Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 43 (29th Legislature, 5th Session)

29-5-43

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba • DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS • Speaker The Honourable Peter Fox • Vol. XX No. 43 2:30 p.m., Thmsday, March 29th, 1973. Fifth Session, 29th Legislature. Printed by R. S. Evans - Queen's Printer for Province of Manitoba

Electoral Division Name Political Address Postal Affiliation Code ARTHUR J. Douglas Watt P.C. Reston, Man. ROM'lXO ASSINIBOIA Steve. Patrick Lib. 10 Red Robin Pl., Winnipeg R3J 3L8 BI RTLE-RUSSELL Harry E. Graham P.C. Bi nscarth, Man. ROJ OGO BR ANDON EAST Hon. Leonard S. Evans NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova BR ANDON WEST Edward McGILL P.C. 2228 Princess Ave., Brandon R7B OH9 BURROWS Hon.

Ben Hanuschak NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C DVB CHAR LESWOOD Arthur Moug P.C .. 29 Willow Ridge Rd., Winnipeg R3R 1 L5 CHURCHILL VACANT CRESCENTWOOD Cy Gonick NOP 1 140 Grosvenor Ave., Winnipeg R3M ONB DAUPHIN Hon. Peter Bu rtniak NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C DVB ELMWOOD Hon. Russell J. Doern NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OVB ... EMERS ON Gabriel Girard P.C. 25 Lamond Blvd., Winnipeg R2J 1Y1 FLIN FLON Thomas Barrow NOP Cranberry Portage, Man. ROB OHO .. FORT GARRY L.R. (Bud) Sherman P.C. 86 Niagara St., Winnipeg R3N OT9 FORT ROUGE Mrs.

Inez Trueman P.C. 179 Oxford St., Winnipeg R3M 3H8 GIMLI John C. Gottfried NOP 44 - 3rd Ave., Gimli, Man. ROC 180 GLADSTONE James R. Ferguson P.C. Gladstone, Man. ROJ OTO INKSTER Hon. Sidney Green, O.C. NOP Legislative Bl dg., Winnipeg R3C ova KILDONAN Hon. Peter Fox NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C DVB LAC DU BONNET Hon. Sam Uskiw NOP Legislative Bl dg., Winnipeg R3C DVB LAKESIDE Harry J. Enns P.C. Woodlands, Man. ROC 3HO LA VERENDRYE Leonard A. Barkman Lib. Box 130, Steinbach, Man. ROA 2AO LOGAN William Jenkins NOP 1294 Erin St., Winnipeg R3E 2S6 MINNEDOSA David Bl ake P.C. Minnedosa, Man.

ROJ 1 ED MORRIS Warner H. Jorgenson P.C. Morris, Man. ROG lKO OSBORNE Ian Turnbull NOP 284 Wildwood Pk., Winnipeg R3T OE5 PEMBINA George Henderson P.C. Manitou, Man. ROG lGO POINT DOUGLAS Donald Malinowski NOP 361 Bu rrows Ave., Winnipeg R2W 1Z9 PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE Gordon E. Johnston Lib. 506 St. George Ave ., Portage la Prairie, Man. R1N DT5 RADISSON Harry Shafransky NOP 4 Maplehurst Rd., Winnipeg R2J 1W8 RHINELAND Jacob M. Froese s.c. Box 40, Winkler, Man. ROG 2XO RIEL Donald W. Craik P.C. 2 River Lane, Winnipeg R2M 3Y8 RIVER HEIGHTS Sidney Spivak, O.C. P.C. Legislative Bl dg., Winnipeg R3C DVB ROBLIN J.

Wally McKenzie P.C. Inglis, Man. ROJ OXO (- ,' ROCK LAKE Henry J. Einarson P.C. Glenboro, Man. ROK OXO ROSSMERE Hon. Ed. Schreyer NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova RUPERTSLAND Jean Allard Ind. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova ST. BONIFACE Hon. Laurent L. Desjardins NOP Legislative Bl dg., Winnipeg R3C DVB ... ST. GEORGE Bill Uruski NOP Box 5BO, Arborg, Man. ROC DAO ST. JA.MES Hon. A.H. Mackling, O.C. NOP Legislative Bl dg., Winnipeg R3C DVB ST. JOHNS Saul Cherniack, O.C. NOP 333 St. Joh n's Ave., Winnipeg R2W 1H2 ST. MATTHEWS Wally Johannson NOP 418 Home St., Winnipeg R3G 1X4 ST. VITAL D.J.

Walding NOP 31 Lochinvar Ave., Winnipeg R2J 1R3 STE. ROSE A.R. (Pete) Adam NOP Ste. Rose du Lac, Man. ROLlSO SELKIRK Hon. Howard.Pawley NOP Legislative Bl dg., Winnipeg R3C DVB SEVEN OAKS Hon. Saul A. Miller NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C DVB SOURIS KILLARNEY Earl Mc Kellar P.C. Nesbitt, Man. ROK 1PO SPRINGFIELD Hon. Rene E. Toupin NOP Legislative Bl dg., Winnipeg R3C DVB STURGEON CR EEK J. Frank Johnston P.C. 310 Overdale St., Winnipeg R3J 2G3 SWAN RIVER James H. Bilton P.C. Swan River, Man. ROL lZO THE PAS Hon. Ron McBryde NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C DVB THOMPSON Joseph P. Borowski Ind.

NOP La Salle, Man. ROG 180 TRANSCONA Hon. Russell P.aulley NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C DVB VIRDEN Mo rris McGregor P.C. Kenton, Man. ROM OZO WELLINGTON Philip M. Petursson NOP 6B1 Banning St., Winnipeg R3G 2G3 WINNIPEG CENTRE J.R. (Bud) Boyce NOP 777 Winnipeg Ave., Winnipeg R3E OR5 WOLSELEY 1.H. Asper Lib. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova

.. .. • • THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Thursday, l\larch 29, 1973 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. INTROD UCTION OF GUESTS 1185 l\IR, SPEAKER: Before we proceed I should like to direct the attention of the honourable members to the galler:v where we have 40 students of the Adult Education of the Red River Community College. These students are under the leadership of l\Ir. She! Horvuy. This school is lo;;ated in the constituency of the Honourable l\Iember for Logan. We also have 21 students of the lst Peneimuta and Gypsmnville Girl Guides Group.

