Madam Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private Members' Business.

Mr. Ben Sveinson (La Verendrye): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou),

"WHEREAS balanced budgets allow public resources to be directed to socially relevant areas such as health care and education rather than increased interest payments; and

"WHEREAS the recent upgrading of Manitoba's credit rating to AA level by Moody's was largely attributable to the fiscal responsibility demonstrated by the provincial government through passage of the toughest balanced budget legislation in Canada; and

"WHEREAS balanced budgets create an economic climate conducive to enhanced consumer confidence and private investment; and

"WHEREAS balanced budgets lead to flexibility and security for future generations.

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba encourage the Provincial Government to continue its commitment to fiscal responsibility and sound economic stewardship."

Mr. Sveinson: Madam Speaker, this important resolution seeks the support of members to continue the government's commitment in respect of fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets. The focus of this resolution is mainly on preserving Manitoba's hard won gains in fiscal stability and responsibility. Five consecutive budgets, continued paydown of Manitoba debt with the ultimate objective of paying down the government's debt in 26 to 27 years, continued tax freezes with possible further reductions to let individuals and businesses keep more hard earned money in their pockets.

In 1995-96 Manitobans enjoyed their first budgetary surplus in 22 years. Finally balance was achieved in Manitoba's public finances.

But let us talk a little bit about the balanced budget legislation that was brought in and what our members opposite thought of that balanced budget legislation. It is really interesting. I would like everybody to really listen closely, because it is quite incredible.

You see, for the last two and a half weeks or so, or roughly two and a half weeks, we have heard about things like integrity and honesty and things of that nature of which the opposition, I say, does not really know that much, but are trying to impress upon people that they do. So I do not want them to feel too badly. Maybe I could help them a little bit by stating some of the things that I have heard said in this Assembly.

I will just give you a few, well, quite a few comments that were made by some of the members opposite, like, for example, the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). His comment about balanced budget legislation: "This government only takes a short-term view of the future of this province."

Maybe the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen): "We cannot allow ourselves to be stampeded into making simplistic decisions now that will hurt this province later on." It goes against the very notion of investing in the future.

We are talking about balanced budget legislation. What has that balanced budget legislation done here in this province? Moody's and many others have actually looked at our credit rating and actually brought it up simply because of that and what it has done and what this government has done.

How about the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk)? She said: "This government is looking at a short-term balance sheet, not the long-term, good investment for Manitobans."

Well, I am not sure exactly where she was going with that. Manitobans probably are not either. Let us look at a couple more. The member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers): "This balanced budget legislation, Bill 2, is very much a short-term, knee-jerk reaction."

Then there is the one, Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). She said the legislation "will endanger the economy;" " . . . will not maintain Manitoba as a wealthy place where our young people can continue to live and prosper."

Can you imagine all this? I mean, the people of Manitoba, this is the government-in-waiting over here. The government-in-waiting. We are going to convince the people in Manitoba, this is the government-in-waiting?

* (1710)

Let us go on. Let us read a few more. How about the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen)? She said: "Its real purpose, of course, is an abdication of responsibility."

Wow. Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans): "What is so magical about balancing the budget every year anyway?" "Do you really think we are going to get the Manitoba debt down to zero? I do not."

Let us just read that one once more. The member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) said: "What is so magical about balancing the budget every year anyway?" "Do you really think that we are going to get the Manitoba debt down to zero? I do not."

An Honourable Member: Who said that?

Mr. Sveinson: The member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) made that comment. And there is more. There is more. I just want you, Madam Speaker, and the people of Manitoba to know that these comments are coming from the so-called, the so-called government-in-waiting, the NDP, the members opposite.

Then we have the member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans). He said: "unnecessary legislation," an "election gimmick," an "election ploy."

And then there was the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). His grand comment was: "this silly bill and this silly public relations stunt."

The member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), this is their Leader. The member for Concordia said: "Well, you have not paid off the debt yet. Just do not give me the rhetoric. You know, walk the walk, do not talk the talk, my friend."

Anybody keep up with that? That is the Leader of the Opposition. My, my. said–and this is all about balanced budget legislation. The honourable member for Elmwood Elmwood (Mr. Maloway): "what this government is doing very cynically is responding to the current flavour of the month."

