LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
April 19, 1993
The House met at 8 p.m.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY (continued)
BUDGET
DEBATE
(Eighth
Day of Debate)
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 8 p.m., resuming the adjourned
debate, standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, when I began my remarks earlier
today, I pointed to the mythology of the Conservative Party, the myths that we
are seeing propagated by this Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and this
government in the current budget and Budget Debate.
Mr. Speaker, it just amazes me how
Conservatives, no matter what time in history, never change. This is what I think has to be made very
clear when one looks at the statements being made by the Minister of Finance
and by other members of the Conservative Party.
They come and they say, as I said before today, these were tough
decisions, these were the toughest decisions that the Minister of Finance could
ever make, all people were sharing in the burden.
The Minister of Finance said he was
looking at the ability to pay. I dealt
with that earlier in pointing to the fact that the Minister of Finance is doing
nothing more than repeating the same kind of mythology that Conservatives
always preach, that they preached when Sterling Lyon was Premier, that they
preached when Duff Roblin was Premier, that they preach through Brian Mulroney,
that they preached in other countries throughout the world. Conservatives never
change. Their rhetoric never changes,
Mr. Speaker.
I asked people in this House the simple
question: Did the kind of things that
this government did in its budget really surprise anyone? Did it really surprise anyone that when the
Minister of Finance was looking at breaking the fundamental promise of the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) not to raise taxes he did look at two mechanisms? One, expanding the sales tax to include items
that will, in particular, hit low‑income people, doing it in a way with
no offsets, no input credit, which is the case with the GST, and no tax credit
offset. This is more regressive than the
GST even. There is no offset in the
budget for the GST of Clayton Manness and Gary Filmon, the GFST, as I put it.
This is no surprise to anyone. You know, it is the same thing as I said
earlier. The Minister of Finance spent
most of his time talking about decisions in terms of revenue, in terms of that
side of the ledger. When one looks at
the revenue side, I will argue that the mechanisms used by the Minister of
Finance to raise revenue were regressive, but look again at the
expenditures. Who is being cut? Does it surprise anyone that the
Conservatives have cut, who?‑‑aboriginal people, people on welfare,
seniors, the poor. Does that surprise
anyone? No, Mr. Speaker.
Let us put aside those Tory myths that
somehow there are tough times, Mr. Speaker, and these are tough decisions and
we are all sharing the pain. How many of
those members opposite and how many of the privileged friends who they are speaking
so piously about in terms of sharing the pain, the person living in Tuxedo
paying $4,000 worth of property tax, is now going to have to pay another $75
more?
The person living in the Roblin‑Russell
area‑‑and I ask that to the Conservative member representing that‑‑who
is going from paying no tax because of the fact that they received full tax
credits, is now paying $250. Where is
the sharing, Mr. Speaker? Where is the ability to pay in that? Where is the ability to pay? [interjection]
Well, you know, the Conservatives are almost shocked when anybody dares to
challenge that. What they do is they
then turn around and they use the final myth.
They have been using this for‑‑[interjection] Oh, well, they
may use other myths at times. Pardon me,
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) reminds me of that fact.
* (2005)
You know, Mr. Speaker, they turn around
and they say, you know, we had no other choice; this is not ideology; everybody
is doing what we are doing; this is not ideology; we just have to do this.
Well, it is interesting. Almost any time period you go back in
history, Conservatives have the same approach.
And is it any surprise in
An Honourable Member: How do you know?
Mr. Ashton: Well, maybe he is a relation. He certainly has the same sense of wisdom, Mr.
Speaker.
He said in 1857: It is not the metier of a Tory to have a
policy any more than it is that of a king to be a democrat. A Tory government may do very well without a
policy just as a country gentleman may sit at home and live upon his rents.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that was Tories in the
19th Century. They did not need
policies. They would argue, well, you
know, these were just the facts of life that you have such wretched poverty,
that you had the perils that many people faced because of the rapid
industrialization in terms of the societies in which they were in
government. There was no choice. There was no ideology. That just was the way it was. Well, what really is the truth in terms of
what the situation is, the choices that were made? Was there no ideology in the Conservative
approach in this budget? Well, I would
say to you that this budget is certainly the most ideological budget that a
Conservative government has introduced in
Well, Mr. Speaker, even the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) acknowledged earlier that we have one of the most
progressive taxation systems in the country, that we left this province with
the most progressive taxation. That has
been said. The Minister of Finance said
it to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay). The Canadian Tax Foundation
quotes‑‑if the members wish to look at it‑‑the most
progressive tax system in the province.
So I am saying quite up‑front that governments have ideologies and
senses of who they represent, what they represent and what they wish to achieve
in terms of goals.
