Offenders Act, and we have taken a position in the area of corrections.

The member for the Liberal Party suggested that our tough positions in the area of boot camp were simply an immoral attempt to pass it by voters. Well, we know that the people of Manitoba support a tough stand, and the members on the other side all voted against it.

We know where they stand, Madam Deputy Speaker. They voted against the throne speech.

* (1040)

Youth Court

Backlog

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): It is no wonder Manitobans are fed up with talk, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Just to correct the record, the minister should know that I took full part in the summit deliberations and, indeed, the nine‑point plan really was at the periphery of the discussions. I was there, unlike the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), who did not even register for the summit.

My question, Madam Deputy Speaker, is: Will the Minister of Justice finally take‑‑

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am experiencing great difficulty hearing the question. The honourable member for St. Johns, to pose his question now, please.

Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Deputy Speaker, my question to the minister is: Will she now put in place as a first step in dealing with rising youth crime an emergency plan to deal with the historic backlogs in the youth court rather than spend $1 million on eight judges so that they do not deal with the backlog?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not deal with the last part of the member's question as the Speaker yesterday reminded the member that this is part of an issue of privilege which the Speaker is dealing upon, and I would have to remind the member again.

Let me also say to the member, Madam Deputy Speaker, where he did not attend was the first step already accomplished in the nine‑point plan of the ASAP conference, which trained front line workers, teachers, and community services workers in the area of dealing with youth crime and violence.

But, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have a plan, not only a plan but action. The intervention team is already meeting, and we have already taken our position to Ottawa on young offenders. In the area of correction we are already progressing to more rigorous confinement in the youth area as well as the adult area, where we have had absolutely no support in fighting the issue of youth crime and violence from either one of the opposition parties, not one shred of support.

The people of Manitoba are asking: Stand up and also support the initiatives on youth crime and violence.

Point of Order

Mr. Mackintosh: I ask the minister to correct the record and confirm that the meeting on April 7 was planned long in advance of the summit. It did not follow the nine‑point plan.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

The honourable member for St. Johns does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

Recycling Programs

Industry Responsibility

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Deputy Speaker, after waiting for six years for a comprehensive recycling strategy in Manitoba, the government's stewardship initiative is teetering on the brink, and we want to make sure that the government is going to live up to its commitment to bring in an industry‑paid program.

My question for the Minister of Environment is: Is the minister committed to ensuring that municipalities will not end up bearing the cost for a waste reduction recycling program in this province, and what is he going to do to ensure that this is not going to happen?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Madam Deputy Speaker, as I indicated previously and publicly on several occasions, one of the concerns that we have had in negotiating a voluntary program for improvement to the removal of household recyclables in this province is that we want to make sure that we do not enter into a program that has a possibility of having an open‑ended liability for the municipalities of this province.

I assure you that as we implement the WRAP act and deal with this in a very forthright manner that we will be able to accommodate the concerns that have been raised and at the same time deliver the volumes that are expected and provide the service that the people of this province are now asking for.

Ms. Cerilli: Madam Deputy Speaker, on April 22 I raised the issue of weakening the regulations, of making sure that there are levies into market development and community participation into the stewardship program.

I would asked the minister: Are these the stumbling blocks for industry and, if not, what are the stumbling blocks so we can make sure that they are going to be taken care of?

Mr. Cummings: Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the most critical aspects of our negotiations has been the responsibility of the industry in terms of accommodating the volumes of material and the cost of recovering the material.

The negotiations have reached the stage where who controls the dollars and the volume of those dollars are still in question, and I have decided, in conjunction with my colleagues, that the commitments that we made to this province to roll out a recycling program this summer will occur.

The only way that is going to occur is if we use the regulations under The Waste Reduction and Prevention Act, and that is the trail upon which we are embarking.

Community Involvement

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Deputy Speaker, my final question to the same minister: I believe that if the minister would involve the community in this that they could act as both an assistant to developing consensus, and I would ask if the minister would commit to having community groups at the table as equal partners under the stewardship model so that there can be a consensus and we can have a proper program to make sure that waste reduction will begin in Manitoba as it could.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Madam Deputy Speaker, a model that we have that is working very well in the province today is the used tire recycling program, whereby we have industry representation, we have community representation, and the government is exercising its responsibility under The Waste Reduction and Prevention Act.

I would indicate to the member that I am not about to appoint another consultation committee. I am appointing an action committee to put this plan in place, and we will involve the community and the nonprofit organizations in that committee.

Rural Surgical Services Committee

Representation

Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): My question is for the Minister of Health.

I would first like to indicate that I understand that he has allowed the hospitals to accomplish their 2 percent reduction, other than looking at Bill 22. If that is the case, then I congratulate him and appreciate his flexibility.

My question for the minister is in regard to a rural surgical services committee which has a terms of reference to look at the future of surgical services in Manitoba. A concern has been expressed that the representation on this committee, that there are very few members from rural Manitoba.

I am wondering if the minister can tell this House: How are the needs of rural Manitoba going to be met when of a group of 20 people, only three people represent rural areas?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, just for clarification, I wonder if the honourable member‑‑I did not hear what she said, which committee she was talking about.

Ms. Gray: For clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker, it was the rural surgical services committee.

Mr. McCrae: I thank the honourable member for the question.

I met yesterday morning with the Manitoba Health Organizations and a number of its members to discuss the issue of their potential application of Bill 22 and how they might help us achieve the kinds of efficiencies we need to achieve in our facilities system here in Manitoba.

I clarified for the organization and its members that we recognized that not every facility is exactly the same in its ability to respond to such a challenge. It is not the same for every single organization.

We appreciate that Health Sciences Centre and Grace Hospital have been able to do that and, on the basis of that, we asked other institutions to look at their possibilities, to make proposals to us, and we expect to be hearing from them with respect to proposals in the near future.

Madam Deputy Speaker, with respect to the other part of the question dealing with rural representation on a surgical committee or any other kind of committee, we like to ensure that rural Manitoba is indeed properly represented. I will look again at the list of people involved to ensure that rural Manitoba is properly represented.

It is my view that sometimes it is not the quantity but the quality of the people you put on committees, but I will review that matter.

Ms. Gray: There is no question that the quality of the representation is there, but there is concern about the number of representatives, and I am quite prepared to table the committee list for the minister.