These are under the direction of their Leader, -Mrs. Petit. This group is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for St. George. And as my guests we have 23 students of the Manitoba Rural Leadership Training Course, They are under the leadership of Mr. Laxdal. On behalf of all the honourable members, I welcome you here today. Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions . READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS MR. CLERK: Petition of Orville Marvin Heschuk and Others praying for the passing of

an Act to incorporate Dauphin Golf and Country Club. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees; Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports; Notices of Motion; Introduction of Bills. The Honourable Attorney-General. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. A, H, JVIACKLING, Q. C. (Attorney-General) (St. James) introduced Bill No. 30,

an Act to repeal The Small Debts Hecovery Act, ORAL QUESTION PEHIOD MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR, HARRY J. ENNS (Lakeside): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder if the Minister can confirm to the House that the elections to the members of the Manitoba Hog Marketing Board that have been scheduled for District 6 on April 9th or lOth and District 2 on April 2nd or 3rd will in fact take place as scheduled. MR. SPEAKEH: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON.

SAMUEL TJSKIW (Minister of Agriculture) (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, I don't know why they wouldn't take place. I have no reason to believe that there has been any change in plans, I'm not aware of anything anyway. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR. STEVE PATHICK (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Honourable Minister of Tourism a:nd Recreation. Can the Minister tell the House when the government will be providing an audited statement of the operations of the Manitoba Lotteries Commission to the Legislature? HON, LAURENT L.

DESJARDINS (Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Cultural Affairs) (St, Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I'll answer all the questions and give all the information during my estimates. MR. PATRICK: I perhaps can have a supplementary. Can the Minister also undertake to give information if there are any surpluses accrued and to what department they were allocated to. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, you have this information already. All the money is directed to the Department of Tourism, Recreation and Cultural Affairs. MH. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. WARNER H, JORGENSON (Morris): Mr.

Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him if there is any reason why the Hog Marketing Board is not able to maintain the price structure of hogs to the farmers, the hog producers in Manitoba, as they were able to hold the prices up or bring the prices up of pork in Des Moines and St. Louis in 1970. MR, USKIW: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that they are able to maintain prices more than

1186 March 29 , 1973 ORAL QUESTIONS (MR. USKIW cont'd) .••.• they would normally be if they were not in existence. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member_ for St. Matthews, POINT OF PRIVILEGE MR. WALLY JOHANNSON (St. Matthews): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to raise a matter of privilege of the House. This afternoon's Free Press contains a story which deals with the cnntents of the speech that is supposed to be delivered this afternoon by the Leader of the Oppo sition, and I understand also that CJOB-carried a segment with him reading the speech.

Now I believe that speeches should be delivered to this House before they're recited on radio stations. MR. SPEAKER= Orders of the Day. The Honourable First Minister. HON. EDWARD SCHREYER (Premier) (Rossmere): Mr. Speaker, I understand that a point of privilege has been raised.

I don't know how it's been disposed of, Sir, but it would seem to me, Sir, that given the fact that the Address, proposed Address of the Leader of the Opposition relative to the Budget, since it cannot be defined as revealing any secrets of state or for that matter since it really does not directly involve the expenditure of public moneys and the security or maintaining of confidentiality in advance thereof, I don't believe that it is a valid point of privilege. Then of course, Sir, there's always the problem of accuracy too. A MEMBER: That's not very important. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside.

MR. ENNS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe, speaking on the same matter of privilege, that it should be an occasion to demonstrate the difference for the honourable members opposite, that when documents of the kind described ju st now by the First Minister, documents relating to government policy, documents relating to commissioned reports and so forth, that that then is a matter of privilege for the House to have seen them first. MR, SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. I appreciate the matter that was raised. I'm sure it's of concern to some degree to all members.

I should like to indicate that what the Honourable Member for St. Matthews raised was probably a matter of courtesy more than it was privilege. As far as the privileges of the House are concerned I think we are all aware that it is not a matter of privilege. The point that the Honourable Member f or Lakeside makes is in anticipation. I shall make no ruling in advance. The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. ORAL QUESTIONS (Cont'

d) MR. L. R. (Bud) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Development. I'd like to ask him whether the current discussions w�th representatives of the MMA on fee

schedule revisions include consideration of alternative methods of payment for doctors and dentists. HON. RENE E. TOUPIN (Minister of Health and Social Development) (Springfield) : Mr, Speaker, they have and they will. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a supplementary to the Minister and ask him whether he can advise the House whether his thinking on the subject is in support of the position taken by the Canadian Public Health Association on the question of alternative methods rather than fee for payment. I mean fee for service. MR, TOUPIN: Mr.

Speaker, it is sometimes difficult to actually determine what discus sions will actually fall down to when we discuss with any group, any professional group. My feelings are as worthwhile as those of the MMAs that are discussing with us the fee for service system or any other method of payment for the medical practitioners in Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. GORDON E. JOHNSTON (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Recreation and Tourism. Are there any cottage sites available f or lease in the provincial parks this year? MR. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speaker, I'll have to take that as notice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Souris-Killarney. MR. EARL McKELLAR (Souris-Killarney) : Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Could he inform the House when the annual reports for Autopac will be tabled. HON. HOWARD R. PAWLEY (Minister of Municipal Affairs) (Selkirk): Within a few days, Mr. Speaker. •

\� .. March 29, 1973 1187 l\1A TTER OF PRIVILEGE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lak eside. MR. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do now wish to rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if I may. Privilege results from a statement that's been correctly attributed to me by the edition of the Winnipeg Free Press today in which I a m - - in which I have indicated that I accused or called the Liberal Leader a pathological liar. I should like to withdraw and retract that statement, Mr. Speaker.

My understand ing of the word "pathological" is that it infers that a person has some biological reason or other for misrepresenting the truth. It's my considered adjudgm ent that he has no such impediment; he knows full well when he is misrepresenting the truth. ORAL QUES TIONS {Con'td) MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Education. Is the Minister giving any consideration to changes in grant structures in respect to tea cher-pupil rat io ? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON.