Mr. Speaker, the interesting thing is what
this government has shown. First of all,
let us put it in perspective, because I think this is where the Conservative
government should be warned about the course of action it is following. It has brought in the most ideological budget
of any Conservative government in history. [interjection] Ideology,
indeed. You know, it is interesting
because, if one looks at what has happened in the rest of the world‑‑just
look in the rest of the North American continent. The
In fact, John Kenneth Galbraith has
referred to, in his new book‑‑which I would recommend reading,
which I have been going through‑‑when he talks about the culture of
content, the contented, the underclass, the separation between the growing
number of people who are finding themselves falling into that category and the
culture of contentment bred by 12 years of Conservative ideology in practice.
It is a direct attack on the poor, the
dispossessed, minorities because it is a philosophy and an ideology that starts
from the premise that those that have should not in any way, shape or form have
to be concerned with those that have not.
It is based on that fundamental principle of greed and selfishness and
avarice, but you know, Mr. Speaker, it is being rejected in the
I look at the situation in
When everybody else is throwing away the
failed Conservative policies, we have now the dwindling number of Conservative
governments, on the one hand, and this government bringing in its most
ideological and right‑wing budget out of the six that this Finance
minister has presented and, I would say, more right wing and more ideological
than anything that Sterling Lyon ever brought in. Is that an accident?
* (2010)
Well, I say that this government is
putting up the fences. There is a big fence running across the divide of this
province right now. It is being put up
just south of the
Mr. Speaker, there is a divide. There are fences being put up in the city of
Is it any accident that to quote the
Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey)‑‑I am sorry, I want to
attribute it correctly to the original source‑‑that quote, those
people do not know how to vote right in the Conservative view. It is not me who says that. In fact, when the Minister of Northern
Affairs said it, I will give him credit for one thing. He said what a lot of people have told me
that they always believe about the Conservatives. They really do not care about the poor, and
they do not care about the disabled, and they do not care about aboriginal
people.
When I talk to my constituents‑‑I
talked to a woman who is disabled who spent four years living in a second‑floor
apartment, her husband carrying her up every day in an area in Thompson which
can only be categorized as a slum in terms of the conditions. I have been in that apartment. I know what it was like. I have talked to her, and I have asked her
for any concerns she has. Her concern
was in terms of what next. She said, I
was helping out at the friendship centre.
That was cut. The MLPH has been cut, she said. She said social assistance recipients are
being cut. She said, I am lucky. I am off social assistance right now. My husband is working. He has been cut. He is a public servant. She said, I cannot afford to stay in my home
right now. What if they take my home
away? Do I go back to that second‑floor
apartment, Mr. Speaker?
These people know what the Tory ideology
is about. I can give you other examples
of people I have talked to if the Finance minister wishes to question whether
other people are saying this as well. It
is not just the opposition.
I talked to someone who was working in the
friendship centre in Thompson who said, I get paid $22,000 a year, and I
provide service to 41 aboriginal seniors.
You know what they said, Mr. Speaker?
They said that when that cut was announced, they asked her. They said, what are we going to do? You are our window on the outside world,
aboriginal seniors who look to her for access to service, who look to her for
translation. She sort of said, the
second thing they said, that is the Conservatives for you, the same people were
being cut. They said, we might have
known that; we could have expected that.
I have talked to another individual‑‑and
this is just last week‑‑who is on social assistance or was
previously on social assistance, now a student, and asked how this government
could target students on the Social Allowances Program. You know, Mr. Speaker, she said, I realize
that maybe those students do not vote for the Conservatives. Maybe the Conservatives do not understand the
concerns of those people, but how could they be so callous as to do that? I could give you many more examples. But that is the point. The people understand that. They understand what the Conservative Party
is all about.
I could continue further with the many
comments the people have found, but whether you look back to the 19th Century
or you look into the 20th Century or the 21st Century, Conservatives keep
peddling the same line. They say they
are not ideological. There are no other choices, Mr. Speaker. Yet what they do is they end up when the
tough choices have to be made, funnily enough, the people who suffer are always
the same. It was the same under Sterling
Lyon, and it is the same under this Premier. The only difference is the degree
of it.
* (2015)
There is another difference as well, Mr.
Speaker, and this is what really disturbs me.
I mentioned before about the fences, the walls that have been put up,
both physical and political walls. But
what concerns me is this government does not even come outside of those
walls. We had a demonstration on the
steps of the Legislature a couple of weeks ago.
An Honourable Member: We?
Mr. Ashton: Not we‑‑that is right‑‑we
as the
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Culture,
Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) came in and gave a speech and left
without answering a single question at the MIC meeting on Saturday.
They have refused to talk to groups, to
meet with groups that do not agree with them.
Not only that, but they have cut them as well. They have cut them. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) has got up and said,
well, these are advocacy groups; they have to be cut. The only difference to my
mind between advocacy and being advisory for this Premier is they like advisory
groups. Advisory groups agree with the
Conservatives. Advocacy groups are
groups that do not agree with them, so advocacy groups get cut. That is the only difference. It can be the same process. We see the favoured groups; we see those, the
56 that were cut entirely, whom they represent.