I would ask the minister: Because this committee is actually developing an interim report which is to be completed today, can he assure this House and those individuals in rural Manitoba that if the surgeons and the individuals in rural Manitoba are not pleased with what is in the interim report, because it is basically urban people on this committee, will he allow that committee to change the representation, to go back to the drawing board and actually come up with the needs of surgical services in rural Manitoba that are in fact reflective and that in fact the committee should be almost all rural representatives? There are just a few departmental staff on this committee.

* (1050)

Mr. McCrae: Well, the honourable member would know I like people to be pleased and that is the business we are all in, to try to make people pleased, but we are also interested in making sure that their needs are being met.

One of the realities about teams of people, specialists who we ask to apply their experience and knowledge, one of the realities in Manitoba is, a lot of that congregates in the city of Winnipeg, as the honourable member would know.

That is exactly why I am so very happy that through our negotiations with the Manitoba Medical Association we have been able to strike a physician resource committee which for the first time will give us the kind of power we need, working together with the profession and others to ensure that we have the kind of medical expertise that we need throughout the province.

So this committee's work is important, but the work of the physician resource committee will be extremely important to the future of rural Manitoba.

Health Care System

Reduced Work Week

Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Madam Deputy Speaker, since the minister certainly likes to please and he is in a benevolent mood today, I would certainly then ask him a third question and that question would be: Is he prepared to work with rural Manitoba hospitals and the Home Care program to ensure that home care staff do not have to take Bill 22, do not have to take days off so that in fact people who are prepared to go home from hospitals and are being discharged can actually be discharged on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays and do not have to be in hospital four days longer, which is a cost to the system and a human cost to the families? Is he prepared to reverse that?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): One of the problems with many of the services provided through government funding or directly by government is that some of our services are not good enough on weekends.

Seven Oaks Hospital recently attempted to try to address that matter by using the services of We Care Home Services on a pilot basis, and we found that the kind of flexibility that arrangement afforded was very pleasing to our fellow citizens who need home care services on weekends.

I was very, very sad when the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) and his Leader and all his colleagues came out flatly against that, even though the clients, the patients, the people we are all here working for favoured that idea.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

House Business

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): On a few items of House business, Madam Deputy Speaker, first of all, I would like to table the order of Estimates.

Also, there has been agreement amongst House leaders that on Monday, May 2, consideration of Estimates will begin with Executive Council in the Chamber, and Health in Committee Room 255.

On Thursday, May 5, the Public Accounts committee will meet at 10 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. in Room 255 to consider Volumes 1, 2 and 3 of the 1993 Public Accounts and the Provincial Auditor's Report for 1993.

On Friday, May 6, Madam Deputy Speaker, the House will consider condolence motions for former members of the House who have passed away.

On Tuesday, May 24, the day following the Victoria Day weekend, will be considered as a Monday; we will sit Monday hours. Thank you.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, just on House business, I was going to ask the government House leader, knowing we are going to go into the Estimates on Monday, I think it would be an appropriate thing to have some of the Supplementary Estimates, in particular for the Department of Health and Executive Council, and I would seek the assurance that we would have that tabled prior to the House adjourning today, or otherwise maybe what we should be doing is resetting the agenda for Monday.

Mr. Ernst: Madam Deputy Speaker, the member raises a very valid point. We will try and either have them available later today. Failing that, certainly we will have them delivered as quickly as we possibly can to the critics and to the other caucuses.

Madam Deputy Speaker, also, of course, we suspect the Department of Health will not be over in one day either, in terms of consideration of their Estimates. We will have them available as soon as we can.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE

(Eighth Day of Debate)

Madam Deputy Speaker: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and the proposed motion of the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and the proposed motion of the honourable Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Edwards) in further amendment, standing in the name of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), who has 16 minutes remaining.

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Deputy Speaker, this budget, which is the seventh and probably the last budget that this particular Legislature will see, contains two major messages. One message is that we have a further contraction in social services, in health and education, and the second message is that it is a continuation of the economic philosophy of trickle‑down economics which has failed miserably over the past six, seven years.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the facts are there. The economy has not grown, we have had increasing unemployment. And this budget also perpetrates a myth that we have a tax freeze, we have had the longest‑running tax freeze in Canada. This is a myth that has been perpetrated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and his colleagues.

The facts are that we have had serious tax increases on the people of Manitoba, and I refer you even to last year, if you look over the years, but even last year the sales taxes were extended to cover more goods, everything from Big Macs to personal health items. In fact, according to their own documents, the government estimated collecting $48 million more last year, in a given year, year after year and increasing with inflation, because of the extension of the sales tax. They increased user fees. There is a long list of user fees that have been increased, everything from fees to obtain environmental licences, to various health department fees, drivers' licences, automobile and carrier licences, taxicab fees, law fees‑‑that was a big one‑‑land titles fees, personal property, security registration fees, Public Trustee's fees, recoveries from municipalities, labour permits and on and on and on.

There was a 43 percent increase in fees across the board, and these are hidden taxes, Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact is, this is not a freeze, this is an increase. On top of that, we have seen tax credits dissolved with this government. Last year property tax credits were dissolved. The estimated increase on property taxpayers was roughly $53 million to $54 million. In addition to that there has been the offloading of costs onto municipalities, and I think of the rural municipalities now that have to look after PRs in their districts that they did not have before. This is real cost transfer to those municipalities.

All kinds of technical services that used to be provided by the provincial government are now no longer available to the municipalities and they have to go out and contract their own or pay whatever costs there are for those technical services. So there is a shifting of the burden onto municipalities. There is a shifting of the burden onto property taxpayers, and there is a shifting of the burden onto everyone in terms of extension of the sales taxes.

Another comment I would make after the seven budgets of this government, it has failed to live up to the promises that it made, that this party made when it first sought election in 1988. Where is the economic growth that was promised by this government? What we have had is growth that has always been below the national average. It has been a situation of stagnation, of economic weakness to the point that we have lost more people than ever before in interprovincial migration. The amount of loss through interprovincial migration since this government took office well exceeds 47,000 people; 47,389 people according to Statistics Canada left Manitoba compared to those coming in. In other words, this is a net loss of people over that time.

* (1100)

The government has also failed to live up in terms of deficits. We have had deficit after deficit after deficit, to the point that since this government took office there has been a full one‑third increase in the debt per capita of Manitobans. In 1989 the debt per capita was $8,990. According to this budget document the estimated debt per capita in '94‑95 will be $12,592. This in effect is a 33 percent increase in the debt burden of Manitobans since this government took office, and I can appreciate the difficulties they have had in terms of not obtaining the revenue.