BEN HANUSCHAK (Minister of Education) (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, changes have been made, very substantial ones, announced to the House last Friday. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Does the Minister agree with the Manitoba Teachers Society's request to reduce , •. MR, SPEAKER: Order, pleas e. Would the honourable member rephrase his question ? MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister be changing the grant ratio to reducing the pupil ratio from 28 to 20 to 1? MR. HANUSCHAK: Mr.

Speaker, as I had announced earlier, I indicated to the honour able member that very substantial significant changes have been announced for the year and surely within them there's ample scope and opportunity for school divisions to establish their own priorities as to whether they wish additional staff or whatever else they wish to purchase in the area of providing educational services. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Osborne. MR. IAN TURNBULL (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Ur ban Affa irs.

Could the Minister in his regular meetings with the City of Winnipeg request the city to keep open the No. 15 Firehall at Arnold and Morley which is now be ing phased out ? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. MR. HANUSC HAK: Mr. Speaker, I do meet with the senior elected officials of the City of Winnipeg from time to time. I don't think I would call it on a "regular" basis but as often as the need ma y arise.

This is a matter that no doubt is purely one within local jurisdiction; however, if there is anything related to the closing or the oonstruction of public buildings that may be tied in with provincial policy, then to that extent I would discuss it with the city. MR. TURNBULL: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I would like to address to the Minister of Finance. MR. SPEAKER: Order, plea se. It cannot be supplementary. It's another question. MR. TURNBULL: If I may have a new question then, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance who is responsible for the Superintendent of Insurance.

Could the Minister of Finance undertake to have an inquiry into the increase in fire insurance premiums in the area around No . 15 Firehall, because the closure of that firehall or the proposed closure of that firehall seems to have resulted in fire insurance premiums for residential property rising by 40 per cent. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, any pricing pattern in insurance premium costs that deviate from what might be considered a norm, would obviously have to be analyzed, in vestigated by the Superintendent of Insura nce's Office. So it is a case then, Mr.

Speaker, of be ing able to receive allegations as to whether or not there are such deviations in normal pricing practice - not only allega tions but some prima facie evidence, and of course at that point in time it would be aut omatic that the Superintendent of Insurance would investigate. MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rupertsland. MR. JEAN ALLARD (Rupertsland) : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Ur ban Affairs. Does the 7, OOO signatures and 3, 600 letters that I have received so fa r

1188 March 29, 1973 ORAL QUESTIONS (MR. ALLARD cont'd) • . • . . constitute suff icient support to bring this measure to a vote this election? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs. MR. HANUSCHAK: Mr. Speaker, I don't know. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. ORDERS OF THE DAY - BUDGET DEBATE MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable First Minister. The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. MR. SIDNEY SPIVAK, Q. C. (Leader of the Opposition) (River Heights): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr._ Speaker, before I commence my reply to the Budget I would like to indicate, if I may, the fact that there are several members of my caucus who are absent today. They are absent not because they are not here to support me in the presentation, but rather they are attending the funeral of a colleague of ours, the wife of a colleague of ours, and that is Mrs. Craig Stewart who passed away this week and whose funeral is being held in Minnedosa, and six members of our caucus are present at the funeral today and that is the reason for their absence . I mention this, Mr.

Speaker, in case there are any questions that may be asked of the fact that we do not have our full complement in the House on this occasion. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that Mrs. Stewart was a fine and brave woman and her untimely passing is mourned by the people of Minnedosa who knew her very well, and certainly by the members of the Progressive-Conservative Party with whom she had been active over the past little while. Mr. Speaker, I should start by assuring the First Minister that his first performance in his role as Finance Minister was indeed formidable. Many of the measures he announced were good measures.

His speech was well-delivered; his evident glee in the announcements he was making on Tuesday evening was so infectious that I am sure every member was affected by it. I know that the Honourable the Member for Transcona was positively transfigured by it. And to much of that glee, Mr. Speaker, the First Minister, together with his predecessor, the Honourable Member for St, Johns, of that glee these two gentlemen were rightly entitled. It was a political budget. It was a political budget in every respect, Now, Mr .Speaker, budgets are political documents.

Part of their objective is to make it very difficult for the' Opposition to criticize or answer them, and I'm sure there is no active politician anywhere who could have watched the Premier's .performance without thinking, if only for a moment, "What an opportunity.

To stand before a provincial House, and this House, with a budget with $7 8 million spare cash, $7 8 million of the people's money to give back to the people - and, by coincidence, with an election just around the corner." Very few provincial premiers have found themselves in that position in recent years, to be able to dispose of a surplus of that magnitude. There is a temptation here, a temptation for us to begin to compete with the Premier for ways to give back the $7 8 million, to prove that we would have been at least as generous as he has proven himself, or to conduct a similar auction.

But lest we be tempted to enter into such an auction here, Mr. Speaker, I would offer one word of caution. I have considered the records and the statements on fiscal matters made by every member of this House over the past years, and even a quick reading of those statements makes one thing very clear. Were he in that position - - and I'm so.rry he's absent right now - - the generosity of the Member for Rhineland would shame us all.

I do not mean by this to belittle either the intentions of the First Minister or the positions taken by our friend from Rhineland, I mean only to point out the role that political philosophies play in the question of taxation. And of course I do not mean to offer unqualified congratulations to the government either for this budget. In several respects it was deficient. In a very real way, it seemed the glee of the First Minister at the surplus he had accumulated and now could return to the people actually overwhelmed him. It affected his view of other things that must be a part of budgets too.

It kept him from speaking frankly on the problems that we still have in Manitoba, and it kept him from shaping a budget that would reply to those problems. Mr. Speaker, the First Minister on Tuesday began by rhapsodizing upon the fine state of our economy, and that is proper enough, for the health of the provincial economy must be an intimate part of the provincial budgetary policies, but it was disappointing, Mr. Speaker, .. 1 ,. J -.'

... -) .. March 29, 1973 1189 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) .. ..• to hear him play the numbers game with us. He told us that the gross provincial output had increased by some 40 % over the four years of NDP rule here, and that would be indeed dram atic, Mr. Speaker, if it were a measure of the real growth here, but it was not. Once we allow for inilation, the gross provincial. product has grown, in real terms, by something under 20 %, or by something in the order of 5% per year. Five percent per year growth is not as spectacuiar as the Premier claims, Mr.

