Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you call Bill 2, Bill 27, and then the balance of the bills as listed in the Order Paper.
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS
Bill 2--The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 2, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur l'équilibre budgétaire, le remboursement de la dette et la protection des contribuables et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, I would like to speak on the lure of balanced budgets, of debt repayment and taxpayers' protection.
An Honourable Member: Do you support it in your heart? Do you support it like the rest of Manitoba?
Mr. Santos: It will appear in due time, Madam Speaker.
These are very alluring ideas, very enticing ideas. The principle of balanced budgets, the principle of debt repayment and the principle of taxpayers' protection--they are like three enticing bottles of perfume, which give Manitobans pleasures to behold and to smell but if they swallow it, it will be deadly for them.
I shall try to show why this is so, by doing a calm and logical analysis of the distinctive features of each of these three principles of balanced budget, debt repayment and taxpayers protection as they are legally structured, as they are craftily and cleverly transformed into the vices of political expediency in the brutal context of the current and prospective financial, economic and social setting in Manitoba.
First let us look at the principle of balanced budget. Before we can do so intelligently, we have to have a working definition of what a budget is. Before we can say it is balanced, we have to know what it is. A budget is a financial plan for a period of time in the foreseeable future, consisting of proposed expenditures and of estimated revenues to sustain those expenditures. Put simply, a budget is a plan of income and expenditures. If the income is greater than the expenditure, there is a surplus. It is called a surplus budget. If the income is less than expenditure, there is deficit. It is called a deficit budget. If income is equal to expenditure, there is the so-called balanced budget. So a balanced budget is simply a situation where the prospective income of the government and the plan of expenditure are balanced, are equal to one another.
Now how does this Bill 2, this proposed legislation, how does this legislation define the statutory balanced budget requirement? The proposed legislation mandates, it orders that, subject to certain qualified exceptions, the government of Manitoba is prohibited to incur a deficit for the fiscal year commencing on April 1, 1995, and ending on March 31, 1996, and for each fiscal year thereafter. The government of Manitoba is required by this legislation to have equality or balance between its revenue and expenditure every year. That alone is an unrealistic requirement, because no one can forecast exactly how much revenue would be coming. There is always some kind of discrepancy between forecasting of quality, even in the estimation of revenue, even in the estimation of expenditure. So this statutory requirement puts the government of Manitoba in a Procrustean straitjacket, depriving it of all flexibility and all discretion in trying to respond to the demands of the circumstances of time and place.
What is this concept of revenue with which we must balance whatever is the proposed expenditure? In the field of study known as public fiscal administration, the concept of revenue simply means collections, inflow, that is, all amounts of money received by a government from external sources other than from issue of debts, other than the liquidation of investments or as agency and private trust transaction. The idea excludes noncash receipts in kind. In accounting terminology, the idea of revenue represents an increase in assets or a decrease in liabilities.
* (1430)
Now is the integrity of this definition of revenue, the integrity of this accounting concept of revenue, is this preserved or is this definition of revenue dishonestly destroyed by the practices of this Progressive Conservative government which is the party in government? This Tory government either by negligent ignorance or by deliberate design included in the category of revenue, whether past, present or future, the proceeds of any sale of Crown corporation assets, which, being a liquidation of investment is not and ought not to be included in the concept of revenue.
So we could see that something which is not revenue is directly called revenue or indirectly by first putting it in the Fiscal Stabilization Fund which is a cushion reserve account, and by that manipulation would also convert something which is not revenue into something they call revenue. That destroys the integrity of the concept and that destroys, therefore, the integrity of the idea of balanced budget.
What is the result of such crafty, clever but dishonest manipulation of legitimate accounting concepts such as the idea of the concept of revenue? The result is that what in equality and in principle is a deficit budget can be presented and is made to appear as a balanced budget.
Now why do I say this? Do I have any proof that this has been done before and will be done again? Has there been any positive proof of such dishonest manipulation of the financial definition of accounting and budgetary figures and concepts? Do I have any specific proof of such manipulative accounting cover-up which creates a false and misleading presentation of what factually was a false representation of the figures and the facts?
I have to quote from a actual textual quotation of CBC 24 Hours comments of a media personality whose name is Diana Swain. Quote, how do you budget your cheque books? Well, the Provincial Auditor does not like the way the provincial government keeps its books. She says--this is the Provincial Auditor--that in 1992-93, the province reported a deficit of $470 million, but Carol Bellringer says it is properly accounted for. The number was over $800 million. According to Len Evans, approximately $890 million, the highest deficit ever rung up by a Manitoba government.
Now, if this Progressive Conservative government can cover up what is clearly the highest budgetary deficit ever incurred by this province by any party in power in the history of Manitoba, can we logically project--of course we can--that it would do it again in some dishonest and dishonourable act like placing some accounting smoke screen and resorting to some financial trickery to misrepresent and mislead the people in believing that a budget is a balanced budget when in fact it is a deficit budget?
Does even the good principle of public finance, like the principle of the balanced budget as they are developed and expounded by the classical and neoclassical economies in the hands of the unscrupulous, can they be sacrificed to political expediency, retaining its name and its form what is popularly perceived as a good principle of balanced budget but essentially changing its meaning and its content to something undesirable to something which is detestable? Are we to marvel at this kind of misinformation? No, not at all.
If in some organized religion there are some false apostles and deceitful workers transforming themselves into apostles of Christ, similarly, in some organized party government--I am not saying who--there might also be some unscrupulous and dishonest people who do not tell the truth but transform themselves as proponents of the principle of balanced budget but who in fact are seasoned practitioners of deficit budgeting. No wonder, for even if Satan can transform himself to an angel of light and his ministers can also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness but whose ends will be according to the works, therefore we should not marvel if any head of any political party anywhere in Canada can transform themselves into a premier of fiscal prudence and his ministers into ministers of balanced budget, even putting on the line their salaries as minister but whose pretensions would be revealed and in due time their big lie would be uncovered. There is nothing covered that shall not be revealed and nothing hidden that shall not be known.