This is what I was saying yesterday. Probably the biggest failure that the government has had to contend with is the failure of revenue increase, and the revenue increase has not materialized because the economic growth has not been there. The fact is, this reflects then on the government's economic policies, the failure of the policies to stimulate the growth to create the jobs so people can earn incomes and therefore pay their share of taxes. They are not going to pay many taxes if they are unemployed or indeed working under the threat of unemployment.

We can go on and on about promises of this government. One that specifically amuses me, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the whole matter of the payroll tax.

You know, we listened ad nauseum when the members opposite were on this side of the House saying that the payroll tax was unfair, the payroll tax should not be imposed. We imposed it as a health and education levy because the money was needed for health and education matters. It was a matter of providing sufficient revenue to maintain our health system, to maintain our educational system, yet we were criticized for it. The now Premier (Mr. Filmon) when Leader of the Opposition promised that a Conservative government would eliminate the payroll tax.

Well, the fact is, Madam Deputy Speaker, the payroll tax is still with us. In fact, it is healthy and growing. Last year, according to the budget document, it raised $190.8 million which is a fair sum of money, and this year, it is estimated, '94‑95, to raise $194 million, so there has been a substantial increase expected in the payroll tax for the coming year.

So the payroll tax is still with us, and I would venture to say it will continue to be here for the same reason it was introduced, and that is it brings in a significant amount of revenue that is needed to help run the province.

When I referred to population loss, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not only in just one or two years. We have seen population loss, enormous numbers of people leaving this province year after year after year during the term of this government, and you could make the argument, well, we have always had some loss since World War II, and that is true. There has always been, not every year, but in most years, there was some loss, but I remember back in the Pawley administration, those figures looked much more favourable than they do today.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the greatest condemnation, I believe, is seeing in terms of some of the economic statistics, in particular, unemployment. If you look at the first three months of this year‑‑and I am saying we take the quarter because it is often said, well, if you take one month, it is not as reliable, although I do not necessarily buy that argument, but taking the first three months of this year, Manitoba is in fifth place among the provinces in terms of unemployment.

We used to be the lowest and the second lowest, but now we have slipped to the fifth, and, indeed, if you look at the rate of unemployment this year, the first three months, we are up to 11.2 percent, compared to 9.5 percent last year. So where is this economic recovery? Where is this economic expansion? Where are the opportunities for Manitobans? We have them leaving on the one hand, yet on the other hand, we have unemployment rising, and most disturbing is the rise in the unemployment for our young people, those under 25 years of age.

In 1993, the first quarter, unemployment was 14.6 percent for our young people. Now, it has jumped up to 20.1 percent. We are higher, believe it or not, than the Canadian average in youth unemployment, and that is a switch, Madam Deputy Speaker. We normally have a youth unemployment well below the Canadian average, but now we have the reversal, whether you look at the first quarter or whether you look at the month of March.

If you look at investment, the members opposite always brag about how their fiscal policies are going to attract the private investment dollars. We want private investment, but we are not getting it. This year, the forecast from Stats Canada puts private investment in a negative position. We have disinvestment, not positive investment. In fact, we rank 10 out of 10 of the Canadian provinces in terms of private investment.

If you look at the breakdown of investment you see one of the most serious deficiencies is in the manufacturing sector, which is quite serious, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have a drop, if I recall, of 15.4 percent in investment spending in manufacturing expected for this year. So as you go along the line, as you go down along the line of the economic features of this province and look at various economic indicators, you see statistics that would indicate a less than favourable situation, a very serious situation. There is a significant drop in housing construction today compared to 1987 before this government was elected, a serious drop in building permit levels, a serious drop in levels of construction activity, a serious drop in investment, a serious increase in unemployment, a serious drop in jobs for our people. We have fewer people working today than we had in 1988 when this government took office.

At the same time, while we have had this sad economic situation, we have seen cuts in services. There are cuts in this year's budget in Agriculture, in Environment, and Highways, Natural Resources, Health, Education, Family Services and on and on. In fact, there are many, many areas in health care that one wonders why this government is cutting. Women's Health is being cut again this year after a cut last year. Healthy Child Development area is being cut; Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services cut; Healthy Communities Development cut by 20 percent; Health Status Improvement Fund cut altogether; and further cuts to hospitals this year following the cuts that occurred previous years and so on. Cuts to other areas, daycare system, cut to Healthy Child Development and so on. There have been other areas of cuts in terms of programs for the disadvantaged.

So on the one hand, we have had no economic growth. We have increasing deficits. Simultaneously, we have had this continual cut in services. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think you could make the argument that the biggest deficit facing Manitobans with this government is a reduction in social services, a reduction in the quality of life. There are lots of examples of this‑‑the reduction in New Careers which is a very fine program to help people get off of welfare. The elimination of the rural children's dental program last year, that was a tragedy. That was going backward. If you want to have good health, you have to help young people look after themselves when they are young, and this one particular area was extremely important in terms of preventative health care for dental work.

We have had an erosion of Pharmacare. Not only have the contributions that government has made reducing‑‑but at the same time we are eroding the coverage of Pharmacare, and you get complaints time and time again from constituents about this erosion. We are placing, therefore, a greater burden on the sick and the elderly. We are undermining our social agencies with cuts. Generally, this government's budgets year after year have targeted the poor, the sick and the elderly and the young.

In fact, Madam Deputy Speaker, it seems that the only growth industries here are welfare and gambling. Gambling has increased. Welfare monies have gone to the moon. In 1988 when this government was elected, the welfare expenditures were roughly $292 million. Today, 1993, they are up to $516.2 million.

So we should ask ourselves the question, are Manitobans better today than they were in 1988? The fact is, the answer will be forthcoming unanimously from people in this province. The answer is a simple no. With the odd exception the average Manitoban, and particularly lower‑income Manitobans, are worse off. Madam Deputy Speaker, we regret the fact that this government has chosen to use deficits as an excuse to continue its cut in health programs, in social programs, in education programs.

But really, the cuts in public services that I have outlined are creating a real deficit, and the real deficit is the unrealized potential of our people. We are going to have expensive social and economic problems. We are having expensive social and economic problems being created because of the lack of support in the areas that I have mentioned‑‑in health, in social services, in education.

* (1110)

What we are doing, we are passing on these problems to future generations because of the government's refusal to invest adequately in health care, in social services.

So, indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, Tory times are tough times. People are waiting, wanting an election to pass judgment on this government. As I said, the unemployment has worsened. There are 5,000 more people unemployed this year as in March than there were last year‑‑5,000 people.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has one minute remaining.