Wow. And the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli): "I have come to view it as one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation we have to deal with."

An Honourable Member: Who said that?

Mr. Sveinson: The member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli): "I have come to view it as one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation we have had to deal with."

Madam Speaker, there is more. I will continue. I just want to point out that these are the people who would like to be government. What would happen in the future? For goodness sake, we do not have to go back very far. Anything prior to 1988 for roughly six or seven years, they put this province in debt in the neighbourhood of $4.5 billion, in a very short period of time.

I would like to go on reading what their comments on balanced budget legislation for a minute. For Osborne, and here she comes, the member for Osborne, the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford): "Bill 2 is an ideological crusade masking a sound economics."

My, my, my. For Crescentwood, Mr. Sale, he said: "a bill that is destined to make Manitoba the laughingstock of the financial management world." Oh, boy, are they laughing, are they not, as they increase our ratings to AA or AAA? I believe it is AA.

Then there was the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). He says: "We warn the government, we do not think it is going to work." They warned the government. And here they are. Here they are, climbing on the wagon. They are into the back of the truck, let us go. Yes, get onto that wagon.

Then there was the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett). The member for Wellington said: "an unrealistic piece of legislation this government is going to have an enormously difficult time living with this."

And then there was the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes). The member for Point Douglas–and I like the gentleman–he says: "How about it, in 1995-1996? Do you think it will be balanced? Well, this is to be seen." I guess he saw and I guess that is why they are climbing on the wagon now. They voted for our budget.

We go on here. The member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) he said: "I know it is a cynical pre-election ploy." It was cynical all right and it is paying down the debt. Five payments on the debt and it is saving the people of Manitoba some $120 million in Manitoba. Is that not incredible?

Let us go on. Let us have another little listen here. The member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway): "This is very much a public relations exercise on the part of this government." Wow.

Radisson (Ms. Cerilli): "I think it is really a political gimmick."

Osborne again, the member for Osborne, the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), she said: "balanced budget legislation is trendy." Trendy, yes. Trendy, but it must be mighty good because they are climbing on the wagon.

Is it not interesting? You hear a few comments made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and he has not said that he believes in balanced budget legislation. He said that they would believe in a balanced budget. Right. What would they do to the balanced budget legislation? The first chance they get, out it goes. The first chance. So, to the people of Manitoba, I say, plain and simply: Do not even give them a look. Again, if we did, I think all of you would be crying pretty quick.

The honourable member for Crescentwood, Mr. Sale, the Honourable Mr. Sale: "Balancing a budget every year cannot be defended on any economic grounds." On any economic grounds. [interjection] No, these are comments made by you. What is the problem? The members opposite cannot take their own comments? Oh, my goodness. Oh, my goodness. [interjection] No, he has not made any comments. He does not want to get on the record, the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

Then we have–oh, yes, here it is, the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale): "Balancing a budget every year cannot be defended on any economic grounds." Wow.

The honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton): this bill will not work.

The honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett): this legislation does not correspond–get this one, get this one now. Madam Speaker, get this one. The honourable member for Wellington said: "this legislation does not correspond with any economic theory known to personkind, either historical theory or current economic theory." That is the government in waiting? I do not think so. I do not think so.

The member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) said: one of the most odious parts of this bill–get this one. The member for Burrows said: "One of the most odious parts of this bill is that it hamstrings future governments."

Yeah, right. They see there is some money there now. What would they like to do? They would like to get in there and spend it.

An Honourable Member: Tax and spend.

Mr. Sveinson: Exactly. Tax and spend.

Then there is the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), well, he just says: "it was an election gimmick."

The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) said: "It was created for election purposes." "This bill . . . is not based on common sense."

* (1720)

This is beautiful reading. This is beautiful reading.

The member for Flin Flon said: "It was created for election purposes." "This bill . . . is not based on common sense."

Then there is the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk). The member for St. James said: "election gimmick to bind themselves into an irresponsible fiscal straitjacket." The member for St. James.

Then there was the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers). He said: "It is good window dressing, but when you look right into the bill . . . it becomes a sham." This bill is nothing but a gimmick. That is the member for Thompson.

The member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). Now, Madam Speaker, this part, this one really shows where the members opposite are coming from. They really show where the opposition is coming from. The member for Swan River said: "No government needs balanced budget legislation."

The member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) said: "It is one of the more unthinking pieces of legislation."

There is more. There is more here. How much time do I have, Madam Speaker? I am sure you would like to hear more. They will give me more time, I am sure. The members opposite want to hear all of their comments, right?

The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) said: "I am not convinced the government is even serious about Bill 2."

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sveinson: Madam Speaker, thank you for that.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member's time has expired.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to add my comments on this balanced budget resolution that the member for La Verendrye has brought forward. I have listened to his entire 15 minutes of comments here, but I never once during all of his comment time here this afternoon heard any comments by him indicating what his personal position is with respect to balanced budgets.

Madam Speaker, he quoted–

An Honourable Member: He voted against our amendment to stop the sale of MTS here.

Mr. Reid: That is right. He voted against that amendment to stop the sale of MTS, Madam Speaker, and yet the member for La Verendrye would not even put his own comments on the record. He spent all his 15 minutes talking about other people and the comments they have made over the years. So perhaps he is out of ideas. He has nothing new to add to the debate. One even has to wonder why he would bring forward this resolution if he has nothing new to add to the comments here today.

I am not so sure–[interjection] It is interesting to note when the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) was making his comments during–was it the budget or the throne speech debate?–he spent enough time talking about baby killers, but this time here when he is talking about balanced budgets he would not give his comments about that. So it is interesting here. He does things, I guess, for political reasons when he is talking about these different areas.

It is interesting to note too, that if you want to talk with Mr. Archie Butts, whose family asked me to raise the question today in Question Period relating to hallway medicine, we will talk about the effect that it has had on the Labossiere family and Mr. Butt himself where, as a 78-year-old veteran, he has had to lie in a hospital hallway in the Grace Hospital in the City of Winnipeg for 11 days, Madam Speaker, 11 days in the hallway of that hospital waiting for care because there was not a hospital room available because this government, in their wisdom, cut back 1,000 nursing positions and 1,400 acute care beds in this province, making sure that there were no beds available for people like Mr. Butt and his family members.

Madam Speaker, I think that is deplorable. You took $75 million extra last year and put it against debt reduction but you would not put that $75 million into a recruitment and retention fund for nurses that you have fired.

In fact, I was just talking to a constituent a few moments ago before I came back into the Chamber who had called me about his property tax bill that he had just got, and he had been talking to nurses that were up here in the city of Winnipeg visiting their family members here on vacation. He tells me that, in talking to the nurses, they left Manitoba when you fired them, went down to Texas to work, and now this government thinks they are going to be able to recruit those nurses back. When they are making $50,000 a year U.S., do you think you are going to be able to bring those nurses back to the province of Manitoba? Well, what he tells me is, good luck to you, because he does not see that happening. Those nurses are not going to come back here for what you are offering compared to the $50,000 American they are making in Texas.

Madam Speaker, that person is telling me, as so many others have in my canvassing on the doorstep, that property taxes are their issue. That is what is bothering them. Now that they are getting their tax bills, I can expect, as members opposite all through this Chamber will be finding out–you will be getting calls on the property tax bills and the level of taxation that is occurring in this province. Now, you do not have to take my word for it. You can come out to my community and talk to the people living in Transcona. You can talk, I am sure, to any other person living in this province and ask them about their property tax bills and ask them if they are happy with it. You do not have to take my word for it. Property taxes are the issue.

An Honourable Member: What are you going to do?

Mr. Reid: We have told you what you are going to do. We told you when you reduced that property tax credit from $325 down to $250 that that was a wrong move. We told you that we were going to finance education at a level comparable to the economy of the province of Manitoba. You did not move on that either, and we are telling you that that is where you needed to go. We have been telling you that for years.

Those are some of the solutions we will be proposing. If you have the courage of your convictions to call an election, perhaps next Tuesday because you were too chicken to call it today, then you will see what is in the platform, and we will tell you what we are going to do to assist the property tax payers of this province, Madam Speaker.

So have the courage of your convictions. Do not play chicken. Call the election next Tuesday and we will take our platform to the people. We will let them decide whether or not the initiatives of this government are enough to sustain them for another term or, indeed, they believe that there is a new vision and a new NDP that they will have for their government in the future.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to note when the balanced budget law was brought in in this province, and I listened to the comments of the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) when he says that we have not had a balanced budget in this province for 22 years, I believe he said. I can only think back to 1988. The Auditor of this province has said that we had a balanced budget in this province, a $58.7-million surplus. [interjection] Not a hope.

An Honourable Member: Were you there in '84 when Zipper could not even sign the audit on your government? Remember that?

Mr. Reid: Who was that?

An Honourable Member: The Auditor would not even sign your books.

Mr. Reid: Well, I do know that in 1987, I believe it was, the Auditor gave us his unconditional support for our budget. That is a first in the history of the Province of Manitoba, I believe, and it was during the Howard Pawley government. So you can be assured that we had the appropriate accounting practices in our government, and the Auditor did not have to come back and forth and say that there were some suspicious activities and something is untoward in your budgeting practices. As the Auditor of this province has said with respect to the way you handled the civil servants' and teachers' pensions in this province where you were not accounting for it for quite a number of years. I am wondering if you had taken that into consideration in the budget that you have brought forward this time and whether or not you really do have a surplus or a deficit.

It is interesting to note that the government can find a hundred million dollars to expand the casinos in this province, but you cannot find a hundred million dollars to put it into reducing the waiting lists for people waiting for surgery or to opening up the hospital beds or hiring new nurses in this province. When I go by Club Regent on the way to this building every day, I see Manitoba licence plates in the parking lot. I can remember when the member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson) was the minister responsible, saying at that time that we are going to have all this influx of tourists. We are going to bring in all these dollars, and we are going to have not Manitobans recycling their money through the Lotteries, we are going to have tourists coming in here. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, going by that building every day I see Manitoba licence plates in the parking lot. I do not see the Minnesotas. I do not see the North Dakotas. I do not see any of the U.S. states, and I do not see other provinces in there like the minister said was doing to occur. It is mostly Manitobans recycling their money through Manitoba Lotteries.

An Honourable Member: What are you going to do? Are you going to close them down? Are you going to close them down? Tell us what you are going to do. Are you going to shut them down? Tell us.

Mr. Reid: Well, what we are asking: where is your commitment? Where is your commitment to all those tourists who were supposed to come to Manitoba? You are going to have a peak when the Pan Am Games start, but after that it is going to fall back to the same old, same old routine: Manitoba licence plates in the parking lot. That is what is going to occur, and it is Manitobans' money that is being recycled through the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation. You had a hundred million dollars to expand the casinos, but you would not take that hundred million dollars into hiring more nurses to reduce the waiting lists and opening up hospital beds, Madam Speaker. [interjection]

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: This government talks about balanced budgets, but let us talk about balancing some priorities here. I take a look, when this constituent of mine called me this afternoon talking about his school tax bill, and his school tax bill is $1,300 on his home. He just moved back to be closer to his family, moved back from B.C. where his tax bill was under a thousand dollars for his school tax. That is what he was telling me. This government has reduced its support for public education in this province from $732 million down to $709 million in this province. And you talk about balancing your priorities? Your priority is to put money to your debt reduction and you really do not give a darn what happens to other people in the education system, and you do not give a darn what happens to the people in the health care system in this province. This is witnessed by the cases we bring to this Chamber day after day after day, the hardship cases that you have created by the actions of your government.

It is your deficit. Your deficit is the people lying in the hospital hallways. That is where you should be concentrating your efforts, and you would not be having the difficulties you are and you would not be looking to postpone this election to the fall of this year, or perhaps the spring of 2000 to escape the actions of the people of Manitoba when they are going to pass judgment on the way you have treated them over the last four years.

* (1730)

We think, Madam Speaker, that this balanced budget resolution is purely for political opportunism. There was no real intention of this government to balance the priorities in this province. They are more interested–

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I would just like some clarification from my honourable friend, the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), on whether it was political opportunism or not when they voted for our budget yesterday.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Family Services did not have a point of order.