The classical and neoclassical economists such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill and others favoured balanced budget because any kind of unbalanced budget tends to expand governmental activity, inviting irresponsible spending on the part of government and because unbalanced budgets can also easily lead to inflation, either because the government adds to the level of demands or because the pattern of continuous annual deficits accumulated as debts can add to the money supply. It could lead to some inflationary tendencies and pressures.
That is what they call the balanced budget, balanced budget in name and in form, but devoid of substance and, in fact, a deficit budget because they had considered as revenue things that should not get into revenue and therefore logically are not part of revenue, and therefore something which is not balanced is made to appear as balanced.
Now let us examine the second conception that is intermixed in this rather omnibus legislation, Bill 2. The second principle is debt repayment. There is a system of debt repayment that is set up in the proposed legislation.
It is, of course, good policy to pay your debts on an individual level. If you pay your debts, you maintain your integrity. If you do not pay your debt, you lose your credibility. On a group basis this probably is also widely believed among the people, but let us place the debt repayment system in its proper context.
This Tory government in 1989 created a contingency fund which is called a Fiscal Stabilization Fund. The total value of that Fiscal Stabilization Fund in its original creation was not specified originally. It was open ended. This proposed legislation, Bill 2, now would amend this open-endedness of the Fiscal Stabilization Fund. This legislation requires the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) to set the total value of the Fiscal Stabilization Fund which it must maintain in reserve to a level of amount equal to 5 percent of the expenditures of the operating funds, which means that there will be a revenue transfer to the Fiscal Stabilization Fund of approximately $250 million, an unrealistic assumption that there will be surpluses in the operating account. It is so unrealistic to assume that there will be surpluses in the operating accounts.
What is this scheme? After the Fiscal Stabilization Fund minimal reserve of about 5 percent of the expenditure of the operating funds, that is, at the $250-million level, then the surpluses would then go to and be credited with the so-called Debt Retirement Fund, which this proposed legislation would set up as a system intended to eliminate the net general purpose debt of the province, which to date is approximately $7 billion, but this is not of course the entire indebtedness because it excludes the debts now being carried by Manitoba Hydro.
* (1440)
The deposits that are to be made to the Debt Retirement Fund coming from the general revenue will become mandatory by April 1, 1997, which is the beginning of the fiscal year 1997-1998. Thus, the Minister of Finance, beginning with fiscal year 1997-1998, shall deposit to the Debt Retirement Fund an amount equal to the sum of an amount equal to the greater of $75 million, and 1 percent of the amount of the general purpose debt of the preceding fiscal year, plus 7 percent of all amounts transferred from the Debt Retirement Fund to the operating fund in the preceding fiscal years.
To the uninitiated, these are very complex operations. Hardly could anyone understand what is going on here. Note that at least once every five years the total accumulated value of the Debt Retirement Fund is to be completely transferred to the operating fund.
Now since the proposed legislation mandates that for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 1995, and ending with March 31, 1996, and for each fiscal year thereafter, the government of Manitoba, subject to certain exceptions, is forbidden to incur any kind of deficit, if the current Fiscal Stabilization Fund were to be fully established to keep in reserve $250 million, that amount that is just saved would be enough just to cover one year's shortfall of just about 5 percent of the current budget. Therefore, after that, government services either had to be cut, or else revenue had to be found and to be increased.
Now what are the flaws, the defects of this scheme No. 2 of the Debt Retirement Fund? First, in order to finance both the Fiscal Stabilization Fund and to make the Debt Retirement targeted amount, previous surpluses had to be assumed, but such surpluses do not now exist, nor can foreseeably be seen to exist. Second, the impending cuts to the Manitoba transfers for health and education in the forthcoming federal budget, which would be substantial expenditure cuts in the Manitoba budget expenditures, would be inevitable. Therefore, it will not be able to meet the targeted amount envisioned by the Debt Retirement Fund even during the fiscal year 1997-1998.
It is known at this time that the federal budget will have systematic cuts in its federal transfer payments to this province. How can this province expect then that it will have surplus to satisfy both the Fiscal Stabilization Fund requirement and the Debt Retirement Fund targeted amount? Therefore, all we can anticipate from the so-called debt repayment fund are the following: There will be more property tax credit cuts because they have to somehow manipulate to produce some revenue which is not real revenue because they are not receipts or collections. There will be more offloading to municipalities of expenditures that are normally provincial expenditures, and there will be more user fees for essential government services. They have to somehow produce the amount in order to balance the budget which is mandated to be balanced year after year.
Let us examine the third principle. This is called the taxpayer protection principle. The taxpayers are purportedly protected by requiring taxpayer approval by means of province-wide referendums of any and all proposed increases in health and education tax levy, in retail sales taxes, in provincial taxes on utilities such as electricity, gas and coal under Part I of The Revenue Act. However, even under the present taxpayers' protection scheme, no referendum is required in order to increase provincial taxes resulting from changes in federal taxation laws, which is necessary to maintain provincial revenue or from the restructuring of taxation between the federal government and the provincial government of Manitoba or from a tax increase to restructure the tax burden which does not result in an overall increase in revenue.
For example, without any referendum, this party in government could and probably would reduce business taxes, then offset it by an equivalent amount of increase in personal taxes, in which case there would be no need for a referendum, because it is an example of one of the exceptions. Also, it could and it would probably, when needed, increase the sales tax base. It could be broadened and all the property tax credits could be reduced in order to increase revenues. And this can all be done without any kind of referendum.
So where is the taxpayers' protection? The taxpayers' protection is an illusion, because there are ways that are nonreferendumable ways of increasing taxes that are not covered by the so-called tax protection mechanism.
Referendum is the practice of repairing a question to the direct vote of a people as an exercise of direct democracy. Perhaps in the olden days when the city-states were small and the population were few, it was practicable to ask directly the people to make direct decisions affecting themselves, their lives and their property.
There is somehow a populous and popular appeal of referendum. This is undeniable. In fact, that is perhaps one of the explanations of the sudden emergence of the Reform Party in this country, their idea of presenting crucial questions in the form of referendums to the people.
Now, the question is, why are referendums unwise to use in order to decide controversial issues that call for the deliberative process of discussion and debate, that call for reasoned exchanges of arguments in legislative and other bodies like this Legislature?
