Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and the proposed motion of the honourable Leader of the official opposition in amendment thereto, and the proposed motion of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) in further amendment thereto, standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River, who has 35 minutes remaining.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, we have heard members on this side of the House comment on this budget and describe it as a heartless and cynical budget and I must say that I have to agree, and that is the feeling of many people in my constituency.

Rather than thinking about the impact of this budget on people in Manitoba, this government is looking at this budget as how it would fit into the electoral cycle and how they can build up some surpluses in their rainy day funds that they would be able to bring a good-news budget forward during an election year. Quite frankly, that is very cynical when you think about what is happening to people in rural Manitoba and across the province as a result of the cuts to services that we have seen from this government. The only good news in this budget is breaks for business. There are no breaks for the average Manitoban in this budget.

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade, and Tourism): The average Manitoban is not in business?

Ms. Wowchuk: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism says: is not the average Manitoban in business? The average Manitoban is not at the level where they have a million-dollar payroll, and they are going to get the break on the payroll tax.

Mr. Downey: You do not want anybody to get any breaks, eh?

Ms. Wowchuk: The minister says we do not want anybody to get any breaks. We want people to be treated fairly, and I want to see more equality across this province than we have from this government. I want to see this government offer a hand to the people who are at the bottom of the scale, rather than looking after their friends who are at the top of the scale. That is what we have from this government. They are looking after their friends; they are not looking after the average Manitoban. There are many cases that we will see that. We see the cuts that they have made in many, many areas, and we see this government operating on a garage-sale mentality where they will sell off anything in order to ensure that they can meet their commitment to their balanced budget legislation.

(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)

We saw them sell off Manitoba Telephone System because they just believed that it was the right thing to do and because they wanted to meet their commitment to balanced budget legislation, and now we are starting to see the impacts of this sale. Just today, we see that pay phones are going to be closed down because they are not profitable. Well, that is the real reason for keeping Manitoba Telephone and these kinds of services within the public sector, so we can have equality amongst people. My colleague from Point Douglas raised a very good point. Does it mean that pay phones in the inner city, the only phones that people have, are going to be closed down because they are not profitable?

I have a pay phone in my constituency in the community of Baden, which is just about the only phone in that community. There are only about 20 families living in that community, but it is a very low income community, they cannot afford phones. Does that mean that this pay phone is going to be taken out because it is not profitable, and that is what this government supports, that is how this government works to bring equality to people? Does this mean that, in many remote areas where the cost of bringing services to people is very expensive, they are going to have higher telephone bills or else they are going to lose their services? That is what this government does and that is how this government works to widen the margin between the poor and the rich in this province.

This government has to recognize that there are many people who are less fortunate than members of the opposite bench, many people who are less fortunate than those of us that are on this side of the House, but we as legislators have the responsibility to ensure that we are not discriminating against people just because they are less fortunate than we are. What we have to do is ensure that we give them that opportunity to take the next step up or that their children have that opportunity to take that next step up. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is not what has happened.

When we look at what this government has done, we can see that they are completely cynical in their commitment to aboriginal people, completely cynical in their commitment to children, and completely cynical to people who are on social assistance. What they are doing is driving these people further into the ground.

Let us look at some of the statistics. There is a million dollars for Making Welfare Work, a program that was cut $2.6 million last year, and $8 million taken from social assistance recipients last year has not been restored. Neither has the $10-million cut from income maintenance last year. In fact, income supplements for low income families and for seniors has been lowered by half a millions dollars. There is half a million dollars from the children's initiative and $2.3 million from the Child Maintenance and External Agencies. Our children are our most precious resource, but what has this government done to support child care? They have taken over $4 million out from the daycare program.

Many of the people that I represent are First Nations people. I want to share with you my concerns for how this government has been treating First Nations people. Again, they say that they care about this but they have cut many, many programs that will help First Nations people to play the role that they want in this community. We often hear members across the way say the most important thing is a job for people. But what is this government doing to help aboriginal people who are part of the highest unemployment? Their statistics on unemployment are higher than anywhere else.

* (1110)

What have they done? They have taken money from the very programs that have helped, and over the years. It all did not happen this year but we have to look back at the record of this government and what they have done over the years for aboriginal people. Let us look at some examples. They eliminated the Northern Youth Core Jobs program in 1989. They eliminated New Careers. They ended funding to friendship centres. They ended grants to MKO and AMC. Access, which is a very good program, was cut by $2 million in 1994 and a further $1.4 million in 1995. They have never, never spent the million dollars set aside for the AJI initiatives.

So you see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is quite discouraging to see what kind of lip service this government pays but what they actually do. That is why the words "heartless" and "cynical" are very good descriptions of this budget.

But I would like to talk about a few areas that affect my constituency more closely. One of them is the need for investment in highways, particularly after we have seen the Crow eliminated, and we are going to see a much greater shift of traffic onto roads. We have not seen the increase from this government to put money into roads. Now, I guess they have put money into the rainy day fund and perhaps in a few years time, when the election is called, we will see a big kafuffle about all the money that is going into highways. We cannot wait that long. We need those roads upgraded now. It is very important to the economy of rural Manitoba and to the economy of the North.

Some of the communities that I represent have a very serious shortage of housing. We have heard about what is happening in Shamattawa. The conditions in my communities are not nearly as serious, but they are serious, and there are long waiting lists for housing, very serious need for repairs to homes. But those programs are not there now, and we are having a lower standard of living. If the government believes in people, they should be putting money into these programs, into housing, into ensuring that people have a standard of living that is equal to other people.