Speaker, but for a Canadian province in recent years, rece iving the kind attentions of Mr. Trudeau 's policies of strangulation, it is a modest success to be able to point to a real growth of 5%. We might all wish for better, Mr. Speaker, but I would suggest that using inflated numbers to achieve the appearance of something better, deserves le ss credit than the real but modest achievement of 5% per annum growth. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I would ask the gallery to contain themselves. Order please. The members are entitled to show their applaus e, the gallery does not. Order please. Order please.

Would the honourable member state his point of order ? POINT OF ORDER - GALLERY APPLAUSE MR. JAMES H. BILTON (Swan River): On the occasion of the First Minister's speech the other evening you took no exception to the gallery applause at that time. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member knows the procedure in respect to say ing something to the leader of this House. He is well aware there are rules which we conduct ourselves by. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. JOSEPH P.

BOROWSKI (Thompson): Yes, my point of order is the same one as the member just raised. iVhen the Premier delivered his excellent speech there was applaus e.and it was allowed, and I think it should be allowed on this occas ion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourab le Minister of Mines. HON. SIDN EY GREEN, Q. C. (Minister of Mines, Resources and Environmental Manage ment) (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, on the point of order - and I think that it is in .accordance with our rules that a point of order can be raised by any member of the Assembly or it can be pointed out by the Speaker himself - it is often the case, Mr.

Speaker, that a point of order will elude a member of the Assembly. It is also the fact that a speaker can be human and a point of order could have eluded him. The fact that that may or may not have occurred, and I will ac knowledge that what the member says is correct, that there was noise from the gallery on the evening of the delivery of the Premier's, Finance Minister's add ress, that if any member felt that a point of order should have been raised it should have been rai sed by the members.

If it eluded the Speaker on that occasion - and this is a regrettable thing and it can happen to any person, it can also happen to the Speaker - if it. eluded the Speaker it does not mean that it thereby becomes a precedent in the House. Now, I will ac knowledge, Mr.

Speaker, that it may be an embarrass ing situation for us a ll, including yourself, but I also would urge that becaus e that occurred is not a reflection on any member of the House who let it go by, it is not a reflection on the Speaker who let it go by, and it should be raised as a point of order by any person wishing to raise it including the Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris • MR. JORGENSON: Notwithstanding the correct position taken by the House Leader, we can place our own

interpretation why that which was allowed to happen on Tuesday night is not a llowed to happen on Thursday afternoon. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourab le First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, if I may be allowed to speak to the point of order that has been raised, I do belie ve that the Member for Swan River and the Member for Thompson and the Honourable the House Leader have ra ised a point which is of course valid and I don't believe the Chair can do otherwise than to take cognizance of it.

Perhaps the fault was mine, Sir, the other day; perhaps it was yours; I say, with respect, perhaps it was any member of this House. The onus is on any member of this House to raise the point of order at the time when a rule is infringed. But, Sir, how one ta kes, finds one's way out of this dilemma perhaps requires wisdom, Sir, which I believe you have. Given the fact that the other day applause was allowed apparently, then I suggest that it must be allowed today and it must be allowed for the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, but, Sir, after that it must not be allowed again for

1190 March 29, 19 73 POINT OF ORDER - GALLERY APPLAUSE (MR. SCHREYER cont'd) .•••. anyone. This Chamber or any body of parliament cannot allow extraneous applause from other than members of the Assembly itself. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR, I. H. (IZZY) ASPER (Leader of the Liberal Party) (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, on the point of order I wonder if the First Miniser would include the third Party in the Chamber in his exemption. MR. SCHREYER: The leaders of the Parties, yes.

MR, GREEN: On that point of order, I think if the Honourable First Minister specified spontaneous applause that probably wouldn't apply. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition for this delay in him presenting his speech, but I would like to clear up the point of order. I realize that possibly I should not have been as hasty today, but let me assure you that in other days gone by when there's been spontaneous applause, when the Assembly ceased the gallery ceased too; this was not the case this afternoon, possibly that's the reason why I noted it.

If that will occur I will have no objection to it, but I am at the service of this House and if this House wants applause from now till doomsday I'll sit by. Thank you very much. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I - - of course if the Member for Morris has an observation that is different, I don't make much of it, but it is my very clear and distinct impression, Sir, that at no time, under any circumstances, does parlia ment allow for applause, extraneous applause, other than from members of the parliament itself.

MR. JORGENSON: If I am invited to make a comment, I can't do other than agree with the Premier, and therefore, although I wasn't in the House on Tuesday night, I find that comment was made over here as usual. I would like to tell the honourable member that if he's in thls House as often as I am he will have learned something. But my understanding is that applause was permitted at that time, nobody took exception to it, and I can't understand why it's taken exception to today. BUDGET DEBATE (Cont'd} MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, having completed this exercise of equality and democracy I would like to continue with my reply. Mr. Speaker, I was indicating tmt there was an oppor tunity on the part of the First Minister to deal with the nature of the economy and its growth in real and practical terms. Mr. Speaker, in effect the First Minister dealt in that kind of petty fogging distortion of our real success to in fact distort and alter modest gains that have been achieved by his administration. It was not politically necessary, Mr.

Speaker, because a Finance Minister with $78 million to give away does not have to fear much from political attack. When a Finance Minister has accumulated that kind of surplus, he can afford to speak frankly, but unfortunately frank speaking is not in my honourable friend's nature. But instead, Mr; Speaker; we have been treated to the numbers game and, as ,,a!v.'ays, many of the numbers are capable of a variety of

interpretations, and many of them when compared with each other tell of more than one aspect of our economic life. For instance, Mr. Speaker, the government forecasted that a sales tax will raise $85 million in the fiscal year 1972-73, compared with only $73 million in 1971-72. Of that increase, and again according to the government's forecasts, $7 million was to come from the new tax on production machinery and supplies, and there was therefore an increase of only $5 million in the yield from taxes on retail transactions. That represents an increase for last year of 6. 8% over the previous year.