First, referendums militate against the representative form of government. If referendum becomes a routine way of deciding and settling whatever issue may arise, there will be no need for Parliament; there will be no need for this Legislative Assembly; there will be no need for electing the so-called representatives of the people; there is no need for representative government. We will be abolishing all institutions of Parliament, Legislative Assembly, City Council, school board, because everything can be decided directly by the people. What is the point of paying all these representatives when the people themselves can decide the issue?
In that way we can save lots of money. Maybe we can get out of the deficit if we abolish Parliament, if we abolish this Legislature, if we abolish City Council, if we abolish all kinds of representative bodies or institutions in this country. But that is absurd to say that there will be orderly discussion of issues in a most logical and reasoned way if we do such a thing like that.
Secondly, referendums are unwise to use because usually the referendum questions are so complicatedly presented, sometimes a double negative statement of the issue, of the question, that it exceeds even the reading comprehension of even college students. The questions can be manipulated such that the one who proposed the referendum can achieve the desired response. Of course, we have examples such as the way the present Parti Quebecois had formulated the separation question, in fact, the manner as to leave the impression that separation would be unpalatable and that if separated they will be still enjoying all the rights and privileges of Canadian citizenship, which is not the case.
* (1450)
Thirdly, referendums are very expensive to undertake. It will entail the involvement of the voters at large. Even if it is undertaken during a province-wide election in conjunction with the general election, when it is done and the issue is settled and there are certain unwanted or unexpected results that come from the decision, nobody could be held responsible for those results.
For example, we have experienced across the border, in the United States, in California, you have heard about the famous California Proposition 13. This Proposition 13 is a device in the form of a referendum which limits or limited the maximum tax rate of 1 percent on the market value of real property at the local level. Because that was very popular, one of the unwanted consequences, the unexpected consequence of such limitation of revenue in the state of California was the closing of the Los Angeles County Medical Centre which was the largest hospital for the poor in the country, and no one could be held accountable or responsible for such unexpected and unwanted results. There are no representatives you can hold accountable because this is the exercise of direct democracy of the people.
So we could see that they are alluring and attractive in principle. They are accepted historically by the economists, the classicists, and even modern economists, a balanced budget is good; it appealed to everyone's taste. The normal individual will think about his own finances. If his income flow is short of his expenditure, that is his idea of a balanced budget. It is good; it is part of our family values. What you earn, that alone you spend. If you spend more than what you earn, you are in a deficit situation. Thrift is good. Waste not, want not. All these kinds of values in here, in the individual psyche, and in the value of the family.
That is the reason why the very notion, the very wording of balanced budget is attractive to the people in general. But then, as we have pointed out, they can preserve the form of the principle and yet so redefine its component elements in such a manner that is no longer the principle we are talking about as when this government tried to add the proceeds of the sale of assets like McKenzie Seeds corporation and included it as income when it is a liquidation of assets. That is not revenue. That is not income. That destroys the integrity of revenue, and revenue as a component of balanced budget is no longer true. Therefore, the conception of balanced budget, while attractive in name, is like the perfume, nice to smell, nice to look at, but do not ever, ever swallow it. It is poison; it is deadly.
In conclusion, we can say, Madam Speaker, that these three delusions distorted by that principle, the balanced budget principle, the debt repayment plan that assumes nonexistent budget surpluses even in the impending federal cuts in our health and education apportionment to the Province of Manitoba, this populously popular but destructive of representative government idea of referendum, they are all enticing the voters. They are like bottles of perfume, nice to smell, nice to look at, but deadly and fatal for Manitobans to swallow.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
All these schemes are indicative of unrecognized crises that will be known only when it is too late to correct, when, in order to balance this budget, this government, in the future fiscal years, will have to start cutting left and right all the essential government services in this province. Then the people will realize that they have been deceived by the attractiveness and enticing allure of the so-called principle of balanced budget but, in substance, devoid of its original content.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, there will be ways by which nonreferendumable types of raising taxes will be resorted to. There will be reduced tax credits. There will be horrendous program cuts in essential government services, and, until these things happen, the people will only say and realize: attractive the balanced budget it may be, but it is fatal for us to swallow. Thank you.
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to put a few comments on the record regarding Bill 2. I feel, and I know members on this side, all members of this Chamber feel, that this is one of the more important pieces of legislation that the government has brought in this session.
It states very clearly and highlights very clearly the hypocrisy of this government, a government that over the past seven years could have during that period brought in a surplus budget. They obviously were the government in power at that time, and for the last seven years they have not brought in a balanced budget or a surplus budget. In fact, this government over the past number of years has run excessive deficits and, in fact, increased the debt load of this province by over one-third. Since taking office, it has taken the total debt of the province from $10 billion up over--as the present case--to $14 billion. I think it is not a record of sound fiscal management, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Instead, it is a record of mismanagement.
One would only have to look at the Mulroney government or the government in Saskatchewan, the Devine government there, to know that with Conservatives in power they have a terrible record when it comes to issues of fiscal responsibilities. We on this side of the House believe that we must review this balanced budget legislation in the context of how all of us run our own family finances. In a family, we pay for our day-to-day expenses and we invest for long-term assets whether it is a house or a car, a farm or a business. We believe that if we as Manitobans were to apply the restrictions put forward in this legislation, only the very richest of Manitoba families would be able to function, would be able to purchase that home or that farm or invest in a business here in this province.
Manitobans work to balance their budgets, and we believe that governments should as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, we do not believe that this legislation is in keeping with running our governments like we do with our families. Again, as I said, only the richest, only the most affluent of Manitobans would be able to buy homes if the restrictions in this budget were applied to our daily finances, because only the richest would be able to not borrow money for a home, for example, only the richest of Manitoba families would be able to have shelter without the use of a mortgage.
* (1500)
In fact, if families were to operate, if families ran like this bill proposes, we would see families having to sell their house or their car or their assets to purchase the basic necessities of life such as food when their expenditures exceeded their income. In fact, the proposals in this legislation that was brought forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) would not allow Manitobans to balance their finances in a reasonable manner. So we feel that this legislation labelled cynically in terms of its title, we feel it does not pass the test of honesty and integrity of long-term investments here in this province.