Mr. Leonard Evans: We have Winnipeg unemployment rate up to 13.1 percent, almost the worst of any major city in Canada. Our youth unemployment, as I said earlier, has skyrocketed to 21 percent above the Canadian average. Thirty percent of their children live below the poverty line; in fact, the poor are getting poorer in this province, and the rich are getting richer.

So, in conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, we maintain that we need a government that will make jobs the No. 1 priority, a government that has a commitment to maintaining our quality of life in this province, a government that has some vision of the future for this province, that protects its vulnerable and disadvantaged and has a commitment to creating jobs, and to allow all Manitobans to live in prosperity with dignity.

We need a change in government. Let us vote this budget down and have an election.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to be able to add my contributions, however brief they may be, to the debate on the budget speech for 1994. Indeed, I think it is a budget of which we can all be proud, a budget that deserves the support of all Manitobans.

I want to begin by just saying thank you to all the many, many people throughout this great province of ours who contributed towards the preparation and the ultimate elements that were put in this budget. It was the product of extensive consultations on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson). I believe that more than 500 people throughout this province made presentations and offered comments towards the preparation of the budget from the public sector at large. These were people throughout our communities, throughout our regions of the province who were interested enough to let their views be known as to where they saw the need for changes and what their priorities were in Manitoba.

I want to congratulate, certainly, the Minister of Finance for the excellent job he did in putting together, I think rather skillfully, a budget that represents a balance of interests, of competing views and thoughts on the economy, a balance among the various priorities that the public and ourselves as government must face and deal with, and in all respects I think an effort to continue the move towards greater excellence in public service delivery in this province. This is something that I think has probably gone unnoticed in the debate, but I think it is important that we talk about the fundamental changes in the corporate culture that have occurred in the management of services in this province of Manitoba over the last six years.

We now have a senior management and indeed middle management throughout the ranks of this provincial government that I believe is far more private‑sector oriented in the way in which they are dealing with the challenges that face them. They are now looking to a much greater extent for greater value for the services that they are providing, better outcomes for the money that is being put into their departmental efforts.

There is a whole series of things that have changed the outlook of these people, made them true managers and true administrators who are willing to take the responsibility for their efforts in government to deliver better services for the dollars available to them, and there is a whole series of changes that have come about: the introduction of special operating agencies, so that now we are able to take, for instance, in the Fleet Vehicles branch or the Materials Distribution branch and make them operate as though they were a business, servicing the needs of their client departments in government and improving their levels of service and at the same time controlling their costs and being very, very careful with the precious tax dollars that are made available to them by government.

I was very, very impressed when I spoke with a group of the managers of government not long ago at a seminar, and they talked about the achievements of the special operating agencies and the achievements of the management upgrading systems that have been put in place throughout the public service. So you have a number of elements coming together despite the application of the compulsory days off without pay throughout the public service. We also have a reduction of the use of overtime by the use of $3 million, a significant achievement, as they are trying to manage their resources better.

We have a different attitude as they say that they understand now that their client is the public and that the business that they are in is serving the public better for the dollars available to them. I was more than impressed; I was very excited by the attitude that prevailed in that seminar and that has continued to prevail as we have gone through the process of developing this budget.

The fact that now departments are responsible for their own costs in terms of their space allocation, in terms of their costs of postage and all of those areas that used to come out of Government Services and just be absorbed by Government Services. Today they are borne directly by the departments so that the departments know that when they are utilizing extra space, when they are demanding improvements, for instance, in terms of their interior renovations and furniture needs and all of those things, that those are going to show up in their budget now. They are not going to be somewhere in a third party's budget, which is the Department of Government Services, and they do not have to take responsibility and show a responsiblity for the decision that is made in every one of those areas that is a cost to government and to the taxpayer of Manitoba, a cost that they now have to reflect in their budgets and their responsibility for and are accountable for.

This accountability is the key issue and the key word, as my colleague the dean of the Legislature from Lakeside (Mr. Enns) says. It is something I believe that successive governments have wanted to do but have been unable to do it. Whether it was lack of will or lack of co‑operation or lack of a plan, I do not know, but this government has been able to do it, and it is one of the reasons why we continue to be able to manage the scarce resources of government better, I believe, than has been done in the past and indeed that may well be done in other areas of this country and in other governments.

It is really a function of ensuring that our managers now not only have the authority but the responsibility to manage better. All of that I think is important. It gives them pride in their work, and I saw a sense of commitment to public service that I thought was healthier and better than has been for a long, long time. It was as a result, I believe, of all of these empowerments that have been given directly to managers and, indeed, individual employees in government through the process of the last six years.

That is the important thing, as we look at this, to recognize that this seventh budget is not a new approach to budgeting, to the finances of this government, that it is a continuation of measures that have been put in place for continuous improvement to the fiscal circumstances of government in Manitoba.

* (1120)

That continuous improvement has been proceeded with on all different levels, getting better value out of the dollars that we spend, doing better things in terms of organization and management of government activities in this province, doing everything possible to get all of our costs down, including the costs of interest on our debt and thereby being able to continue our commitment to the people of Manitoba to keep their taxes down, to either freeze or lower them for now, the seventh straight budget. That is exactly the case, and it is exactly what we have been able to accomplish.

What is interesting, despite the chirping of the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), is that every third‑party objective observer in commenting on this budget‑‑and we had people from the Canadian taxpayers foundation, people from brokerage firms right across this continent. We had bond‑rating agencies, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, chambers of commerce. Other people all acknowledge that virtually any government in North America would give their eye teeth to have this kind of record, a record of seven straight years of tax freeze or lowering taxes.

Point of Order

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am wondering if the Premier would entertain a brief question from myself.

Mr. Filmon: I would be delighted to entertain a question from the member for Wellington. I did not have a lot of material prepared, so perhaps she can help me by asking me a question that will stimulate a response.

* * *

Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Wellington, to pose one quick question.

Ms. Barrett: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Premier has talked about the independent and third‑party accolades for his budget. I wonder if the Premier has talked to the school divisions in the province of Manitoba, the universities in the province of Manitoba, the health care system in the province of Manitoba, the people who no longer have access to ACCESS programs, New Career programs, the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization and the Indian and Metis Friendship Centre.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is an interesting thing that the member raises. It shows the fundamental difference in the position of the New Democratic Party in this province, and also in this Legislature probably the Liberals, and that is that they take their orders and instruction from the people who have a very strong vested interest, whose arguments and judgments about it are what it does for their pockets.