Mr. Speaker, is this new? Is this a new process? No, it is not. I took the time to read back, and it was
interesting. I was reading in terms of
J.S. Woodsworth. A lot of people may not
realize this, but in 1916 when J.S. Woodsworth was working, at that particular
point in time, on a prairie‑wide study of the poor, you know what
happened? He spoke out against the
federal Conservative government. What
happened? They cut the program that J.S.
Woodsworth worked for. So Tories of 1916
and Tories of 1993, the same ideology, the same approach.
I talked about walls. J.S. Woodsworth in 1911 said: It seems to me the great task of statesmanship
in this country in the coming years will be to break down that fence and bring
together these great factors: labour,
natural resources, and the equipment of which we already have such abundance in
I go further, because in 1911 the same
august individual said, Mr. Speaker, that we are all neighbours. He said, and I think this is something that
this government could do well to learn from:
The welfare of one is the concern of all. That is why we are so opposed to this budget
and the ideology it represents. This
budget and this government are based on a single premise, that it can put up
walls and fences, that it can say that certain people do not know how to vote
right, that it can say that certain groups that do not agree with them can be
cut, that it can target aboriginal people, the poor, working people, seniors,
that it can try and divide and conquer.
But we know from history when the ideology of conservative parties
becomes clear, as it is across
I believe that is what is happening in this
province at this present time. A lot of
people who are directly affected by the cuts are fighting back, but a lot of
other people are saying this government just is not fair.
I will predict right now, this is a
watershed budget for this government. By
showing its true Tory ideology, Mr. Speaker, it is sowing the seeds for its
defeat in the next election. We will be
saying we care about all, we do care about our neighbours, and we do not accept
the tired ideology of the Conservative Finance minister, the Conservative
Premier and the Conservative Party.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I sense that the enthusiasm may
be that I get on with the job, so that members can watch the hockey game, but I
am always delighted to be able to stand up in one of our freewheeling debates,
such as the throne speech and the budget, to add my contributions. No matter how difficult the choices may have
been or the presentation and putting together of the budget, I believe that
this is a budget that is worthy of the support of all members of this
House. This is a budget that has been
developed with a thought to the future in mind, the future of all the people of
* (2020)
Mr. Speaker, as was the case with the
throne speech for this fourth session of the 35th Legislature, the budget
speech deals realistically with the problems that face Manitobans today. It does not ignore them. It does not attempt to avoid or postpone them. It deals with them in a realistic fashion.
The debate gives a real opportunity for us
to separate the ideology and the philosophy that underlies the parties in this
House. It presents, I believe, a stark
contrast between a group, the government side of the House, who are very, very
realistic, not trying to paint an unduly optimistic or an unduly bleak picture,
but rather to look in a very realistic fashion at things that face us as a
government and as a people in
On the other hand, we have the opportunity
to listen to the contributions of members opposite. They can be summarized, I think, very, very
simply in saying that the members of the New Democratic Party, by virtue of
their comments here in the Legislature, have learned nothing from the past and
have offered us absolutely no alternatives‑‑and I will speak more
about that‑‑have chosen as they always do in this House to simply
criticize, criticize, criticize without offering any alternative, any
substantive alternative, and have consistently, as they did throughout their
time in government, advocated a tax‑and‑spend approach to
government.
They have said that any area of government
in which we are spending money, we are not spending enough, that they would
spend more and spend more and spend more.
Without answering it directly, indirectly by virtue of things that they
do let out from time to time we know that the deficit would be higher except
for the fact that some of it might be somewhat mitigated by tax increases,
which has of course been the history of New Democrats in this province and
every other province in
The Liberals, on the other hand, have
criticized, there is no question, and I say that some have been more positive
and more balanced than others. The
member for Kildonan, who is listening attentively as he always does‑‑sorry,
The Maples (Mr. Cheema); I apologize, that is an insult‑‑the member
for The Maples, who is listening attentively as he always does. He does indeed try to participate in a very
realistic way, in a very substantive way, in issues of particular interest to
him, such as health care. He is even so
broad‑minded as to be able to accept some of the solutions that are put
forward by our Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard). He is always, I think, attentive to the needs
that are there and therefore does not reject anything out of hand without some
very due consideration.
* (2025)
Unfortunately, I think some of his
colleagues tend to take a position that I think ultimately is the downfall of
the Liberals, and that is to say, we agree with what you are doing in
principle. On the other hand, we do not
agree with the specifics of what you are doing, you know. We would do it differently. They never spell
out what that difference is. They end up
in bottom‑line terms being very similar to the New Democrats of offering
no alternatives. I regret to have to say
that to the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), but that is true. They just say we disagree with this cut, we
disagree with that cut, for this reason and that one and that one, and they
pick away and pick away to the point that they really end up agreeing with the
New Democrats. But they end up by saying
in principle, of course, we agree with the government that we have to have the
deficit down and we should not raise taxes.