Well, what does that figure mean ? Well, if we allow, once again, for inflation, it suggests no very large increase in retail transactions. Higher prices probably accounted for about one half of that increase. But retail transactions, according to the numbers of the First Minister, gave us in this budget address increases by 11. 5% in Manitoba last year. Well, how do we reconcile these figures, Mr. Speaker ? On the one hand we have an increase of only 6. 8% in revenues raised by taxes on retail sales, and on the other an increase of 11. 5% in retail sales.

The answer of course is that a very large portion of that increase in retail sales took place in transactions involving goods not subject to sales tax. And I think that we can safely assume that the purchases under 25 cents did not contribute much to the increase. .. I ;II •

c) ... March 29, 1973 1191 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) ••... And so the answer, Mr. Speaker, must be that the amount of money being spent on non-taxab le items, items like food, Mr. Speaker, has increased quite drastically. And since our population has not much changed over this one year period, we can assume that about the same amount of food was purchased, but it cost more; it cost a great deal more. And so, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has found an optimistic use for even the increase in food costs. It proves that our economy is booming.

And since many in Manitoba make their livings through the production and processing of food, those increa ses are not bad for everyone. But his figures reveal a problem as well as an increase in retail spending, Mr. Speaker, and he should speak frankly of that problem. Rising food prices are an important element in the financial dilemma facing many Manitoba ns. They c'eserved some mention in this budget, be caus e when a Finance Minister is prepar ing to dispose of the $7 8 million surplus he has acc umu lated, he can affo rd to speak of that problem. But as I said, Mr.

Speaker, fran k speaking does not appear to have a place in my honourable friend's political style. But be all that as it may, Mr. Speaker, the First Minister in his own way did discuss our economy. He pointed out that things here were not at all bad, and he cited a variety of indices which, al though not all were ingenuous, did attempt to bear out his statements. Manitoba has not been ravaged as badly as some other parts of Canada by unemployment, and that's true, Mr. Speaker. It's the kind of thing that makes finance ministers in Manitoba grat eful to Ne wfound land.

We're better off than they are, and we can always say that. And of course, Mr. Speaker, the First Minister did say it. He boasted of only 4. 5% of our labour force being unemployed. He did not choose to mention that when we translate into the numbers of Manitobans who are unemployed, it means very simply that more Manitobans are unemployed than ever before. He did not choose to mention that in Manitoba young people, people under 25 years old, suffer rates of unemployment that are about three times as high as any other group in this province.

He did not choose to mention that of the 135, OOO Manitobans of Indian and Metis origin, as many as 75% of those who are employable are unemployed here; that those native people are not even listed in the statis tics. He did not speak of disguised unemployment or underemployment of the rural are as, even in the face of the return of some levels of prosperity in agric ulture here. Mr. Speaker, the First Minister knows of these things. When Dr.

Weldon, who was then head of Planning and Priorities, appeared before the Standing Committee on Economic Develop ment, he testified that the real unemployment in Manitoba, if we counted in the native people who are generally missed in DBS statis tics, that the real unemployment here was in the order of eight or nine percent - twice as high as the figures the Premier chose to tell this House, Another example of his frankness, Mr. Speaker. Well, what does this all mean, Mr. Speaker ? Well, it means that things are not quite as good as the First Minister would like us to believe.

It does not mean that the performance of this economy has been a total disaster, or that we must run, hat in hand, to Ott.awa for relief, as some will no doubt suggest in this House very soon. It means that we have problems here in Manitoba, problems that the government has an obligation to deal with, or at least to speak of frankly. For the validity of this budget, fortunately, does not depend on the acc uracy of all the implications the First Minister has built into his numbers game. This is a political budget, but in this self-serving distortion of the economic facts in Manitoba, we have evidence, Mr.

Speaker, that this is not a good government. Now, Mr. Speaker, let us consider some of the other numbers the Premier spoke of in his addres s. Farm incomes, he said, are recovering. He welcomes that and all of us can agree on that. Farm incomes are some $10 4 million higher than one year ago, Mr, Speaker, and the injection of that extra income into our economy, into the economy of this province, has provided much of the stimulus that ena bles the First Minister to speak of our prosperity. But a few fa cts, Mr. Speaker. The First Minister and his friends can take no credit for this recovery.

Their restrictive, supply-manageme nt policies would have had the farm community resigned to an endless stream of poor years . That growth has come from world agric ultural condition on the one hand, and through the efforts and sound business sens e of the farmers of Man itoba on the other. And, Mr. Speaker, that recovery does not mean that all the problems of the rural area are solved. Net incomes are not yet at ac cepta ble levels - by the First Minister's own

1192 March 29, 19 73 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) .•... admission. Rising costs, costs of new machinery, of labour, of the basic necessities, are all climbing and all contribute to a continuing cost squeeze on Manitoba's farmers. Mr. Speaker, they erode net incomes. And one other cost that is climbing, Mr. Speaker, is the cost of government. Taxes levied by all levels of government are a cost factor in farm production, a cost factor of increasing importance. And how do we maintain the level of recovery we have already reached?

Does the govern ment have some new initiative to replace their restrictive policies? Are they prepared to face up to even the most foreseeable of agricultural problems with branch line abandonment over the next few years, with freight rates, with the overhaul of the grain transportation system.? If they have responses to these continuing problems, Mr. Speaker, we cannot find them in this budget address. And what of preserving the quality of personnel on our farms? The average age of Manitoba farmers is 55 years. Is the government doing anything to encourage even the sons of existing farmers into agriculture?

No, Mr. Speaker. Instead the family farm is treated like any other asset under our succession duty and gift tax. The First Minister may not like it, Mr. Speaker, but the family farm is a social institution as well as a productive unit. What does his government propose to do to recignize that fact? Mr. Speaker all of these incidences of the First Minister's use of numbers have one thing in common.

He has taken these numbers and used them, not as economic indicators, not as facts that can tell us about the things we have achieved - and I do not question for a moment that we have achieved things in Manitoba since 1969, or that the First Minister and his colleagues can take credit for some of these achievements - but he has not used these figures, Mr.

Speaker, but unfor tunately he has not used these figures for the information they can give about our achievements; he has not made the legitimate use that governments should make of economic indicators: He has not inferred from them the nature of the problems we still have in Manitoba and used that to set objectives for our futur e policies. He has treated them instead as a sort of rhetorical public relations handout. Mr. Speaker, let the First Minister be proud of the things his government has achieved, and let him demand the credit his ministers and himself have earned. But let him not, Mr.

Speaker, but let him not use numbers like this. Let him instead look carefully and thoughtfully at the data we have on our economy. Let him look at it for the satisfaction and encouragement it can give him in his efforts to govern, and let him recognize the problems and the weaknesses those numbers show, and let him come before us with clear objectives based on those problems, and with a budget that will do more than merely dispose of a surplus - by coincidenc13 - before an election.

And so we would ask the First Minister: Do more in this budget than merely propose ways of doing away with a surplus - although in large part, we welcome the steps he is taking. We would ask him, Mr. Speaker, we would ask him to be frank about the state of our economy. And we ask him to be frank with us so that we would know how well his government is meeting its stated objectives or overcoming the disparities between the income levels of the various groups and various regions in Manitoba.

If he wishes to congratulate himself on this budget, and he has some cause to do that, let him also acknowledge that for all his determined raids on the prosperity of individual Manitobans, he has proved himself unable to correct the inequities arid injustices that mark much of our income distribution. Now, .Mr. Speaker, I want to quote from the Barber Report, and I want the Honourable Minister of .Finance and the Honourable First Minister and all those who have banged on the desk to bang now. Let him quote from his own Barber Report, a report that states clearly that poverty in Manitoba is not being overcome.

The First Minister is succeeding in tracking - Mr .. Speaker, the First Minister is succeeding in tracking down in Manitoba those who have ability to pay, and in seizing as much of their resources as he can. He is succeeding very clearly, Mr. Speaker, in spending almost as much as he collects. The estimates for this year, Mr. Speaker, project spending of $693 million - an increase of more than 20 percent over the last year. And he has even succeeded in coming before this House, admitting that he has been over-taxing, has taken from the people of Manitoba more money than was required to pay for his programs.

And then suggesting that there is a virtue, Mr. Speaker - and this is what he's suggesting - that there is a virtue in that we ought to be grateful to him for finally returning this surplus to the people who earned that money in the first place. J {i ... I i

March 29, 1973 1193 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. SPIVAK cont'

d) Mr. Speaker, he has succeeded in all th ose things, but according to his own Barber Report, Mr. Speaker, poverty in Manitoba affects 31 percent of our citizens. If the Honourable Member from Osborne likes that, pound on the desk. Thirty-one percent of our citizens in Manitoba compared to a national average of only 25 percent. Mr. Speaker, the First Minister did not choose to mention . POINT OF ORDER MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Memberfor Morris. MR.

JORGENSON: As has been indicated earlier today, that if an honourable member has a point of order he should rise in his place and make that point, I am making it now, Sir, I am asking you to pay attention to the bad manners of honourable gentlemen opposite who per �ist in interjecting into the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The point is well taken but I should like to indicate that it is attributable to both sides and I have been sile nt because this is the desire of the House.

Now if this House wants to -Operate by its rules, I'm willing to abide by them, but I would wish that the Honourable House Leader of the Conservative Party would also indicate the same courtesy to his own members as he 's indicating to the other side. I am the only person that's caught in the middle here trying to adjudicate your rules, and if you want the rules adjudicated strenuously I can do that, if you want them with some elasticity I shall adhere to that too, but I can't be doing both at the same time with each Party saying that "I'm right and you're wrong. " Now let's get it straight.

Do I rule this House for your benefit with your rules or do you want to tell me how you want it run ? Now this happens on both sides and I do think I must have some discretion. If you don't want my discretion then rise to a point of order each time. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. JORGENSO N : I am rising on a point of order. MR. SPEAKER! Very well. MR. JORG ENSON: Because during the course of the address given by the Finance Minister on Tuesday night there was not a sound uttered from this side of the House or inter jections through the speech made ... MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

I do not know how the honourable member attributes that when he wasn't here. I do not know how the honourable member can say that when he wasn't here but I was, and I was her e in the middle. Now let's get on with the job. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: If the Opposition members were silent on Monday night it was because they were stunned, not because that is the way they behave. There has been, Mr.

Speaker, as you have pointed out, there has been - - my point of order is on the point of order that has been raised by the Honourable Member for Morris wh ich apparently the Leader of the Liberal Party's unable to understand, therefor e I will explain it to him. The Honourable Mem ber for Morris got up and made a point of order that people were interjecting on this side. I ai:n now able to speak to that point of order by the rules of this House and therefore I am speaking to it, and since you did not understand that I'm explaining it to you. I think, Mr.

Speaker, that all that you were pointing out is that both sides have engaged in these interjections and the fact that on one particular debate when the members of the Conservative Party and mei:nbers of the Opposition - - (Interjection) - - Mr. Speaker, it is occurring now. If one needs proof that it occurs, it is occurring now, and therefore the silence on Sunday night wasn't attributable to good courtesy but - - Tuesday night - but was attributable to -0ther effects on opposition. MR. TURNBULL: Make the best of a bad job. BUDGET DEBATE (Cont'

d) MR. SPIVAK: Make the best of a bad job. Mr. Speaker, surely the Honourable Member for Osborne must realize that that's exactly what his government's attempting to do. Surely he must not feel confident that when quotations are made from a Barber Report that suggests that 31 percent of our citizens are in poverty, that that's a good job. And surely when he compares that ... - - (Interjections) - - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please.

1194 March 29, 19 73 BUDGET DEBATE MR. SPIVAK: Surely, Mr. Speaker, when he compares that to a national average of 25 percent, he can't feel any confidence and he cannot support its proposition which says that the economy is moving and that the quality of the human condition has in fact been raised in this province. Mr. Speaker, the First Minister did not choose to mention these figures when he was regaling us with his numbers, Instead he spoke in ringing phrases of his governme nt's effort to correct disparities.

Now, Mr, Speaker, all of us in this House share the obvious concern that motivates the government, the concern that all in Manitoba should share in the prosperity we are able to build here . We agree with the First Minister thatgro ss economic indicators tell us little about whether or not our economy is functioning acceptably, that unless there is some equality in opportunity, some mechanism that will permit each of our citizens to achieve to the limits of his God-given ability, that the most impressive of gross economic gains are not good enough. Well, Mr.

Speaker, that means very clearly that the performance of Manitoba under this government - and we admit that the performance in gross economic terms has been rather better than most of us, including my friend the Member from St. John's, than most of us expected. But it means that our performance has not been good enough; for poverty still attacks almost a third of our people. And if the efforts, and the sincere efforts, of th.e First Minister and his friends are not affecting the face of one-third of Manitobans, then by what logic does he justify his continued raids on those with "abil ity to pay"?

If his governme nt has no creative use for this money, if they are not able to apply it to the problems of inequity in a meaningful way, then his search for those with ability to pay becomes merely a.punitive exhibition, taking from those who have, as if that in itself were merely somehow justified even. if he has proved himself unable to use what he takes to solve the problems of the poor. And, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the First Minister does just that. I suggest that his use of examples are questionable.

I believe he used one family earn.ing $50, OOO and another earning $100, OOO to point out the gre at equity of his approach to taxation, becoming nothing more than an exe rcise, Mr. Speaker, in the most barren socialist sloganeering. Only o . . 7 perce nt - O. 7 of one percent - s even -tenths of one percent of Manitobans file income tax returns here based on gross incomes of $25, OOO or more. And taking from those people has no virtue in itself.

Taking from them to help meet the objectives of this community,tci>helpprovide some mechanism for the poor to advance themselves, that would be· as acceptable to my party as it would be to the First Minister's. But holding up the ogre of the rich and inviting his friends to join him in punishing them, while leav ing the poor to languish despite all of his governme nt's best efforts, is the grossest sophistry of fair taxation. You know, Mr. Speaker, we have sometimes expected that kind of demagoguery from some of the less-c apable, less-le arned, less-so phisticated members of the First Minister's group.

But not from him. His now colleague and former opponent for the leadership of.his group, the Honourable Member for Inkster, the House Leader, has been characterized some times as a rash man, as a man given to excessive language, as even - although he has not earned it - as a dangerous radical, But the .Member for Inkster still understands what I am saying and will be as critical at this cheapening of the things his Party has stood for as I can be. Mr. Speaker, the First Minister appeared before us in his cloak of righteousness. "I le ad a government that helps the poor, " he said.

And he gave examples from 0, 7 of one per cent of Manitobans who earn more than $25, OOO per year. He mentioned those people, those members of that tiny minority, but he did not mention the native people of Manitoba. He did not mention over 20, OOO Indian and Metis who are unemployed in Manitoba. He drew no examples from their plight. He did not try to explain their dilemma to their fellow Manitobans, to ask those other Ma.nitobans to join him in help ing them to build a better future for themselves and for their children. Mr, Speaker, he did not explain, Mr.

Speaker, that of the thousand Indian srudents entering Grade 1 in the early 150s, only 475 made it to Grade 2 the next year, or that only 16 finally made it in Grade 12, and they are in the labour force now. These people and others like them are now unemployable Manitobans. The Premier did not explain that of the thousand Indian students entering Grade 1 in 19 58, only 54 made it to Grade 12. He did not explain that without education, without skills, these people are trapped, Mr. Speaker, they are trapped in poverty •

March 29, 1973 1195 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) ...•. throughout their life, that they lack the social and economic resources and that they lack access to opportunities that our economy offers. He did not ask us to forego some of that $78 million surplus that he handed back so that his government could begin to work with those people to gain access to opportunities that has been denied to them. Mr. Speaker, that would have been something. That would have been admi rable. That would have been consistent with the best that his party has claimed to stand for. But he chose not to mention those people, Mr.

Speaker, He chose instead to as sure us that his government was determined to eliminate disparities in financial circumstan ces. And, Mr. Speaker, it is disappo inting to see his .. government fading into some weak-kneed Liberal echo of that kind of compas sionate tradition his party has often laid claim to. Mr. Speaker, I do not suggest for one rn.oment that my own party has ready-m ade solu tions to all the problems of Manitoba, We can only try to meet the challenge.

But when the present government takes refuge in the numbers game, in denying the real problems that exist, of appear ing at budget tim.e not with the kind of tangible challenge or clear humanitarian objec tives they have cla imed to be motivated by, but with rosy pronouncements, and pre-election liquidation of surpluses, well then I think they have read the people of Manit oba wrongly just as rny own party read them wrongly in 1969.

They are abandoning the content, they are abandoning the content of their own social reform in favour of the mere forms, in favour of the plummy reass uring protestations that they are concerned for the less fortunate members of our community. Mr. Speaker, I express these concerns as we read a Budget that contains many good elements. They are I suppose as much a comment on the way this government has changed as they are on the Budget specifical ly. The former Minister of Finance used to make reference to many of the same economic indicators in his budget addr esses.

But he also made it clear that he understood that they are sometimes ambigu ous. And let me for a moment quote directly from the Minister of Finan ce's own Budget, the Honourable l\'Iember from St. Johns, in 1972, and I quote: "Those broad indicat ors" - talking about the economic indicato rs that t he Premier glee fully presented - "Those broad indicators cannot be and were never intended to be a true guide to social progress in a country. What, for example, does a gross output figure reveal about living conditions in our cities and in our rural are as ?

What do total investment figures necessar ily reveal about the quality of housing ? - about educational programming ? - and even about employment opportunities ? - What do retail sales statistics " - this is interesting, Mr. Speaker. The First Minister obviously didn't read this last night. "What do total retail sales statistics reveal about the relative abilities of all our citizens to share equitably in the benefits of our society ?

Our position has been, and will continue to be, that we will strive for economic development, rapid development, rapid development, but only when it ca n be demonstrated that this development will mean real improvement in the qua lity of life enjoyed by all our citizens." And he claps and he pounds the desk and 31 percent of our people are in poverty. A MEMBER: How do you like that ? MR. SPIVAK: The early statements by this government used to focus cm identifying the problems that we have in Manitoba and proposing their own solutions.