The unionized workforce who work courtesy of the taxpayer are the ones that dictate policy to New Democrats. So they say that because the budget does not put more money in their pockets as workers, that it is not a good budget. That is a fundamental flaw in the position of the New Democrats. We know that if you gave the opportunity to those people who the New Democrats would spend the money on, would line their pockets, that is what would be the genesis of policy direction in this province.

New Democrats would give the control of government to the people who are spending the money on themselves, and that is the fundamental weakness of New Democrats. [interjection]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) has indeed had her opportunity to put her remarks on the record regarding the budget, and I am certain that all honourable members are experiencing as much difficulty as I am in hearing the First Minister put his remarks on the record.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Deputy Speaker, as a result of the measures that are in this budget, the continuance of a seventh straight year of tax freeze or decrease of all the major rates in this province, we have indeed a more competitive economy, a more competitive private sector and a more attractive climate for investment and job creation than ever before in the history of this province.

We have gone, as I have said many, many times, from being the province in 1988 that had the second highest overall tax load of any province in Canada to now being the third lowest. That is fundamental to the experiences that we are having and will continue to have of firms coming to this province looking to invest, create jobs and opportunity for Manitobans in future.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I was disappointed, although not surprised, by the contributions of the opposition parties towards this Budget Debate. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), for instance, talked in his response to the budget about duplicity, and I will talk about his version of what is duplicity, but what I thought was the most duplicitous was the fact that he said, immediately following the budget, that he had not yet decided whether or not he would support or oppose the budget.

That is the worst nonsense, the worst case of absolute balderdash that we have ever heard. He knew from day one when we began this session of the Legislature that he would oppose that budget with all his vigour, regardless of what it contained, but I thought it was really, really interesting how much difficulty he had in finding something to oppose when, after 20 hours of deliberation with the input of all his members, with the input of all his support staff, he came back here with his lead‑off question the next day, and the biggest reason he had found to oppose it was that the throne speech said there would be growth in Manitoba of 3.1 percent, and the budget said there would be a growth in Manitoba of 2.8 percent. That had been his fundamental disagreement with this budget, and he finally found the reason why he would oppose the budget.

(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)

Leave aside his lack of facility with numbers and with mathematics, because he called that difference from 3.1 to 2.8 a 25 percent difference in it, Mr. Speaker‑‑3.1 to 2.8 was 25 percent. For most of us‑‑

Point of Order

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): The member for Tuxedo (Mr. Filmon) is imputing motives, and he will know that the Speech from the Throne contained a statement about being at the national average, which was 3.5 percent. They will find their own growth rate is 25 percent below, and the Premier should be accurate about that in this crucial speech he is allegedly making.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member, even in his remarks, has said the Premier should be accurate. The honourable member does not have a point of order. That is clearly a dispute over the facts.

* * *

Mr. Speaker: The honourable First Minister, to carry on with his remarks.

Mr. Filmon: Clearly, the throne speech referred to growth rates above 3 percent, Mr. Speaker. The Conference Board had predicted 3.1 percent. The member opposite always quotes the Conference Board, including this morning when he was talking about statistics on travel, he quoted the Conference Board. That is, indeed, the reference.

The Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) took the average of seven forecasts. If he had taken the mean, it would have been closer to the figure, and that, indeed, is the kind of length to which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) will go to try and find a reason to justify his vote against the budget. I am disappointed in him, but of course I should not be because this is a very typical approach that he takes.

This morning, of course, further talking out of both sides of his mouth, Mr. Speaker, he made comments in Question Period about the lack of initiative on our part to try and encourage people to travel into Manitoba. That is such a two‑faced approach, I cannot even believe it. You know, you have a brochure that is being circulated throughout the United States by a group called the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals that has this quote in it, and I will say what it says, quote: Write to the Manitoba government, the Honourable Marianne Cerilli, Room 234 of the Legislative Building, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3C 0V8, Canada, protesting their funding of Ayerst's expansion and telling them you will not visit the province as long as it continues to fund cruelty to horses.

So they are participating in damaging the tourism of Manitoba. Their member for Radisson allows her name to be associated with this, Mr. Speaker. I mean, it is just a terrible, terrible case of the Leader of the Opposition and his Party trying to play all sides of the fence, trying to damage Manitoba's interests, trying to create doom and gloom and negative outlook for Manitoba and then standing up piously in Question Period and saying, what are you doing about job creation, what are you doing about tourism.

That is duplicity. That is duplicity, and we get it in spades from the Leader of the Opposition all the time. [interjection] Well, talk about ethical standards, the Leader of the Opposition is going throughout the province and talking about how our deficit went up this year as a result of the cutback mid‑year in equalization payments from the Government of Canada to various provinces across Canada. He is going around saying, well, sure, it affected us in Manitoba and our deficit went up by almost a hundred million, but Saskatchewan had the same cutback and it did not affect them.

* (1130)

Well, Mr. Speaker, he has it in writing from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson). He has the exact figures out of the Saskatchewan budget that show him what the government of Saskatchewan did because they are on a different accounting system. They were able, just very simply, to change the opening balance of their debt by virtue of a stroke of the pen so that this was added to a previous year's debt and never showed up on their deficit in the Province of Saskatchewan's deficit.

He knows that is factual response to his assertions, yet he continues to go on radio programs and talk before newspapers saying that Saskatchewan somehow did not increase their deficit, even though their debt was increased by some $136 million as a result of that change and it did not show up in their annual deficit. That is duplicity; that is false information. He continues, despite the fact that he has been written with an explanation and with the examples right out of the Saskatchewan budget, to demonstrate where that reduction in transfer payments went and how it was accounted for by the government of Saskatchewan. He ignores it, Mr. Speaker.

Well, we have this continuing effort on the part of the New Democrats to criticize Louisiana Pacific, to criticize Ayerst, to damn the jobs that were created at GWE in Brandon and then to turn around and say what about jobs, what about job creation. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate. It is unfortunate, but it is true and it is also typical of New Democrats in this province.

We of course have hoped for better things from the Liberal Party. We knew that the tax‑and‑spend mentality of the New Democrats was going to remain consistent. The only thing consistent about them is that they raise taxes, raise the deficit and spend other people's money without regard to the consequences, but we expected better things of the Liberal Party. And what do the Liberal Party do? Well, today in the Legislature the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Edwards) says that somehow we as a government ought to be doing more to control the levels of tuition at the University of Manitoba.