We know the government brought forward this legislation just prior to the past election. They used this legislation as one of their key election planks in their platform, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We know that, in general, I would think that Manitobans would find the concept of a balanced budget a good one, as we do in our own homes, but we see many, many faults in the legislation. The member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) pointed out many of them, as did several of my colleagues in the past, and I hope today to once again reinforce some of the positions taken by this party.
Let us talk a bit about some of the aspects of the bill and particularly one of the things that troubles me, and that is the way the government will be dealing with Crown corporations. In families, we do not sell our long-term assets to pay for everyday expenses. We do not sell our car to purchase food. We do not sell our clothing to pay our hydro bill, as it were. The member for Broadway raises in his speech earlier that the government sold McKenzie Seeds, which is a money-making Crown corporation. They manipulated the sale of that corporation, and they put the proceeds against the 1995-1996 expenditures of the government, which has been pointed out by different agencies that that is an irregular accounting practice.
A special Lotteries slush fund was established, as we know, and was drained just prior to the election, so the government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) can stand up here when he presented his budget and stated that after running seven years of deficits, some of them--one of them, I am afraid to say, was the highest deficit in the history of the province, $760 million or $860 million. The government used the sale of McKenzie Seeds. They used, I believe, close to $200 million which they had built up in a slush fund because of their rapid expansion of gambling here in the province that they are able to accumulate that fund. They applied that to the deficit so that when they are able to stand up here they are able to present to Manitobans which would look like and would appear at face value to be a budget that is balanced, and in fact they are projecting a modest surplus.
One of the reasons that they were able to do so was because of the only economic initiative of the members opposite, and that of course is the fact that we now have 5,300 VLTs pumping away night and day in this province. We have casinos, three of them here in the city. We have virtually unchecked expansion of gambling from the members opposite. Even that, even the history when it comes to that is rather deceitful, I would suggest.
When they originally introduced VLTs, the VLTs were introduced only to rural Manitoba. All the money from the proceeds of VLTs would be put back into rural Manitoba to support economic initiatives in rural Manitoba. They quickly broke that promise to Manitobans, and then they introduced VLTs into the rest of the province. Now we have them virtually everywhere in this province, and the government uses that as its only economic initiative over the past number of years. In fact, the government now suggests that VLTs and gambling solves crime here in the province as was demonstrated last week when the minister responsible for gaming finally tabled the annual report of the Lotteries Corporation. We look forward to dealing with that issue more when the committee finally comes forward to a legislative committee.
Dealing with the issue of the sale of Crown corporations, we expect to see more of the same--we certainly do not hope to see more of the same--and that was the desperate sell-off of our province's resources, whether it is our telephone company or hydro company or our public insurance company, so that the government opposite can balance their budget. We see this with our telephone company. One of the most recent announcements within the telephone company, MTS, is that they have decided to break the company up into four smaller ones. We feel that this is simply the beginning of the government opposite privatizing MTS, perhaps using that money to deal with any economic revenue shortfalls they may have as the years go by.
So we cannot support any legislation that promotes the sale of our Crown corporations for the short-term gain of the members opposite. It may help the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) balance his books or bring forward a budget that demonstrates a surplus, but over the long term I do not think it is in the best interest, and we do not think it is in the best interest, of Manitobans to be selling Crown corporations, agencies which time and time have proven their worth to Manitobans, especially to rural and northern Manitobans.
As I mentioned, the same practice of selling long-term assets is not only unacceptable to us; it is also unacceptable to the rating agencies, as the government found out during the election, when, to the Dominion Bond Rating Service, Manitoba's boast of a balanced budget was really a deficit of $96 million. That happened just during the election campaign. Rather than a surplus, the agency comes forward and says, oh, I am sorry, it is actually a deficit of $96 million.
Last month the Canada West Foundation points out, and I would just like to quote from that article: A disturbing, confusing part of the Manitoba budget is that the province is reporting a surplus this year, but the Dominion Bond Rating Service reports that the tax-supported debt of the province will actually grow this year by $141 million, over $166 for each single Manitoban. No explanation is given for this budget, yet the goals of fiscal clarity clearly demand one.
So the prediction of a surplus by the members opposite was nothing more than creative accounting to help the government to slide past the election. This legislation, I would suggest, promises more of the same deceit.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was just announced last week where the Provincial Auditor confirmed that the Minister of Finance was half a billion off in his deficit projections of three years ago. In the minister's budget, he forecast a deficit of 330, nor was it the 550 that the government admitted. It was closer to 819. The difference is composed of the $150 million in pension liabilities and $103 million in improper accounting of the members opposite.
So we know that the government has a poor record when it comes to dealing with the deficit. They have demonstrated that time and time again with their budgets. They pretend to be great fiscal managers.
* (1510)
We know right now there is a mood across the country to move towards, whether it is this legislation, a shift in public opinion to the right. The federal Liberal government has promoted that shift. We know the members opposite have jumped on the bandwagon. It is the flavour of the month. But we feel that this does not do a great deal of good for Manitoba in the long term.
It may help them win their election. It probably did not hurt their most recent victory here in the province, but we feel that this legislation, if accepted by this Legislature, would hurt Manitobans in the long term. That is why we are asking the government to withdraw the legislation, to table it, to do what is in the best interests of Manitobans in the long term, not just simply to help the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) create this so-called surplus.
Now, a point that was raised by my Leader (Mr. Doer) and a point that was raised by other speakers here is, who actually decides whether or not the budget was a surplus or balance? Is it the government opposite when they make their projections or is it the Auditor, who does the audit of the accounts and brings forward that figure sometimes quite a bit later on?
Now, who is the Minister of Finance going to rely on, or the government opposite, when it comes to the slashing of their salaries by 20 or 40 percent? If their minister's projections opposite demonstrate a surplus or a balanced budget, yet the Auditor comes back with her report and demonstrates that in fact it was a deficit, will members opposite, ministers opposite be taking their cut in pay? Will they be taking a cut in pay of 20 percent as promised in this legislation? That is an unanswered question and, I know, a question that Manitobans are deeply concerned about.