Mr. Reid: Madam Speaker, it is interesting to note that the member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson) is quite concerned now about the way the NDP has decided to vote for the budget.

Madam Speaker, we have been telling this government for 10 years nearly–well, I guess it is nine years that I have been here–that you should be focusing your priorities on the people of Manitoba and their needs in the health care system, in addition to the public education system. This budget put back, at least in part, a small part, some money into health care.

Now, the big question is–we are going to call your bluff on this–are you ever going to live up to your word, because I know last year you did not spend all the money in the health care department. You had money left over at the end of the year. So I guess the question here is are you really interested in spending that money, or after the election time are you going to plan out the same activities as you did in 1995, where you froze the capital spending?

I have the report downstairs from the Manitoba Cancer Treatment Centre, where you had promised prior to the election of '95 that you were going to expand that facility and then froze that funding for that facility contrary to the recommendations of the people working there. You froze that funding harder than the earth on a cold January day in this province, never even considering for a moment the impact you were having on the cancer patients in this province.

An Honourable Member: And let us not forget epileptologists.

Mr. Reid: My colleague reminds me of the funding cutbacks, the funding situation we have with respect to epileptologists in this province, where Dr. Pillay had to leave the province of Manitoba and go to Calgary because he could not get a commitment from this government to fund health care research in this province.

You took $75 million additional dollars last year and put it into debt reduction above and beyond what you are required to do in your balanced budget legislation, but you would not take a few thousand dollars to keep Dr. Pillay in this province to assist patients suffering from epilepsy in this province. Where are your priorities in this province? You will hire 60 new managers for your Winnipeg Hospital Authority system at, what, $80,000, $90,000, $100,000 a year?

An Honourable Member: A hundred thousand.

Mr. Reid: A hundred thousand dollars a year for those 60 new managers to run your Winnipeg Hospital Authority, but you will not look at the people who are in the system who are suffering, who are having to wait in the hospitals, the cases that we continue to bring to this Legislature Chamber every single day.

I think your priorities are all wrong and the people of Manitoba will tell you so in the coming provincial general election, if you ever find the courage to stand up and call that provincial general election, Madam Speaker, and we would welcome the day. Hopefully, it will be next Tuesday that you will screw up your courage to call that election. We will take our message to the people of Manitoba and tell them what our priorities are, and we will compare it to your record any day.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Madam Speaker, I am a little bit curious. Well, first off, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise on the motion brought forward by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson). Indeed, I truly support the balanced budget legislation which was passed in 1995 and continues to be practised by this government. It is, in fact, supported by the members opposite as displayed yesterday by their support of the 1999-2000 budget.

That is why I stand today to encourage all members present to support this private member's resolution because it is indeed fact that this provides the foundation for prosperity, that whether being in government or in private practice, in business or, in fact, our own private affairs, balancing our books is essential to continued sustainability on whatever project one might be undertaking and what facet.

I have listened for just the last number of minutes to some of the commentary made by one member opposite, and it disturbed me because at times I was wondering whether, in fact, we were debating the resolution on balanced budgets when some of the comments were extrapolated and extolled on many different topics.

For one, I would like to stick to the topic and that is why I encourage members opposite to support this resolution. It states that balanced budgets allow public resources to be directed to socially relevant areas such as health care and education. Indeed, this government has and does stand for directly that, because within our percentage of our entire budgetary spending, you can see where the priorities are: 35.5 percent of the budget passed in this Chamber yesterday is going to be spent on health care. That is the No.1 priority. With that percentage, you can tell that that is our No. 1 priority. When members opposite governed this province, they spent less than 25 percent. Can you tell which party in this Chamber, in fact, has that particular priority in mind? I think that, if you were to examine the track record, you will find that the party in government at present has indeed that priority.

As well, balanced budgets allow for the expenditures on education when it is, in fact, an investment in our young people who will be heirs to this province. They will be the future of this province, and they will be responsible for caring for us in our old age. That is why this government has raised the percentage of provincial spending on education, and truly we are investing in the young people of Manitoba for the future of Manitoba.

Not only will you take my words on record today as in support of this balanced budget legislation and the resolution before us today, but take some of the comments that have been made by recognized bond-rating agencies, most specifically Moody's Investors Service, which recognizes this government's efforts of improving its fiscal and economic situation by upgrading from A1 to AA3. This higher rating applies to both domestic and foreign currency debt issued by this province. This is the first time Moody's has upgraded Manitoba's credit rating since 1981. This, ladies and gentlemen, is truly an accomplishment–honourable members, I should say.

As well, last year, in June, Standard and Poor's upgraded and issued the credit and long-term debt rating for Manitoba from an A- to a AA-. Honourable members, again, another independent body recognizing what balanced budgets can do for a province.

I can relate to Portage la Prairie and how, in fact, the booming economy that has resulted from fiscal management shown by this government. In Portage la Prairie last year alone, more than $17 million was invested in the rural and city areas in Portage la Prairie, bringing more business, more accommodations, and more investment. More investment brings more jobs, and with the jobs, allows our young people to stay at home and be able to provide for their families, as we provide for our families in Portage la Prairie.

I get dismayed when comments are made that, in fact, are erroneous or lead people to believe in untruths. You know, there are comments made by the–

An Honourable Member: You are such a nice guy. . . Do not read your speech. Say what you–

Mr. Faurschou: These are my own words and my own feelings, and I have just got to express that I was dismayed by the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) when he made commentary as to when this government, in fact, passed budgets that had a deficit. If one were to examine within that deficit component of the budgets passed by the Filmon government, it was made up by the interest costs of that accumulated debt that was there prior to this government taking office, and so one can play with the figures and perhaps make a story look true by playing with figures.

* (1740)

But, Madam Speaker, I would like to extend the opportunity to all members present to support this resolution on balanced budgets because the fiscal management that we show today will benefit this province long into the future. In fact, the extra monies that were dedicated to the debt of this province, the $75 million that was expended over and above our scheduled repayments last year, over the 27 years of scheduled repayments that $75 million that was paid last year will save this province over $300 million in payments over the course of the 26 to 27 years. I would say that that is an investment in the future of this province, where the young people of this province who will have to bear some of the debt will benefit from what we do today within our balanced budget.

With a balanced budget and debt reduction, it will allow the flexibility that future governments in Manitoba will have to reinvest in this province, whether it be in our social services or whether it be in our infrastructure or whether it be in the next generation through education. I would like at this time, again, to ask members opposite to support this resolution, because they have shown that they are inclined to support this resolution by their support of the budget passed yesterday in this House.

Madam Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this particular resolution. Hopefully, all members here will support it.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): I am pleased to rise and put a few comments on the record on our position on balanced budget. Once again we would like to indicate that we are in favour of balanced budgets, as over and over again we have indicated at the time of the introduction of the bill, and like many other governments across Canada, New Democrat, Liberal, and Conservative, it is time to look at fiscal restraint.

Many, many times I have been on record talking about the importance of having a balanced budget. This is a positive step. However, the specific legislation that the Filmon government brought in has got some serious flaws. It was very curious when the member who introduced the resolution spent his whole time quoting New Democrats. That does seem to be a trend.

It is this side of the House that is speaking out, providing options to Manitobans, providing ideas for people to adopt and come forward. Today's NDP has a balanced approach, a vision for the future. Madam Speaker, that is proven. I think the member for La Verendrye indicated that by spending his whole time quoting New Democrats. I think that is a compliment.

What was the problem with the balanced budget? You know, I hate to criticize the opposition, but it is time to be fair. Selective quotes are not going to cut it. I know that they are in a desperate situation. They have to use quips and quotes, perhaps out of place. Now, balanced budgets are a very important sector. Balanced budgets is how we live our own lives. I come from a working family that did not have an opportunity to dip into a family trust or a rainy day fund or some gift given to you. I never had a silver spoon in my mouth. In fact, we never had silver spoons in our home at all. It was stainless steel all the way. We always balanced the budget, and it is about high time that this government took in this vision.

What the problem is with the balanced budget legislation specifically is they used capital assets to balance the budget. That is a serious flaw. Selling off MTS we know was a very stupid idea, a bad mistake, and it has cost every Manitoban. There is a serious flaw when you sell off capital assets to balance the budget, because now that we have sold off MTS, what is next? Madam Speaker, what is next? Obviously the next gem, even bigger than MTS, is Manitoba Hydro. So to sustain this type of budgeting is foolhardy and shortsighted. In fact, I think we have another even more specific example of this government's rhetoric.

Let us look at the lottery situation. The casino expansion was a decision that this government made to close down under the pretense that they are going to close down the Crystal Casino and expand the other two casinos in the city. We argued. We tried to talk to them that a downtown casino was a good idea, would invest in the heart of the city. They claimed $50 million would expand the casinos and provide state-of-the-art, world-class facilities. Was there any concern about balancing the budget? Apparently not. Just the new additions alone are 32 percent over budget. Was there any limit to that expenditure? Madam Speaker, 32 percent over budget, and they stand up today talking about balancing budgets. This is a government whose own record is shameful.

That does not even include the costs of the renovations of the existing facilities. Madam Speaker, we have heard that the renovation costs are horrendous, enormous, perhaps exceeding $20 million. I have asked over and over again for the government to lay out the picture as to how much the new, renovated casinos, the total cost would be, and they have refused to come forward with that. Well, obviously, now, was that a balanced budget? There does not seem to be any budget when it comes to building casinos.

Madam Speaker, this is also a government that had the opportunity to have a surplus when they took government from the NDP. They took a surplus of $58.7 million, transformed that magically, I would suggest, into a deficit, a little bit of doctoring of some numbers there, perhaps, moved an NDP surplus into a deficit for convenience, some would say. The Filmon watch promptly produced a series of staggering deficits. To what extent? We have never seen such big deficits in Manitoba's history, record deficits of $766 million in 1992-93. Yes, indeed, the NDP voted against that budget.

Now, what happened with the budget this year? There was a sudden change of heart from the Conservatives on the other side. Suddenly they decided, oh, we need personal care homes; we need to get rid of hallway medicine; geez, there is a crisis in health care, and on and on. There is a big crisis in the election perhaps. You know, this was clearly, they saw the light and provided a budget that provides funding for health care.

* (1750)

Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I have been listening very attentively to the honourable member for St. James, and I have not yet heard her say whether she supports the resolution or whether she does not support the resolution.

She is rambling on about all other things, but she is not addressing the issues with regard to the resolution that we are debating here. Now, if she has got any intentions of indicating to this House whether she supports the resolution or does not, I would ask that you bring her to order to speak in favour or against the resolution, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Sturgeon Creek does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

Ms. Mihychuk: Just to remind the member for Sturgeon Creek that this member, the member for St. James, is in favour of balanced budgets, has been in the past, has in the present, and will be in the future. Madam Speaker, we have looked at the books, and I think the sensitivity is when we pointed out that it was the Conservative Filmon government that ran deficits that exceeded any in the history of Manitoba. That seems to have raised some sensitivity on behalf of members opposite.

Now, the debt that the government, the Conservative government, has given Manitobans is something that they like to talk about–the debt, and how much there is. In fact, they do not mention that $1.5 billion of the debt that we all carry was incurred during the Lyon years, and that would be a Conservative government. Now, those costs were incurred and carried, and we are all paying the cost of that. So let us not cast stones if you live in a glass house.

Madam Speaker, the government, this government has incurred huge deficits, large debts, and has had its own record of enormous deficits. In fact, I would like to point out that Manitoba was not alone in incurring large debts in the 1980s. Same is true for all Canadian governments, including the governments headed by PCs and Liberals–they were some of the biggest spenders–and the Social Credit–Don Getty, Grant Devine, John Buchanan–all Tories, that is Conservatives in more polite terms. Bill Van der Zalm incurred huge debts–Social Credit.

The Tories over and over have chronically misrepresented budgetary figures to the public, and unfortunately it took an election to bring forward an election budget, something that did provide sensitivity to those people that need it in the health care system, and to end hallway medicine, and to address some of the long-waiting lists for diagnostic tests. So we must say hear, hear to the government who brought forward a budget that we have been calling for year after year, a budget that is balanced, a budget that is sensitive for health care. So, for the final time, and I believe the seventh or eighth time in this short speech, I would like to indicate again how much I am pleased that this government has finally adopted the vision of balanced budgets.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, it is interesting, and the government is saying, calling for a vote, and I do not blame the government for calling for a vote because I, too, am very much interested in how the New Democrats would actually in fact vote on this resolution. So, in keeping with that spirit, I will sit down in hopes that–or very shortly I will sit down–in hopes that in fact we might be able to have another vote on this particular resolution.

Madam Speaker, how far we have gone in listening to the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk). You see the New Democrats reaching further and further to the right. I guess I should move further and further to the right as I am saying that, and then you see the Conservatives moving more and more towards the left. One would think they all want to become Liberals. You know, there is a more honourable way, I would suggest, to get together, and we could all be one happy family if you so choose. Mind you, we all have to abide by Jon Gerrard. He is the Leader of the Liberal Party. Then you will be able to talk about maybe some of those wonderful Liberal initiatives, and some of those are going to come out whenever the election is, in fact, called. But, you know, it is interesting, the member for St. James was saying: I am in favour of balanced budgets today, I was in favour of them yesterday, and I will be in favour of them in the future.

Well, the record will show you voted against the balanced budget legislation. But you were not alone. The Liberals voted with you against the balanced budget legislation. I think the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) is having some second thoughts, that maybe she wishes she would have voted in favour of the balanced budget legislation if, in fact, you listened in terms of what it is that she is saying. I think in fairness to the New Democratic Party inside this Chamber, we should allow the member for St. James to really formalize her position on balanced budget legislation and allow for some sort of a vote on this resolution. I, for one, would be more than happy to see this resolution come to a vote. I trust that in fact, because as I say, they are very much–[interjection]

Now, the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) is talking about sharing campaign offices with the Tories. Nothing ceases to amaze me. I believe that that could possibly happen. I remember the days in which there was a love-in between the Tories and the New Democrats. They were voting together on everything, Madam Speaker. This yesterday could have been a start of things to come. Maybe that is one of the incentives that the Premier (Mr. Filmon), one of the reasons why he chickened out of calling the election today is because he is starting to see the New Democrats coming over to the Conservative way of thinking.

New Democrats, just hold back a little bit. Hold back a little bit anyway, Madam Speaker, and see and reflect on what Manitobans are in fact saying. They have not changed–the undecided and the Manitobans that are in opposition to the government have not really changed their mind. They are not going over to the Tories. They are looking for an alternative, a real alternative. Thank goodness there is the Liberal Party because we will ensure that Manitobans are aware of that real alternative.

Maybe I should be advocating the election be put off because the longer the election, maybe the closer the New Democrats will get with the Tories. That is the reason why hopefully we will see a vote on this resolution because I am indeed very much intrigued how would the New Democrats vote on this. Their option of course is one of two things: either allow for a vote or to talk the resolution out. What will they do? I do not know how Hansard–I do not know, Madam Speaker, but maybe they have been spooked a little bit. Maybe they will stand up and speak it out. I do not blame them if they wanted to speak it out. It would show a little bit the NDP that we are familiar with, the NDP that oppose what the government of the day is actually doing. But I know we are talking about today's NDP.

Did you see the newscast? I want to conclude on this one note. In one of the newscasts they were showing some signs. I could have sworn that I saw a sign that was for Linda Asper. I look to the NDP today, and I believe the sign had blue and orange. The blue was prominently featured. I think they are really going for that. If you want to be a Tory, call yourself a Tory, walk the floor. Let us be the opposition. We will be more than happy.

The opposition in Alberta at one time used to be very small. I am somewhat small in stature but I like to believe, ensure that we can provide that real alternative to the government. The member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) will be there to back me up. Realizing the clock is ticking, I think we have less than a minute, let us find out. Will the NDP speak it out or will they allow it for a vote? The jury is out; we will let them answer the question.

Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, on a personal financial system, on the basis of individual personal management system, there is no doubt that your expenses should always be within your income, otherwise you can generate no savings. But economists have been telling us all along that a private virtue may easily be turned into a public vice. How is that?

Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) will have 14 minutes remaining.

The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).