Well, this government has attempted over all of the years in government to let the universities know that there is a responsibility on their part to keep their costs under control, to talk to them about spending the money that is in their control as wisely and effectively as we are attempting to do with all of the money that is under our control directly as a provincial government.

Mr. Speaker, this government commissioned the Roblin report which was being quoted from by the Leader of the Liberal Party, which said in effect that it is not a matter of putting more money into the universities. It is starting to use the money more effectively. I would say that if the Leader of the Liberal Party had as much common sense as the students out there, he would figure out what the real issues are out at the university. The real issues are not just blindly throwing more money. They are trying to ensure that the university takes responsibility in management and administration for managing the resources at their disposal.

(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

You cannot have people who are having classroom teaching hours of six to eight hours a week and be paying $90,000 a year for these kinds of services. You cannot have people allocating 25 or 30 percent of their time to consultations with their colleagues, not even with the students, and give all these kinds of allocations of time that do not involve service to the students and to the productive use of those who depend upon the university. Those are the kinds of things that have to be addressed. He chooses instead to take the side of those who are the ones who need to solve the problem and say, the only answer is give them more money.

Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, now we have tax and spend as the fundamental policy of the Liberal Party in this Legislature, and I can tell the Leader of the Liberal Party that it is going to get him nowhere and nowhere fast in terms of getting any support in this province of Manitoba. I found it interesting that in his response to the budget, the Leader of the Liberal Party stated in this House: I have, I believe, support for that position that throwing grants and tax incentives at selected industries and selected businesses does not work from the business community.

(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)

He went on to quote the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Now, Mr. Speaker, I know why the Liberal Party is not getting any support from business, small, medium, or any size of business in this province today, and I have been told that directly by Liberals who are in business who say that this provincial Liberal Party does not represent any interest in terms of investment or job creation in this province and that in fact their business support is next to zero because they insist in going through this kind of charade. He went on to quote the Canadian Federation of Independent Business saying that they were opposed to this government's policies and this budget.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business representatives were here on budget day. They spoke to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), they spoke to me, and they told us that this was a good budget for their members. It is quite clear that no member of the Liberal Party even bothered to ask them their opinion because he would never have attempted to put that kind of misinformation on the record, Mr. Speaker.

Time and time and time again, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has gone on record as supporting this government's endeavours, this government's policies and this government's fiscal framework to keep taxes down, to reduce the deficit. Mr. Speaker, I just want to ensure that the Leader of the Liberal Party knows that he cannot get away with putting false information on the record, that things will be quoted back to him and that he will be held accountable for his irresponsibility.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party said he is not in favour of putting any tax incentives into the budget. He does not want any incentives there for business and investment in our province. This government has achieved investment and success in so many areas in the economy as a result of recognizing the needs that were there, things such as the Mineral Exploration Incentive Program. The Mineral Exploration Incentive Program has been recognized as one of the greatest successes for getting exploration in this province to the greatest degree.

In fact, last year, 1993, was the highest level of investment in mineral exploration and oil exploration in our province's history. At the same time, British Columbia, another mining‑intensive province, had a 50 percent reduction in their exploration activity. That is the difference between putting in incentives that are real, that are meaningful and that stimulate the kinds of investment and job activity in this province. As a result, we will have by the end of 1995 three producing gold mines when we had none two years ago. As a result, we have the largest single mining claim staked in the history of this province, 2.7 million acres, to look for precious metals, to look for diamonds, to look for all of those things. As a result, we have a world‑class nickel deposit that will likely result in another huge nickel mine in this province. We have vanadium, titanium, all sorts of metals being produced in this province. Those are all the‑‑we have call centres coming to Manitoba as a result‑‑

* (1140)

Mr. Doer: We do have some telemarketing jobs.

Mr. Filmon: Well, I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition now says that is good, because he did not think that the telemarketing jobs at GWE in Brandon were good when they were announced, some 115 jobs. He said he was not happy with them and I have his quote here. He said he was not happy with them.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Edwards) said that all that there was in this budget and in previous budgets was trickle‑down economic theory, and he went on to give this great philosophical tirade on trickle‑down economics. Well, a billion dollars of capital investment by the direct government departments and the Crown corporations this year is not trickle‑down economics. A billion dollars is pretty direct investment in the economy.

Tax incentives, payroll and capital tax exemptions, reductions in the small business tax rate from 10 percent eventually to 9 percent, doubling of the exemption rate for small businesses on the capital tax side, those are not trickle‑down economics. Those are direct impacts on the most vibrant job creation part of our economy, small businesses, and those are direct impacts. That is not trickle‑down economics. His understanding of trickle‑down economics must be an awfully wonky one. His biggest impact that he wants to make is to retain more of Manitobans' money in Manitoba, but he says that Builder Bonds and Grow Bonds are not really‑‑they do not really count. They do not really do any good for Manitobans, he suggests.

Well, I have to remind him that 125,000 Manitobans, since we brought in Builder Bonds and HydroBonds, have invested $1.6 billion that has resulted in $165 million of interest being paid to Manitobans to be spent in Manitoba to influence directly the economy in a positive sense. That is not trickle‑down economics. That is direct impact on the economy, and that too is a positive influence of using Manitobans' money in Manitoba. He says it does not really count, Mr. Speaker. I cannot understand it. He says, the jobs in this economy will not be created by the invisible hand of the marketplace, because it is indeed invisible.

Well, the only thing that is invisible is any positive policy on the part of the Liberal Party of this Legislature. His comments are a major slap in the face to hard‑working Manitobans who last year alone created jobs at a rate that was the third highest of any province in Canada, all private‑sector jobs. Those were not government funded. Those were not in the public sector. Those were private sector jobs.

(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

The private sector accounts for over three‑quarters of all the jobs in Manitoba and virtually all the wealth‑creating activities. Those are the things that are important to Manitoba is to put in incentives, put in policies that will ensure that our private sector remains healthy, that people invest and take risks and continue to grow in this province. Mr. Acting Speaker, those are the kinds of things that are very disappointing when you listen to the kind of off‑the‑cuff negative criticisms of the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Edwards) and the New Democratic Party. They do not really serve the needs of the people of this province. They do not really serve the interests of the people of this province.

Mr. Acting Speaker, the interesting thing about this is that when you look at comparisons with what is happening elsewhere in our country and what happened before we took office, well, we of course live in a world in which there is competition for investment. I was interested in seeing a fiscal review that was just published this month for the Province of Ontario. This fiscal review was put out by the Investment Dealers Association of Canada.