The Filmon government's record on deficits, I think, as I said, it is nothing but over the past number of years, it is a record of deceit. In fact, in 1988-89, they inherited from the NDP a budgetary surplus of $58 million. Both the Provincial Auditor and the Dominion Bond Rating Service confirmed the surplus, and that level has not been matched yet. In 1992-93, the province reported the highest deficit in its history at $742 million, according to the Provincial Auditor. Now, that may even be higher according to some of the reports that I have seen recently.
In seven years of government, they have not bettered the achievement put forward by the NDP in the '88-89 fiscal year.
As I said, the government takes a short-term view on the future of this province. Long gone, unfortunately, is the vision of Duff Roblin or Ed Schreyer when you see that a timely investment now could save many more dollars in the future.
No better example of that, of course, is the floodway, or Duff's ditch, as it is called. It was Roblin who said: Who can say what the monetary costs are of a building, of building a road, a school or a hospital?
We know, and I am sure many members opposite, especially those members who have constituencies where the Red River meanders through, would recognize the incredible value of the floodway to our province, especially to the City of Winnipeg. It has virtually saved the taxpayers of the province millions of dollars, a long-term asset that could not be constructed under the limiting legislation brought forward by this government in this Bill 2.
It was the Schreyer government who were prepared to invest in schools and personal care homes. So now these assets not only benefit us, but they will benefit our children and they will benefit our grandchildren. As I recall, in 1974, when I graduated from high school, I graduated from a brand-new high school just constructed in Selkirk. It was constructed by the Schreyer government. I know there was a similar one constructed in Dauphin as well. Those are still assets that are utilized by my constituents. I know my nephew is there now, and my nephews and my other nieces will be attending that school soon. It is an asset that will be enjoyed by Manitobans for years to come. The members opposite do not seem to recognize the long-term value of such assets to Manitobans and the long-term assets of different capital projects to our children and to our grandchildren.
The last number of years he has also borrowed money to create The Forks, for example, a Forks project here which has been recognized across this country as a true asset to our province and to this city. It has created jobs. It is a major tourism destination. It is a chance for Manitobans to reclaim our heritage, and it will be there for years to come. Unfortunately, if this legislation was in place at the time, we would not have that. It would owned, I assume, by the railways, and we would not be able to enjoy the great natural assets that we have in that particular area.
Not only that, in the future, what if we wished to invest in, say, the Churchill spaceport. We cannot do that. We recognize the spaceport as very, very important to the future of Churchill and in fact the future of the North, but, because of the inflexibility of this legislation, Manitobans would not be able to invest in the future of that particular project, I would suggest, because of the government opposite's lack of vision both on that and the railway to Churchill and other issues related to the North. It is not only that, the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) once again raised today the dismal state of the roads in northern Manitoba.
Will the government be able to invest in those northern projects whether it is the roads or in the spaceport? Unfortunately, I am afraid not. We are seeing the decay of infrastructure throughout this province. Of course, I can cite the No. 9 Highway between Winnipeg and Selkirk as another example of an infrastructure that is in need of repair. I raised that here with the Minister of Highways in the past, and I will just put it once again on the record, that those projects are in serious need of rebuilding. The problem is, will we be able to do those. Will we be able to invest in long-term assets because of the restricting nature of this particular legislation. It has been suggested and I do agree that it would be very difficult, in fact, impossible to do so.
In fact, here is an example that I think the members opposite may find interesting. They all claim to be the great supporters of small business or business in general and I assume--I think that many of them opposite probably are. Those who operate their own farms are small business people, and we have some members here on this side of the House. I know that I come from a farming background and lived on a farm all my life, but I also recognize that without the ability to borrow money, a lot of farmers or small businesses would not be able to grow and expand. They borrow money for capital improvements and expansions, capital improvements which, of course, create employment. I think that all Manitobans recognize the value of small business, that all recognize the value of our agricultural industry to this province. Many farmers, and I know that this has happened in my own case--I know that my father, for example, had to borrow money in order to purchase his farm, but he was able to, over the years, repay that back now and it is an asset to our family.
Of course, even according to the government's task force on capital markets, and I just want to quote this: The majority of small businesses usually require some debt financing. The report goes on to say that debt financing is used to purchase capital assets, buildings, equipment and so on. All these assets that the province has, we will not be able to expand upon them because of the restricting nature, as I said, of this particular legislation. In fact, even businesses here in the province, they do not operate under the rules that this government proposes in Bill 2.
* (1520)
It has been suggested that the value of the assets in the province relative to our debt--this was done by Professor Clarence Barber in 1993, and at that time he said that our assets at that time were over $9 billion and against those assets was $6 billion in debt. So clearly at that time--and I would suggest that since then that ratio has been constant, and I would suggest that the value of our assets far exceeds the value of our debts. Look at a number of our hospitals we have here in the province, our school system, the literally billions of dollars, I suggest, in infrastructure, whether it is our roads, whether it is our sewer system or our parks system, these are literally billions of dollars worth of assets, assets that all Manitobans now enjoy.
As I said, unless a family has been able to inherit a large amount of money, it must balance its income against its expenses. Now Manitobans balance their interest, food, clothing and other bills with their income. At the same time, we take out a mortgage if we wish to purchase a home. If Manitobans had to operate like this legislation proposes, or this government proposes, they would not be able to buy a home or any other asset. In fact, the inflexibility of this legislation, this Bill 2 means that our services will not be able to stand any minor fluctuations in the economy. This was the case I believe a number of years ago in the community of--let me just see, I have it here some place.
Anyway, as I said, there are minor fluctuations in the economy, whether it is a drop in mineral prices or a reduction in equalization from the federal government, we know that these are coming along. We know that it could be as high as $200 million. Programs will be cut by this government opposite. Of course, they are taking great glee in that, I believe. They are kind of looking forward to that when they can do that. We know that they have done that so often in the past. They do so with such enthusiasm, it is clear that they enjoy doing that.
We know that the federal Liberal government is--well, they are causing severe reductions in the level of funding that they should provide to this Legislature and to this province to help fund a number of programs. It is expected, and it could be as high as $200 million. Now this bill and the proposal brought forward by this government does not deal with those types of issues.