It is a problem that has to be dealt with.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this latest
Never, I believe, has the world moved so
quickly and, indeed, in so many different directions. Everything appears to be changing. We remember Toffler's book in which he talked
about the increasing pace of change as being the single greatest problem to be
dealt with, but it is not just that pace of change. It is that it is happening in literally every
sector of society, in every sector of the economy.
All nations of the world have been
challenged to keep pace with a variety of problems that have come as a result
of this sweeping social change and economic change that is taking place
concurrently. I have talked about it in
earlier debates about the combination of both a recession and a restructuring
and the massive, massive changes that that means for our economy and, indeed,
for the world's economy. Of course, as a
provincial government, indeed as one of 10 provincial governments, we too have
to cope with the effects of these changes, and we have to face the challenges
that are presented by them.
The economic challenges that we are experiencing
in
They are having to re‑examine how
they do business, if they want to stay in business. Now who would ever have asked, in the recent
past even, whether or not IBM would ever be threatened or General Motors? They are all threatened because of these
tremendous changes that are taking place.
They are accelerated, as well, by the world political and social changes
that are truly staggering in their scope.
We have talked since 1989, in this House,
about the opening up of the Eastern Bloc, communism disappearing from the world
but everything is changing so rapidly.
You go to
The changes are massive, and they are
occurring everywhere throughout the world.
As I said earlier, the Commonwealth of Independent States did not exist
a couple of years ago.
* (2030)
The foundation of the global economy is
changing, and changing rapidly. Today's
economy is information driven above all else.
It immediately absorbs every advance in technology, in computers or
telecommunications. The new global economy
is trade driven and the response to actions by governments either to cut trade
barriers or to form large trading blocks or both. The new global economy is market driven, and
it is driven by markets that have been fragmented and segmented in a way that
was impossible as recently as a decade ago.
The global restructuring obviously affects us here in
Now I think New Democrats still do not
believe that. I do not think they
believe that we have to be a part of the global economic restructuring. They still believe that we could raise
barriers, that we could have a protected economy in which we only purchase
within our own economy, we do not allow imports to come in here, we circle the
wagons and we somehow cut ourselves off from the global trading arrangements
that go on. They still do not believe
that is a necessity of life.
We have to compete globally. I will talk a little later about decisions
that were made even in the last six months by multinational corporations, such
as Ayerst and Monsanto, in which they examined as many as 40 different
countries worldwide as the potential place in which they would locate or expand
their business and chose
There is no question that we must respond
to the changing world around us in order that we can protect and enhance the
society that generations of Canadians have worked so hard to build.
We are certainly amid difficult and
changing times, but we have been preparing well for our future during these
difficult times, better than most provinces, I would argue. Many of the things that are contained within
our budget and the comments that I will make, I believe will verify that we
have been preparing better than most provinces for those challenges that lie
ahead.
We are responding to the challenge of
global competition. We have removed, for
instance, obstacles to success. We have
always said that high taxes drive business and opportunity elsewhere. Howard
Pawley proved that in spades in
In fact, we have reduced the tax rates in
many areas. We have reduced personal
income tax rates by 2 percent. We
removed the payroll tax off the backs of more than 70 percent of the
An Honourable Member: Seventy percent never did pay it, right?
Mr. Filmon: No, that is not true, but we reduced it off
the backs of 70 percent who were paying it when we took office, and, Mr.
Speaker, despite difficult challenges we found an opportunity to remove even
yet a few more with this budget, a few hundred more‑‑
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): 600 to 700.
Mr. Filmon: ‑‑600 to 700, as the Minister of
Finance rightly reminds me, in this budget.
We created a mining tax holiday to
encourage new investment in
Mr. Speaker, this latest budget continues
the trend of reducing taxes to add momentum to
We have worked hard to create an
environment that encourages the entrepreneurial spirit of Manitobans. Through initiatives like the Economic
Development Board, the Economic Innovation and Technology Council, rural Grow
Bonds, Community Choices, Workforce 2000, to highlight just a few of the things
that we have been working on.
* (2040)
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer)
takes great pride in ridiculing the money that is spent in areas such as I, T
and T on programs like the Vision Capital Fund.
I think that is a terrible attitude to take. He should know so much better, as a part of a
government, the NDP government, that brought in a Jobs Fund, that did
what? That created short‑term make‑work
jobs that he criticized. I remember when
he said that they were paying people to plant flowers alongside of the highways
in
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the
Chair)
The absolutely fascinating part is that
you cannot find anyone who is still working whose job was begun under the Jobs
Fund of Howard Pawley and his cabinet‑‑not a soul.
We have updated the way government does
business so that we can be more efficient and more effective and more
innovative as we move towards the next century.