Mr. Acting Speaker, when we get criticism from members opposite, particularly New Democrats, about how things have happened in Canada over the past years since 1990‑‑and we often do get that‑‑I invite them to read this article because it talks about the comparisons of Ontario in the '80s versus Ontario in the '90s under a New Democratic administration.

(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)

It talks about, for instance, Mr. Speaker, nominal growth rates in Ontario averaged 10 percent over the second half of the 1980s. Now, I do not have to tell you what has happened since then. Their nominal growth rate in the first four years has been less than zero, that is 1990, '91, '92 and '93. In addition, of course, the unemployment rate that is always, always talked about in Manitoba as to how are we doing compared to 1990, well, the Ontario unemployment rate in 1990 was 6.3 percent. It is now 10.6 percent. That is double the difference that we are experiencing in Manitoba.

Ontario has lost 300,000 jobs since 1990. They lost 300,000 jobs, and they have replaced less than a third of them. [interjection] Well, the members opposite say free trade. That is an interesting thing. Canada's exports continue to benefit as a result of the Free Trade Agreement. From a Manitoba perspective, despite the fact that New Democrats opposed the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, in the last three years Manitoba's exports to the United States have increased 40 percent‑‑40 percent with free trade. This is a trading province. One‑half of all that we produce is exported from this province. We need to keep the borders open. We need to have opportunities to export our goods. We need open trading arrangements.

Here is the other interesting thing. In Ontario public debt nearly doubled in the past four years. Now, that rang a bell with me, so I wanted to see what had happened to public debt in Manitoba under New Democratic administration in the '80s. Guess what? In six and a half years it went up 240 percent, the tax‑supported debt of this province‑‑240 percent. [interjection] That is Manitoba under you, under your administration. The other interesting thing is that interest on their debt has gone up from 10 cents on the dollar in 1990 to 17 cents on the dollar today. Do you know what has happened since we have been in office here? It has gone from 13 cents on the dollar down to 10.5 cents on the dollar.

They want to talk about debt, they want to talk about deficits. Our deficits since we have been in office have averaged 1.3 percent of gross provincial product, which is the lowest of any province in Canada, and that is less than half of the levels that it was under the Pawley administration that included the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), that included the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), that included, latterly, the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer). Their deficit rates were double the deficit rates that we have incurred since we have been in office. That is the difference between fiscal management and the kind of pie‑in‑the‑sky economics.

* (1150)

Mr. Speaker, this budget does what we have been doing now for six years‑‑this is the seventh budget‑‑and that is that it gets our deficit down. The deficit is down by 35 percent over last year. It continues its freeze on taxes‑‑[interjection]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order here.

Mr. Filmon: It continues not only to freeze, but to lower taxes. It continues to make this province the most attractive province in Canada in terms of our fiscal framework, Mr. Speaker, and it continues to do all of the things that New Democrats did not do, in fact went the opposite way on, in terms of debt and taxes and all those, and are continuing to do that in office in other provinces.

Mr. Speaker, the budget also, of course, chooses particular areas for priority address. Indeed, as was pointed out in the Roblin commission report, there is a need in the community colleges. This budget increases funding to the community colleges by 3.3 percent. It provides for closer linkages between skills training, post‑secondary education, the labour market, all of those areas. I might say, I was very happy to be able to create the focus that I think will be beneficial to post‑secondary education of having a deputy minister specifically responsible for that whole area, that burgeoning area of training, retraining, colleges, universities, and all of that.

This budget provides funding for distance education, for the electronic highway that is going to enhance the opportunities for education throughout our province. In the most remote communities, in the most remote areas throughout our province we will be able to provide a higher standard of education, greater knowledge base for people throughout our province. I would have thought that members opposite who represent rural communities would have been interested in distance education, in utilizing the technology of the electronic highway.

I had the great pleasure of being in Swan River at the Swan Valley Regional Secondary School. I had the great pleasure of being in Minnedosa at the high school there within the past month. In both cases, they have people who are able to access encyclopedias in their libraries on CD‑ROM. They are able to do CAD/CAM design work, both in the building trades area, also in the creative communications area. They are able to utilize the technology, they are able to get quality education, job opportunities and excellent prospects for their future careers as a result of utilizing the technology of this electronic highway. These are all positive things, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot believe that members opposite would vote against these kinds of things. I cannot believe that they would be negative and critical, Mr. Speaker. The member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) has been criticizing the work that is being done by the Department of Education and Training to ensure that that electronic highway can be expanded to ensure that Manitoba children wherever they live are able to take advantages of these new technologies and improve their job prospects. I have a great deal of difficulty with the opposition of the New Democratic Party in this Legislature towards those positive incentives.

The other remarkable thing, of course, about all of this is how we have been able to manage on a consistent basis despite the fact that we have had massive, massive reductions in transfers from Ottawa. Those massive reductions, of course, began with the Trudeau government in 1983, and at that time in 1981, the last time that there was a Conservative government in office, the transfers from Ottawa represented 42.5 percent of our entire revenues as a provincial government. Today they are down to 35 percent. That is a massive, massive reduction. At the same time, in the last two years alone, mid‑year we have had budget reductions on transfers from Ottawa for equalization of over $300 million.

Despite all of these shifts, despite all of these pressures, we as a government have been able to manage on this fiscal course that has been described, I might say, by the Dominion Bond Rating Service as the most fiscally responsible government in Canada from 1987 to the present. [interjection] No, since 1987, yes. [interjection] Well, you were in for four months of that and that is when Jim Walding defeated your budget because he was so unimpressed with your fiscal responsibility.

The other aspect, of course, is in terms of the fairness and the allocation to various departments, and I repeat this because members opposite choose not to understand or not to acknowledge, but in fact spending on all of the key areas of the social safety net is not only much greater in total dollars than it was in 1988, but on a priority basis it is, of course, much greater as a percentage of the spending.

Education spending has gone from 17.2 percent of the budget to 18.7 percent. Family Services has gone from less than 10 percent of the budget to over 12 percent of the budget. Health care has gone from 31.6 percent of the budget to 33.9 percent of the budget. Of course, in terms of how this affects ordinary Manitobans, Mr. Speaker, in 1992 this province had the greatest increase in family income of any province in Canada. The Royal Bank says that in 1994 the growth in disposable income for each and every Manitoban will be the second highest of any province in Canada, and in 1995, at $761 per capita, the growth in disposable income for Manitobans will be the highest of any province in Canada. Those are good‑news statistics for every single Manitoba taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker, of course, members opposite suggest that somehow maybe this imposition of good government, keeping the taxes down, ensuring a stable economy, somehow is being related to big business or to people who are well to do. That is why we had to rely on the Saskatchewan government to demonstrate the fairness of all of the things that we have done since we have been in office.