By giving people the opportunity to live in a decent house, we raise the standard of living. People then have the ability to learn. Young children have a better chance as they grow up and play their role here in this province. We do not want them to have to leave the province. We want to give them the tools to play a role, whether it is in this province, whether it is to give them the tools to get into business as this government says is so important, but let us help these people. Let us not drive them further into the ground, as we are seeing from this government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to raise a couple of issues and one of them is in the area of environment. I hope that the Minister of Environment (Mr. McCrae) will listen to this. I am quite disappointed in the activities that we have seen from the Department of Environment, or lack of activity from them, and I believe part of it is lack of funding. There are not enough environmental officers in place to do the work that has to be done.

Yesterday I raised an issue with the Minister of Environment with respect to Louisiana-Pacific dumping their waste on farmland and on riverbanks without having the environmental licence. Of course, the first thing that came back was oh, well, you are against jobs. I have to tell you that is not the case at all. All of us want jobs, and I have to say that in the Swan River Valley, Louisiana-Pacific has been very important to the economy of the area.

In the last year there has been an increase. There have been problems as well. The low price they are paying the operators in the bush is a concern and many people have gone into business and lost their business, made big investments. So I think that is something that has to be addressed. I think there is a role for government to work through that maybe but whether there is role or not government has to be aware that there is a problem.

The other problem that has arisen is the fact that the government made a commitment before they signed the Louisiana-Pacific agreement that small sawmill operators would not be put out of business. I have raised this issue with the Department of Natural Resources many times, and I have asked them to find some way to work this through. The government, last year, allocated some additional permits, and those people who bought those permits are facing serious difficulties because where they have been put to cut wood, they are not able to get saw logs.

Now, again, I believe it is the government that made the mistake. They have overallocated the wood. There is not enough wood to ensure that the small sawmill operators can operate, and if there is the wood that they say there is there they have to find a way to work through this. We do not want to see small sawmill operators put out of business.

I have digressed from where I wanted to be which was on the environment and the lack of funding for environment. I found it quite amazing to read the newspaper article this morning where the Minister of Environment said, oh, Wowchuk contacted his staff to alert them of her concerns but did not tell them where the waste was being dumped. Well, pardon me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that is the job of the Environment, to find out where the waste is dumped, but in actual fact what the minister said in the newspaper is not true, because in February, I believe on February 12, I called the Department of Environment, and I confirmed it with both people that I spoke to today that I told them where the sites were.

But the problem here is that the minister is trying to say I did not tell him where the sites were, but in actual fact what he should be dealing with is whether or not Louisiana-Pacific has approval to dump these wastes. That is the issue I raised with him. That is the issue he has to address. He is trying to make it seem like all of a sudden it is my responsibility to be letting the department know where the waste is being dumped. That is what we have a Department of Environment for. That is what we have a Minister of Environment for, to be in control of what is going on.

From what you can see here, it is a very weak agreement that has been signed and there are loopholes in it that allow these kinds of things to happen. I think the government has to look back at what they have done. The people are concerned because there is waste being put on riverbanks that could be pushed downstream. The minister says it has been cleaned up. In actual fact, it has not been cleaned up. The dumping is continuing in sloughs and in gullies, and they have to get control of it.

I talked to the people from Indian Birch this morning. Indian Birch is a reserve on Swan Lake. All of the water from the West Favel River, the Swan River, the Roaring River all drain into Swan Lake and then into Lake Winnipegosis. All the spawning from this lake takes place on the Roaring River and I believe on the West Favel River, so it is a real concern as to whether or not there is going to be any detrimental effect of these wood chips washing down the river. Our information is that it will be, and that is why we have raised this issue with the minister to ensure that it is corrected.

This is not an attempt to shut down Louisiana-Pacific--one issue like this could not--but we have to look at their environmental record. The government knows their record, and they have to ensure that things are being done properly and our environment is not suffering. We always hear this government talk about sustainability. Well, this is not sustainable to put waste on riverbanks and then risk losing something else in our whole ecosystem. We cannot allow this to happen. I would urge the Minister of Environment to look at the budget he has here and look at ways that he can ensure that there are enough people in place to get a handle on these things and not let them get out of hand, as we have.

* (1120)

The department knew about this early in February. Spring runoff is starting very soon, and it has not been addressed. I checked with the department this morning. It is not acceptable to put these wood chips into sloughs. The department should get their act together and get out to that area and stop it and be sure that it is handled properly. It is safe, I am told, to put it in bedding for livestock. That is fine as long as that bedding is not going in areas close to riverbeds; it is then going to wash downstream. Those are serious problems that the department has to address.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to also touch on a couple of other areas, one of them being the Department of Agriculture. I must say that, when you look at what has been happening overall by this department over the last few years, we continue to see a reduction in their spending in agriculture. I must say that I was pleased that the department saw fit to put some money into agriculture research, and I look forward to seeing how this money will be distributed and what research is going to be done, because we most certainly must be doing more research in agriculture.

We called on the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) to put the surplus of GRIP, which I believe the Manitoba share is around $11 million and the federal share is much higher, and I know that the minister will tell us that that money is required to go back into general revenue. I do believe that the minister does have enough--I would hope he has enough--influence in cabinet to point out to his colleagues how important agriculture research is, particularly at this time when we are going through change because of changes to the Crow, and other things, that we must be doing more research than we are doing. We are falling way behind other provinces. Saskatchewan has taken the lead and has done some excellent work. We must ensure that we have the resources to keep scientists and other people here in this province to do research that is very relevant to our province.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I look at the revenues for the Department of Agriculture, I see that they anticipated $692,000 last year which was supposed to come from the sale of elk, which did not happen, and now we anticipate there will be $1.6-million revenue to the Department of Agriculture and, again, I understand that is going to be from the sale of elk. I want to say that I think the government has handled this whole issue of elk ranching very badly, and I think they should be going back to the drawing board and reconsidering what they are doing. When we look back at the history of what has happened in this province over the past 10 years, it is quite disgraceful. Although elk ranching was supposed to have ended, we see from records that there have been hundreds of elk being sold out of the province anyway.