We are going to continue that trend because governments cannot be immune
to all of the same efforts that are being put forth in the private sector. The private sector is doing everything they
can to downsize, to ensure that they become more efficient, more effective, and
to get the job done better with fewer people just to survive. Governments
cannot be immune from that effort. We
have to do the same thing, and it is a foundation of our four‑year plan
that at the end of a four‑year period we are going to balance the budget
based on controlled government spending, based on modest increases in revenue.
I would argue with the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) that he has been too small "c" conservative in his
projections as to the revenue increases in this province in future. I believe that the economy is going to grow
at a better rate than he is projecting, but I think that is okay. We do not want to create undue expectations. I believe that his estimates of revenues from
both the taxation levels of this province and the transfers from lottery
revenues will indeed see us reach that target of a balanced budget in the four‑year
period that he has put forward. A perfect example of the efficiency that has
been a hallmark of this administration is provided for me by the rhetoric that
has been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) when he states
with a straight face that the NDP government of Howard Pawley left a surplus in
this province when they left office, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Well, just in case any member of the
Liberal Party or any member of the media was tempted to believe that, no matter
how often he repeats it, we pulled out, of course, the budget that was
defeated, that fateful budget that was defeated in March of 1988 by a vote of
one Mr. Walding from St. Vital. He did
not vote against that budget because it had a surplus in it. He voted against that budget because it
called for a $334 million deficit.
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, when we came
into office and we got a hold of the books, we found that budget with its $334
million deficit did not have anything in it for a settlement with the MGEU,
despite the fact that they were scheduled to get an increase in pay in
September of that year‑‑not in the figures. There was nothing in
that budget for a settlement with the doctors.
There was nothing in that budget for a settlement with the nurses. There was $1 million in that budget for
forest fires. Despite the fact that the
average cost over the previous five years for forest fire fighting was $10
million, they had $1 million in the budget.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we had to put in
almost $100 million more to cover these items in order to make it an honest
budget. Despite all of that, because we
also had to look for ways to reduce it because we did not think 334 plus 100
was an acceptable level. So to get it
down below $200 million, we had to reduce the expenditures. That was responsible fiscal management.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Filmon: I know that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Doer) is finding this difficult. The
truth hurts. I will invite him to take a
look at the graph that is in the budget, that shows what was the debt of the
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know this is very
hard on the Leader of the Opposition, and he is having great difficulty with
this. I will try and persist so that he does not have to exercise himself any
longer.
In 1982, when Howard Pawley first took
office, the general purpose debt of the province was $1.436 billion. That was the general debt of the
province. After six budgets of Howard
Pawley that rose to $5.162 billion. That
is an addition of $3.7 billion to the general purpose debt of this province in
six budgets.
Now in six budgets under our government it
has gone from 5.162 to a projected 6.505.
That is in six budgets‑‑$1.35 billion added to the deficit
during that time. During the period of
time that the New Democrats were in, their revenues were growing at double‑digit
rates almost every year they were in government, and they were spending it
faster than it was coming in at double‑digit rates. They were still running up the deficit at a
rate that was double the average of our budget‑‑double the average
of our budget.
That is the thing that embarrasses the
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer).
That is why he has to shout hard and loud because he is totally
embarrassed by that statistic, and it tells the truth. It is the truth at the financial markets; it
is the truth at the bond‑rating agencies; it is the truth that the people
who judge the economics of this province know.
The bottom line is that no matter how much
that we have saved by virtue of introducing greater efficiencies throughout
government in the last five years, regrettably it still has not been
enough. Even though our economy is
recovering and even though we are providing services more efficiently, today government
revenue in
* (2050)
We had an economic briefing from people
who are involved in the economic think‑tank that analyzes the economic
forecast right across this country, and they put a slide up on the overhead
projector that showed what personal income growth was in Canada in the '70s, in
the '80s, and what it will be in the '90s.
In the '70s we all remember that Trudeau had to bring in the anti‑inflation
war. It was going wild, the inflationary
increase. You know that per capita
income grew on an annual basis at 13 percent per year during the 1970s. In the '80s that had gone down by more than a
third to 7.9 percent per year. In the
'90s it is projected to increase at 3.1 percent per year.
What does that mean to governments? Well, every government, federal and
provincial, has as its major sources of revenue either personal income taxes or
consumption taxes which are based on the amount of money you have to
spend. Same thing. They are both directly correlated to the
income growth, and the income growth in the '90s is going to be less than a
quarter of what it was in the '70s. That
is a reality that every government in
Madam Deputy Speaker, what that means is
trimming expenditures and evaluating every single service to differentiate between
what services are vital and necessary and essential and what ones we just
simply cannot afford anymore. Many of
the things that the New Democrats and the Liberals have been criticizing with
respect to our budgetary decisions are because of the fact that we simply
cannot afford to do the things today in the '90s with growth rates that are
less than a quarter of what they were in the '70s. We cannot afford to do all those things that
were built into government services. We
have now got to be far, far more discerning about what we choose to put on to
government as its responsibility. You
know what? The taxpayers agree with
that. The taxpayers are not
uncomfortable with us saying government cannot do it all.
The taxpayers are responding in a variety
of different ways. You take a look in many of the fields of social services and
recreation and sport. What is
happening? Volunteerism is coming back. People are going out and doing things and
working in the community. We have
retired people, we have other people who are going out and working in the
community, Madam Deputy Speaker. As well
as that, we have people who are contributing funds to the universities. They are contributing funds to the
universities in a big, big way that they did not before, contributing funds to
health care in this province, major capital campaigns that are able to raise $5
million and $10 million and $20 million, because people want to say, I will
take this as a personal commitment, as a personal responsibility.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the public is way
ahead of the New Democrats in this whole thing.
The New Democrats are mired in yesteryear. They are mired in the old‑think in
which they cannot adjust their thinking to the new realities. They are quoting J.S. Woodsworth; they are
quoting Tommy Douglas; they are quoting all of those people of many, many
decades ago, because they cannot face the reality of today. That is the difference.
Two‑thirds of our provincial
government spending is concentrated in three departments: Health, Education and Family Services. A further 10 percent is in debt
servicing. It is only logical that we
have to review every single service, every single department, every single
function of government to examine how we spend our money and what priorities we
can justify in the light of today's realities.
I believe that the government of
Through attrition, through voluntary
severance, through elimination of positions we have substantially reduced the
public service of
That is not something that we are saying
as a means of saying we are better than, or we are boasting about. It is reality. If IBM is down by 25 percent worldwide, if
Phillips is down by a third worldwide, if everybody, even corporations in Japan
that are doing very well, is doing it with fewer people, the government of
Madam Deputy Speaker, everyone‑‑civil
servants and elected officials alike‑‑will share the responsibility
of cost cutting as equally as we can apply it as a result of this budget. The reduced workweek is a classic example of an
innovative approach that is going to be picked up by other governments in the
country. A number have already said so.
Sadly, the funding for programs and
services had to be reduced in our latest budget. We did not relish the thought of reducing program
funding in so many areas of government.
They were not decisions that we wanted to make. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
said, they were decisions that we knew we absolutely had to make if we were to
secure our economic future and the core of our social safety net for today and
for the future.
The simple fact is, no matter where we
live in
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Time and time again, the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Doer) got up on his soapbox, and he blindly criticized our
administration for decisions to reduce funding without saying where he would
cut or what taxes he would raise. Two
weeks ago, he was asked for alternatives, for NDP ideas about how to deal with
the global challenges before us. His
response was published in the April 5th
* (2100)
Now, that is real leadership. For someone who has an idea of being the
Premier one day, that is irresponsible.
That is totally irresponsible. He
has certainly demonstrated that he would not be capable of handling the job. He cannot even come up with any
alternatives. Criticism‑‑oh,
he is good at that, but alternatives‑‑not one.
I will give the Leader of the Liberal
Party (Mrs. Carstairs) credit. She at
least said on budget day, she said that she did not like some of the areas of
revenue increase that we had in our budget.
She said she would rather raise personal income taxes. That is what she
said. She would rather raise personal
income taxes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the simple and the
unfortunate truth is that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) has no ideas
and no alternatives. He is not capable
of finding solutions. He is only capable
of providing criticism in opposition. I
think it is obvious by his hollow performance here, daily in the House and on
this Budget Debate, that he is not capable of doing even that effectively.
In fact, you know, his most exciting day
in Question Period was the day after the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) made
his speech that gave him some material he could go on. He thought he had a big issue here. It was his leading question, because he could
not come up with one. Well, I think it
is time that the Leader of the Opposition rolled up his sleeves here in the
Legislature, instead of just in front of the television cameras.
The few ideas that he does bring forward
and the ideology they represent have been proven to be outdated everywhere in
the world around us. He does not
recognize the changes that are taking place in the Soviet Union, in
I really do not believe that there are too
many Manitobans who think that we could influence the interest rates, the
exchange rates, the inflation rates of this nation, or any of those
things. I give a lot of credit to our
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), but I do not believe that even many
Manitobans would give him the credit that he could do all of those things.
Just as an aside, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy
Premier (Mr.
The multinational corporations of the
world, in deciding where they will invest, how they will move their resources,
how they will trade and all of those things, have greater influence on the
economy of the world than any nation in this world does. Maybe the
But what we can do in
I do not understand how the Leader of the
Opposition could lead with his chin with his criticisms about what we are doing
in our budget without even opening his eyes to read the papers about what New
Democrats in other provinces are doing in their budgets. He cannot believe it‑‑that he
could not see what is happening in all of these other provinces. In
Here is what they did to seniors on fixed
income. They brought in these massive
surcharges on those they thought were wealthy people, people who had homes in
older areas that they had lived in for 30 years. When they moved into those homes, they had on
the‑‑three days after the budget, they had on the front page of the
This is the point, Mr. Speaker, is that it
is not a wealth tax. They had on the
front page of the
So when they talk about what we have done
to add $75 or $175 or $250 to a property tax of an individual, how would you
like to have $4,500 added to your property tax overnight? That is the idiocy of New Democratic parties.