What if all the VLTs were to break down one day here in the province? What are they going to do then with that lack of $200 million that they gain each year from all those machines out here in this province?
The problem is that the cuts that this government would be unfortunately forced to bring in is nothing but a vicious circle; more people on unemployment, then unfortunately that would mean higher welfare costs, lower taxes. And the cycle continues, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As I said, we must look at the broader issue here. We have our debts and our assets when assessing the overall financial situation of our province. Our debt-servicing costs are amongst the lowest in the country. I believe it is around 11 cents on the dollar. In exchange for that we have all the schools and the roads and the hospitals, power plants and provincial parks in this country. We are, relative to other provinces, in very good shape.
It is the federal government, which I believe their debt servicing costs are 34 cents on the dollar, that is in serious, serious trouble at the moment. Of course, that is the history of both the Liberals and the Conservatives in government. That is the history of those two levels of government, the history of those two political parties. That is the history of those two political parties in government, that we are now paying 34 percent of all the revenues brought in. All the revenues that are brought in from all the different revenue sources, 34 percent of that goes simply to service the interest on the debt.
Here in the province of Manitoba it is considerably lower. Again it is around the 12-cent mark. I am saying that, in a growing economy, I think we must be able to sustain our debt servicing costs, and we should be able to do that at the present level. We are not as bad off as some of the other provinces across this country. Some are paying as high as 17 percent, l8 percent of their revenue simply to service and pay down--well, simply to service, to pay the interest costs on their debt.
When it comes to the taxpayer protection part of this legislation, the hypocrisy of the government opposite is quite clear when you consider their record. In 1992 the government opposite raised taxes by $400 per family. I did vote on that budget, yes, and we did vote against that increase in taxes, but I do not recall anyone else across the province, other than the MLAs in this Chamber, who voted on that increase in those taxes. None of my constituents voted on those. That was a $400 grab by the members opposite that would not be covered by this legislation. In fact, right now not one of those taxes would be subject to a so-called referendum. In the Premier's own briefing notes, he said that these increases were the equivalent of a 5.6 percent increase in sales tax. We also know the tax credits were reduced by $75 per homeowner. The sales taxes were broadened. Fuel taxes were increased. None of those things would be covered by this referendum. When the government introduced the widespread gambling across this province, there was no referendum for that, no referendum for the 5,000 VLTs or the $200 million that this government brings in each year from its gaming revenues. Nobody voted on that. We never even voted on that here in this Chamber.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are showing the hypocrisy of the members opposite when it comes to this legislation and their own record when it comes to taxation here in this province. It is clear that this government is intent on doing the same. They may not, but they can increase user fees, they can decrease tax credits, and they can offload more costs onto the municipalities. They have a record of doing that, whether it is the City of Winnipeg or the R.M. of West St. Paul or the Town of Selkirk or any other town or community R.M. across this province as well as, as the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) mentioned, the different school divisions. So what they will do is they will simply offload onto the R.M.s. The R.M.s will then, if they wish to maintain the same level of service, have to increase their taxes.
So we will see an increase in taxes unfortunately. We have witnessed this over the past number of years from the members opposite, and this legislation will simply allow more of the same. So we know that this legislation is not necessary. I believe it was even the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) who said that the government does not need legislation to reduce the debt. They do not need that legislation if the government has the political will to do so. They are simply bringing this in as a gimmick to try to give the impression that after seven years of deficits--some of them hitting record levels--all of a sudden they are concerned about the issue of debt and deficits here in the province.
* (1530)
They have absolutely one of the worst records across this country when it comes to this particular issue. They know that they brought it forward prior to the election to help them with their election chances. We know that this was one of their major--I could say--planks in their campaign. Despite what this government has promised, despite what the election has promised--and we are seeing those election promises are very hollow now--one of the major ones was that the government opposite promised $10 million for the Jets, no more, $10 million for a professional hockey team. Time after time and forum after forum, the Premier would stand up and say, oh, $10 million, no more. Yet it has been proven by this side of the House that, in fact, the government had committed significantly higher amounts to the operation of that hockey team, as high as $40-odd million.
He also promised, the Premier, in very slick campaign ads where he promised that he would maintain health care here in this province. He said, count on me, I will save health care. They flooded the airwaves a week or so before the election with those ads, very good ads, I might say, saying that the Premier will defend health care. We know how hollow that promise was, as has been proven time and time by members on this side of the House, as we were able to demonstrate that to Manitobans. [interjection] As the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) says, the government's promises are simply promises that they intend to break.
We are concerned that despite what the government has said on this legislation, this is simply a Trojan horse for them to come in, to make more cuts to our vital public services here in the province, services that Manitobans need, services that Manitobans expect, and services that unfortunately may not be there when Manitobans will need them the most.
It is clear that unless there is a revenue loss of $250 million, there will be no exceptions to the balanced budget requirement. The result, according to all economic models, is that we lose jobs and we lose services. We know that this is not the way that Manitobans run their families and we feel that this is not the way that we should be running our governments as well.
So they have proven to us that their promises are hollow ones and we expect to see more of that as the session progresses. We have witnessed that, whether it is with their commitment to save and preserve our health care system, whether the promise was on the Jets of $10 million, it is clear that they have upped that considerably during the campaign, proven once again by our side. The government has in the past made projections about deficits way off the mark, some as high as half a billion dollars at times, $762-million, $862-million deficits over the past number of years.
Every single year they ran a deficit; now they have projected a surplus. So what happens next year if this projection by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) is in fact proven by the Auditor to be a deficit? Will the members opposite then stand up and take 20 percent of their pay cheque and return it, I suppose, to the government? What will they base that on? Will they base it on the projections of the Minister of Finance or will they base it on the Auditor's Report? That is a question that has been unanswered by members opposite.
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): It will be done fairly.
Mr. Dewar: The Deputy Premier says that the thing will be done fairly. Well, there have been a number of things that we have been able to raise which I think point out the unfairness of the government over the years, so this, we feel, will be of great concern to us as the years go by.
Once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we believe that we must look at this issue of balanced budget legislation and how we run our family finances. We finance our families, we pay for our way, and we invest for long-term assets. We feel that, because of the restricting nature of this particular legislation, we will not be able to invest for the long-term assets and the long-term interests of Manitobans.
In conclusion, I would just like to add that it will be a great pleasure of mine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to vote against this Legislation. Thank you.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand here today to put some words on the record on a bill that has a great deal of substance to it. There is absolutely no doubt about that.
Let me start off by saying the concept of balanced budget legislation is something which the Liberal Party supports, and we welcome seeing this bill brought into the Chamber. Mind you, it is interesting in one sense that balanced budget legislation is not a new idea. In fact, I believe the first administration to bring it in was out east from the Atlantic coast, from the province of New Brunswick. In fact, we have had a government that has now been in office for over seven years--[interjection] You said Liberal, not I, but you are right. It was a Liberal administration.
This is a government that has been in office now for over seven years. They have finally seen some light, I guess, in terms of recognizing that they have not been all that great at managing the deficit in the province of Manitoba over the years, and now they are bringing in legislation to try to assist them in the management of annual deficits.
It was interesting listening to the remarks from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns). I was developing the feeling that this minister, in principle, likely would not support Bill 2. The reason why I believe he is going to be voting for it is not only because he is a part of the Filmon team and because of that has to support it, and he is in fact a minister of cabinet, but in listening to him very carefully, I was starting to become of the opinion, the reason that he has justified it in his mind is not because of this particular government but, Heaven forbid, if the New Democrats ever form government sometime in the future, that they will in fact have the opportunity to prevent that irresponsible socialist-type government from spending tax dollars, raising tax dollars and so forth.
I found that is kind of an interesting justification in order to support the legislation, but one only needs to look at this government's track record on the deficit, and I call into question in terms of just how this balanced budget legislation--because there are, in all likelihood, a number of flaws, but there is one that I really want to point out, just how this balanced budget legislation is actually going to be reported on. I brought it up the other day in Question Period, and I based it on personal experience, where I have seen this government and the way in which this government in the past has managed its budgets.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may recall, and I believe at the time--in fact, you might have been a local city councillor for the area when this government brought in its first budget. I remember it well. In fact, I remember making many comments both on throne, no doubt, on budget, and I do not believe there is a budget that I have not commented on in which I have not made reference. I could be wrong. There is always the possibility.
But I remember that budget, and this is what really comes out about that budget. That was, this is a government that actually had a surplus, could have had a surplus budget back in 1988-89. They had a surplus of somewhere around $50 million. [interjection] $68 million the New Democrats are pointing out, and they are right. Well, I do not know about the actual amount, but they are right. There was in fact a surplus, okay.
* (1540)
Now, what did this government in its wisdom do? [interjection] Clayton's old sock? Well, no, I refer to it as the Manness illusion, if you like. The Minister of Finance at the time decided no, no, no, no, no. It is too premature for us to have a surplus budget. In fact what we need to do is we should create this fund, this slush fund as we in the official opposition then had termed it. In fact they brought in legislation known as the Fiscal Stabilization Fund. I, with great pride, voted against that piece of legislation.
They did have the support of the New Democratic Party at the time, but I am sure, had the New Democrats known at the time what they were actually planning with the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, maybe they would not have supported that particular fund.
But what happened was, they had a surplus budget. Instead of having a surplus budget, they borrowed in excess of $150 million in order to create a $200-million slush fund. At the time, I argued that the real reason behind that fund was to be able to borrow money in the future in order to pay down future debts. I remember the circumstances quite well in terms of what allowed them the opportunity to generate that surplus.
This could have been an administration that would have done like no other provincial administration or national administration in recent time and brought forward a surplus budget. They had that opportunity. I often wonder if the former Minister of Finance has not reflected on that at all, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the past.
We have seen that. We have seen in budgets that have followed where this government has tapped into that particular fund, where government has actually played up the size of that fund, where the Provincial Auditor, on several occasions, has said, look, you are reporting your deficit inaccurately. In fact, just the other day in committee the Provincial Auditor reinforced that you had a substantially higher deficit in '92-93 fiscal year than you reported that you had.
That is the reason why last week when I posed a question to this government that Manitobans do not necessarily have faith in this government's numbers and what they have portrayed the deficit really is, for that reason, we articulated as to why it was necessary that the Provincial Auditor should have the final say. I would argue today that in fact the 20 percent of ministerial salaries that would be reduced if in fact the government does not come forward with the balanced budget legislation, if they were sincere in terms of having any form of penalty whatsoever, then why not allow the Provincial Auditor to have the final say? When we say the final say, it was the Premier (Mr. Filmon), I believe it was the Premier or possibly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) says, well, the Provincial Auditor does in one sense have the final say, because she can comment, or he, if in the future it is he, can comment in terms of the legitimacy of what the government has said is a balanced budget.
Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if the government has confidence in its bill and has confidence that it will do what it preaches, then they should not have any problem with the Provincial Auditor having the authority to be able to invoke the penalty. I would strongly encourage, in fact, that the government look seriously at including or incorporating the Provincial Auditor's office into this particular piece of legislation.
Another aspect that I found was somewhat interesting was--and again the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) is the one that kind of intrigued me into this area--the one of, how binding is this legislation? Ultimately, legislation can be introduced. This particular piece of legislation could be withdrawn at some point in time in the future, but this act actually does what it can to ensure that if in fact this bill is repealed that there is going to be a process in which whoever might be in opposition will have the opportunity to be able to prevent, to a certain degree but not entirely, the legislation from going through. So in fact, the legislation is not as binding as one or as the government might try to portray to the public. They have definitely made it more difficult in order to withdraw the legislation.
(Mr. Mike Radcliffe, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
Mr. Acting Speaker, when I think of the deficit and the overall management of the economy, there is something that in the past I have commented on that comes to mind. This is something in which the government is saying, look, we want balanced budgets, we want them on an annual basis and, if that is not the case, there are going to be penalties and other ramifications to referendums and so forth that will take place.
I in essence believe very firmly in Keynesian theory, if you like, which in a nutshell says, look, if the economy is doing exceptionally well, governments have a responsibility to cut back on expenditures. That in fact provides the opportunity to be able to provide governments the ability to save money.