Mr. Downey: What was your brother doing anyway? Favouring his own kind up there? How many in your backyard?

Ms. Wowchuk: The government really lost control of what was going on and they are now capturing elk from the wild. Had the government been really interested in elk ranching they could have--

Mr. Downey: I do not have any elk.

Ms. Wowchuk: I see the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism getting very sensitive about this issue, because I guess some of his friends must be very closely tied to the industry as well and got special permission to get permits, as I understand it. The actions that this government is taking, the result will be a depletion of a very important resource to this province. But this government, you see, is willing to sell anything. They are willing to sell our telephone system to balance their budget.

They are willing to sell our elk because they think they can make money on it. I wonder what is next. Are they going to be willing to sell our bear and our deer? What next are they willing to sell? Or maybe it is Manitoba Hydro that they think they can sell next. Somewhere you have to draw the line and ensure that our natural resources are protected. We do not support this government and what they are doing. I would encourage them to go back to the drawing board. We have asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) to really review what has been going on.

Why have some people, when there was not supposed to be any elk ranching in this province, been allowed to build up so many animals and exploit our natural resources so badly? Why did they allow the sale of these animals to go on? Why did they let this happen? People were paid off and told that they would not be able to have elk, yet this government continued to issue permits to let them sell them. So I think that they have really handled this badly, and I think that it should be ended.

Now, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) keeps referring to my brother. Well, I have to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my brother was the person who was responsible for ending elk ranching in this province, but this government when they took over did not carry through.

Mr. Downey: He introduced it on Friday and closed it on Monday.

Ms. Wowchuk: They did not carry through.

Mr. Downey: Did not end it in Swan River, did he?

Ms. Wowchuk: They brought in the legislation to end it. This government, which took over, did not carry through. This government has had no control of the elk industry in this province or of wildlife for the past 10 years.

You know, there is a special investigation unit that is supposed to follow up with things in the Department of Natural Resources. But they will follow up on bear galls--and I am glad they did because I do not think anybody should exploit the bear--but when the special investigation unit could be following up with what is happening with elk, they are told not to do their work. So what is the point of putting a special investigation unit into place?

Mr. Deputy Speaker, getting back to the budget, I think that this government has not recognized--they are more interested in bottom line and building up a rainy day fund so they can have money in place when the election is called. They should take a lesson from Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan brought in a budget, and they cared about people in their budget. But this budget cares more about business friends of government and nothing about the people at the bottom of the scale. This budget does nothing to ensure that hungry children are going to be fed. This budget and the activities of this government are not going to ensure that people in this province have the ability to communicate, because now that they have privatized telephones many people may not have telephone service.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, come on.

Ms. Wowchuk: Come on, come on. We are seeing what is happening under the privatization of Manitoba Telephones.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable member to put her comments through the Chair. It will help the decorum, and we will not have to get into direct debate.

The honourable member, to continue.

Ms. Wowchuk: And through you I want to say how disappointed I am in what this government has done and what the impact of their sale of Manitoba Telephone is just starting to show. I know that there are many other pay phones that are not profitable that are going to be shut down as a result of this. [interjection] As they should be, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) says.

Well, I do not agree with him. I think that we should have pay phones in communities where people cannot afford to have a phone in their home. As I indicated earlier, I have one community where the only phone they have is a pay phone, and it may not be very profitable, but it is a lifeline for that community. It is the phone they use to call the ambulance when there is a crisis, and that is what this government wants to shut down.

An Honourable Member: It was probably put in under our term of office.

Ms. Wowchuk: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was not put through this government's term of office. It was under the NDP. In fact, it was when our Leader was the Minister responsible for Telephones that many of these pay phones were put in for safety in rural communities, and this government is destroying safety for people in this province.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the other issue I want to touch on briefly is on education, and again we see the government pretend that they are raising money in education, but in actual fact they are cutting back and offloading more and more onto the taxpayers. In my constituency, one of the school divisions, it means 2.2 percent of an increase. [interjection] Ah, good question. It is more and more offloading.

This government is more interested in funding private schools, private schools that are not available to the majority. The private schools that are available to those students who have--the private schools do not have to take children with disabilities, while the public schools have to address all of those. This government is cutting back on education funding and making it more difficult for the average person to get an education and making it more difficult for people to get into university.

The other issue that I think is very important when we look at Manitoba Telephone is distance education. Distance education is very important in remote communities, and we are not seeing this government support it as they should. One of the areas that they have not supported it is in the Swan Valley School Division. Swan Valley School Division has worked very hard and has tried to get first-year distance education into the school, but it could not get approval from this government.

* (1130)

They worked out a special deal with Manitoba Telephone to get some service in there, but now under a private system it is less likely that we will be able to access those services and be able to offer courses to people in our community. Distance education for city members may not seem important, but rural members, I am sure, understand what it costs to send a child to university, particularly with increased tuition fees that we have right now. To have the ability to offer some additional courses right in the community is very important, but the government does not recognize that and now the change to Manitoba Telephone System will further take that ability away from our young people to get an education. So I have to say that we had expected much more from this government in this throne speech.

We had expected, because they had said and we know that the economy is doing well, they would consider putting money into services for people rather than to continue to cut back and put money into their rainy day fund. So I have to say that it is a disappointing budget. It is a heartless budget, one that does not address the concerns of people.