The Saskatchewan government, of course, put out a chart with their budget about two months ago that compared the costs across all the provinces of Canada, the costs of the direct tax impositions by provincial governments and the regulated costs that include things like heating, electrical, telephones and automobile insurance. For a family of $25,000 income, Manitoba is the lowest cost place in Canada for that family to be in terms of direct charges by provincial governments and regulated cost. For a family of $50,000 income, Manitoba is the second lowest cost place in Canada to be in terms of direct provincially applied costs and regulated costs. And for $75,000 income, Manitoba is the third lowest cost place in all of Canada for that family to be.

So not only have the changes that we have imposed on people in Manitoba been ones that have helped them, that have kept their taxes down, that have given them more disposable income, but they have been geared to be fairest to the lowest income people in this province. That is good policy and that is something that we are very proud of, Mr. Speaker. This is a great budget. This is a fair and balanced budget. One only has to compare this budget to those of every other province in Canada to realize how well our government has led Manitobans through the storm of economic and social change that we have experienced over the past few years. It is an undisputed fact that this is not only a fair budget, not only a budget that is balanced in its approach to all Manitobans, but I know that we will have the support and indeed the encouragement of all Manitobans who in their wisdom will recognize that this government‑‑

* (1200)

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hour being twelve o'clock, in accordance with the subrule 23(5), I am interrupting the proceedings to put the questions necessary to dispose of the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government and all amendments to that motion.

Therefore, the question before the House is the proposed subamendment of the honourable Leader of the second opposition party (Mr. Edwards):

And further regrets that

(a)this government has failed to put in place programs that will get Manitobans back to work and stop the chronic outflow of people from this province; and

(b)this government has failed to ensure equal opportunity for Manitobans seeking higher education by cutting student financial assistance and the Access Program; and

(c)this government has failed to meet its own health reform agenda by cutting long‑term care, women's health, healthy child development and other essential health services for Manitobans; and

(d)this government has made a mockery of the United Nations Year of the Family by failing to strengthen the Maintenance Enforcement Program, and by cutting child daycare and income maintenance and supplement programs; and

(e)this government continues to provide inaccurate and misleading statistical data to the people of Manitoba about our province's real economic performance.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Voice Vote

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it.

Formal Vote

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call in the members.

The question before the House is the proposed subamendment as moved by the honourable Leader of the second opposition party.

Division

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

Yeas

Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Edwards, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Gray, Hickes, Kowalski, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McCormick, Plohman, Reid, Robinson, Santos, Schellenberg, Storie, Wowchuk.

Nays

Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, Manness, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Orchard, Pallister, Penner, Praznik, Reimer, Render, Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 28, Nays 28.

Mr. Speaker: The vote having been tied, the Speaker is required by our Rule 7.(2) to cast a deciding vote. Speaker Addington's principle established in the United Kingdom Parliament in 1796 applies under the present circumstances. It is that upon all occasions when the question was for or against giving to any measure a further opportunity of discussion, he, the Speaker, should always vote for further discussion.

In accordance with this principle, I am therefore voting against the subamendment in order to provide the House with a further opportunity to consider the issues before it which are the motion to approve in general the budgetary policy of the government and the amendments to it. The honourable member's motion is therefore lost.

* * *

Mr. Speaker: The question before the House now is the proposed amendment as moved by the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) to the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after "House" and substituting the following:

Therefore regrets

(a)that this government's record of more tax breaks to business has resulted in fewer people working today than six years ago; and

(b)that this government fails to offer hope for the future by reducing educational and training opportunities; and

(c)that this government fails to protect our most vulnerable citizens by introducing further cuts to health care programs; and

(d)that this government, in the Year of the Family, has failed to introduce measures to improve community safety; and

(e)that by this government's own admission Manitoba's economic performance will continue to be below the national average resulting in continued out‑migration and record levels on social assistance; and

THEREFORE that this government has thereby lost the confidence of this House and the people of Manitoba.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Voice Vote

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it.

Formal Vote

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call in the members, please.

The question before the House now is the proposed amendment, as moved by the honourable Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer), to the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

* (1210)

Division

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

Yeas

Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Edwards, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Gray, Hickes, Kowalski, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McCormick, Plohman, Reid, Robinson, Santos, Schellenberg, Storie, Wowchuk.

Nays

Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, Manness, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Orchard, Pallister, Penner, Praznik, Reimer, Render, Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.

Mr. Clerk: Yeas 28, Nays 28.

Mr. Speaker: The vote having been tied, the Speaker is required by our Rule 7.(2) to cast a deciding vote.

Before doing so, I wish to remind the House that Bourinot advises that the general principle which guides a Speaker or a Chairman of the Committee of the Whole on such occasions is to vote when practicable in such a manner as not to make the decision of the House final. In accordance with this principle I am therefore voting against the amendment in order to provide the House with a further opportunity to consider the principal issue before it, which is a motion to approve in general the budgetary policy of the government. The honourable member's motion therefore is lost.

* * *

Mr. Speaker: Now, the question before the House is the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson):

THAT this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Voice Vote

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

Formal Vote

Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays.

Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call in the members.

The question before the House is the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Division

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

Yeas

Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, Manness, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Orchard, Pallister, Penner, Praznik, Reimer, Render, Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.

Nays

Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Edwards, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Gray, Hickes, Kowalski, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McCormick, Plohman, Reid, Robinson, Santos, Schellenberg, Storie, Wowchuk.

Mr. Clerk: Yeas 28, Nays 28.

Mr. Speaker: The vote having been tied, the Speaker is required by our Rule 7.(2) to cast the deciding vote. When required to do so, a Speaker must consider several principles. Among these is a concept that where no other options are available, the Chair should vote for the retention of the status quo.

In addition, as I stated on April 14 and 18 when I voted against a subamendment and the amendment, respectively, to the motion for an address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, in accordance with the United Kingdom Speaker Denison's principle of 1867, a Speaker by his or her one vote should not commit the House to a conclusive judgment.

Therefore, to retain the status quo pursuant to a principle established in the United Kingdom Parliament in 1860, and secondly, so that a final and conclusive judgment will not be made solely by the presiding officer of this House, I am voting for the motion. The honourable member's motion is carried.

Is it the will of the House to call it 12:30? The hour being 12:30, this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday.