LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday,
March 17, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Orton Harrison, Susan Joyce, Joanne Wallace and others requesting the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon the Parliament of Canada to amend the
Criminal Code to prevent the release of individuals where there is substantial
likelihood of further family violence.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Robert Mooney, Myrna Oehlerking, Eleanore Verplaetse and others requesting the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon the Parliament of Canada to amend
the Criminal Code to prevent the release of individuals where there is
substantial likelihood of further family violence.
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): I beg to present the petition of Alice Vorst,
Minerva Burgess, Jim Burgess and others requesting the government show its strong
commitment to aboriginal self‑government by considering reversing its
position on the AJI by supporting the recommendations within its jurisdiction
and implementing a separate and a parallel justice system.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member, and it complies with the privileges and practices of the
House and complies with the rules (by leave).
Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
The
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was launched in April of 1988 to conduct an
examination of the relationship between the justice system and aboriginal
people; and
The
AJI delivered its report in August of 1991 and concluded that the justice
system has been a massive failure for aboriginal people; and
The
AJI report endorsed the inherent right of aboriginal self‑government and
the right of aboriginal communities to establish an aboriginal justice system;
and
The
Canadian Bar Association, The Law Reform Commission of
On
January 28, 1992, five months after releasing the report, the provincial
government announced it was not prepared to proceed with the majority of the
recommendations; and
Despite
the All‑Party Task Force Report which endorsed aboriginal self‑government,
the provincial government now rejects a separate and parallel justice system,
an Aboriginal Justice Commission and many other key recommendations which are
solely within provincial jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member, and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House and
complies with the rules. Is it the will
of the House to have the petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
The
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was launched in April of 1988 to conduct an
examination of the relationship between the justice system and aboriginal
people; and
The
AJI delivered its report in August of 1991 and concluded that the justice
system has been a massive failure for aboriginal people; and
The
AJI report endorsed the inherent right of aboriginal self‑government and
the right of aboriginal communities to establish an aboriginal justice system;
and
The
Canadian Bar Association, The Law Reform Commission of
On
January 28, 1992, five months after releasing the report, the provincial
government announced it was not prepared to proceed with the majority of the
recommendations; and
Despite
the All‑Party Task Force Report which endorsed aboriginal self‑government,
the provincial government now rejects a separate and parallel justice system,
an Aboriginal Justice Commission and many other key recommendations which are
solely within provincial jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
* *
*
I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member, and it complies with the
privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
The
bail review provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada currently set out that
accused offenders, including those suspected of conjugal or family violence, be
released unless it can be proven that the individual is a danger to society at
large or it is likely that the accused person will not reappear in court; and
The
problem of conjugal and family violence is a matter of grave concern for all
Canadians and requires a multifaceted approach to ensure that those at risk,
particularly women and children, be protected from further harm.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
The
bail review provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada currently set out that accused
offenders, including those suspected of conjugal or family violence, be
released unless it can be proven that the individual is a danger to society at
large or it is likely that the accused person will not reappear in court; and
The
problem of conjugal and family violence is a matter of grave concern for all
Canadians and requires a multifaceted approach to ensure that those at risk,
particularly women and children, be protected from further harm.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
* (1335)
MINISTERIAL
STATEMENT
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the
House.
Yesterday,
I, along with the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), the
honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), Mayor Rick Borotsik and Mayor
Bill Norrie, travelled to
The
views put forward to the advisory group were unanimously supported by the all‑party
committee of the Manitoba Legislature.
Our presentation also reflected consultation with interested citizens,
groups and local government representatives from
My
colleagues and I welcomed the opportunity to present our concerns to the
advisory group. Too often decisions
regarding the fate of military bases have been made without public
participation and in an atmosphere of secrecy.
Communities have often suffered through months of rumour and speculation
regarding the fate of local bases. Such
speculation can be devastating for citizens who depend on the bases for their
livelihood.
Our
recommendations to the advisory group focus on the need for greater openness
and public consultation in the decision‑making process. Communities that might face potential cuts
should be notified at the outset to avoid needless anxiety. All studies and
impact analyses conducted must be available to the public.
The
federal government must also put in place mechanisms to assist those
communities affected by military cutbacks.
We
urged the advisory group to remain cognizant of the pride and valour with which
Manitobans have historically served our nation's armed forces.
With
the closure of such facilities as CFB Churchill, CFB Gimli and more recently
CFB Portage la Prairie,
We
will continue our efforts to ensure that
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his
statement and would say that I appreciated the opportunity to be there along
with the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) as well as the mayor of
I
must say I was disappointed, and I continue to express the disappointment that
we never, ever have yet been able to meet with the Minister of National
Defence, which has been attempted for many a month now. We did meet with the other caucuses. We had a good hearing with the caucuses. I only wish there were a few more Tories in
the Tory caucus. We only met with Mr.
Lee Clark, but I would have liked to have met with some of the cabinet
ministers from
In
hindsight, it may not matter because ultimately this decision about base
infrastructure across
I
would agree with the minister; we had a very good hearing with the advisory
group. It was an excellent panel. It was a productive discussion, excellent
presentations. Everybody participated,
and it was productive.
It
is important to know that the mandate of the advisory group is to set out the
guidelines, the parameters, the criteria that a government should use in making
rational decisions about future base infrastructure. The mandate of the committee is not to say
whether or not Shilo or Kapyong Barracks should remain or be closed.
* (1340)
The
next step, Mr. Speaker, is for the report of this committee to go to the
minister and ultimately to the parliamentary committee on defence where there
could even be more hearings, we are not sure.
The point is a new government, whatever government there may be, could simply
ignore the report. We have to keep on
trying. We have to continue to voice our
concerns on behalf of
Yesterday's
meeting was productive with that committee.
As I said, it was a good panel.
The frustrating part of it is there is no guarantee that anyone will
listen to that particular panel's report.
Therefore, there continues to remain a great deal of uncertainty.
With
regard to mitigation and economic offsets that could make up for the loss of
defence spending or the loss of jobs, it is a very difficult task. We have had experience in the past in Gimli,
in Rivers and now in
Having
said that, we will continue to try to do our very best on behalf of the people
of
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface):
Premierement j'aimerais remercier le ministre
de nous avoir demande de participer comme delegues hier pour faire la
presentation au comite consultatif pour le gouvernement federal. Pour moi, comme delegue c'etait une tres
belle experience, comme premiere fois a une conference comme telle. On etait bien recu par le comite qui etait
mis sur pied. On etait la comme groupe
unis avec les collegues de la Legislature et le maire de la Ville de
Winnipeg. On avait l'appui, j'en suis
sur, de tous les elus de la province, puisse que ce n'est pas seulement un
probleme des environs de Brandon, c'est un probleme pour toute la
province. Puisque ce n'est seulement un
probleme des environs de Brandon, c'est un probleme pour toute la province.
Il
y a bien des choses qui sont ressorties hier a cette conference, cette
presentation qui a ete faite par le gouvernement ici. Alors on est en support de ce qui s'est
passe. Moi j'ai eu l'occasion de dire
quelques mots sur la dualite canadienne lorsque c'etait un critere qui avait
aborde alors que le ministre de Defense avait envoye demandant au ministre ici
au
Alors
il m'a fait plaisir d'elaborer les services en francais qu'on a dans la
province, toute, non seulement a Saint‑Boniface ou a la Ville de
Winnipeg, mais dans les communautes francophones qui entourent
Pour
conclure, encore une fois j'aimerais remercier le ministre de la Justice (M.
McCrae) de nous avoir apportes a
[Translation]
First of all I would
like to thank the minister for asking us to participate as delegates yesterday
to make that presentation before the federal government advisory
committee. For me, it was a wonderful
experience, as it was my first time as a delegate at such a conference. We were well received by the committee that
was set up. We were there as a united
group with our colleagues from the Legislature and the mayor of the City of
Many things came out yesterday
at this conference during the presentation by our government, and we are in
support of what happened. I, myself, had
the opportunity to say a few words regarding Canadian duality, which is a
criterion that was examined at the request of the Minister of Defence.
It was my pleasure to
discuss the French language services that we have here in the entire province,
not only in St. Boniface or in the city of
To conclude, once again,
I would like to thank the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) for taking us to
INTRODUCTION
OF BILLS
Bill 64‑The
Child and Family Services Amendment Act
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach),
that Bill 64, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
sur les services a l'enfant et a la famille, be introduced and that the same be
now received and read a first time.
His
Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor, having been advised of the contents of
this bill, recommends it to the House. I
would like to table the message.
Motion agreed to.
* (1345)
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon, from the
On
behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Department
of Government Services
Consulting
Firm
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister confirmed
that indeed an RCMP investigation was being conducted into the Government
Services leasing department. Search warrants were issued; investigation is
proceeding. Some of the answers of the
minister raised more questions that we have today.
I
would like to ask the Minister of Government Services, in light of his answer
yesterday that the investigation arose out of irregularities between the
administration and the consulting contract, who employed the consulting firm
that the minister referred to yesterday in his answer in the questions of the
House?
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I gave as much information as I could yesterday. That is the question involved in the
investigation. That is part of the investigation. In fairness again to the employee, I gave him
as much information as I could give him yesterday until that investigation is
completed.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the minister did also say that it
had no relation to the landlord. Given
the fact we have a consulting firm hired dealing with the government's own
department, and the minister himself volunteered yesterday that it had nothing
to do with the landlord, will the minister please answer today who hired the
consulting firm in terms of the allegations an investigation is proceeding?
Mr. Ducharme: Mr. Speaker, I can answer that our department
did not hire the consultant. That is
what the investigation is about. Our
department did not hire the consultant.
That is what I mentioned yesterday.
That is between the employee who is being investigated and the
consultant.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, if the department did not hire the
consulting firm and the consulting firm did work, and the minister has stated
in the House that it had no relationship to the landlord, what relationship
does the landlord have to the consulting firm that is under investigation with
the RCMP?
Mr. Ducharme: Mr. Speaker, that is why it has been
investigated‑‑none.
Dutch Elm
Disease
Program
Funding Restoration
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, there are four quite common‑sense
reasons for the provincial government to reinstate its support of the Dutch elm
disease program: It is cost effective;
it is labour intensive in a city where unemployment is growing and is already
over 11 percent; thirdly, the conservation of elms has a direct effect on the
economic competitiveness of
I
would like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources, would he make the same
commitment to the House that he made yesterday outside the House, that he is
now willing to reconsider his government's position and restore the provincial
funds for Dutch elm disease control?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, we have been fighting Dutch elm disease in the city of
Mr.
Speaker, we have in my department, along with others, in keeping with the
realities of our budget requirements and on the advice of professional
foresters who recognized that the drought cycle had been broken‑‑that
we could bring it back to the $350,000 level without jeopardizing the program
which we are completely dedicated to. I
want that put on the record that it was a Conservative administration that on
two occasions recognized the importance of saving our elm trees.
I
am prepared to answer a question. I am
prepared, as I am prepared for many things, to review that program. I invite her questions on that‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Friesen: I think the minister should be‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
* (1350)
Ms. Friesen: Is the minister, Mr. Speaker, in all his
modesty, prepared to take a truly courageous and popular decision and withdraw
the money that he has applied to the Oak Hammock Marsh and the Ducks Unlimited
project and apply that money to the Dutch elm disease program?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, because it essentially falls
under the responsibility of a Conservative government to do the conservation
measures and programs in this province, like the North American Waterfowl
Management program that will safeguard our pothole country in the southwest,
that is, of course, a ludicrous suggestion.
That program will enable and hopefully educate hundreds of thousands of
Manitobans in the importance of wildlife, the importance of its preservation
and its continued support.
Mr.
Speaker, I can report, while I am on my feet, that the building is 65 percent
completed. We are well ahead of schedule
on the building. In fact, I understand
that a group of science educators and nature school studies are planning a
symposium at the
Ms. Friesen: The last of the Dutch elms in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Multiyear
Planning
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Will the minister make a commitment to work
with the city or at least with his colleague the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr.
Ernst) to develop the multiyear program which this cost‑shared program so
obviously needs?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to acknowledge that we will do that, and we have been doing
that. I also remind, as my colleague the
Minister of Urban Affairs said, the city this year is receiving, I believe, a 4
percent increase in their overall block funding. It is certainly within the decision making of
the city if they wish to add some additional monies toward this very important
part of the well‑being of the city of
My
forestry people work daily with the city forestry people. We are engaged in a
$2‑million program, not $350,000.
We are engaged in a $2‑million program to fight Dutch elm disease
in the
So,
Mr. Speaker, I offer the commitment of this government to any public scrutiny,
to any accountability, as to our sincerity in fighting this disease.
Department
of Government Services
Lease
Information Tabling Request
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): My
questions are to the Minister of Government Services. There has been a great deal of controversy
with regard to the MHRC space from the very beginning, since it was granted as
we debated in this House before, outside of the bounds of the normal tendering
process.
Mr.
Speaker, there is some information which we recognize the minister cannot
release. However, there is other
information which we believe should be in the public purview. Will the minister release today a copy of the
original lease signed by this government?
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, let us get on the record that the landlord is not
involved. This is between an employee
and a consulting firm. Secondly, I will
take your question under advisement and I will check to see if that is public
record now, then I will be glad to release that particular lease. There is no reason not to.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, I thank the minister for taking it under
advisement, and I think there is no reason why that lease cannot be provided to
all members of the Legislature.
Mr.
Speaker, a number of leasehold improvements were to be done to the building
before it was leased to MHRC. Will the
minister table the list of improvements that were to be done to the building in
order to achieve the provincial requirements necessary for leasing the
building?
* (1355)
Mr. Ducharme: Mr. Speaker, first of all, all improvements
were done to the building. That is to go
on record. Again, while this
investigation is occurring, I feel that leading up to the investigation of this
particular employee and the consultant that he has consulted with and hired, I
would suggest that stay until the RCMP have completed their investigation.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the leasehold improvements are
quite simple. It is a list of things
which must be done in order for this building to meet specifications laid down
by his department. Can the minister tell
us why he will not release those leasehold improvements that were to have been
done?
Mr. Ducharme: All I can assure the member across the way is
that they were all done. However, I will
not release that information until the RCMP have completed their
investigation. Also, Mr. Speaker, there
is an employee involved here. That
employee, through his agreement that he has as an employee of the
Manufacturing
Industry
Employment
Creation Strategy
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, many of the Minister of
Finance's comments in the budget related to developing an economic base, a base
for economic growth in the
Last
week I was sent a copy of the latest manufacturing shipments by industry from
the Canadian Manufacturers' Association which shows that 1990 was a disastrous
year and 1991 was even worse.
My
question to the First Minister or the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism is: When is this bleeding going
to stop? When are Manitobans going to
have an opportunity to look forward to being employed in the manufacturing
sector in the
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, of course, I find it interesting
that the member opposite, who was a part of the government that did everything
possible to destroy the economic base in this province by bringing in the
second highest overall tax regime in the entire country, that brought in job‑destroying
measures that were specifically aimed at business investment such as a payroll
tax that deliberately destroyed jobs in this province, such as a 2 percent tax
on net income, making us the highest personal income tax regime in the country,
all of these measures, would now try and find some interest in economic
development after he did everything possible, when he was a minister of the
former government, to destroy jobs.
The
fact of the matter is, as the member will note from reading the budget, this
province is expected to have the highest investment in manufacturing of any
province in the country, the highest increase in manufacturing investment in
this coming year at 31 percent. That is
an indication of confidence in this government's policies and desire by private
manufacturers to get involved in increasing their production capability in this
province. That is the best indication
that we are on the right track.
Mr. Storie: I wonder when the First Minister is going to
stop using the first envelope as an excuse for‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Question, please.
North
American Free Trade Agreement
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, my question is, I guess, to the
First Minister.
We
know that the three leaders of
* (1400)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Our involvement has been as much as, if not
more than, the involvement of most other provinces. This province took the initiative to put in
writing the concerns that it had about any potential North American free trade
agreement including
We
went further than virtually any other province in stating our concerns and
putting in writing‑‑[interjection] Mr. Speaker, I wish that the
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) would stop interrupting and trying to shout
me down while I am answering his question.
I
repeat that this province has done as much as, if not more than, any other
province by putting in writing its concerns, by stating it would not support
any North American free trade agreement with
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, those conditions are not going to
be met. It has been made very clear‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Withdrawal
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): My question to the First Minister is: Can the First Minister provide this House and
the people of
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, this government has put on the
record the conditions that must be met in order to achieve a North American
free trade agreement that is acceptable to us. Those six conditions would, we
believe, make it acceptable to Manitobans, to
Unless
those conditions are met, we are not prepared to support an agreement‑‑fast
track, slow track, any track. Those are
the conditions, and we have put them forward.
That I think is a much more intelligent approach than that suggested by
the member for Flin Flon.
GRIP
Program
Premium
Levels
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister
of Agriculture why he did not announce the coverage and premium levels under
GRIP by the March 15 deadline. The
minister sidestepped the question even though his manager, Henry Nelson, at
Crop Insurance said that these levels would be announced by December 31. He said this last November. That is two and a half months ago.
Since
the GRIP contract, Clause 37, states that changes have to be mailed to the
insured by March 15 of the year, will the minister now agree that the deadline
has been missed? Will he also agree and
confirm in this House that any changes to those contracts will result in them
being null and void?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the
GRIP management process involves a signatories committee which gives
recommendations to the federal government, to provincial governments. This has been an ongoing process over the
past two months.
As
I said yesterday, we dearly wanted to have that information out, but there has
been a major dispute on what the IMAP level of support will be for GRIP in
1992.
I,
as the Minister of Agriculture in the
As
I said to the member yesterday, it is unfortunate that other jurisdictions in
this country did not want to support a high level of support in GRIP for 1992
for farmers.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, this minister should have used
cost of production‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Contract
Validity
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Can this minister tell the House whether he
has sought legal advice on the validity of the GRIP contracts if the support
levels are lowered or the premium levels raised as this minister is planning to
do? Will he table that legal opinion in
the House? Are they legal?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I have
just given the member the information.
We are maintaining the support levels higher than some people wanted
them to be. In terms of premiums, he
said that I intend to make them higher.
I
would like to read to the member what has happened in
Also,
I would like to read from the Minister of Agriculture in
Some Honourable
Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have not recognized the honourable member
for Dauphin yet.
Mr. Plohman: Will the minister now admit that he has no
choice but to maintain the support levels at the same level as last year and
the premium levels higher than they were last year, since he has missed the
deadline and the contracts will be null and void and farmers can remove themselves
from those contracts at any time if they do not like it?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to the member before
and I will have to repeat it probably for the fourth or fifth time in the last
two or three weeks, there is a signatories committee process in place that has
to report to ministers before anything can be done for the next year. We are still in a transitional year trying to
evolve a program that farmers want.
In
The
announcement that will be coming out very shortly will be very positive for the
farmers of
CRISP
Program
Funding
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Budgets
are all about priorities. How the
Premier and his government spend it reflects on their values. With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, I would ask
the Premier: How does the Premier
justify increasing by 6.8 percent the support to his office while limiting the
increase to the CRISP program to less than half the rate of inflation?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, we will discuss the increases
and the various aspects within the Estimates and debate them out. I can tell him that Executive Council
increase is less than 3 percent year over year, not 6 percent as he is portraying
it to be. So he obviously cannot read
the information given to him very well.
What
I will say to him as well is the money that is budgeted for CRISP is the money
expected to be paid out based on eligibility criteria. If more people are eligible and more people
apply and the money is there, we will still pay the money out. We will pay whatever is necessary in order
for people to qualify and receive CRISP, just as it has been in the past. We will meet the criteria and we will meet
the needs out there.
Labour
Adjustment
Program
Funding
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
* (1410)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, all of the questions with
respect to Estimates will be discussed in Estimates. We can decide whether or not the member for
We
have chosen our priorities in line with the priorities of the people of this
province, and we will go into detail as much as he would like within the
Estimates process for the discussion of the expenditures of this provincial
government. We will compare our
priorities with the priorities of any other province in this country or the
priorities of the Liberal Party when they come to this House and ask for money,
money, money for everything without telling the people that they would raise
taxes.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, we are asking about priorities;
we are asking‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Department
of Health
External
Agencies Funding
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, this government has indicated
that it is going to give a very, very high priority to economic development and
the creation of jobs. The attraction of
investment and the creation of jobs will be given a high priority by this
government.
The
Liberal Party does not want to have jobs, does not want to have investment, and
that is fine. They are looking after
themselves. They want to play politics
and do that, but they are not interested in building the base of this province,
building the investment and building the jobs, and that is what we are
interested in doing.
We
will continue to give that priority to it, and we will let the people of
Budget
Employment
Creation Strategy
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Finance. Unemployment
remains at unacceptably high levels in this province. Last month we had 8.8 percent on a seasonally
adjusted basis and 9.9 percent on an actual basis. If 6,000 workers had not left the labour
force, we would have had another full point of unemployment. In other words, seasonally adjusted would be
9.8 percent and actual unemployment would have been 10.9 percent.
I
want to ask the Minister of Finance: How
is this budget going to translate into jobs and more economic activity now to
help those 52,000 Manitobans who are out of work?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Brandon East fails to point out that we have the second lowest rate
in the nation as far as unemployment statistics.
Let
me also point out that we are committing, by way of authority, $1.1 billion in
capital spending within the appropriations themselves of government, I think
$3.6 million towards maintaining those who provide services and development of
capital in our province.
What
I find particularly interesting with respect to a survey done in the Prairies
just a few weeks ago, it said that consumers on the Prairies say lower taxes
are the top economic factor that would give them the confidence to spend money
as compared to better employment figures.
So what the individual consumer is looking for, with respect to a jolt
in their confidence to go out and spend, is they are looking for governments to
reduce taxes.
I
wonder where the member for Brandon East stands on the issue of taxes.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, this budget is making
unemployment worse. It is doing nothing
for those 52,000 people trying to find a job.
Construction
Industry
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): My supplementary question to the
minister: What is the budget going to do
specifically for the construction industry in
I
ask this question because figures now from Stats Canada show that the value of
building permits dropped by 23.3 percent in 1991 over 1990, ranking
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the
First Minister (Mr. Filmon), in response to an earlier question, indicated that
Manitoba will lead the nation in manufacturing investment growth in 1992, and
those are the intentions.
Specific
to the question, when one breaks down that number amongst the various sectors
of our economy, almost all of them of course have an impact on
construction. Primary industries in
construction, 3.4 percent increase; housing, 4.3 percent; government
departments‑‑and I have talked about the $306 million that we are
allocating and appropriating to construction‑‑that is a 10.6
percent per this survey.
I
can tell you most of the sectors that are going to enjoy increases all have a
direct or an indirect response in the area of construction. I would have to think that the construction
industry is going to be well positioned to be involved and support this
increase.
CareerStart
Program
Funding Restoration
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon
East): My last question is either to the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) or the Minister of Family Services.
Will
the government be prepared to increase funding for the CareerStart summer youth
job program from $3.5 million back up to the $7‑million level where it
was two years ago, in view of the fact that youth unemployment is now running
over 16 percent, about 40 percent higher‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I indicated the other day that the CareerStart Program is in place at
last year's levels. When I look at the
pretend budget that the NDP put out through the Choices program, they were
asking for only a 5 percent increase, some $20 million less than what we are
committing to Family Services.
I
would ask the member, what area of the department would you retract that $20
million from? Would you take it out of
the daycare section of the department, or where would you spend $20 million
less?
Co-management
Agreements
Public
Forum
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Natural Resources. Approximately a
month ago I received a letter, a copy of correspondence, which was sent to the
minister, which had attached to it a petition with some 1,400 names, mostly
from concerned Manitobans in the Swan Valley area. The concern raised was with
respect to this department's co‑management plans with respect to dealing
with treaty Indians on various parklands.
I am sure the minister is aware and would not have ignored a 1,400‑name
petition.
The
request was for a public forum to discuss the concerns which were raised. I assume that the minister has had that
public forum. Will he please give us the
details?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, that is quite an invitation, but for the benefit of honourable
members, it is a matter of ongoing concern for the department, for the
government, to bring about a better understanding and a better relationship
between the non‑native and the aboriginal community in how we access the
wildlife in our province.
I
might say that it was my pleasure to attend a meeting of some 400 people in
that area. I might also indicate that I
had the pleasure of the company of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms.
Wowchuk), who accompanied me to that meeting, and we both did a lot of
listening to the legitimate concerns that are there in that area.
That
is a unique part of Manitoba where so many of the resources come together‑‑forestry,
provincial parks, considerable wildlife population, and the difficulties of
aboriginal constitutional hunting rights versus the non‑native access to
the game. We had a heated but an
intelligent and informational meeting.
* (1420)
Working
Group
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, again, for
the Minister of Natural Resources. Has
the minister learned from the mistake which obviously led to the need for a
1,400‑name petition, and has he established a working group with
departmental representatives to work with representatives of the community so
that he does not have to face this kind of situation again where people find it
necessary to come up with a petition with 1,400 names?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister
of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I leave
it to others to judge as to who is making what mistakes. All I can say is that
the department has for some years, and with some success, developed co‑management
agreements that recognize the constitutional rights of our aboriginal people,
but at the same time recognizes what more and more of our aboriginal people
understand, perhaps have always understood except we have not been
communicating, that they are as anxious and as concerned about the welfare of our
game as all of us.
The
kind of progress that my colleague is making, the Minister of Northern Affairs
(Mr. Downey), in developing this concept into his negotiations is equally
founded.
Mr.
Speaker, the specific answer to him, yes, a working group is being put
together. They will be meeting with the
two particular bands involved, the Waterhen Band, the Pine Creek Band, as well
as with the interested parties in the entire
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Edwards: I am pleased to know that the minister has
established a departmental working group.
My question was, and let me rephrase it for the minister so he
understands, is there a working group which was requested at that meeting? Is there a working group which includes on it
a participation and representation from both the aboriginal groups and the
community? Many of these 1,400 names
people have requested that specific participation in a working group, working
with his department to establish these plans.
Has he established that‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mr. Enns: I will acknowledge, as a result of an earlier
meeting, about a month earlier, I think there was a genuine concern that was
felt in the community that the government was perhaps imposing a co‑management
regime on them that did not involve all the stakeholders.
Certainly
I did all I could to ensure all attendees that that was not the case, and while
I cannot say that there was a resolution of that meeting that would result in
specific action, certainly I came away from the meeting that there was a role
for the department to play, a leadership role, and one that we were prepared to
play in bringing together the aboriginal people, the non‑native people,
and others around one table and begin the process of resolving the issues that
affect that area.
Repap
Manitoba Inc.
Woodlands
Division Job Security
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): If there is one clear message for the people
of
My
question to the Minister of Finance, first of all, is will he support the
efforts of the employees in the woodlands division of Repap to save their
jobs? As I related to him only just two
weeks ago in this House, we are now attempting to establish a workers' co‑operative
in order to buy back their jobs. Will he
ensure the provincial government gives them 100 percent support in order to
save their jobs?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): We are always
prepared to look at innovative ways with respect to the woodland supply. Indeed, when we were doing the divestiture of
Manfor, it was one of the areas that we concentrated on in trying to strike the
deal with Repap.
Certainly
they offered some incentive through the development of the agreement whereby in
time, groups, either in co‑operation, aboriginal groups, whoever could
come together and supply fibre. Mr. Speaker, I would think that would be the
approach that we would continue to want to build in into any restructuring of
the agreement.
Employment
Creation Strategy
Northern
Programs
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Further to that, a supplementary, Mr. Speaker,
to the same minister.
Will
this budget reinstate the type of funding, the number of jobs we have seen,
particularly for young people in remote northern communities, in such areas
where jobs were provided in the past with Northern Youth Corps, the worker safety
program which was cut, the many areas that were cut by the government over the
last two years? Will those be reinstated
as part of this budget?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): There was a
significant increase, I know, Mr. Speaker, in the Northern Affairs budget. I cannot from memory recall exactly all the
lines into which that increase has gone.
I am mindful that within the recreational side, there certainly is a
significant portion there in the grant area that can probably be directed into
youth development purposes.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Nonpolitical Statements
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): I wonder if I have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable First Minister have leave
to make a nonpolitical statement?
Leave. It is agreed.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in
government, and I am sure on behalf of all members of this Chamber, I am
pleased to recognize Saint Patrick's Day in Manitoba's Legislative
Assembly. It is a day of great
significance for those of Irish descent.
It is also a day recognized and celebrated by many people of non‑Irish
descent as well, proof of the old saying that on Saint Patrick's Day there are
only two kinds of people, those who are Irish and those who wish they were.
Around
the world Saint Patrick's Day has come to mean all things Irish. It goes beyond geographic, political or
cultural boundaries. It is celebrated
and observed in groups and events, such as parades and cultural celebrations or
individually through something as easy as the wearing of the green. I know that some members of the House are
probably going to engage in some of these cultural celebrations later on today.
[interjection] Mr. Speaker, a member opposite has suggested that there might be
some engaging in blarney, and I am sure he knows of what he speaks.
I
would like to extend my best wishes on behalf of all Manitobans to all people
in our province who celebrate Saint Patrick's Day. I would also like to take this opportunity to
recognize the contributions of Irish Manitobans. They have long been a vital and dynamic part
of our province's social, economic and cultural identity. Like many families from many cultural
backgrounds, Irish immigrants often arrived in
Amid
the global, social and economic upheaval, we should pay tribute to those many
communities, such as our Irish Manitoban neighbours, who have helped to make
possible in Manitoba a quality of life in community that is rarely matched
anywhere in the world. So today on Saint
Patrick's Day, we reaffirm our appreciation of the accomplishments of Irish
people, and we reaffirm our pride and our fortune in having Irish Manitobans as
part of our great communities throughout our province. We wish good health, fortune and prosperity
this day to Irish people in
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would ask for leave for a
nonpolitical statement.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Leader of the Opposition
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
Leave. It is agreed.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, just a few words to add to the
Premier's words on this day of Saint Patrick's Day celebration in this Chamber
and in the province and across the world.
Mr.
Speaker, my wife is Irish, so it is very important I put these words on the
record. She has visited
Mr.
Speaker, we too will be joining with all Manitobans, because everybody is Irish
on Saint Patty's Day, I think, and we will be joining with all Manitobans in
this day of celebration. We would wish, all of us‑‑people are
talking about Guinness's, but I will not do that‑‑the greatest
enjoyment on this day today.
* (1430)
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Can I have leave for a
nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Leader of the Second
Opposition party have leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed. The honourable
Leader.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, some twenty‑five and a half
years ago before I was a Carstairs, I was a Connolly. You cannot get much more Irish than to be a
Connolly, particularly when it is spelled with two o's, two n's and two l's.
My
family, half on one side being French through my mother, the other half being
Irish, is essentially descended from potato‑famine Irish who came to
To
be Irish in
Therefore,
the senior high school‑‑there were only two as I was growing up,
St. Patrick's and Queen Elizabeth. St.
Patrick's was the Catholic high school and was fully supported by the taxpayers
because it was in fact the Irish Catholics who had first established the public
school system in
Shamrocks,
of course, are a very common place, and I thank whoever it was within the
branch of government for the pot of shamrocks delivered to my office, and I saw
them in a number of other offices over the last few days. I must suggest that I beat them to it a
little bit and had a very large pot of shamrocks in my office last Friday.
I
would leave today with a blessing that comes from Irish people, and I would
wish it to all of you here assembled, and may you be in heaven an hour before
the devil learns you have died.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
BUDGET
DEBATE
Mr. Speaker: On the adjourned debate, the fifth day of
debate, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), and the proposed motion of the honourable Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Doer) in amendment thereto, and the proposed motion of the honourable
Leader of the Second Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs) in further amendment thereto,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), who
has 24 minutes remaining.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege yesterday of
beginning my remarks and outlining what I feel we need to look at in this
province and the very obvious fact that this government is ignoring the lessons
of history. It is ignoring the lessons
of current events. It indeed has become
something of an anachronism in this country, in this continent, and indeed in
much of the western world.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
This
is a government that is clinging to the type of right‑wing conservatism
that we saw exemplified by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. This is a government that supported the type
of vision of one Brian Mulroney, that many of these members supported the Prime
Minister and his Conservative colleagues in the 1984 election to 1988 election,
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would suspect would, if not quite so openly, in a
federal election do the same again today, because this Conservative Party in
Manitoba became swept up in the right‑wing conservatism of the late 1970s
and the 1980s so typified by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
It
threw away its roots, the roots of John Diefenbaker, the roots of a more red
Tory tradition, Madam Deputy Speaker, a more caring Conservative Party, and
wholeheartedly threw itself in, threw its lot in with that kind of selfish
greed‑oriented policies that we saw implemented in
I
outline now George Bush in the
I
indeed pointed to how across this country, Ontario, Saskatchewan and B.C. have
led the way in rejecting those types of policies, how the Conservative
government in Alberta is in a very sorry political situation, how the
Conservative Party in Nova Scotia is in a political dogfight, Madam Deputy
Speaker, and it is only really through the assistance of the scandal‑ridden
Liberal Party been able to maintain any kind of standing, and how in other
provinces the Conservatives have been rejected.
They have not only been thrown out of government, but they find
themselves in many cases a third party as more and more Canadians reject their
kind of right‑wing, ideological approach.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I really believe that what this government is doing by clinging
to this kind of approach is ignoring the key lesson of modern history. I believe, as I said last night, that one has
to look at the dramatic developments that have taken place in
What
you also see, Madam Deputy Speaker, is a strong rise in the kind of fascism we
have not seen in
It
is important, I think, to reflect on what also happened in the 1920s and the
1930s because we also saw the collapse of raw, unfettered capitalism, the Great
Depression was the great proof of the failure of that kind of single‑minded,
greed‑oriented economy that focused strictly on personal gain that did
not have any sense of social justice, Madam Deputy Speaker. That was totally discredited with the 1930s,
whether it be R.B. Bennett, the Conservative version of that in
We
ought not to assume that the same could not happen today. In fact, I will go
further to suggest that one of the reasons we have not gone into that complete
economic free fall is because of the many gains that were brought about in
terms of building social safety nets, economic safety nets in many of the
western countries that today are weathering the recession and avoiding, at
least for now, what could otherwise be a depression.
I
say that, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that is the key lesson of history that
I think has to be learned. It was only
the type of New Deal economics we saw in the United States with the Democratic
Party, the kind of New Deal espoused by the CCF in Canada and implemented in
Saskatchewan in the 1940s and later in the 1950s; it was only as a result of
the kind of policies developed in Great Britain under the Labour Party in the
post‑war period and we saw spread throughout Europe, particularly in West
Germany, where indeed we saw many improvements in that country, or the kind of
model we saw in Sweden, once the poorest country in the world, now, indeed,
with one of the best standards of living.
What happened in those countries is that they recognized with the
economic collapse, the calamity of the 1930s that strictly unfettered
capitalism with nothing more than an emphasis on the private sector does not
work.
* (1440)
There
were the revisionists of history who came along in the 1970s and said, as did
Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher, and even the current Prime Minister Brian
Mulroney, and was echoed in this Chamber by the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness). I read through some of his
comments from 1984 and 1985 on Budget Debates, and there was a very strong
theme that he had at that time that the private sector had the key role to
play. All the government had to do was
step aside, Madam Deputy Speaker.
You
know, that did not work in the 1920s. It
did not work in the 1930s. It did not
work in the 1980s either. It did not
work. We saw the decline in the
We
saw the kind of fraudulent tax system that was developed in the United States,
the kind of fraudulent tax system developed in this country, which is punitive
to those who earn a normal income but provides many a tax break to those who
can afford the tax accountants and the kind of tax breaks provided through the
corporate tax breaks. The bottom line
was that that did not work. It was
called voodoo economics by George Bush; now he practises it today. It does not work.
What
we are seeing, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that the Conservative Party in this
province is clinging to this outdated idea of how to approach economic
difficulties. I liken this to medical
science. I wish‑‑as a matter
of fact, the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) was able to hear these
particular comments, because I am sure he could outline it probably even better
than I could. There once was a time that
when you were sick you attached a leech to someone. That was the prime medical treatment of the
16th Century and 17th Century. You were
provided as many leeches as possible‑‑[interjection] and I am not
referring to the member for
I
want to go further‑‑[interjection]
I
am not referring to the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger)
either when I am referring to leeches. If he was listening to my comments, he would
have heard I am referring to the kind of medical treatment that took place in
the 16th Century.
Let
us assume, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we can liken the economic situation we
have currently to that of having the flu. Most people would say, well, that is
trivializing, but in the 1920s, in fact, straight after the first world war,
one of the biggest killers was the flu, the biggest killers. Prior to the discovery of antibiotics, people
of all ages died of the flu, and it can still be serious if one develops
pneumonia, et cetera.
What
would the Conservative analogy be in the modern day? Well, I do not think they
are proposing leeches directly, but if one looks at it the approach of cutting
back on social services, as this government is doing, or cutting back in terms
of other essential services it can be likened to attaching a leech to the body
politic. That was the approach, but
there were some in the medical communities said there had to be a better way.
In
the period in which flu was considered untreatable, to suggest that you could
find a cure through the use of a new drug, a new series of drugs, antibiotics,
one could find a cure for something that was one of the major killers at the
time, Madam Deputy Speaker, would have been considered unrealistic. You would have been considered a
dreamer. I suppose, in many ways, the
democratic socialists at the time were likened to those who probably argued 10
or 15 or 20 years before the discovery of antibiotics that a way could be
found.
You
know what happened, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Medical science today, the flu does not kill young and old alike. The flu is treatable. Indeed, we have various inoculations that
people can receive now even to develop immunity to the flu. That indeed is very much similar to what
happened in terms of economics during that period, because people found that
while you could not always find a cure, you could inoculate the economy to be
more resistant to the kind of depressions that were occurring. You could provide treatments, but while not
necessarily completely curing the individual, would make sure that it did not
go into a fatal situation of depression and indeed in many countries in terms
of chaos.
What
has happened is that the current Conservatives are now throwing out all those
decades of progress, and they are going back to the days of the leech, of the
sweat it out, of the idea there is nothing you can do, Madam Deputy Speaker,
using that medical analogy. They are
using the same approach economically. I take the example of
We
hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, time and time again the Finance minister saying
they are not going to bring in job creation programs. That recalls the time when a previous
Conservative minister in this province used to argue that welfare was cheaper
than job creation‑‑the previous Minister of Northern Affairs. If at that time he was not given credit for
being‑‑this was Doug Gourlay, the former member for Swan River‑‑particularly
smart politically, perhaps in the tradition of the member for Rossmere (Mr.
Neufeld), he on the other hand was given marks for honestly stating the policy
of the government at that time.
I
suspect that is the policy of the government now. I suspect that is the case, despite the fact
that the one major criticism of this budget from the people of
The
minister doubts whether that could be done.
I can point to the example in my own community where in 1982 and 1983,
we had a major layoff at Inco. We did
millions of dollars of community improvements.
How did we do it? By providing the
capital funds, but by merely providing a small top‑up to the unemployment
insurance the people were receiving in that particular point in time, we were
able to save the province a considerable amount of money. We were able to build many needed community
facilities, and we were able to provide valuable work to people who otherwise
would have been unemployed.
Would
it not be better in the city of Winnipeg, if we had people now who were
unemployed able to work for the betterment of this city in terms of
environmental projects, in terms of improving social services? Would it not be better, if we had $40 million
set aside to put people to work instead of paying welfare which, indeed, most
people do not want? If they had the
choice the vast majority of people would work, and all members of this House
know it.
* (1450)
I
wonder if the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) has questioned, as I know he
has on other issues, the logic of a government that is willing to rapidly
escalate the amount of welfare we pay in this province. Well, it says, we cannot afford to put people
to work. I wonder if the Finance
minister really feels if that is in the best interests of this province.
I
would suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have an opportunity in this
province. We have a small province. We have strong community ties. I believe, if you put the challenge out to
the
I
wonder how the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), who during the 1980s was a
strong critic of deficits, has the nerve now‑‑
An Honourable Member: Still am.
Mr. Ashton: ‑‑and says he still is. Indeed, I suspect every morning he wakes up
and looks himself in the mirror. He must
be critical, because one only has to look at the increase that has taken place
and the public debt under his tenure as Minister of Finance, and it matches
those increases that took place in the early 1980s he was so critical of. Even the Minister of Finance is not going to
deny that if it were not for the money that was being moved over from the so‑called
Fiscal Stabilization Fund that in this year he is looking at a deficit in
excess of $500 million, the type of amount he used to criticize in 1984.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, when the NDP was in the last recession, it also had a
significant amount of money being expended on job creation. This minister has managed to run up a $500‑million
deficit with virtually no money being expended for job creation. The only major
growth in terms of spending that we have seen under this minister is in terms
of welfare. By his own measurement he is
indeed failing, because if one only looks at when he was a critic, when he was
in opposition, in his own statements, you will see that he fails on virtually
every measure he set aside for himself.
I
wonder, perhaps, this is not indeed the Minister of Finance's budget. Perhaps, it is the Premier's budget. I cannot believe that the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness), with his fixation on the level of the deficit and the province's
debt would actually bring in a budget that provides, in this case, as I said,
$500 million in terms of deficit with no job creation. Indeed, I think that
would be an interesting exercise, and I look forward to the member's comments.
An Honourable
Member: Where do you want me to
make the cuts?
Mr. Ashton: Well, indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, the
Minister of Finance has obviously not been listening to my comments. He knows that there are better ways of
working for the betterment of this province than having welfare increasing
dramatically, because people have no alternative in terms of job creation. If the member was to use some creativity
instead of the kind of depression mentality economics that we are seeing from
the Conservatives, we might see a far better situation.
I
read through the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) comments when he was Leader of the
Opposition. There was interesting
reading for members of this House who lecture the opposition on negative
comments and providing alternatives. Not
once in any of the speeches did the Premier give any idea of his alternatives,
largely because we have seen there were not the alternatives. This government
has essentially followed through on the same kind of discredited economics that
we have seen.
Indeed,
we saw last night the same sort of rather juvenile approach to politics that I
think was best typified by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs.
McIntosh) who lectured members of this House after giving the usual sort of
1950s stereotype of politics in this province, the same kind of McCarthyite
tactics, the same kind of lecturing that we often get from Conservatives of the
minister's ilk, sort of limousine economists who drive out of the core area of
Winnipeg peering through the windows seeing the bread lines forming at the food
banks, drive home to their more comfortable surroundings and say, well, those
poor people, those poor people, that being the entire sum total of their
concern for social justice, their concern for the economy. That was the type of mentality that drove us
into the depression of the 1930s. It is
only through the remaining building blocks of the social welfare state that was
built in by progressive individuals in many western countries that we have
avoided slipping into the great depression.
Well,
I asked the minister and I asked others if they want some discussion of
alternatives. I asked them to look at
some of the economies that are doing the best, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see not
only how they have failed, but the direction to go in. This government talks
about co‑operation between business and labour. What a joke.
We see day in and day out the kind of vicious attacks on labour, the
kind of vicious attacks on unionized workers that we have seen for decades, the
same kind of vicious attacks. Yet, they
say they want co‑operation.
Let
us look at what is happening in western Europe, in the European common
market. Let us look at what is happening
there. They have been able to throw aside the kind of destructive approach to
labour relations that we have typified in this country. We have the second highest strike rate in the
world, second highest strike rate in the world, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is
fueled by the same sort of mentality of the members opposite, and particularly
the member for Portage (Mr. Connery). We know where he stands on unions and
where he stood in terms of agriculture workers attempting to unionize in the
1970s and many people in
In
We
have talked in this country about a social charter. They have a social charter. It is an international social charter that
has been developed. As they now
harmonize economically they are also harmonizing socially. As they are moving to open up their markets
they are also moving to protect the most vulnerable in their society. They are in particular moving to protect not
only farmers, as we indeed know they have had very strong agricultural support
programs, but also workers as well.
There
is a model, and what is happening? What
has happened in countries such as
Number
1, we need to get back to the kind of job creation that is community
based. That will work. It does not require major expenditures of additional
money. It can take the kind of money
that is going to welfare and channel it into the kind of job creation we need.
Number
2, we need action not words about education and training in this province. A government that cuts one year, cuts $10
million out of the community college system and reinstates $2.5 million the
next year‑‑that is not good enough.
We are lagging behind in terms of education and training in this
province. We can improve our
performance.
Research
and development‑‑we are one of the worst countries in the world,
Madam Deputy Speaker. In
There
are so many things that can be done. We
have to remind ourselves, Madam Deputy Speaker, as so many countries throughout
the world move toward democracy, what democracy is all about.
I
found, and I use this to conclude my remarks, a comment from Aristotle, the
ancient Greek philosopher, which I think has to be the measure for all
democracies. He said many centuries
ago: A democracy exists whenever those
who are free and are not well off being in the majority are in sovereign
control of government and oligarchy when control lies with the rich and better
born, these being the few.
That
applies equally today as it did then. We
can only have a truly democratic country when we represent the interests of all
of our people. This government is not
doing this. In a traditional
conservative sense it is in the bunkers.
It is narrowly viewing its own particular interest. It is looking out only for the kind of people
that it represents itself. It is not
meeting the needs of the‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
Mr. Edward Connery (
I
think I would simply put the whole Budget Debate‑‑if I was going to
put it in simple terms: Thank God for
the member for Morris, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). I have been known to criticize the government
from time to time where I have thought criticism was due. I think the comments that I try to make are
those of sincerity and honesty.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, after the budget I have had the opportunity to visit coffee
shops and individuals in the constituency of
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
* (1500)
Mr. Connery: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for
The
significant part of the budget speech is that we have had no tax increases‑‑this
is personal tax increases or corporation tax increases. It is interesting, when the member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton) was talking about leeches, and he was going on for some
time about leeches‑‑I do not know why I keep this one particular
brochure that was developed in 1987. It
is called The Tax Grab of the Century.
We developed it when we were in opposition, 1987, and we talk about
increased fees and the greatest tax grab in the history of
A
new tax of 2 percent on net income, line 224, hits all taxpayers, and it hits
all taxpayers before they have any opportunity to make any deductions. The NDP government taxed all people on all of
their earnings. It was quite
interesting. I think it was the member
for Riel who stood up and asked the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Kostyra,
about that particular line, and the minister at that time did not even know
where it was in the budget. He did not
even know what effect it was having on the people of
They
also added 1 percent to the sales tax.
That hit all people on purchases, all people, not the rich, but all
people that could least afford it, along with the 2 percent.
Then
they had a land transfer tax that was not here before, but they added that
in. We fought that, Madam Deputy
Speaker, and to my chagrin, I bought a house sometime after that tax was
brought in, and I saw the impact that has on people purchasing homes.
They
also added 7 percent sales tax on take‑out food, and energy conservation
materials, and the payroll tax, they increased it by 50 percent up to 2.25
percent. I remember reading an article,
Maureen Hemphill was then the Minister of Small Business and Tourism, and she
had a meeting with some of the business community. At that point it was 1.5 percent, and she had
promised the business community that she would review it. Of course, the net result of that review is
that they increased it by 50 percent to 2.25 percent so we asked her please do
not review it any more, we cannot afford it.
At
the point, hydro rates went up 9.7 percent, telephone rates 11.5 percent,
Autopac premiums 9 percent to 30 percent.
Do you remember when the member for Neepawa was the critic and we had a
demonstration on the front steps here, and we saw the government employees at
noon hour pouring out of the buildings coming to protest to this crazy
government that had done this, and what happened to some of the files? Bucky shredded them. I can remember Premier Howard Pawley saying,
not my Bucky, but Bucky did. Bucky
shredded the evidence. I mean, that is
the sort of thing that they did.
Workers
Compensation fees went up 20 percent that year and it was the history of the
NDP government to increase Workers Compensation rates, not by the cost of what
was there as is being done now, the actual cost where we see the rates going
down, but they just put them up an average of 20 percent. It was quite a nice round figure.
What
were some of the other things that the leeches that the member for Thompson
(Mr. Ashton) talks about? Well, the
leeches lost $27 million in MTX, 31 in Manfor that year. I do not know what the total losses of Manfor
were. The Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) may be able to refresh my memory, but it was many, many, many tens of
millions above that. MPIC that one
particular year lost $60 million. The
province just could not afford that.
The
Workers Compensation deficit for that particular year, Madam Deputy Speaker,
was $84 million, but when we came into office and we did an actual look at the
books, the deficit of the Workers Compensation, the cumulative deficit was $232
million.
An Honourable Member: That was the illegal deficit.
Mr. Connery: That is right and it was illegal. When they took over office in the fall of
1981, there was a $26‑million surplus.
Then Flyer Industries lost $100 million and I was reading Hansard, the
Leader of the NDP party, the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), talking about the
divestiture of Repap versus Flyer Industries.
When they got rid of Flyer Industries, they did not sell Flyer
Industries. They said to the new
company, we will give you $3 million and you take over Flyer Industries. We will guarantee you $8 million and besides
that we will assume the responsibility for the bad equipment that is out in
Madam
Deputy Speaker, when the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) talks about leeches,
there we see how the leeches work.
I
would like to read the highlights of the budget, and I think it is important
that we continue to tell the people of
What
did they say in B.C., it was going to be 2.4 percent? An NDP government in
B.C., 2.4. A $10‑million reduction
in the provincial education taxes for homes and the introduction of an anti‑avoidance
legislation to tighten tax enforcement rules. Madam Deputy Speaker, those are
some of the highlights, and I think we need to keep on reinforcing to the
people of
It
is quite interesting the comment we have heard in this Legislature over the
Stabilization Fund. The NDP were first
going to bring it in for the profits on hydro and, of course, that was kind of
a bad scene. They knew there would be no
profits in hydro and Hydro should not make those kind of profits. They knew that Limestone would not produce
any profit, because they built it before it was needed for the sales that they
had.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, some of the comments that I would like to read are on the so‑called
fraud fund. We talk about the fraud
fund, and the member for
Mr. Lamoureux: Justifiably so.
Mr. Connery: Well, as the member for
It
says, Finance Minister Clayton Manness robbed taxpayers of millions of dollars
in yesterday's budget to set up a slush fund for the Tory minority government,
the Liberal Finance critic has charged.
I guess that would be the member for Osborne. Liberal Finance critic Reg Alcock said
Manness should have used last year's windfall revenue arising from the mining
tax and federal transfer payments to bring in a balanced budget.
I
will say, and very seldom will I defend the Leader of the NDP, is that he had
no objection to a Stabilization Fund in principle. Even the Liberal Treasury Board critic,
Richard Kozak, said there might be sense in putting money aside for a rainy day
if the Legislature controlled it.
* (1510)
Again,
this is the member for
Of
course, one of the editorials that we read in the Free Press says, Mrs.
Carstairs stumbles. It says, despite
what Mrs. Carstairs would claim, however, one of those things is not that it is
a slush fund.
Even
the experts recognized the need to put money away when times are good. It also goes on to say, Mrs. Carstairs is
behaving like a piranha who cannot decide who to bite because she anticipates
that an election might make her Premier of the province. Well, that was wishful thinking on her part
and some pretty poor editorialism on that.
It
also says at the end, at the moment Mr. Doer is handling the pressures better
than Mrs. Carstairs is.
Another
editorial, and this is by Fred Cleverley.
It brings us to the Liberals.
What would Sharon Carstairs have done with a $48‑million
windfall? Would she have taken a lesson
from David Peterson's book, the one that teaches how to spend the public's
money, or would she follow the same rainy‑day philosophy of Clayton
Manness? It goes on to say, it has been
so long since
So,
we see some of those things, but when we now have an election in 1990, Madam
Deputy Speaker, what do we see the Liberal Leader doing? The Liberal Leader starts to spend the slush
fund. She found it very handy to have
that slush fund when the election came along.
It was, as one of the articles says, another day, another $100
million. Science and technology are the
essential engines to drive the economy.
The old solutions are no longer viable.
The $100 million would come from the Tory government's rainy‑day
fund, which currently holds about $328 million, and she was wrong on that. Carstairs said she thought the money could be
used for the kind of economic stimulation she is now advocating.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, again another article:
Carstairs to tap rainy‑day fund.
She is willing to tap the Tories $300‑million Stabilization Fund
to come up with the serum.
Where
is she spending the money on this one?
An Honourable Member: How many times has she spent it now?
Mr. Connery: She spent the money many, many times. Again, she is talking about the $100 million from
the scientific one. Also, again in 1990,
during the election, Carstairs promised to spend $60 million over three years
to upgrade Education and Training programs, dipping into the province's Fiscal
Stabilization Fund for the cash. She
maintained the rainy‑day fund, which she says holds about $328 million
should be used now to stimulate the economy.
What is the point of having a bank account sitting there? A rainy day is right now.
The
voodoo economics of the Liberal Party is kind of sad, because they do not
understand what a rainy‑day fund is and when a rainy day comes
along. We were not in rainy‑day
times back then, Madam Deputy Speaker, but we are today. Now she is going to spend another: Liberal Leader Sharon Carstairs yesterday
pulled out another $50 million of
There
is some potential there to create jobs, and I would not be totally critical of
it. That is a thrust that I think we
could take a look at, but it goes further to say that: So far the Liberal Leader has pledged $210
million over five years from the Tories Fiscal Stabilization Fund to revitalize
the provincial economy.
Another
headline: More biz tax aid Liberal
policy. Carstairs has pledged to increase the exemption for the corporation
capital tax from the current $1 million to $10 million. Madam Deputy Speaker, one area that I think I
would have to support the member for
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister
of Natural Resources): It reeked of greed
and envy.
Mr. Connery: As the member for
When
a person goes into business and they not only have to pay a tax on the capital
that they own outright, the bottom line, they also have to pay tax on what they
owe on capital. I think that this
capital tax is one that I would hope is a priority that in the foreseeable near
future we can get rid of.
We
also were told that the fraud fund, as the member for
In
fact, while our unemployment is far too high for anybody to accept, we still
are the second lowest percentage in
We
do have some good news, and I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism
(Mr. Stefanson) to give me an indication of some of the new things that have
been happening in the very recent past.
The
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), who talked about leeches earlier, carries on
in his rhetoric there. He had his
speech.
We
want to talk about some of the good things that have been happening in
When
the NDP talk about this government not concerned about the North, it was this
government that arranged an agreement with Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting to
rebuild the smelter in the North. I
think that is a credit to this government to finally have achieved it.
The
member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) was the minister who negotiated that
agreement. I think the member for
Rossmere should be congratulated for being able to put together what I consider
a very equitable deal for
We
talk about Boeing with their new computer‑assisted, three‑dimensional
integrated design‑build capability to its plant as part of an upgrade
worth almost $80 million that will make it the largest manufacturing plant for
composite aircraft components in
* (1520)
Two
more towns signed agreements with the Canada‑Manitoba Partnership
Agreement on Municipal Water Infrastructure, and that is where the province is
putting in $30 million, the federal government $30 million and the towns and
villages their third of $30 million.
Ubitrex Corporation, $5.2 million to refine and market its point‑of‑care
software. The Free Press opened their
building.
So,
Madam Deputy Speaker, when the opposition say that there is nothing, nothing
good happening in
Madam
Deputy Speaker, there is an old story of a family and several sons in the
family, and when it came time for dessert the mother cut the pie up. One piece was quite small, and of course the
smallest son who got the small piece of pie complained bitterly. Mother said, well, you are the smallest, and
he said, yes, but if I keep getting the smallest piece of pie I will always be
the smallest. Well, I would attribute
some of that to rural
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I too have, along with some others, taken a look at rural
economic development, and we have some ideas that we think we can present to
the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), and it is a stimulation
program. I think it is one that I hope
our government can look at. It is very
similar to the old
What
is hurting the rural environment today, as far as job creation, is the lack of
funds to go to the bank to lever loans. I think some grant money will do
this. This is the sort of proposal that
I would hope that our government would take a look at and approve, because it
would give us some immediate impact on job creation, not only in the plant
itself. It would be for processing,
manufacturing or indeed it could expand to tourism provided there is job
creation, which would mean not just refitting the premises, but it would be an
expansion of the premises. So I would
hope that would happen.
We
talk about tourism at the same time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the Member for
We
know that tourism can be one of the greatest ways of creating jobs, creating
economic activity, and we have to, I think, pursue it. I will keep putting it into every speech I
make until I can convince the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the government to take
such a bold step and to do it. If it means
adding an additional minister to it, I think members opposite would support it.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, we only need to take a look at the tourism stats for
I
understand that there is some new detail in the new tourism agreement coming
out, and, hopefully, the program will help generate some interest in rural
I
hope that it will have some grant money involved. I have a feeling that may come along. We should see the details, I am told, within
the next few weeks of this agreement. I
would hope, and I have a fairly good feeling that it is going to include all of
southern
This
is one concern I had with the previous five‑year agreement that was
signed with the previous government that it did not help anybody in southern
Madam
Deputy Speaker, a little bit on agriculture because agriculture is still a
major source of economic activity for this province. It is an area‑‑[interjection] The
member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) talks about carrots. Of course, I am a carrot grower, and I take
great pride in the quality of the product we grow.
We
need to in agriculture be creating more emphasis on diversification. I think too long our department has been
focusing on the grains, oil seeds and red meats. They are all important. They are the big commodities that
I
have talked about the economic thrust that some of the diversified crops
provide to this province in a labour‑generating sense, in job creation,
and in economic activity.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I do want to make a couple of comments‑‑and I will
be asking the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) a question tomorrow on it‑‑on
pesticide testing. The Americans are
going to great lengths to discourage the exporting from
The
wholesaler cannot keep his coolers filled with product that he cannot move, and
so they quit buying from us. This is an
area that I think the federal government has to get cracking, and take a strong
position, which they have not. We have
complained to them about this particular practice for the last 10 years. It is not since free trade came in, but it
has been going on for some period of time.
I
am also concerned with the federal government and its labour policies in
relation to the horticultural industry.
They are phasing out the day haul of people in
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I want to speak briefly on free trade with
Madam Deputy Speaker: Nine minutes.
* (1530)
Mr. Connery: Nine minutes, thank you, Madam Deputy
Speaker. Free trade with
I
was reading an article not that long ago where they pointed out that Canadian
labour is around $14 an hour, the American labour $12, and Mexican labour
$2. Now how can we compete with
Those
people who are not able to attain that ability to be high‑tech employees
want a job. They want to be productive,
and for their sake we have got to be able to have jobs that are not necessarily
as high paying, but they need work. My
son was just down in
We
also grow green onions, and that is the problem we are having, is trying to
compete with very low wages in
But
is
I
want to talk a little bit about water and water strategy for
It
does not matter what else you have in this country. You can have the best soil, the best climate,
the best region; if you do not have water, you have nothing. Water is so, so important for all regions of
We
need to have some dam structures on the
So
I am saying to this Legislature and to our government that we need to have more
storage capacity on the
Everybody
remembers Duff's ditch, and of course there was a lot of criticism when Duff
Roblin, then Premier of Manitoba, built the diversion around the city of
If
we look at the portion of the Shellmouth dam and the portion of the
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Would you repeat that?
Mr. Connery: The member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) wanted
me to repeat it. I would. We need water for all of rural
Also,
Madam Deputy Speaker, a little bit about labour laws. Having been Labour
minister and also involved with the unions and with management, I think we need
to bring some of our labour laws more in line with today's context of fairness
and balance.
One
of the areas that I think we need to take a look at is in the area of where
management can talk to employees during certification of a union or potential
strike. I think it is important that
management have the ability to explain to their employees some of the impacts that
could happen in a fair and proper way. I
am not saying that management should have the opportunity or the ability to
terrorize or abuse workers, but to be able to put their case forward.
I
would like to point out, Madam Deputy Speaker, that during the nurses' strike
the member for Concordia, the Leader of the NDP, was very critical of me
talking to the nurses on the strike line.
Of course I understand why, because he did not want anybody on the
strike line thinking that anybody from our party was concerned about them. We are on this side concerned about all
employees that are in this province, but of course they were not‑‑
Madam
Deputy Speaker, just a couple of words as my time is running out, on
Conawapa. It boggles my mind to hear the
opposition rail away against building Conawapa.
We would look at $13 billion coming into
Point of
Order
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker,
our party is not opposed to Conawapa. We
have only questioned the timing of it.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Burrows does not
have a point of order. It is a dispute
over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Connery: Madam Deputy Speaker, 25,000 person years of
work in constructing Conawapa. As a
province, we need to bring in outside dollars to keep the economy of this
province up. Naturally, the opposition and especially the NDP do not want to
see the dam built because it is good news for
* (1540)
Madam
Deputy Speaker, it will create jobs. It
will create some wealth. I can
understand why they do not want to see good times for
I
can assure you that Conawapa is a good deal for
Thank
you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Deputy Speaker, what comes to mind
right off hand was the member for Portage la Prairie's opening remarks in which
he said we can thank God for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). Well, I do not think the former minister, the
member for
If
he would have qualified it, Madam Deputy Speaker, by saying that he is in fact
better than the previous Minister of Finance, I might not have chosen to argue
that point, but to say that we should thank God, I would not go quite that
far. I might even go a bit on the other
side of that particular comment.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, time after time, we hear from the government benches that they
want to hear an opposition party that brings alternatives, that comes up with
good ideas, and so on. The Liberal
Party, the third party in this Chamber, has done a good job at providing
alternatives, providing ideas to the government in terms of what they can do to
make
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Mr.
Speaker, [interjection] well, it is a mighty six. One of the ideas that we have suggested to
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), through the Minister of Finance to the
government, is that what we should be doing is reducing the provincial sales
tax for three months by 3 percent. The
cost of this particular program, the Minister of Finance can quite easily
establish. All he needs to do is look
back to the years of Sterling Lyon, where they had a reduction of the
provincial sales tax.
So
even in a twisted way the current government can say, well, it is not a Liberal
idea, it is a Conservative idea. It is
something that, obviously, we would like to encourage for the government, is to
adopt that idea, that we believe that it would do a lot of good for the economy
in Manitoba right now. It will create in
individuals the initiative or will generate the opportunity for Manitobans to
spend money within
By
reducing the sales tax, Mr. Speaker, they are going to be buying widgets
throughout the
I
want to start off my remarks by making that positive recommendation and
encourage the government to think of it very seriously. They would have our support of Sterling
Lyon's initiative that he saw fit to bring in and encourage the government to
look at it. The next thing I want to
talk about was something that the member for
Mr.
Speaker, the Fiscal Stabilization Fund is in fact a fraud fund. We have to be cognizant of the fact or
cognizant of the way in which this particular fund was brought in.
Lo
and behold, that is in fact what we are seeing.
We have seen the government borrow money in order to put into an account
to prevent a surplus in order to in future years cushion what the future
deficits would in fact be.
So
when the government says today, we have a deficit or we are projecting a
deficit of $330 million, well, that is not necessarily true. The deficit is closer to in and around $500
million, but they have used that fund that they established by borrowing, by
creating a deficit, in a deceptive way in which they could try to have that
chart which demonstrates to the public of Manitoba that this government knows
how to manage a deficit, and that could not be any further from the truth.
So
I stick to what I had said, Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago, and that is in
fact that the Fiscal Stabilization Fund is more of a Manness illusion. It is a fraud fund, and what the Leader of
the Liberal Party, the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) and the previous
member for Transcona, in the quotes that were cited from the member for
We
never supported the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, based on the principle that here
you have a government that is in fact borrowing money in order to create a fund
with the idea that in the future it would be able to have some type of an
influence over the deficit.
Mr. Driedger: This is very confusing.
Mr. Lamoureux: The Minister of Highways says, it is very
confusing.
It
is very confusing, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), his
minister, has done a fairly decent job in making sure that a significant
portion of the population are in fact being fooled by this slip of hand.
Mr.
Speaker, I wanted to go and speak in terms of the question that I put forward
today to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), because I was somewhat surprised with the
answers. [interjection] Well, the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) might
want to contain himself at least until he finds out that the Premier was in
fact wrong.
The
question that I had asked the minister was:
How does the Premier justify increasing by 6.8 percent the support to
his office while limiting the increase to CRISP program to less than half the
rate of inflation?
Well,
Mr. Speaker, no one will question the latter part of the question in terms of
the CRISP and that the increase was half the rate of inflation, but the Premier
took exception to the fact that it is not the 6.7 per cent or the 6.8 percent
increase.
If
we take a look at Executive Council in the budget, and we take a look at the
item of 1.(b) and 1.(c) and look at the salaries, you will find that in fact it
is the increase that I had made mention to the Premier. So where he gets his numbers is, he takes a
look at the overall resolution and says, well, no, it is not true. It is not a 6.7 percent increase. Well, the support staff is in fact a 6.7
percent increase, and that is this Premier's priority in terms of how they
choose to spend money.
Mr.
Speaker, we have time after time‑‑whenever a member of the official
opposition or the second opposition party bring up a constructive idea in terms
of how and where the government should be spending money, the government's
response is, spend, spend, spend, spend.
That is all the opposition party wants to do.
Mr.
Speaker, what I tried to point out to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) today in
Question Period was that it is not necessarily a question of spend, spend,
spend, spend. It is a question in terms
of priorities.
Mr.
Speaker, I will argue that the Premier's priorities are wrong. How can the Premier justify a half the rate
of inflation increase to the CRISP program, while at the same time increase for
his own personal support staff by 6.7 percent?
I
would suggest to the Premier that if he wants us to make a suggestion in terms
of where he can find some monies, that is one of the areas in which he can find
the monies that are necessary that he could cut back on, Mr. Speaker, and
reallocate those monies out to other programs, other priorities, priorities
that we in the Liberal Party feel are much more important.
Mr.
Speaker, I will argue that those more vulnerable in our society are more of a
priority to ensuring that the Premier has the staff to put the proper twist or
support services to the extent of a 6.7 percent increase, which just cannot be
justified.
The
Premier's answer to the question was one of, well, wait for the Estimates, and
you will find out the details of the information.
An Honourable Member: That sounds pretty good to me.
* (1550)
Mr. Lamoureux: One minister says it sounded good to him. Mr. Speaker, what it tells me is that he is
unable to justify it. It is a fairly
straightforward question, and the Premier failed to be able to justify the
actions of his own office.
Another
question that I had asked, Mr. Speaker, was in regard to the Department of
Labour where we saw a 6.7 percent increase to the ministerial staff office,
while at the same time I believe it was a 0.2 percent increase to the Labour
Adjustment Program office. That works
out to a third of a cent for every worker in the
The
member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) on many opportunities has made mention of
the need to ensure that we have proper training programs and so forth made
available, proper labour adjustment programs, Mr. Speaker, given the times that
we are in, because not only are we in a situation where we have a free trade
deal that has been superimposed on us, we also are in a recession. Given those two factors alone, again, what
has this government done? It has chosen
to increase the Minister of Labour's (Mr. Praznik) office some 6.7 percent
while, at the same time, giving that 0.2 percent to this particular program.
Once
again I will argue that the priorities of this government are all wrong. In fact, if the government wants another
suggestion in terms of where they can get some money in order to reallocate
into additional Liberal priorities, I will suggest to you that is another area
in which they can have a cut in terms of the ministerial support office and
reallocate some of that money out to the programs that are badly needed here in
Manitoba.
The
second supplementary question was in regard to this $466,000 in the setting up
of this new secretariat's office that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is talking
about. If you put that in the context
that while he has decided as a priority to allocate that type of money out for
this particular office, he has also decided the support for external agencies
and the Department of Health agencies which delivers support to those vulnerable
Manitobans.
Mr.
Speaker, once again I would argue that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has his
priorities all mixed up, that in fact there are areas in which the Premier can
look and find better ways of spending money, of spending the tax dollars that
are in fact being collected. That
particular question was something that has just come up in the last couple of
days when the Premier yesterday said, once again, all we want to do is spend,
spend, spend.
The
government has more resources than the opposition parties, and I would argue
that if the government was wanting to look and evaluate internally in terms of
what is going on and start right off with the ministerial offices and some of
the things they are doing, that they might be able to find the resources
without having to raise the additional taxes or to increase the deficit,
because they have such a fixation on both, Mr. Speaker.
There
are things the government can do, and I would encourage the government to not
fall in the trap of whenever a member from the opposition party makes the
suggestion that they have to say, spend, spend, spend, that in fact, it is not
just a question of spend, spend. It is a
question of priorities, and it is a question of values, and that is what the
budget process is all about.
Mr.
Speaker, there are a number of areas that I wanted to make some reference to,
four areas which have come out as major areas of concern of the constituents
that I represent. The first is that of
health care. The other day during private
members' hour I was able to take the opportunity to speak on Bill 51, which was
introduced by my colleague the member from The Maples (Mr. Cheema) in which I
argued at the time that everyone in this Chamber support a universal access to
health care.
There
is not one political party that has a monopoly on caring for individuals who
require health care services. I really
and truly believe that and would encourage that that bill be accepted from
everyone in this Chamber and that we allow it to be able to pass. We could be the first province in
Having
said that, there are other things that we have suggested as a third party to
the government and have encouraged the government to move, which would save the
government money. Things such as the expansion of outpatient care, something
that the government, the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has commended the
member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) in terms of his frankness on the issue and
has said himself that is the area in which we need to move. The time now is to act. We can do something that the minister has
been responsible for the Department of Health now for approaching four years,
and he has had the opportunity as minister to ensure that whatever the
government policies really are, to start implementing them.
We
are somewhat disappointed that they are not acting as quickly as they could be
on the whole idea of expanding outpatient care.
The member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), through the Liberal Party has
commented on the greater centralization of expertise in some of our health care
institutions, something that would save, once again, additional monies for our
health care.
Every
one of us has to be cognizant of the fact that health care is the largest
expenditure that we make here in the province of Manitoba, and that we all have
a responsibility to be honest in terms of how we can contribute to ensuring
that we have the health care that we have today 20 years from now. That means, Mr. Speaker, that we might need
to put on the record areas or things that need to be debated that otherwise
might not have been accepted. At least
allow a debate on some of the opportunities. I look to the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard) to bring up or at least to start some of those debates.
The
member for The Maples has said to the Minister of Health that we will not be
attempting to take political cheap shots at allowing debate, sincere debate,
Mr. Speaker, if the government acknowledges Bill 51, in fact, to be what the
government itself believes in. I would
encourage the government to do that because I think that debate is long
overdue. We could do a service to all
Manitobans, in fact, if we were to act upon it.
Another
initiative that was suggested from my colleague through the Liberal Party was
the whole question of the immigrant doctors.
We have a situation in rural
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
* (1600)
Another
issue that I want to make comment on, Mr. Acting Speaker, is a very serious
issue that has really come to light for myself, personally, through a group of
LPN nurses who met with me inside my constituency, who all live inside the
constituency. They are very concerned
about their future. The primary reason
why they are so concerned is because the government has not taken a position on
the LPNs. As a result, what has happened
is, there are so many rumours that are out there that the LPNs‑‑over
3,000 LPNs throughout the
There
is a lot of uncertainty out there; a lot of families deserve to know what the
government's intention really is when it comes to the LPNs of the
The
government owes it to the LPNs to be straightforward with them, to try to
qualify or to stamp out those rumours, so that these individuals can go on with
their lives. If the government's
intentions are to see the LPNs phased out, at least allow them the opportunity
to base their decisions on a government decision, but to hold them off and to
leave it unanswered is really doing a disservice. I see, and from what I understand, the LPNs
in other provincial jurisdictions are being expanded, and that is something
that is really confusing a large number of the LPNs. Why do these rumours persist while other LPNs
in other provinces are being expanded?
I
say to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) that he should give serious
consideration to that and to make, at the very least, a ministerial statement
in terms of what the government's position is on the future of the LPNs in the
Another
major issue in my area is one of education. Education is something that comes
up‑‑in fact, I have had a grievance on education and some of the
problems that I have within my riding. I
have talked about the problems in education in the past and the large number of
inequities that are out there between school divisions. I think, Mr. Acting Speaker, with all due
respect to the government, that when they tackled the whole issue of City
Council in an attempt to make the city of Winnipeg a better place to live, one
of the areas which they have not really addressed, other than by creating again
rumours, is the whole question of the inequities with the number of school
divisions or the inequities that are between the school divisions.
I
represent a riding in which‑‑we are in Winnipeg No. 1‑‑there
are 33,000‑plus students, whereas we have other school divisions within
the city of Winnipeg, Mr. Acting Speaker, where there are under 2,000 students. I do not want to take a position in terms of
the number of school divisions or the types of inequities that others might say
are not there. I do not want to take
issue with that today, but suffice to say that there are a large number of
inequities. There is a responsibility
for this government to treat the school divisions as a higher priority, to
bring that debate to the Legislative Chamber so that we can in fact find out
where all three political parties, and in fact all individuals inside this Chamber,
stand on the question of the school divisions and the need to reform our
educational system.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I do not even look just at the school divisions. I will argue that part of the debate should
include the private school funding versus public school funding and so forth,
that we need a wide debate on the whole question of educational reform in the
Mr.
Acting Speaker, jobs are another priority in my riding, as I believe all of
these that I have listed are priorities for each and every one of us in the
constituents that we represent. The government often refers to, well, the
unemployment rate has dropped from last month and says that it is now moving in
the right direction. Well, I guess we
can go month by month, and one month the opposition party might say the
unemployment rate is up, another month and we will get the government saying
the unemployment rate is down. Both will
try to read a lot into those figures, and all three political parties
participate in that. The bottom line is
that we have people leaving the
Mr.
Acting Speaker, that says a lot in terms of how the economy is going. I looked at one of the statistics that were
provided through the
Mr.
Acting Speaker, those who have an interest and want to remain in the
manufacturing industry are given little opportunity, other than to move out of
the
* (1610)
If
we want to maintain the diversification that we currently have, the government
has to come to grips, in terms of having some sort of a policy, an aggressive
policy. The government has a role to
play in ensuring that we have a manufacturing industry in the
That
means that we need to look at some specific industries, and I point, Mr. Acting
Speaker, to an industry like our aerospace, our garment, the vegetable industry
which has lots of promise. There are a
number of other industries in which the government can play some role in
ensuring that those industries in the
Mr.
Acting Speaker, another area that I wanted to touch upon was that of the
environment. The environment is
something that we all hold very closely to our hearts, and we would have liked
to have seen a bit more independence towards environmental organizations when
it comes to funding, but we have seen, in particular, like the CEC, where
funding has decreased as a result. Well,
I am sure that the government is well aware as a direct result, but what it
reminds me of is what happened over in Saskatchewan and the whole question of
the Rafferty, compared to the type of studies that were done then and how the
government downplayed and did not give the monies that were necessary for the
development of Rafferty to find out what the environmental impacts were. I think that the government now in
When
we look who now has been given in part the responsibility to find out what the
environmental damages are going to be for Conawapa, when it is given to
Manitoba Hydro, because there is a natural conflict there. So one really questions the real priority in
terms of the environment, because day after day they stand up and they talk
about the importance of the environment before anything goes ahead, but time
after time we do not see that, Mr. Acting Speaker.
In
terms of the budget, one of the more positive things that came out we thought,
Mr. Acting Speaker, was the personal income tax freeze. I know that many Manitobans are very glad to
have been given that particular tax break, and the government has been able to
do a reasonable job when it comes to that particular tax. I think that all three parties would like to
at least make mention of the fact that in terms of this particular budget, the
personal income tax was a good thing in terms of the freeze. The projected deficit, as I pointed out, was
a negative thing.
One
of the other things that I felt that the government is way off base on is the
Civil Service and the treatment they have given to the Civil Service which
really causes a lot of concern. One would have thought that the 300 civil
servant positions that are now being proposed to being cut would not have been necessary
given what has happened to the Civil Service over the last couple of years.
The
member for
I
wanted to touch upon some of the areas for which I am the critic. One is, of course, of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship. In particular, I want to
talk about the multicultural aspect of it, because that has been an issue that
has come up time after time. As the
minister herself has said, I guess at times we have to learn to agree that we
are going to disagree. Mr. Acting
Speaker, I find it very, very hard, and I guess I am an eternal optimist that
someday I will be able to convince this particular minister that the direction
she is taking Culture, Heritage and Citizenship is not necessarily in the right
direction and that there are things that she could do to alleviate a lot of the
concerns.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Last
year during the Estimates I can recall what I thought was somewhat
irresponsible, even other members took the liberty to participate in, and that
was, of course, when I had moved a motion that the funding for MGAC be
withdrawn and that the monies be reallocated out to MIC. The member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) recalls it
quite well. I still believe that MIC is
the most appropriate body for distributing the cultural grants. If the minister is concerned about MIC being
the dispersal body, I am willing to compromise.
All I am saying is it should not be a politically appointed board, that,
yes, she might be able to come up with an idea that would resolve that
particular issue.
Mr.
Speaker, in terms of labour, I had made mention in terms of the concern we had
regarding the Labour Adjustment Program. That is one of the issues that we will
be taking up during the Estimates process with the Minister of Labour (Mr.
Praznik), is why and how he justifies the increases to the lines that he saw
fit to give, again, given the current economic condition which one would have
been led to believe would have been a much higher priority than usual. I was disappointed in the fact that the
government did not give the increase that we felt was necessary to the Labour
Adjustment line. As Conservative reports
have said themselves, it is time that we start adjusting to win because
nowadays individuals look at three, four, up to five‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the fifth budget of the Filmon
government today, a budget, which, not unlike the previous four budgets that
have been developed by this administration, has taken considerable hard work
and effort not only by the departmental staff, the deputies, the managers and
every individual who works for government, but I want to particularly
acknowledge the hard work and effort of the members of Treasury Board, who have
put in considerable hours of extra time to carry out their
responsibilities. I was not there at
this last session to enjoy their work activities, but I can assure you that my
thoughts were with them. I would have
liked to have been there at particular times so I could have had my voice heard
a little louder, however, I am quite happy with the end results. I do acknowledge the extreme hard work and
effort of the Treasury Board staff and the ministers who put in the tremendous
amount of time that it takes to develop the budget.
* (1620)
Mr.
Speaker, there is one particular point I want to make, and that is that the
expenditures of government‑‑and I would have hoped that this would
take place at the federal government level, but I guess it is virtually
impossible to have the kind of direct hands‑on input that takes place by
the elected people.
Mr.
Speaker, I can assure you that the elected people within our government have a
major impact on the decisions that are made.
I believe that is the way it should be, to keep the control of the
expenditure of the public's money within the responsibility of those people who
are elected to carry out that responsibility, not to delegate it to employees
of government. Yes, there have to be some administrative responsibilities and
authorities given, but overall I think it is the responsibility of elected
people to be answerable, to understand the expenditures that the taxpayers'
money is going towards.
There
has been a lot said in the many speeches in this Chamber and in this House over
the past few years as to what some of the previous administration had done and
had done wrong. I am not going to spend
a lot of time on that, because I think history has been clearly recorded in
many speeches. I think it is time to
clearly address the positive initiatives that are being addressed in this
budget and where I think and where we think the future of this province lies.
There
is one particular area, though, Mr. Speaker, that I do think is important to
point out, because it is clearly an indicator.
I will just make a brief reference to it so that it puts in place the
context of which we have to deal as a government.
The
public debt carrying costs rose from $114 million in 1981‑82 to $490
million in 1987‑88. The New
Democratic government increased public debt costs by 4 percent of the total
budget in that period of time to 11 percent to 1987‑88, when in fact this
current government has been able to reduce that portion to 9.4 percent in the
1992‑93 year.
The
point I am making is the percentage which goes to the public debt cost is
starting to decrease. It is so
important, if we are going to carry out the kinds of programs and government
responsibilities that are necessary, that we start to reduce the overall debt
carrying costs and the debt on the people of this province. It is clearly the way we have to go. I can assure you that there are some positive
indications starting to take place. It has been a lot of hard work. I have said that in my opening comments. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it will continue
to be hard work.
One
of the temptations that we as government‑‑and members of the
opposition should not push us or try to push us towards, and that is when
revenues start to increase in this province, that the temptation is not there
to let control go of the expenditure side of government.
We
cannot afford to get again the kind of spending habits that we have seen by
past administrations, when in fact we cannot afford to do that. If there is one message that we as
legislators have to remind ourselves of is not to be tempted when revenues increase
to go out and introduce tremendous amount of new programming, to take the
controls off the expenditure side and spend for the sake of either political
pressure or pressure from the members opposite.
We
have to, Mr. Speaker, over the ensuing years that we are looking at is reduce
the overall debt‑carrying charges and debt on the people of this province
as we do nationally, because we all know what happens to any business person,
any business that gets to the position of having far too much debt to the
income ratio. The end is inevitable, and
we cannot in the public interest allow that to happen. I can assure you, I will be strongly
supportive of the government position that is continued on that basis.
Let
me again make a couple of comments, because it again points out how insensitive
governments can be when they come to try and reduce some of the expenditures or
to make some of the adjustments within the government of Manitoba. One of the things that the communities of
southwestern
That
is one service that the people of this province have become to respect and to
enjoy has been the coverage, the protection of the RCMP. It does not matter whether you are in
southwestern
Again,
what I am trying to say is that we have some essential things that have to be
looked after in this province‑‑[interjection] He is out practising
his draw. When one looks at the services
that are the responsibility of government to provide, that is one of them.
We
have also categorized, and it is again identified in this current budget and
that is the priority that this administration, the Filmon government, place on
health care, Education, and Family Services‑‑[interjection] Well,
the Leader of the Opposition party says, and welfare. He says we are putting too much money in
welfare. Well, what does he want us to
do? It is his party recommending that we
should take some of the money out of welfare.
I mean, I am hearing this daily in this Legislative Assembly, that he
says we are putting too much money in welfare. Does he want us to take some of
the money out of welfare? Is that what
he is advocating?
Mr.
Speaker, I cannot for the life of me understand the New Democratic Party and
their position. They are saying, take it
out of welfare, we are paying too much welfare.
Well, let them stand and move a resolution in this House that we reduce
the welfare budget by X numbers of millions of dollars. If that is their position, Mr. Speaker, then
let them stand and do it.
The
point I am making is that we have identified our priorities, and another major
priority again that each member of this caucus and this government continue to
express to the public of
An Honourable Member: You are just raising the deficit to five . . .
.
Mr. Downey: Again, the Leader of the Opposition party
says, yes, we just raised the deficit.
Yes, we have raised the deficit, but we have also had a fund of money
that is available to help offset the impact of that deficit.
An Honourable Member: Where did that money come from?
Mr. Downey: The money came from the taxpayers of
What
it is doing though, Mr. Speaker, is trying to level the impact from year over
year of deficit financing which, by the way, is an unfortunate situation that
governments got into to the magnitude of which they got into, deficit
financing. It is a dangerous, long‑term
negative impact or has a negative long‑term impact on the taxpayers of
this country. I make no bones about it
nor does the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) from what I am hearing him
say, that deficits are deferred taxes. I
would hope he would agree with that. He
sure as the devil gave us lots of deferred taxes when he was in government as
well as additional taxes that he put on when he was there. Not only did he give us deferred taxes, he
gave us immediate taxation as the minister irresponsible in the last
administration.
* (1630)
Mr.
Speaker, where we are at currently is that we have laid out some basic
principles which I believe we have lived up to, lived up to in spades.
There
is one other area that I want to express that I have serious concerns in, and
that, Mr. Speaker, is the difficulties that particularly rural and some
northern communities are having with the loss or the exodus of their young
people or the work force, their traditional people who would be in their
communities, whether it is in the farm community, whether it is in the northern
resource industries, the fur trapping or the fisheries business, has been the
draw of the urban centres for those individuals who, either by choice or by
force, have had to leave those traditional home sites or their communities to
come to find their livelihood elsewhere.
That is why the government of
Those
are the kinds of thoughts and beliefs that we have, that people living in their
traditional communities making their livelihoods can be provided services which
government have the responsibility to provide in a far less costly way than
living in large urban settings, which again if it is by choice is one thing, but
by force is another.
I
would hope that we would have the support of the members opposite to continue
to try to provide the economic initiatives not necessarily by government, but
encouraging the private sector through business initiative and business
development in those communities.
Mr.
Speaker, those are the basic philosophical approaches that I want to bring to
this debate. Again, the most important
one to attract investment from outside of this province and this country is the
taxation policies of government. People
today respond to tax and tax policies. I
can tell you that one only has to watch what has taken place recently with the
criticisms of city government in the city of
Well,
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, as much as some people do not like the politicians
taking a tough line, I think that there is general public acceptance out there
that in fact we are doing the right thing in taking a tough line with the
expenditures of taxpayers' money. [interjection] Again, the member for
Concordia (Mr. Doer) suggests call a by‑election. Mr. Speaker, he knows who has the
responsibility of calling a by‑election.
I
do not know whether if I were sitting in the position that he is, as low as he
is in the polls, that he would really want that and how he ended up at the last
election in Crescentwood‑‑third, a poor third showing. What he did was he immediately went out to
find a former Liberal or a Liberal to run for the New Democratic Party in
Crescentwood. Yes, he found a Liberal to
run for the New Democratic Party in Crescentwood. Now that is not surprising knowing the
checkered background of the Leader of the New Democratic Party and his
political background. I think he has covered the total political spectrum, and
one could consider that maybe he is a bit of an opportunist, but we will let
the public judge that for themselves.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, I say this, we are well positioned. We are currently well positioned as a
government with the policies that are in place, with the programs that are in
place, to see this province move ahead compared to the rest of the provinces in
this country. We still have some of the
best work force and well‑trained people in this country. We have some of the best educational
facilities and support systems, whether it is the university systems, whether
it is the colleges, whether it is any part of our educational system, we have
the tools there. We still have the tools
there being managed properly to provide the opportunities, the educational
opportunities for our people.
We
have the health care systems. We have
the centres here of tremendous health care opportunities, and the tools are
there to continue to see advancement. We
have the resources. We still have the
productive farm land. We still have the
manufacturing capabilities, whether it is the Versatiles, whether it is some of
the traditional manufacturing industries in this country that have given us a
base for expansion and development in the past; they are there ready to go
ahead when we see the turnaround in the international recession that is there.
We
have cleaned up our act, Mr. Speaker, and tried to clean up some of the
problems of the past. We have programs
and the infrastructure there. We have
entered into some very significant agreements with the federal government,
whether it is the Southern Development Initiative, whether it is some of the
programs that have been identified under Industry, Trade and Tourism, whether
it is the Rural Grow Bond Program, many programs and government initiatives
that are there that will, in fact, help this province move ahead.
That
is why I have absolute and total confidence in this budget which I would hope
members of the opposition would see fit to support, at least some of them. Just do not become a philosophical puppet to
the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I would ask them to seriously analyze
and think for themselves. I would honestly ask them to think for themselves as
to the benefits that they see in this budget.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to talk about northern
I
am confident the agricultural programming which has been in place will
help. It is not the answer to the
success of the farm community. The
answer to the success of the farm community is a decent price for the product
that they produce, and never will a government program ever replace that. It will never replace that, but there have to
be some interim measures put in place to give support when support is needed.
I
am a cautious optimist when it comes to the farm community. I believe we are poised again, as we are
poised with the manufacturing and some of the other resource development
industries, to go ahead in the coming years.
Let
me deal now with our Hydro and some of our Energy and Mines activities and some
of the incentives which have been put in place.
Mr. Speaker, Manitoba Hydro is more than Conawapa, although one would
never think that in listening to some of the debates of the past few
months. Manitoba Hydro is more than
Conawapa. Conawapa is but a part of the
whole Hydro development initiative of the North.
Manitoba
Hydro, as some of the older members would appreciate, was a major tool to
develop the economic activity of this province.
I will just go back so the members opposite have a little better
understanding of it.
I
take my hat off to D.L. Campbell, who was a progressive Liberal I believe in
this Legislative Assembly. In the late
1940s, early 1950s, D.L. Campbell‑‑the Liberals should pay
attention to this‑‑introduced rural electrification into this
province.
An Honourable Member: I remember it well.
Mr. Downey: I remember it well, too, because I was a young
farm boy out in southwestern
* (1640)
What
else had to happen was, of course, the generating stations had to be put in
place to drive, to energize the system that was put in place. It was the right thing to do for the
That
was followed by Duff Roblin, who saw the opportunity for further economic
development as a major economic generator for this province and opportunities
for this province to grow and develop‑‑followed by whom?
That
was followed by the Weir government, who for his short period of time did not
change anything but continued on with that policy.
That
was again followed by whom?‑‑Ed Schreyer. What were the Schreyer policies? It was to continue to use the hydroelectric
system of this province to drive the economics of this province and to create
jobs and to do what was right for the people of
That
was followed by the Sterling Lyon administration, who said we should continue
to develop and do it through a planned economic system, but probably we should
do more to use that electricity, that hydroelectric power for the development
of opportunities in
I
will not get political about my next comment, but, unfortunately, some of those
opportunities through I would say some mishandling‑‑but I will not
get into that‑‑were lost, but the next thing I want to raise is
that the Pawley administration said: We
will continue to use Manitoba Hydro to drive our economy; we will build
Limestone. I am not going to get into
right or wrong, but what he did was he used it for an economic development tool
to create jobs and to create wealth for this province.
In
1988 was the election of the Filmon government, Mr. Speaker. What changed?
I believe the public mandate‑‑and I say this in the
interests of all Manitobans‑‑is still there to use Manitoba Hydro
on a reasonable, sound basis to drive the economy, or to help the economy of
this province.
If
it is not the case, then someone please tell me, because all those Premiers had
the mandate to continue the development of Manitoba Hydro. There have been two things added, under this
administration: that was putting the
next project, the Conawapa development project to a Clean Environment Commission
study, and the Bipole III line, No. 1; No. 2, to make sure that we were doing
it on the right sound economic basis, the Premier and the government said, we
should refer this to the Public Utilities Board to have a third‑party
comment or opinion or, whatever you want to call it, approval of the project.
Yes,
and the member for
An Honourable Member: Given all the new data.
Mr. Downey: Given all the new data. Well, Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you what
they would say now, but I can tell you what they said at the time of their
hearing. I will read one part of it,
because I think it is important that all members of the Legislature clearly
understand that we have nothing to back away from. Their big call to have it go back to the
Public Utilities Board could well put some minds at ease, but it will not
change anything as to what was initially said by the Public Utilities Board.
Here
is what the case is, Mr. Speaker, and I will give a direct quote. This is on the demand side management targets
that everyone is referring to. Here is
what they said: The figure appropriate
for planning purposes should be neither more nor less conservative than all the
other planning assumptions. Using an
optimistic figure for planning purposes creates risk in the context of
reliability. The level of DSM or demand
supply management target assumed for planning purposes today will not
significantly affect the conclusions concerning the profitability of the
A
direct quote from the Public Utilities Board, Mr. Speaker, and I think that the
members would be well advised to read it.
An Honourable Member: Table it.
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, it is in the report. I do not have to table it. That is why I am suggesting the members
should read it. I am saying that the
public basically support it, and I can refer to the Leader of the New
Democratic Party and his comments, what he said, and I will quote back to
him. Here is what he said, Mr.
Speaker. This was in the
An Honourable Member: The 1988 Sun.
Mr. Downey: That is right.
It happens to be April of 1988. Then I will just, to the benefit of the
House, here is what he said: We will
fight the mothballing of our Manitoba Hydro program right down the line this
session and next session of the Legislature.
So
he is clearly on the record, Mr. Speaker, of fighting it from going into
mothballs. In fact, I can read further
quotes that want us to drive it forward.
I
want to make a brief comment about the transmission line, and I think that it
is important to note as well. We had a
very unfortunate situation in
An Honourable Member: Go down and look at it.
Mr. Downey: I am proceeding to do that. I have not yet, but I have had a full report.
Mr.
Speaker, what that points out is we lost approximately 10 percent of our
production capability with the loss of that power station; 472 megawatts of
power went out, and it happened in the spring of the year. I want to make sure, and I say this in the
interests of all of the people of
So,
let me make the case to the people of Manitoba and to this Legislative Assembly
that, given that we make sure we do all of our environmental work properly, and
it has to be done properly, that is essential, I want to make sure that, in the
interests of Manitobans, we have the second supply line so that we are not
vulnerable to acts of nature that could well knock out that system.
[interjection] The member says, oh, it may not‑‑could she have
predicted that we were going to lose the
An Honourable Member: That is why we built Limestone.
Mr. Downey: The member says, that is why we built
Limestone. Well, then the same theory and the same reasoning should come in and
support Conawapa and Bipole III. I would
think that would be his automatic statement.
He is so proud to stand and say that is why he built Limestone, then the
same reasoning should carry through to support the Conawapa project and Bipole
III. Let members of the opposition stand
and say that it is not in the public interest to put that system in place for security
as well as for the economic benefits that have been projected by the Public
Utilities Board, by Manitoba Hydro and by Clean Environment.
[interjection]
Pardon me. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask
the question to you, how much time do I have left in my comments?
Mr. Speaker: Ten minutes.
Mr. Downey: Ten minutes.
Thank you.
Mr.
Speaker, I challenge the members of the Liberal Party to come forward and be
counted, to come forward and say that they are opposed to a $13‑billion
projected income for Manitoba Hydro over the length of the sale, at the end of
year 2022 that we will have a plant paid for and the gross income will be some
$13 billion. I would ask them to come
forward and say why they are opposed to a $700 million net return for that
project being built at this time when we see a downturn in our economic
opportunity.
* (1650)
I
challenge the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Harper) and Churchill and those
northern members, the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), who spoke the other
day and put conditions on the record of which I think basically will be carried
out. I challenge the member for The Pas
(Mr. Lathlin) that they would support a project after it goes through the Clean
Environment Commission work and all of the activities that we are proposing,
that will create new economic opportunities for the aboriginal people of the
North and done properly through training.
I think we always have to be conscious of that, that we are going to
have to see training as a top priority for those individuals who live in those
communities.
Why
would the members of the Liberal Party want to deprive those people of training
opportunities? Why? Why do they want to deprive the people of
Well,
Mr. Speaker, if you do the right thing and it happens to coincide with an
election, is that wrong? Let the Liberal
Party stand and say that is why they are opposed to it. I mean, if we come right down to it, and I
guess the member for
Mr.
Speaker, I guess the bottom line is that if the right thing coincides with a
political agenda, then why would we want to be critical of it? If we have been critical in the past, then I
guess that is part of the adversarial democratic system that we are all part
of.
An Honourable Member: Adversarial democratic system? You believe in what you said?
Mr. Downey: Yes, I always believe in what I say.
I
want to say as well that Manitoba Hydro is projecting‑‑and these
are pretty important for the economic development and the future of this
province. Manitoba Hydro just went
forward and asked for a 3.5 percent increase in their rates for this year. They
are projecting that each of the next two years they are going to be requesting
the rate of inflation.
This
is an important figure for members opposite to pay note to, from 1995 to the
year 2000 they are projecting that they will need an increase of 1 percent per
year. One percent a year is what they
are projecting they will need. That
coincides with
We
are currently, Mr. Speaker, the lowest published hydro rates in all of
The
point I raised earlier was that Liberal governments, New Democratic
governments, Progressive Conservative governments see it as an economic
generator. Do not be blinded by political
opportunism at this time. Let us, I
believe, work together to see that opportunity be developed and created, Mr.
Speaker‑‑and I would hope the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Harper)
would speak a little more to what took place yesterday.
Yesterday,
Mr. Speaker, was one of my proudest days as a member of this Legislature, not
because I am Progressive Conservative, not that any special acknowledgement has
to come to the government. The right
thing was done yesterday when there was an agreement signed between the
Government of Canada, the government of the
I
believe the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) would stand and say it was the
right thing to do. It was not a treaty
obligation. It was not a legal
obligation. Again, it was the right
thing to do, to provide those communities co‑operatively‑‑and
I remember what the elder said. The
elder had a very good message. The elder
said, work co‑operatively to achieve the goals that are there.
The
young person said‑‑her name is Vicki Duck, and she said, I am proud
to be a Canadian; it is what we want; it is what we need; it is what should be
done. They were very touching words.
I
feel, as a member of the Legislature‑‑and I appreciated the
comments opposite. Yes, it was through
the support of the communities that it happened, but I think the member for
Rupertsland (Mr. Harper) would want to reflect that it was the communities that
wanted it; it was the co‑operation that came from the other participants
that helped make it happen.
If
there is one thing that I will recall in my political history that is important
to me, that is I have been given the opportunity to help provide, in co‑operation
with those communities, the same thing that helped the community that I can
remember so well needed that help for an economic base. You can do that, Mr. Speaker, and you can do
it in a fiscally responsible manner, but again the right thing to do.
It
will create employment opportunities, not make‑work programs, but real
employment opportunities. It means that
not only will those communities enjoy the modern hydroelectric power, but there
may be the opportunity for mineral development and exploration expansion in those
communities.
I
will conclude my speech today by saying that I applaud and acknowledge the
support that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), the Premier (Mr. Filmon),
the cabinet colleagues and the caucus gave me as the Minister of Energy and Mines
to follow on the path of the former Minister of Energy and Mines, the member
for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld), the work that he had started.
For
me to be allowed as the Minister of Energy and Mines to announce and put in
place the Mineral Exploration Incentive program, the $12.5 million that has
just been further announced today, and implemented now, to encourage the
prospecting and to encourage the development of new mining opportunities, to
further bring in an incentive that the budget has spelled out, that new mines
can be developed, and they will not be subject to a mining tax until they
become a productive mine operation. The
right thing to do, Mr. Speaker.
I
cannot understand the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) and the member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton) standing up and saying they cannot support this
budget. This is a northern
Again,
the exploration incentive, the 150 percent of mineral exploration cost to be
used against the income of those mining activities, is the right thing to do to
generate economic interest in northern
The
members want to make a lot of to‑do about some of the issues which they
think are important, and I do not in any way degrade or downgrade the positions
that they put forward, but I would hope they would look at the bigger picture,
because without economic activity, we will lose the kind of social programming
and the kind of support of programming that we all want. I think that the members opposite would come
on side and support the kind of economic initiatives, probably not enough, but
in the terms of what we have to deal with, I think are pretty generous.
I
can tell you that some of the mining people from this country have said to us,
with some of the previous policies and programs in place, our weather vane just
turned away from
We
have introduced a program based on a pilot project, and that was the recreation
directors program, which I have got testimony from many of those people where
there are some 28 young people now employed to give them employment opportunities.
* (1700)
Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister's time has expired.
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity
and I can assure you I will be voting for this budget and I encourage all
members to get on side.
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Mr. Speaker‑‑
An Honourable Member: I will go and get John Wayne.
Mr. Lathlin: Yes, I miss my friend John Wayne. Where is he?
Once
again I welcome and appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to rise in this
House and to provide some comments on the budget as it was announced by this
government last week.
I
want to say, though, at the outset that I am truly disappointed, Mr. Speaker,
because I sincerely expected better than what was delivered here last
week. We listened to the Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae) earlier this afternoon in a ministerial statement talking
about the lobbying efforts that he and others from the
Mr.
Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly and support the minister's efforts as he goes
about speaking for and supporting and representing the citizens of his
constituency. I support him also on his
efforts to convince the federal government to be more open and consult with the
citizens of
The
communities in the North are not only facing cuts or potential cuts but a lot
of uncertainty. Today northern
Manitobans have in fact already experienced programs and services being
cut. They have also experienced the
layoffs. People are being laid off,
never mind merely facing potential cuts.
I
am glad the minister is concerned about the effects that an uncertain future
has on people and their lives, because people from northern
Mr.
Speaker, after the cuts in the budget last year to northern
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
I
also want to, at this time, Mr. Acting Speaker, mention the comments that were
made by the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh), yesterday I believe it was,
on March 16, when she told this Assembly that the people in my constituency who
work, which is just about all of them because they are hard‑working
people. I find those words offensive, and they are offensive to many people
from northern
The
reason I say that is because that statement suggests to people from northern
The
woodlands division shut down last week, and they are not expected to come back
to work until mid‑August. We can
only hope that the market picks up before then and the damaged boiler is
repaired or replaced, the damaged boiler being at the pulp mill. The shutdowns
and the layoffs have created a lot of disruption, have created a lot of havoc
in the lives of many people in northern
While
the government has now reversed itself and now says that they want to
renegotiate a deal with Repap, many northerners believe that the government has
simply blown it. Over two years after
the announcement and promises for jobs and opportunities were made to The Pas,
you know, Mr. Acting Speaker, today actually fewer people are working than ever
before in The Pas area. Unemployment and
lack of opportunities for retraining are the biggest concerns that most people
in my constituency are expressing today.
To be able to work and take advantage of retraining programs are the
priorities of most of the people in my constituency.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, this budget failed to deliver on either issue. In fact, it failed miserably in both
areas. It is absolutely shocking that
the effects on The Pas itself are more layoffs in the government sector,
particularly jobs which would have normally helped people wanting jobs and
training get jobs and training.
This
time the government followed through in this budget with the cuts to the
employment services offices in nine communities, including The Pas, Churchill
and Thompson. For example, two long‑term
employees in The Pas‑‑and I know both people personally‑‑received
notice that their jobs were gone last week. Of these people, one person had
worked 17 years and the other person had worked for more than 20 years. Both people are out of their jobs as of last
week. In total, 25 jobs have been lost
as a result of those cutbacks.
Unemployment
was already at 24 percent in the major northern
The
offices cut provided decentralized program delivery outside of
* (1710)
With
these cuts, the CareerStart program which gives young people opportunities to
get job training and job experience will now receive just half of its funding
from two years ago and will now be administered centrally out of
Another
issue I have had to raise twice in this Assembly is the future of the
Last
Wednesday, when I first raised the issue of the explosion of the hydro station
in
We
should not simply be accepting the words of Manitoba Hydro that there is no
serious problem concerning the water.
Unlike the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), who now hardly
visits the North, I visited
Today
it was confirmed that it will take several millions of dollars and at least a
year to repair or replace the generator at the station. Hydro representatives now admit that it will
cost hundreds of thousands of dollars just to remove the thousands of gallons
of oil that spilled into the station and into the
The
other thing that I learned from the people while I was there on Sunday
afternoon was that they told me that there had been previous accidents at the
Yesterday,
this government along with the federal government finally signed an agreement
to upgrade electricity to nine northern communities. It has been disgraceful how long this project
has been delayed. It could have been
signed decades ago if successive federal governments had not stalled the project.
The member for Rupertsland (Mr. Harper), who worked very hard to get this
agreement finalized while in Cabinet, only to have it deliberately stalled by
the federal government, deserves a lot of credit for this announcement.
I
also want to say, Mr. Acting Speaker, that the leadership of the aboriginal
people from that area are also deserving of much credit for the tenacity and
the commitment that they displayed in pursuing this project. It was also the member for Rupertsland who
forced the federal government to finally acknowledge the rights of aboriginal
people with his stand against
Mr.
Acting Speaking, this project should have gone ahead decades ago, as I said
earlier.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
No
government should be praising itself that it will finally begin in a few months
to do something that should have been done a long time ago. Northerners, particularly those using diesel
generators, have been paying outrageous costs for terrible service for
hydro. At the recent PUB hearings into
the proposed hydro rate increases, Manitoba Hydro was forced to admit that
service for many northern communities was both unacceptable and extraordinarily
expensive. We will be watching to see if
the rates for northern communities are hiked once more.
In
the budget, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) has tried to take
credit for an increased budget, even though for the most part what has occurred
is simply the shuffling of programs and funding from one department to
another. I note with some surprise that
the salary budget for Northern Affairs in The Pas has also been reduced.
I
look forward to hearing the minister explaining how he could justify this
action. Once again, what this minister
and his government means by decentralization deserves further comment. From what has occurred in many other so‑called
decentralized activities of this government, we have seen the areas of the
province with the highest unemployment receive absolutely nothing in terms of
new jobs, while in communities with unemployment rates of 7 percent or less
receiving additional jobs‑‑strange priorities.
The
government has budgeted $1 million in this budget for activities arising out of
the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry. For some
reason those plans have not been spelled out.
Despite 10 pages of press releases extolling the alleged good news of
the budget, there was not one single example of what this money would be used
for. We can only assume that the
minister has not yet finished reading the report.
We
hope that the money that was announced, a million dollars of it, will not
simply go for more studies of studies of the report, and the government's
record so far strongly suggests that this is indeed where most of the money
will be spent. It took a press conference,
for example, in this building with my colleagues to get the Minister of
Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) to find more money for the St. Theresa Youth
Justice Committee to keep the project going.
I
hope that it will not take similar actions to get action on the recommendations
of the AJI report. Certainly, few
Manitobans have been pleasantly surprised by the stand so far of the government
on the AJI report. I remember the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) telling me, when I was asking questions, the
member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) will be pleasantly surprised once he reads the
government response to the AJI report.
Well,
Mr. Acting Speaker, I was surprised all right, but not pleasantly.
* (1720)
Yesterday
as well it was announced that the government has now reached a gaming agreement
with the Roseau First Nation. This is where I also want to comment, Mr. Acting
Speaker. In one sense, I guess, I found
it encouraging that the Minister of Northern Affairs is finally getting himself
to use the language that aboriginal people are using, and that is, by using the
words "First Nations." I can
only assume that the minister is endorsing the notion of aboriginal people
attaining self‑government in the very near future, and I look forward to
his support for aboriginal self‑government because he is now using the
words "First Nations," and I congratulate him for that.
The
announcement of the gaming agreement comes less than a month after the Justice
minister held one of his photo opportunity press conferences to announce he was
charging that particular First Nation, along with Cross Lake, with operating
gaming activities illegally on those two reserves. I am pleased that the government has flip‑flopped
and decided to negotiate with the Roseau River First Nation. They should have done that in the first
place, Mr. Acting Speaker. If they
treated aboriginal self‑government seriously, they would have done that
right on Day One, but they did not. I
would hope that they will now drop the charges in both cases and go about and
proceed to settle with the Cross Lake Indian Band and have a similar gaming
agreement there.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, for trappers and fishermen there was no good news in the
budget. Trappers are still trying to get
justice and compensation for the damages of the forest fires of 1989,
particularly in the
The
community of Churchill has had high hopes that there was indeed action
occurring in terms of the range development.
My colleagues and I were very disappointed yesterday when the Minister
of Highways (Mr. Driedger) claimed that wanting a federal‑provincial
agreement to upgrade the
The
Saskatchewan Government wants that port kept open. The only opposition to the port is the
federal Conservative Government members from this province and vested interests
in
Mr.
Acting Speaker, ever since the user fee was imposed on the people from northern
Manitoba, people have been saying, we cannot afford to have the user fee,
remove it, it is no good for anybody, you are discriminating against the people
from the North because we happen to live and come from the North, because
people have chosen to go up to The Pas and live in The Pas and stay in The Pas,
they are now being discriminated against by this government. Nobody else in the South has to pay those
fees because the services are readily accessible if you come from the South.
Today
is election day for the community of Norway House, Mr. Acting Speaker. Norway House has developed greatly over the
past few decades, but still faces great challenges with high unemployment and
declining incomes for traditional ways of life. The problem of solvent abuse is
not just common in the inner city of
Mr.