There is one other issue that people across rural Manitoba have been talking about an awful lot and that is the rural stress line which is also a tool of safety, but this government does not recognize safety or the importance of giving the opportunity for rural Manitobans to access services, and they refuse to put that money in. They refuse. It is a preventative health issue. It is an issue for rural Manitobans. Surely between the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) and the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), they could have found the money to ensure that that line would operate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are many other issues that we could be addressing, but I know that my time is running out, so I would like to say that I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak on the budget. I am disappointed in the contents of the budget, and will continue to raise issues on behalf of my constituents to ensure that this government does recognize that there are needs out there far beyond what they have addressed in this budget.

Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I consider it an honour to speak on a budget such as this, a budget that is staying the course and following the vision that has been set for a number of years.

Before I get into my comments about the budget and all its positiveness, I would like to recognize a couple of people that have been supportive and working with me in terms of what I am able to do in my representation of Sturgeon Creek. The representation that I am able to give to this Chamber is through the support of people in my constituency, namely, my president, Brian Le Goff, Jeff Howie, and Scott Fielding, the people that support me in helping the business community of Sturgeon Creek. In most cases, a lot of these people are small businesses that I am working with in the company of these representatives in the Sturgeon Creek constituency, and when we consider the importance of this, it is the small business community that represents 85 percent of the economy which enables us as a government to be able to do the things and to present a budget that we have been able to present here today.

On behalf of the people of Sturgeon Creek, I would like to congratulate not only the present Minister of Finance and my colleague the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson), but also the former member for Morris who set out the vision of this budget some years ago. I think that, as I referenced at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this vision has been followed, and that when we look at it over the next 30 years, it is unfortunate that it is going to take 30 years to develop and to pay down this enormous debt that has been created over a few short number of years. I know that this has been said before, but I think it warrants saying again because the my colleague the honourable member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) has referenced in his remarks on the budget in terms of employing the--of urging the members opposite to support this budget. You know, when I listened to the remarks that this honourable member made, it makes a lot of sense because what we are doing is providing a vision, and I think it is important that we work together on the issues that we have to in order to maintain this course.

When I referenced the fact, which has been said before, prior to 1981, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and if my memory serves me correctly, the number that I have been given in terms of what it cost to service the debt here in Manitoba was some $79 million. This was prior to 1981 when the NDP, under the direction and leadership of Howard Pawley and member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), who was part of that government at that time, and it cost $79 million to service the debt in this province. Now, if we were in the situation today where we had $79 million only to have to pay that debt, the interest, we would be so far ahead in terms of this province, in terms of the health care, the education and the social safety net that we have--the three priorities that we put forth.

It is interesting to note that when Manitoba--going back to the days of Confederation in the late 1800s--through that $79-million debt, we created an infrastructure that we have today--universities, roads, highways. All the things that we have today and up until 1981 were created by governments that only incurred a debt that cost only $79 million to support. During six years that $79-million cost to service that debt ballooned to $550 million. I do not know how the NDP can sit in their places and speak to a budget as this and not remember what went on, because those members under the leadership of the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) know very well and should be telling his members what a good budget this is, because he lived through the times when the economies were generating revenues that we will probably never see in our lifetime as members of this Legislature.

They criticize a budget that has a vision and has an opportunity to correct the wrongs that they have created in six short years. I think that is really disappointing from my point of view in terms of the people who I have to represent and the people who I have to stand here for and say that we have to be responsible for the money that we have and the money that we have to spend. I talk about this as being a historic budget because this is, as we know, the first attack on the province's $13-billion general purpose debt since the 1950s. I think that is a real mark in history when we can start to do the things that were created and, for the most part, occurred over a period of six short years.

* (1140)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think for the first time in a generation a surplus for three years running is also a real achievement in terms of a government because of the revenues that this government has had to function under over the past eight or nine years, 10 years I guess. It is getting onto 10 years. But what we had to function under that, the revenues are under 5 percent compared to what they were going through with the revenues of double digits, in excess of 15 percent, and that is really significant. Then they stand in their places and they criticize. They criticized the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), they criticized the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), for the vision that is being offered. I think these people on the opposite side, they are well intentioned and they are intelligent people. Why can they not support this budget as the honourable member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) has encouraged them to do? It is not unprecedented, but they speak with dissatisfaction and criticism.

We are not living in a perfect world, but I think the Minister of Finance and all my colleagues on this side of the House are trying to do the best that we can. I have to commend my colleagues and the ministers that are responsible and all my colleagues on this side of the House for the vision that we are staying the course on, because that is what the people in Sturgeon Creek support me on, that is what the people, the business community in Sturgeon Creek, which I have a very close association with, they support me on that, and they have difficulty understanding where the opposition is coming from.

Definitely we have challenges to overcome, but we have to spend the money that we have wisely and create the efficiencies within the government to provide the support and the understanding to all people who have challenges. I think that we are never in a lifetime going to be without challenges, and I have no difficulty with challenges.

Soon after I was elected I did not recognize and realize the challenge that I was going to have to face as an elected member, because of the financial changes in my life as an entrepreneur and a small-business person, the sacrifices that I had to make. Those challenges I was able to overcome, so I think that we have to understand in society, and it is not only today but it has been for a lifetime. I mean, even at the beginning of time challenges were there, and if we do not measure up to those challenges and take the responsibility for ourselves, then there is not going to be any growth. I think that the growth has to start from the individuals, the individuals like you and me and all members of this Legislature. If those people cannot understand that, and many of the members opposite seem to be having some difficulty with measuring up to the responsibility and communicating that to their constituents, I think that is a responsibility that they are falling short on.

I think that this budget provides them with a vision that enables them to go out and communicate to their constituents that this is the only way to go. I mean, even yesterday or the day before, when the Saskatchewan government brought down a budget, they recognized the importance of the small business community and what the small business community provides to the economy of this province and this country. I commend the government of Saskatchewan in reducing the sales tax and what it is going to do in terms of creating jobs.

The honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), she referenced the fact that the government there is taking the vision of supporting, or she wants to give the impression that the people, the poor people and the people that have not in the province of Saskatchewan are being looked after, but what it says here: "Saskatchewan budget trims sales tax" in the Winnipeg Free Press, Friday, March 21, when they complain about the budget or they reference the budget: "Social activists complained the budget had no money for low-income families."

See, the people across the way have to understand that, in order for the low income people to experience and appreciate wealth, they are not the ones that are going to create the wealth. It is not the governments that are going to create the wealth for the poor people. It is the small business community and the businesses that are being supported by the big corporations. I mean, there is a hierarchy in the business community in terms of creating certain levels of wealth, and it stops from the top. It is a pyramid. It stops from the top with the big corporations who are supported by the small businesses, because if it was not for the big corporations the small businesses would be nonexistent. They would have nothing to work for. It is people who are working for these small businesses which represent 85 percent of our economy in the province of Manitoba, and probably across the whole country, that have the opportunity to work in these small businesses to earn a respectable income, to feel good about themselves, to pay taxes, to live in our communities and to do all those things. The opposition members criticize that; they want governments to provide handouts to the people.

In Question Period today, they talked about the Odd Fellows' Home in Charleswood, that it is going to be closed down. I had the same experience with the Kiwanis Courts that the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) had a certain amount of experience with and a certain amount of knowledge. The same thing existed there at the Kiwanis Courts. Now, if he were to come out there on behalf of all his caucus members and see what has taken place out at the Kiwanis Courts, he would have an appreciation for what is going to have to be done for the Odd Fellows community and the seniors in that facility. None of us want to see these people uprooted. He talked about the 80- and 90- and 100-year-old people. The member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) referenced these elderly citizens, and that they were uprooted. [interjection] Yes, it was. But I would sooner have them put into a safe place than go through the construction and the demise and the frustration. I would sooner have them move to a safe place and a comfortable place rather than going through that stress, and I think that is the right thing to do.

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

* (1150)

So I think that it is important that the members find some reason to support, because the people in Sturgeon Creek know very well that the opposition members are forever criticizing. Frankly, the people in Sturgeon Creek, for the most part, are getting very tired of that. They are getting tired of the continual criticism and not finding good in anything as far as this government is concerned, nothing positive, doom and gloom. I think it is unfortunate that we have an opposition that will take that course, because I think all they are doing is they are an ineffective opposition when they find nothing that they can grab a hold of and show some positive vision as this government is doing.

Madam Speaker, the NDP legacy, when they talk about tax increases during their reign in government, primarily in those six years, increased the payroll tax to 2.25 percent which crippled the small business economies of this province, increased the retail sales tax from 5 percent to 7 percent, which added another burden on not only the business community but also on the poor people because they also had to cough up more money which they did not have. It is interesting that the reference in the Saskatchewan budget that a person making $50,000 will save something like $200 a year as a result of reducing the sales tax in Saskatchewan from 9 percent to 7 percent, and we realize on this side of the House to some people that is a significant amount of money

They introduced the personal net income tax and surtax which has been crippling so many people in terms of their achievements and in terms of their goals, and they increased the corporate income tax from 15 percent to 17 percent, and they increased the gasoline tax, they increased the diesel fuel tax, and they introduced land transfer tax. This total tax increase to Manitoba taxpayers during the years of '82 to '87 was approximately $820 million.

Now what our government has done, and I quote the Scotiabank: Physical prudence does pay off and Manitoba is the better for it. CIBC Wood Gundy writes: Manitoba has delivered a budget that will live up to the high standing granted to the province by the financial markets. The Union Bank of Switzerland review said: The budget is better than we expected; this budget is full of good news. The Winnipeg Free Press recently read: The 1997 budget realizes the full potential of the competent, conventional, conservative management Manitobans have become accustomed to under Premier Gary Filmon.

I think that the honourable members across the way should take heed of what these people are saying, the leaders of the financial industry of this country and this world. The quotable quotes by the NDP, members opposite during debate on Bill 2 with regard to the balanced budget, The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act, they said a number of very entertaining quotes. The member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) even said that government members were embarrassed by this legislation. The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) referred to the balanced budget as trickery and called the legislation inflexible. A 30-year debt repayment plan is not inflexible and provisions exist in the legislation to deal with unforeseen drops in revenue. How is that inflexible?

I suspect that members opposite are fearful that if they ever made it to government, they would be forced to abandon their tax and spending policies and actually have to recognize that Manitobans cannot provide an infinite source of revenue--just like their counterparts in Saskatchewan.

Examples of how our economy has turned around. With regard to the economic growth, the Conference Board expects Manitoba's economy to grow 2.8 percent this year. The national average forecast is only 1.6 percent.

When we talk about jobs, which create the economy and which put bread and butter on the tables of not only the rich but also the poor, it brings to mind the 1993 campaign of the Liberal Party when they campaigned on their platform on jobs. When they campaigned on the matter of jobs, it is really funny today, after 1993--so that is four years and a government that has been in government for four years--

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Boniface, on a point of order.

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, I think that if the member for Sturgeon Creek wants some information, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) from this government and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the minister of infrastructures are in Room 254, he could get some good information for job creation from the two ministers. Thank you very much.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Boniface does not have a point of order.

Mr. McAlpine: Madam Speaker, you know, it is interesting that the member for St. Boniface, whom I respect for his opinion--I cannot always agree with what he is saying--but when he considers that the unemployment situation today, compared to when the Liberals took office in 1993, has increased, I can understand why he would want to make something up to enhance the position of his Liberal counterparts in Ottawa. That is really stretching the truth considerably, but in terms of Manitoba, and I do not want to be federal bashing or anything like that, but I think that people today are not stupid.

The people in Sturgeon Creek and all the constituencies that we represent in this province, they know what is going on and they know when Mr. Chretien decides that he is going to call an election fairly soon. I hope they will remember what Mr. Chretien campaigned on the last time, and the Liberal government, because jobs were the big issue, and it was an important factor in terms of our economy in this country at that time. They have failed miserably. I hope the people will remember that they have failed and that they will look to the vision that has been provided and the vision that this province is setting the way, not only to other provinces like Saskatchewan, who have followed with their budget in terms of the examples that we are setting out, but the federal government too can take some lessons from this government and this Finance minister with this budget because we are setting the way. I think that they recognize, the federal Liberals recognize that they have to do something about it more than just talk about and making promises that they cannot keep because people today understand what the real world is doing and the direction that it is going to go, and all they are looking for is some honest leadership.

* (1200)

We have in this province, with the vision that this budget offers, been able to provide that. I mean we have walked our talk in terms of the vision that was first set out by the former Minister of Finance, the Honourable Clayton Manness the former member for Morris, because nearly 24,000 new jobs have been created between January 1996 and January 1997 in this province. That 541,400 employment rate today is an all-time high and we recognize on this side of the House how important that is because that is what creates the economy, that is what creates the wealth in any province or any country.

We have to support those kinds of things, in addition to spending wisely and creating the efficiencies within government, and to give that message not only to the people who are working with these companies and these industries. They have to understand and I think for the most part people are subscribing and following the direction that we are going. The member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), she referenced in her speech to this budget, she said that they represent 58 percent. What hogwash. They represent 58 percent in this province, they speak for them, that is nothing but a bunch of hogwash. How can they, in their own clear mind, with any common sense at all, think that they represent 58 percent of this province's population, and that we as government represent 42 percent? The Liberals represent a certain percentage. I think from that aspect, when she talks about representing 58 percent of the population of this province, and that they speak as members, boy are they--

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): She means the opposition.

Mr. McAlpine: The member for Brandon East says she means the opposition. You do not represent 58 percent of the population of Manitoba. You represent 58 percent, along with the Liberals, of the popular vote. And what is 58 percent? Of what? Fifty-eight percent of what? Sixty percent or 70 percent? I do not portray to be a mathematician, and I can see that the member for Brandon East should not portray that himself either, but I think that we have to understand that for us to give messages like that to the people of Manitoba, the only people that you are discrediting are yourselves. The people out there are not that stupid I would remind the member for Brandon East. He has been in here for a long time, and I do not understand why he has not learned that. The people out there in Manitoba know what is going on, and they are supporting, for the most part, this budget. It is only the misdirection that the opposition is giving to these people and that the media is picking up that is giving the opposition some support, putting a cloud out there because it is news that can be printed and creates reactions. That is not what people need.

People need a solid, stable, competent, visionary government which we are providing not only with this budget but in all departments of this government. The Department of Education, my colleague and neighbour constituency and personal friend--I mean these are things that--those are the commitments that the people in her constituency recognize, the dedication, and not government-bashing like the opposition is doing all the time.

We talk about creating jobs, and the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) supported the federal counterparts when they campaigned in 1993 on creating jobs, and they were elected on that primarily, but today Manitoba's unemployment rate is among the lowest in the country at 6.7 percent. That is three full percentage points below the national average.

What has the Liberal government in Canada, Mr. Chretien and his government, achieved? They are going backwards. The member for Brandon East, you know, chirps from his seat, but he had his opportunity between 1982 and 1988 and long before that, but what did he do?

What he did was he ballooned our debt that cost from $79 million--he drove it from $79 million to $550 million, and he is proud of that? He talks about the Jobs Fund. Where are those jobs today, I ask the honourable member for Brandon East? Where was their vision? It was dead in 1988.

Manitoba's youth employment, Madam Speaker, has reached an all-time high. The rate is the second lowest among the provinces and almost five percentage points lower than the national average, which supports my argument again. The Liberal government campaigned in 1993, and I remind them of that. They campaigned on jobs, but they are five percentage points--they have not done what is necessary to create employment, and the opposition members do not get it yet. They do not get the message yet. It is the small business communities that create the opportunity for jobs in any economy, but, instead of supporting them, they taxed them. They taxed them to death.

Madam Speaker, agriculture in this province is probably on the verge of a real breakthrough. In 1996, farm cash receipts reached $2.8 billion, a fifth consecutive record, and the total receipts rose 13.2 percent, double the national average and the highest level since 1979. Important expansions were announced by major employers such as J. M. Schneider and Canadian Agra Corporation, and I think that the agriculture future in this province has to be talked about and has to be given some credit for the things that we have been able to do as a government in terms of what they have contributed as far as the spending and the economy that has been created in this province. I applaud the farmers, and I applaud the agri industry in this province for what they have been able to achieve and the growth that they have been able to develop.

Another industry that has made a contribution to the spending by this Finance minister and being able to do the things that sustain the vision as far as we are concerned, the manufacturing industry is a boom sector and is responsible for creating 9,000 new jobs in this province since 1992, and that is a significant amount of jobs when you consider the population of this small province. Thousands more jobs will be created in the coming year by companies expanding in Manitoba: Isobord in Elie, Vansco, Motor Coach Industries, Palliser Furniture. Manufacturing shipments were $673 million or 8 percent higher in 1996 than in the previous year. This is the second year, Madam Speaker, in which the value of Manitoba shipments has outpaced the national average--the second year in a row.

* (1210)

In the investment aspect of this province, private sector investment for 1997 is forecast at 8.6 percent, once again above the national average and giving Manitoba six consecutive years of growth in private capital investment, something no other province has managed to do. Manufacturing capital investments should reach $540.5 million in Manitoba this year. Manitoba's performance is five times the expected national gain, again a commendable achievement. What we have done to improve the business advantage since 1988 in this province is that the payroll tax exemption was increased from $100,000 to $1 million. That is a significant contribution to the small businesses in this province because that enables them to go out and hire more people. That is what creates jobs. That is what creating employment is about, and I hope that the honourable members across the way will see the light some day and understand that. They have to spend some time in the business world, in the small businesses and starting small businesses.

Madam Speaker, the corporate income tax rate for small business was reduced from 10 percent to 9 percent. I see my time is running very short and I have barely begun in terms of my remarks, but I, as the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns), would urge the honourable members to really give some serious examination to this budget and look to the direction that is being offered to all Manitobans, the direction that is being followed by many other jurisdictions, governments across this country. I would hope that they too would be able to see the light and speak favourably and support this budget, as I will. Thank you.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and make some comments on this budget.

I want to start with just a few comments about housing. It is interesting that the government talks about housing recovering sharply. When you are as low as we were, a sharp recovery of 100 percent still does not bring us within 3,000 or 4,000 of where we were in the mid-1980s. So you can have a sharp recovery from one to two--that is a hundred percent gain--but it is not a very good record in housing.

Specifically, according to the Manitoba Bureau of Statistics, the 1992 level of housing in this province was 1,800 in urban centres of 10,000 or more, and today it is 1,243. That is a drop of 33 percent over that period of time. It is interesting, the province of Newfoundland is the next province over in the columns. Newfoundland has as many starts in 1996 as we do, and you know the state of Newfoundland's economy and you know that it only has about half the number of people that we do. Yet they have the same number of housing starts, 1,238, as we do, 1,243. So I think that the housing issue is a very serious one.

I want to bring to the government's attention, the members' opposite attention, that there is an enormous opportunity in housing in Manitoba today, particularly in the city of Winnipeg, because we do finally have interest rates that are much more reasonable than they were. They are certainly not low enough yet, particularly real interest rates are not low enough, but at least the nominal rates are down at a level where a mortgage is 6 or 6 and a half or 7 percent depending on your term. What that is doing, Madam Speaker, is making first-time home buyers able to consider purchasing homes, which they would not even have been able to think about a couple of years ago, and that is a very good thing. It is largely due to the lower dollar and lower interest rates and certainly not due at all to the policies of this government.

But, Madam Speaker, that opens up an opportunity in the older part of Winnipeg which has not been open for about 20 years. There are a great number of older homes in the core area and older three-storey apartment buildings, hundreds, in fact, of three-storey walkups that were built in the period from 1908 to 1930 when the Depression started and then virtually no apartment buildings were built during the Depression years. Now, many of those buildings are quite lovely. They have marble floors and high ceilings and beautiful moulding around the ceilings in the living rooms, often natural wood trim. They are beautiful buildings, but they are about to fall off the housing market because the people who live in them are increasingly able to afford small starter homes and the $450- and $500-a-month rent will carry a small mortgage on a modest house.

So, Madam Speaker, I commend to members opposite, who are concerned about housing, the opportunity to create a new sector in the city of Winnipeg, a self-help co-operative sector, which does not require much in the way of capital, does not require subsidies of the mortgage. It just requires a little expertise and a little nurturing to help new and young co-ops find an appropriate building and put together the financing to make it their home. This is a wonderful opportunity.

We have in my riding the first such co-op in Manitoba. It is called Bluestem housing co-op. It is a six-unit, small, three-storey walkup, 940 square foot units. They cost $450 a month, and that includes a payback to the co-op members of $50 a month. So this is a very affordable way of getting stable community co-op residents who care about their community, of taking old rental buildings which are at risk of simply being run into the ground by slum landlords, of repopulating, reinvigorating older neighbourhoods that are losing population for virtually no capital cost on the part of government.

Government is abandoning its traditional role of deep subsidy public housing because of fiscal pressures. I regret the total abandonment of that field very much, but I understand that there is such a great opportunity here that I wish government would take seriously the reinvigoration of the co-op housing model, which Manitoba has many good examples of and which without any deep subsidies at all today could protect probably in excess of 100 three-story walkups in the older part of Winnipeg and in other urban centres. Brandon has some, Portage has some. There are fewer in the North, but Brandon, in particular, has some very old, very deteriorated buildings.

The people who live in the co-ops that have been started, particularly the one in my riding, are young. They are well educated. They are finding it difficult to get good quality jobs, but they are attached to the economy. They are stable. They have kids. They are wonderful ways of stabilizing and invigorating communities. So, rather than just trotting out statistics of housing starts, why does the government not look at innovative ways that are not capital intensive, do not require ongoing subsidies, but really require mentoring and expertise to get the co-op off the ground.

I just underline for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), who seems to think this is not a bad idea, that he should share with his colleagues the fact the Bluestem housing co-op has not got a single nickel of public dollars in it. There is not one nickel of public funding in Bluestem. It was assisted into being with a private sector second mortgage that was at the same rate as its first mortgage so if there is an implicit subsidy, it is one or two percentage points of $30,000, a very small cost to help stabilize a neighbourhood.

Madam Speaker, I commend to the government the opportunity to stabilize neighbourhoods, reinvigorate the co-op sector and not have to spend very much money to do that. This side of the House is so often accused of being negative and not offering ideas. I have just offered one, and we hope that members opposite will take us up on it.