Speaking of idiocy, earlier today in his
speech, the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) suggested that in fact if you
combined the loss of $175 seniors grant, because it was now income tested, with
the $75 reduction in the minimum Property Tax Credit, and then you added that
to the $250 of minimum tax that would have to be paid, somehow somebody was
going to get hit for $500, not $250. He
had just found that out. What he does
not realize is that if they have to pay the additional $75 and $175, that is
$250 minimum they do not get another $250 added on.
Well, that is a person who was in the
cabinet of Howard Pawley and cannot figure out the changes. That is why he built the bridge only halfway
across the river, with no roads on either side.
Wow.
* (2110)
Mr. Speaker, in
An Honourable Member: Do not even talk about
Mr. Filmon: They do not want us to mention
Two cents a litre on gasoline, Mr.
Speaker. Closure of hospitals all over
the province. I will not point the
finger at Roy Romanow, because I believe that Roy Romanow is doing what he has
to do, and I am being honest in saying that, unlike the New Democrats opposite
who, facing the same kind of thing here in
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Filmon: Saskatchewan‑‑listen, Mr.
Speaker, listen, just listen if I may give you some information, to what cuts
Again, I say I do not criticize
Mr. Speaker, I will not even speculate on
what has to be done in the
I will not even embarrass him by even
responding to that kind of nonsense, but they sit there, saying that we do not
have to be a part of reality. We do not
have to be a part of anything that is happening throughout the world, or in
Mr. Speaker, I will say this, that the
member for
But the Leader of the official opposition
is trying to sell Manitobans on the idea that there is no problem. He could magically wave a wand and he could
do it all without raising taxes, and he would give them all the things that
they want, and he still would not have a big deficit, Mr. Speaker. Well, the fact of the matter is that the
citizens of
Mr. Speaker, the honourable Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) summed it up perfectly in his Budget Address when he
said: "In each of our homes, when
spending overtakes income, and when there is no way to earn more, habits must
be changed, and family members must be asked to do more with less. Governments are not immune to this
reality."
We can only offer the people of this
province the truth of the situation that we face and ask them to work alongside
us to fix the problem. More than ever
before this budget reflects our commitment to build a strong
Mr. Speaker, I listened to Roy Romanow on
his budget day, and he said something that struck a very, very truthful chord
because it was the same thing that Clyde Wells was saying over in
Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk about one
other thing, and I hope that the member for
* (2120)
The fact of the matter is, until we in
education, whether it be in our public schools or in our post‑secondary
institutions, start measuring outcomes and judging the effectiveness by the
results of the efforts and not how much money goes in, we will never improve
the ability of our children to compete, of our children to be educated for the
real world and the global market that is out there. The fact of the matter is, they are going to
have to compete globally.
New Democrats, and particularly several of
those who judge themselves to be critics, are saying over and over again that
you should not test these people. You
should not measure outcomes. You should just simply ignore all that and keep
putting more money in. What is the
result of that? The result is that this
country puts in more per capita and more as a proportion of our budget into
education than any other nation in the world, and we do not compete in terms of
the quality of our graduates and the quality of their learning.
Then you have somebody like the chairperson
of the largest school division in
Well, all of a sudden, it is not worth
looking at because it is sponsored by big corporations. Those are the very people who employ the vast
majority of Canadians, those big corporations, but do not listen to them, because
they should not be listened to in terms of the quality of people whom they want
to work for them. They should have
absolutely nothing to say about the education system in this country. She says, they are talking back to basics,
and that is not a good thing.
Talk about having your head in the
sand. This is the chairperson of the
largest school board in
Mr. Speaker, you cannot judge whether or
not you are making progress toward a goal or whether you are improving your
ability to educate people or the outcome of it unless you test. That is a fundamental precept of anything in
life. You cannot tell whether you are
doing better or worse unless you test and evaluate.
The Teachers' Society of this province
says, do not test. It is not good for
children, and it will not do anything for the education system. The head of our largest school board in
Mr. Speaker, I think that it is absolutely
astonishing that this could happen in our society today. That is indeed our problem.
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk a little bit
while I have the time about some of the good news items that have been taking
place in
ISM that used to be the Manitoba Data
Services has added 50 jobs since they were divested from the
Well, the member opposite says that
Tupperware is a company. See, this is the interesting thing. He says Tupperware‑‑he is always
concentrating on the negative. He takes
great pleasure when people lose jobs.