Acting Speaker, budgets are more than just dollars and lines in Estimates
books. Fundamentally, they are about
priorities. This government has done its
best in trying to claim what its priorities are all about. After just a few days, the actual results of
the budget are clear. Rather than just
the official figures of 52,000 unemployed Manitobans last month, this budget
will result in more unemployed people, longer lines at welfare offices, more
use of food banks and more uncertainty amongst the population, particularly in
northern Manitoba.
It
is tragic news for those who expected and deserved more and better, Mr. Acting
Speaker. I think the real tragedy,
however, comes in the human cost that this government has inflicted on people
from northern
The
consequences of this government's five budgets so far on policies that are
being announced, or enunciated, are definitely going to come back and haunt
future governments of this province in that the costs of the continuing
deterioration of the social order are going to have to be addressed eventually.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I would urge that this government have another look. Listen to the people of northern
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I strongly believe that both private industry and governments
can work together, but so far what has happened is that this government has
relied solely on the private industry to create those jobs. This government is not even able to project
the number of jobs that are going to be created as a result of those taxes, tax
holidays and other incentives that it announced in the budget.
Once
again, Mr. Acting Speaker, I urge this government to listen to the people of
northern
I
want to thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker and members of this Legislature, for
listening to me, and I hope that in the future I can add more comments as we go
along in the session. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Harold Neufeld
(Rossmere): I am glad to rise and add a few comments to
the budget presented last week by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness).
* (1730)
First
of all, I would like to commend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and his
Treasury Board ministers for the hard work they have put into preparing this
budget. I know from my time on Treasury
Board‑‑and I sat on Treasury Board till just before Christmas‑‑I
know that this is the most difficult budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
has prepared in the five budgets that he has prepared.
I
am probably going to say some things that may lead some to believe that I do
not support the budget. I am not going
to say right upfront how I shall support it, but I want to commend the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness) for the work he has done in preparing it.
I
want also to thank the former member for Crescentwood for the kind words he has
said while I was in cabinet. The two
critics, the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) and the member for
Crescentwood were indeed kind to me, and I want to especially thank the member
for Crescentwood for providing me with a permanent pair for the rest of this
session.
I
want to also congratulate the member for
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I came into this House some four years ago as a rookie. I was naive.
I really believed that politics would be left at the campaign
office. Then I came into cabinet, and I
came into Treasury Board.
I
will just reminisce a little bit about how the appointments to cabinet take
place. I was called on a Saturday to
appear at
An Honourable Member: You were golfing.
Mr. Neufeld: I was golfing, but I came to 23 Kennedy at the
appointed hour, and there were some three or four other newly elected members
there already, and we took our turns in coming in. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) sat there. He was casually dressed. I was the last one of this group to be asked
in, and he told me what he had in mind for me, that I would be the Minister of
Energy and Mines and I would be the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro.
He
asked me what I thought. I said, well‑‑I
thought about that for a minute, I will come to that‑‑I thought
about it for a minute, Mr. Acting Speaker, and I said, well, Gary‑‑I
called him Gary then‑‑I said, that was not my first choice. I thought about that for a while, and I said,
as a matter of fact, it was not my second choice either. After a few moments of silence I said, as a
matter of fact it was not even on the list.
Having
said that, however, Mr. Acting Speaker, I do believe that it was the only
cabinet post that I could have possibly enjoyed as much as I did. It is a post which has the fewest political
decisions of any cabinet post in this government or any other government for
that matter.
An Honourable Member: What about multiculturalism?
Mr. Neufeld: I will come to multiculturalism. Multiculturalism has not been forgotten. I notice the member for
I
can well remember the first question. I
was new; I was a rookie; I was naive. I
remember well the first question the then Leader of the second party asked me
about the seniors having had their Pharmacare deduction increased by 12.5
percent. It amounted to eight bucks a
year, Mr. Acting Speaker, but 12.5 percent, and I did not know what the heck
was going on.
As
good luck would have it, as a penalty for something I must have done, I had the
Seniors Directorate taken from me, and I was so distressed. Somebody asked me how I felt about that, and
The Globe and Mail said that I had been demoted, and I said, I feel so bad
about this, I went out and bought my wife a new car.
I
have already said I sat in cabinet for four years and Treasury Board for the
four years, and winning a point is difficult in Treasury Board or in
cabinet. I sat there year after year,
and week after week in trying to win a point. I never won, I very seldom won. I complained about it to my colleague, my
seat mate the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) one day and he said, well,
just think how good you are going to feel when you finally win one.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
I think
that I occasionally voiced some objections to the recommendations that were
brought into Treasury Board and the recommendations that were brought into
cabinet, but as I said before, it did not much help.
An Honourable Member: But you felt better.
Mr. Neufeld: Yes, it makes you feel a lot better.
You
have asked me about multiculturalism. I
have to preface this by saying these are my own comments, these are my own
thoughts.
After
last year, Mr. Speaker, I had racial comments left on my answering
machine. I had graffiti on my
doors. I take that as a bit of an
affront, but I will tell you some of the things that I disagree with in our
cultural policies.
Let
us take one, let us take student prayer.
That is something that we have had in our schools for a long time. It is something that I would like to see
continue, but because of our immigration policies and because of so many people
coming in, we think we have to change that.
It is going to be changed, and I think that is a sad commentary on our
school boards. It is a sad commentary on
our governments.
I
think that when somebody comes into your country, they accept your rules. This is the only country in the world that is
prepared to invite somebody, and we invite them gladly to come to our country,
and then ask them to change our laws for us.
The
other thing that I object to is something that I think is traditionally and
culturally Canadian. We have precious
little culture, we are a very young country, but we have one. We have the RCMP. We have had movies made of the RCMP. RCMP are recognized, if not everywhere in the
world, at least everywhere in
Mr.
Speaker, before we talk about the budget, I would also like to talk a little
about Conawapa. Much has been said about
Conawapa in this House; much has been said about the supposed early start, but
let us put this into perspective. In
1989, our best advice was that by the year 1999 we would require additional
energy for our own use. A decision then
had to be taken: How are we going to get
that? We could go to Wuskwatim or we
could go to Conawapa. Wuskwatim had 350
megawatts of energy; Conawapa had 1,350.
If we go with Conawapa, we have to sell 1,000 megawatts. We decided that because Conawapa would have
the least environmental damage we should go there, provided we could sell the
excess energy produced for the years in which we would have excess.
* (1740)
We
entered into negotiations with Ontario Hydro, and the prerequisite was that, in
the event that it was not needed for our own use, if we had overestimated the
absorption rate, it must still provide us with a profit. The price had to be such that it would be
moneymaking regardless, and it did indeed.
The price we got from Ontario Hydro did indeed, and will indeed, give us
a profit, regardless of whether it was needed for our own use or not.
What
happened after that? Well, Mr. Speaker,
we entered into a diversity exchange agreement with several utilities in the
United States that gave us an additional‑‑I cannot recall now the
number, but 200 megawatts of power, which at that time was an additional two
years of absorption.
The
next thing that happened was that we entered into conservation programs. Also, what happened at the same time was a
recession. Combined, it was determined
by the Manitoba Hydro people that we would not need Conawapa for our own use
until about the year 2005. But, in the
year 2005, we regain 500 megawatts from the northern states power sale, which
begins in May of 1993, which gives us an additional five years. So the year for the next generation was never
2010. If we got by 2005, we could get to
2010. The absorption has now been
decreased to about 83 megawatts per year, which gives us an additional comfort
level, or a different reserve level.
Mr.
Speaker, we have entered into an agreement with Ontario Hydro. That agreement may not be broken; that
agreement cannot be broken without their consent. Consequently, we are not in a position to go
back and say we can defer Conawapa until the year 2009, because we need 1,000
megawatts for Ontario Hydro.
Another
factor that should be considered, Mr. Speaker, is that by the year 2005 or by
the year 2000 probably and 2001 or 2002, we will know what we have
available. We will know the new
absorption requirements, and we can then go out and sell the excess power we
have. We no longer are held captive by
the southern market. We will have two
highways. We will have east and west and
we will have north and south. So we can
then get the best price possible for the excess power we have.
I
do believe that in spite of the fact it will not be needed for our own use by
the time we bring it into service, we will have a good deal for the
I
would like to say one thing, and this is again about politics. Unless we make the kind of difficult
decisions we were elected to make and rely instead on polls for decision
making, we are only politicians. I would
like to repeat that, because I think we are all guilty. All in this House are guilty of politicizing
the work we do in this House. Unless we
make the kind of difficult decisions we were elected to make and rely instead
on polls for decision making, we are only politicians. I do not know who said that, but I read it
some place. I thought it appropriate for
some of us in this Chamber.
An Honourable Member: You are reading your own Hansard.
Mr. Neufeld: I missed that one.
Mr.
Speaker, on the 17th of February we had an emergency debate on the
economy. A number of members on the
opposite benches got up and talked about their views on what should happen,
what the government should do. A number
of you started your comments by saying, I am not an economist and then went on
for 15 minutes to prove it.
I
will read some of the comments that were made.
We have an opportunity here to provide each and every member of the
Chamber an opportunity to stand up and to put forward good ideas in terms of
how we can get the
Now
that is an idea. We have to start
putting party politics to the side and start contributing in a much more
positive, unpolitical, apolitical fashion in terms of how we get
You
can read it. You have to be active in
creation of competitive products.
Now,
I think that is a very good statement.
We have to be active in creating competitive products, but how do we do
that? Not by increasing our productivity costs, and this is what we have done
more often than not in this country.
What
costs? What are productivity costs? What is inflation? Inflation is where the costs exceed the
productivity of manufacturing a product.
I have heard a lot said from opposite benches of job creation. Governments should create jobs, and I have
heard a lot from opposite benches about, we need more manufacturing jobs. Well, I do not know, somebody will have to
clue me in on how a part‑time job created for the purposes of getting us
started will help us get manufacturing jobs.
I will tell you what I think causes‑‑[interjection]
I am not an economist either. I am a
very practical person, and I will tell you what I think causes recessions. Recessions are caused because industry
manufactures until there is an oversupply, and then people stop buying. People stop buying for various reasons: they have run out of credit, they have run
out of cash, but they stop.
Once
the slide starts, and retailers start going back on inventory, warehouses,
wholesalers start reducing inventory, and manufacturers want to sell their
product off their yard, and they stop manufacturing. Now the whole thing starts all over again. We
have now a condition of people laid off, and we have a scare. That, in my view,
is what causes recessions. How do we get
out of it?
We
cannot look back and blame others. We
cannot go back and say, here is what caused it.
We have to find out what we can do in order to get out of it. To get out of it we have to have a climate
which will encourage people to invest in our province.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Neufeld: The member for
* (1750)
If
we believe that in the poor times and bad times, governments must spend more
than they have got, then surely it follows that in good times governments must
spend less than that. Now the cupboard
was bare. In the good times, the
governments of the day perhaps overspent, and there was nothing left to kick
start the economy when the recession hit.
I
do believe that is probably the principal reason why governments are not in the
position to do things. I am not so
certain that would work in any event.
Getting somebody to cut grass, getting somebody to shovel snow is not
going to start the economy, kick start the economy. What you have to have is manufacturing
jobs. What you have to have is the full
cycle, and you do not have the full cycle with part‑time jobs or, as the
former government believed, that pouring money at it would make it disappear.
The
former government would spend money on what they called job creation. I have seen many green signs in my
constituency at the time when the former Minister of Finance was a member for
that constituency. We saw many green
signs, job funds, but what were the monies used for. The monies were used for members of a
particular community club or members of a particular church, or members of a
particular golf course doing the work, and those were the monies that were
reimbursed. These were not new jobs, these
were simply monies put out to ensure the re‑election of the Minister of
Finance of the day.
Mr.
Speaker, we have done many things in our generation, and I can go back further
than anybody else in this Chamber. We
have done many things that we should not be very proud of. We have done many things that our children
and grandchildren are going to be paying for.
An Honourable Member: Start bringing down the deficit.
Mr. Neufeld: Deficits are only one of them and the things
that are causing deficits. Our children
will pay for the deficits incurred by the former government. Our children will pay for the deficits that
we are now incurring. Let us talk about
the millions of dollars they will be paying over and above the deficits that we
incur.
Pay
equity is one of the stupidest things that has ever been brought in by any
government. You have consultants coming
in and saying, this job is worth as much as this job, regardless of the fact
that a union has negotiated a contract for this job and has negotiated a
contract for this job, regardless of the fact that an employer in the
marketplace is paying the going rate for this job and an employer in the
marketplace is paying for this job.
What
do the two jobs have to do with each other?
There is nothing. There is
nothing in common except for some idiot claiming that these jobs are similar in
value. I will give you some
examples. At Manitoba Hydro they decided
that a clerical position was worth the same as a lineman. A lineman takes three years of training, a
clerical position does not take three years of training. Why did they say this? They came in and decided that each, if they
would make a trip to the counter, is a stress situation, and every time a clerk
makes a trip to the counter there is a stress situation. The lineman may only have one or two in the
winter when he has to go out in a blizzard, but a clerk here has to go three
and four times a day. There were so many
stress situations that the two jobs were deemed equal. What happened?
We
had an instance in one of our offices where a young female clerk wished to
upgrade. She spent seven years upgrading
her education and got a promotion only to have the young female clerk who took
her place get her pay raised to within $1 a week of what this one got. That is what pay equity did for us.
Pay
equity, we have not heard the end of it.
The contracts that will come up will deal with pay equity, and we will
pay dearly for it, and we cannot afford it any longer.
Indexed
pensions, there is nobody that can afford indexed pensions, nobody can afford
them. [interjection] What you do not understand, and you probably never will,
the government's own actuaries say that for an indexed pension, for defined
pension to work, you have to place 18 percent of the income into a pension plan
each and every year, and that takes into account a gradual increase in wage
scale‑‑18 percent.
The
employee now pays in 6 percent plus 1 percent for the indexing and that leaves
11 percent which the employer in the end is going to pay. Who is going to pay it? We had an apparition in the early '80s where
investments were paying 18 percent and 19 percent, 19.5 percent in
interest. That is why there were
surpluses in the plan. Now we are
getting 6 percent, 6.5 percent, 6.75 percent, and we will not have that. We will not have those. It will not work that way, and I think that
if you put it down on paper you will find that out yourself.
The
other thing that is going to hurt us immensely is affirmative action.
An Honourable Member: Hitting all the spots today.
Mr. Neufeld: I hope to, I hope to. Affirmative action will, at a time when we
need our best talent, we are saying, do not worry about the best talent, you
have quotas for hiring. How do you
suppose we are going to get our best people if we have quotas for this group,
quotas for this group, quotas for this group, quotas for this group? It will not work.
You
cannot force somebody to do something that they are incapable of doing. Those people who have not got a talent are
forced into positions that they cannot do because we have quotas.
I
do not care if you are thinking of visible minorities‑‑and I am a
minority group myself‑‑whether you are thinking about women, you
have problems if you have quotas. I
talked to one of your members several years ago, and he said we do not have
quotas, we have enforced targets. Give
me a break.
It
is very difficult to set quotas for various, be they cultural groups. You cannot do it. You hire the best people available. Is it going to give you the best talent? I come from a discipline, Mr. Speaker, that
is 50 percent female, and there is no problem with that because they work just
as hard and just as well as the men do.
My daughter is a chartered accountant, and her comments have been that
affirmative action should not be a substitute for busting your butt. All too often that becomes a substitute for
busting your butt because I have a quota.
You have to hire me because I am of a minority group or I am a
woman. It cannot happen that way.
I
will read you something for your edification.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) will have 11 minutes
remaining.
The
hour being 6 p.m., this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30
p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).