* (1220)

Madam Speaker, I want to move now to a bit of a quick look at the overall budget as presented to us. I am referring now to page 12 of the financial review and statistics of the budget. One of the things that puzzles this side of the House is the insistence of the Finance minister and his colleagues that we have to keep racing, racing, racing to the bottom, that even having, as they claim, the lowest provincial total per capita expenditure is not good enough for them. I am referring to the table on page 13 of the financial review and statistics. It shows us approximately the same as Nova Scotia and claims in the text that we are the lowest per capita spenders of all provincial governments in Canada. I do not see any particular virtue if we are already the lowest, as they claim, in further impoverishing our public services, our health care system, our education system, our roads, our economic infrastructure. What is the particular virtue in simply seeking to be lower and lower and lower cost if the price of lower and lower and lower costs is poorer and poorer and poorer services? There is no particular virtue in simply being lowest for lowest sake.

So I ask the Finance minister (Mr. Stefanson) if there are no other criteria for his government than simply cheapest. Cheapest is not, I think we can demonstrate, always even appropriate, let alone wise. We look in the case of the Rimer Alco contract in which his own staff and his own committee recommended to him that he go with a company with expertise and recommended that if they were forced to make a choice, they would put forward only one name, and that was the name of VitalAire to do this contract. They made the point that on both price and quality VitalAire was cheaper over the term of the contract which they recommended.

Here is a government that is so preoccupied with the bottom-line cost that they will choose a two-year contract for $4,000 in savings, and yet they will ignore all the recommendations of their own committee that says, for example, if you simply bought the oxygen concentrators that nursing homes need--they need several of them in every nursing home--through the Home Care equipment pool instead of telling nursing homes to buy them directly, you would save 50 percent of the price per machine. Nursing homes are paying $2,200 for the machines. The Home Care equipment pool is paying $1,100.

Madam Speaker, the total claimed savings on the Rimer Alco contract would be made up by simply buying five machines for nursing homes next year through the Home Care equipment pool rather than through the nursing home and having them charged back to the government.

The government had a study presented to it which showed it innumerable ways of doing a better job in delivering oxygen services, of integrating the program, of serving the more than 7,000 Manitobans who have some form of respiratory distress that requires medication in their homes connected to some kind of technology. That is what oxygen therapy and respiratory therapy is. It is not just oxygen concentrators. It is nebulizers, it is the compressors that run the asthma medication machines, it is moisturizers, it is oxygen tanks. It is a wide variety of things.

The government paid a great deal of money and invested a great deal of its own time to come up with a report that told them how they could do it cheaper, smarter and provide better quality services. They threw the whole report out and went to a private company that has never delivered this service in its life in Canada. They went to a company who is prepared to bid on the service in excess of $100,000 a year more than they are now spending to deliver that service through the home care staff and the private agencies that provide oxygen backup.

This is ideology run wild, where they will stand day after day and defend a decision that is indefensible, defend a decision to give to a failing company, a barely solvent company, the capacity to do something for more than $100,000 more per year than we are now doing it for ourselves. [interjection] The member is concerned about these facts. The member will see, if he would ask his minister for the reports to which I refer, that every single comment is factual. He will not do his own homework. He will not take the time to read the reports that are available to him. [interjection] He just chirps from his seat with no knowledge behind his chirping. [interjection]

Madam Speaker, I want to go on. I have always spoken the truth about this. The honourable member I would suggest that if he can put any facts on the record to the alternative that he do so, and otherwise that he should stop chirping.

I want to go on and talk about the deceptive practices of the government in regard to budgeting. For years since 1989-90 when the Provincial Auditor said to the people of Manitoba that the government did not have a deficit in 1989-90, the Auditor said very clearly, the government had a surplus of $58 million. The government said no, no. They went into each successive year saying no, no, but starting in 1993, and I again commend to the member who is so interested in this question of honesty and integrity in finance that he read the actual statements on pages 22 and 23 of the financial report.

You will see that, starting in 1993's budget, there were two new lines added to the budget statement: Deficit Reduction Transfers--and "Deficit" was followed by "Surplus" in brackets; and Deposit to the Debt Retirement Fund, which came on just this year. Last year we had Transfers from Lottery.

So, in fact, Madam Speaker, every one of the transfers that the government now claims did not take place is actually recorded in the 10-year summary, which very few people take any time to read. I would wonder if all the members opposite have indeed taken the time to look at pages 22 and 23 and see about halfway down the page or a little less than that, Deficit (Surplus) Reduction--that is what it said in last year's budget: Transfers from, to Fiscal Stabilization. They change the words each year, so the movements in and out of the Fiscal Stabilization Fund and from Lotteries are recorded in this line.

So it is very clear that the stated deficits were not the actual deficits or surpluses for the years in which these lines had amounts in them. Now that is true right up to the 1996-97 forecast. In other words, there are nine years of factual, truthful presentation here, and then we slip into the tenth year, and the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Stefanson) bad old habits of deception and hiding information creep back into his budget.

Madam Speaker, if you look at the very first line, there is a tiny footnote which my eyes can hardly pick up. It is almost like the size of the print of Progressive Conservative on their election signs. It is just a little above the microscope size, this little tiny 2. Manitoba's collections, $2.23 billion and a little tiny 2.

Now, down at the bottom, if you get your glasses on and read what that note 2 is all about, it says: Includes $100 million from Fiscal Stabilization Fund. Well, there we are. Now why would they not put that number in the appropriate line under Deficit Reduction Transfers? I think there is a reason. It is because it would look so stupid that even the government would know that it was silly to have a $100-million reduction in one line and then a $75-million payment to debt on the other.

In other words, nothing happened here, Madam Speaker, nothing whatsoever. You took $100 million out of your savings account and you put $100 million against your debt. Were you any richer at the end of the day or any better off? Not a bit.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

The hour being 12:30 p.m., when this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) will have 24 minutes remaining.

The hour being 12:30 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday next.