In bad times, the way in which government can assist individuals or that social fabric, if you like, governments have a responsibility to help fuel the economy.
Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, this does not take that into account really to any degree whatsoever, and that is unfortunate. I guess I would be a bit more supportive if in fact there were some clauses that were built in to take this into account. They could ultimately argue the 5 percent revenue decrease and so forth, so they have not been completely ignorant of it. But the overall approach that this particular balanced budget legislation addresses, the business cycle, just really is not there.
I find that that is most unfortunate because to a certain degree, as the New Democrats have pointed out, you are tying the arms of future governments, or making it awfully difficult for them to be able to address the economy, if you like, into the future.
This is something that I think that governments should at least give more consideration to, because, as I said at the very onset, the concept is something, a balanced budget legislation, which we support, but we do believe very much so that the government has to reflect on the legislation that it has brought in and be sympathetic to listen to the public during public hearings and allow for some form of amendments to be accepted and preferably even for the government to bring in.
When we talk about, again, the economy in providing social services and incentives and so forth as a government and the government's role, there is no doubt, Mr. Acting Speaker, that the public is tired of tax increases. I think that they have expressed that time and time again, but government's choices are somewhat limited. You can either increase taxes or increase borrowing or you cut back. We have to be very sensitive to those three options. When we talk about taxes, the government likes to say, look, we have not increased personal income taxes over the years; we have not increased corporate taxes over the years, or the provincial sales tax.
* (1550)
But government revenues have increased and they have increased substantially since this government has been in office. There have been different forms of taxation that has been collected. The most successful, of course, from the government's point of view has in fact been that of the gambling tax. It is sad in terms of the neglect that has been given to those social costs of that gambling tax and the amount of resources and time and effort that this government has put in in terms of trying to address some of those social costs.
Other taxes that one can easily make reference to of course was the property tax where at one time we were receiving a higher property tax from the provincial Treasury. Well, that property tax credit has been reduced by this government.
So it is not fair to say that this is a government that has not given taxes to Manitobans. In terms of borrowing and that was the second option--[interjection] The print is way too small from where I am standing right now to read that. Mr. Acting Speaker, when it comes to borrowing money, again--and these are all approximate numbers; I do not want to say that they are a hundred percent accurate, but they should not be too far off. In '88-89 approximately $141 million; '89-90 $142 million; '90-91 $291 million; '91-92, $334 million; '92-93, and this is one of those really controversial years where it is $560 million, give or take, and it is likely take an extra $200 million; '93-94, $430 million; and '94-95, over $200 million. We are not too sure in terms of what is actually going to be happening in this fiscal year.
So once again the record is fairly clear in the sense that, as I have indicated earlier, this government has not really been that successful when it comes to balancing the budget, or not relying on borrowing. But that is the second issue.
The third one is the issue where I would like to spend some time, Mr. Acting Speaker, and that is the whole area of cutbacks. The way in which governments conduct cutbacks really demonstrates whether or not the government has heart, if you like, or is insincere in terms of wanting to provide better services [interjection]. The member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) says, I should check with my federal counterparts. Need I remind her to look at some of the cutbacks that were put in place in Ontario with the NDP administration, so no one should be necessarily pointing fingers.
I would rather try to provide some constructive criticism in this area for the simple reason that I do believe that government should be very sensitive when it is looking at having to cut back on funding for the many different departments. Time and time again we hear from this government that the three priority departments are Health, Education and Family Services. I would like to concentrate some time on Health because this is an issue that I feel very firmly and very strongly on, and would like this particular government to review and to be very careful with the ways in which they are changing the manner in which health care is being administered and the whole question of funding levels.
(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair)
I sat through numerous hours on health care, and I often talk to constituents. One of the primary issues we talk about time and time again is that of health care. One of the examples that we talk about is that if you take a look in virtually any hospital and particularly, let us say, in the city of Winnipeg, no doubt you would find seniors who are in that particular hospital who do not necessarily need to be in a hospital, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In fact, if you had services that were there to be provided in personal care homes, they could, quite frankly, be in a personal care home. Ultimately, and this is something in which the former Leader of the Liberal Party, Mrs. Carstairs, received some flak on, especially from the Deputy Premier and others, it was the whole idea that within our personal care homes, if you enhanced services to seniors in their homes or looked for alternative living arrangements, in fact you could have some seniors that are currently in personal care homes living in a better surrounding or a better atmosphere.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, these are all things I would ultimately argue in which we can provide better quality health care services at no extra cost, because it costs less to have a senior in a personal care home than a hospital. It costs less to have a person in a home care service scenario in their own home than it does in a personal care home. Yet we have not seen this government take actions that signal to the public as a whole that that is in fact what they are prepared to do. We have seen areas in which they are prepared to cut, and it is somewhat mind boggling and one has to question in terms of why it is that they might be cutting in some areas.
There are some areas in which--and to talk about the emergency services in which Manitobans feel very strongly on and are frustrated in terms of government's inaction to resolve the issue, the government can demonstrate, as I indicated, how compassionate it is by showing Manitobans just what it is that is on their real agenda, and the so-called hidden agenda. I think to a certain degree, depending on ministers and maybe quite possibly their own personalities and in many cases the civil servants that are around them that support them, the message has to be sent out from the Premier's Office that in fact, look, if we have to cut back in a particular department, that what we want to be able to do is to first and foremost look at ways in which we can deliver comparable or a relatively comparable level of service while at the same time being able to save dollars.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe, particularly in the Department of Health, that there are many different examples of just how government can do that. I made reference to numerous examples when we were in the health care Estimates. One that comes to mind right offhand was labs. Right now there is discussion on private versus public labs, what is in Manitoba's best interest. I have had presentations, and I am sure the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) has had presentations on this whole issue, and we are somewhat disappointed in the sense that why it is that we are not seeing action being taken on such a very important issue in which we can see money being saved and, again, services being enhanced.
The Minister of Health talks quite positively about the whole concept of the health care card. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I recall, again, in early elections, I believe actually my first one was in '88 where Mrs. Carstairs had brought in the suggestion of--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
As previously agreed, the hour being 4 p.m., it is time for private members' hour.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have 16 minutes remaining. This matter will also remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).