Mr. Speaker, he has said absolutely nothing about the fact that the
latest Stats Canada figures say that there are 14,000 more Manitobans employed
today than were in August of last year; year over year, March '92 to March '93,
there are 10,000 more Manitobans employed. [interjection]
But more than were there when you were
last in government; more than were there when the New Democrats were last in
government. And he talked about
Morden. Morden now has the world's first
dry Roundup plant. Monsanto looked at
over 40 locations worldwide. That is in
addition to the expansion of 3M. They
have almost doubled their size. All of
this has happened since the announcement of Tupperware. 3M doubled their size. Rimer‑Alco came into Morden, Monsanto
came there, and there are two more businesses coming in there in the next few
months. Stay tuned. The employment increase will be more than the
losses of Tupperware, but those are all good news stories and New Democrats do
not like to hear that. I know that.
Ayerst Organics, $300 million capital
investment, annual cash crop income for
We have another company that has
technology which is going to be used on HVDC lines in
Mr. Speaker, we believe that the credit
belongs to Manitobans for taking the initiative, for investing their time,
energy and talent in making these things happen, but I believe that some of the
credit should go to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) for putting in place
an economic foundation that allows for this investment and co‑operation.
Mr. Speaker, I am calling today upon all
Manitobans to join with us in support of these economic initiatives, in
building a strong foundation, in attracting investment, in creating jobs and
opportunities for the future, and in competing in the great global market,
because I believe that Manitobans will indeed be able to meet the test and will
indeed be able to succeed in the great future that holds for us in the world.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 9:30 p.m., in accordance with
subrule 23(5), I am putting the questions necessary to dispose of the proposed
motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) that this House
approve in general the budgetary policy of the government and all the
amendments to that motion.
* (2130)
The question before the House is the proposed
subamendment to the honourable Leader of the second opposition party (Mrs.
Carstairs).
THAT the amendment be amended by adding
thereto the following words:
And further regrets that:
(a)
this government has failed to adequately invest in theeducation and
training of Manitobans as witnessed by thecuts to student social allowances, to
universityfunding, to the Advanced Education and Skills TrainingDivision;
(b)
this government has failed to address the needs of thepoorest and most
vulnerable members of our society bycutting speech pathologists and hearing
clinicians forchildren with special needs, by requiring parents whorequire
subsidized daycare to pay more than they canafford, by raising nursing home
resident fees, byreducing payments to foster families, by reducingdental,
optical and pharmaceutical benefits to socialassistance recipients, by cutting
funding to friendshipcentres;
(c)
this government has failed to ensure the universality ofthe medicare
system by introducing user fees for clientsunder the home care plan, by placing
a cap on medicalfees and by discontinuing the treatment portion ofChildren's
Dental services; and
(d)
this government continues to obfuscate the government'sfinancial
statements with its continued use of theFiscal Stabilization plan.
A Standing Vote was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Alcock, Ashton, Barrett,
Carstairs, Cerilli, Cheema, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Edwards, Evans (Brandon
East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Gray, Hickes, Lamoureux, Lathlin,
Maloway, Martindale, Plohman, Reid,
Nays
Cummings, Dacquay,
Derkach,
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Yeas 26, Nays 29.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Now, the question before the House is the
proposed amendment as moved by the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Doer) to the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the
government.
The proposed motion of the honourable
Leader of the Opposition in amendment thereto,
THAT the motion be amended by deleting all
the words after "House" and substituting the following:
Regrets that
(a)
this government's tax increases are regressive andunfair to seniors,
young people, low‑ and middle‑incomeearners; and
(b)
this government's inaction on job creation means morehardship for many
thousands of
(c)
as a result of this government's callous and unfair cutsin government
services for education, health care,social programs such as the reduction in
Children'sDental Program in rural and northern
THEREFORE this government has thereby lost
the confidence of this House and the people of
All those in favour of that motion will
please rise. All those in favour of the
proposed motion will please say yea.
Some Honourable Members:
Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Call in the members.
Order, please. The question before the House is the proposed
amendment as moved by the honourable Leader of the Opposition.
A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as
follows:
Yeas
Alcock, Ashton, Barrett,
Carstairs, Cerilli, Cheema, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Edwards, Friesen, Gaudry,
Gray, Hickes, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake),
Maloway, Martindale, Plohman, Reid,
Nays
Cummings, Dacquay,
Derkach,
* (2140)
Mr. Clerk: Yeas 26, Nays 29.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the proposed motion lost.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Now, the question before the House is the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) that this
House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.
All those in favour of the proposed
motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members:
Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Call in the members.
A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Dacquay,
Derkach,
Nays
Alcock, Ashton, Barrett,
Carstairs, Cerilli, Cheema, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Edwards, Evans (Brandon
East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Gray, Hickes, Lamoureux, Lathlin,
Maloway, Martindale, Plohman, Reid,
Mr. Clerk: Yeas 29, Nays 26.
Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
The hour being after 10 p.m., this House
now adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).