Usually we thought their solutions to be wanting, to be unpromising, to smack too much of government control and bureaucracy-building. But now we are told there are no more real problems. We are treated not to a recital of government objectives but to pretending that everything has already been ac hieved. But, Mr. Speaker, everything has not been achieved. And it will not be under this government. There will be no real alternatives for those who live in poverty while this govern ment remains in power for they simply do not understand how our economy works.

They do not understand that it wi ll be the efforts of individual Manitobans that will form the solutions, not the continuing sprawl of their parasitic public sector. Well, does the First Minister think I over-sta te ? Well let him deny the figures on the expenditures given in his own budget. Six hundred and ninety-three million, Mr. Speaker, an increase in the order of 20 percent over last year. Let him deny that under his government in the time from their first budget to 197-±, salaries and general spending has climbed - and this was based on the estimates of 615 , Mr.

Speaker, 16 and 15 million - salaries and general spending has climbed 94 percent. That direct welfa re spending has increased by more than 56 percent. And, Mr. Speaker, I am now going to deal with the estimates that we had prior to the

1196 March 29, 19 73 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. SPIVAK cont'

d) o . . . . new estimates that were presented by the Honourable First Minister when he presented his budget. In 1970 salaries and general expenditures were $90, 767, 492. 00. In 1974 salaries and ge neral expenditures were $176, 8 74, 900. 00, an increase of 94. 9 percent. Grants to Education, Mr. Speaker, in 19 70 they were $84, 409, 437; in 1974 it's projected to be $169, 841, 100, that's an increase of 101. 5 percent. In direct welfare pay ments, Mr. Speaker, the increase from 1970 was $35 million in 19 70, and I think I'll round these sums at this point, Mr.

Speaker, but they are available in detail if the honourable mem bers want them. In 1974 it was $55 million, or an increase of 56. 3 perce nt. In grants other than education it rose from $12 mill ion in 1970 to $18 million in 19 74 or 42. 2 percent. In Highway Department construction, Mr. Speaker, in 1970 it was $43 million, in 19 74 it's fore cast at 94, so essentially - - I'm sorry it's 50 - essentially that's a 14. 6 percent increase. In health costs other than salaries and expenditures it rose from $28 million to $94 million, that's a 234 percent increase.

He speaks to us of growing investment, growing provincial production, of a boom in the construction industry, Mr. Speaker, as though those things were really sound and healthy here, But those figures, Mr. Speaker, like so many of the figures presented by the First Minister are distorted by the looming overgrown spending habits of this government. - Lt's talk about the construction industry. Mr.

Speaker , in the calendar year 1972, there were $65 million worth of major construction projects undertaken through the bid depository system, and that's a common way of organizing cons.tructiono Of that $65 million fully 86 per cent, or $56 million, was spent by the government. This does not include such major areas as provincial governme nt construction activity, as universities, or the northern hydro develop ments. But it serves to underline the massive presence, Mr. Speaker, the massive presence of this government's spending in our marketplace. Mr. Speaker, let's talk about investment.

The First Minister was sanguine about invest ment plans in Manitoba - - (Interjection) - - and the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources says it's good. Well according to DBS figures on investment intentions there will be over a billion dollars invested here, but of that money, Mr. Speaker, more than half is coming from the government, and that is through normal kinds of government spending.

What about the activities of this governme nt in manufacturing that we do not know about, in primary industries , for they are active there too with their high spending and their failure of accountability and now I want to, if I may, Mro Speaker, because this has always been an issue and a contention between us , refer to an

article in the Financial Times, October '7 2, stating "but head offices wither at Portage and Main. " And this is an

article by Mr. Clayton Sinclair. Mr. Speaker, the

article deals with a number of companies and I'll mention a few of them. But the one thing that is of concern to me, and must be of concern to the government and Manitobans, is his opening statement, and I want to quote that to the honourable members. He states in the article: "Winnipeg - If developing new industry has been difficult for Manitoba, keeping established businesses there is starting to loom as even more of a problem. " Mr. Speaker, he closes his

article by stating, and I quote: "If there is a message in all of this" - having referred to a variety of companies - - (Interjection) - - Yah. "If there is a message in all of this for planners it is probable that they will have to rethink their long-term policies. " - - (Interjection) - - The Honourable Minister of Finance mentions Hudson's Bay - - (Interjec tion) - - Yah.

And you know and it's interesting that he refers to Hudson's Bay, and where he refers to the fact that they relocated 50 of their merchandising store planning and real estate staff in new corporate headquarters in Toronto, and they have gone through the form of moving it here but in reality it is being run down east, and the Honourable Minister of Finance knows it.

There 's reference to Harlequin Enterprises , the paperback company publishing firm, which has also moved east, and ther e's mention as well - - and the honourable members are going to applaud on this - - to Versatile Manufactl,lring that have moved to North Dakota. Mr0 Speaker - - you know, Mr. Speaker, there is no reason for the kind of optimism that the Honourable First Minister likes to express about the economy, and the direct contradiction is borne in the facts that he presented in his Budget, and I'll be referring to that in a few momentso o o MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR0 SPIVAK: Mr0 Speaker, it's interesting that the Minister of Finance, the former Minister of Finance the Honourable Member for St. Johns, in his budget last year in talking

March 29, 197::J 1197 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) .•... about what was going to be happening in Manitoba stated, and I quote first, not out of context but in the middle of a pa ragraph becaus e it refers directly to the partic ular item on what was happening with respect to the economy, "so that Manitoba will be the unquestioned leader in Canada in the scope and range of its response to manpower require ments. The same is true in respect of new policies relating to the delivery of health care services" - and we'll talk about that later.

But he says the same is true of industrial and regional development policies. He's talking ab:)Ut last yearo "The same is true of industrial and regional development policies. In these areas major initiatives are under way that will dwarf in scale and importance the work of our first months in office. " "In these areas major initiatives are under way that will dwarf in scale and importance the work of our first months in office. " Mr.

Speaker, this is 19 72, October 172, and they are now talking of the majo r regional and industrial development policies that are dwarfing in scale the importance of the work of the first few months of the NDP in office. Mr. Speaker, let's talk about housing, and the Honourable Member for St. Matthews will be interested in what I'm going to say. The government says it's proceeding - well - well, Mr0 Speaker, government-sponsored housing acc ounts for fully one-quarter of all starts, for almost 100 percent of the townhouse construction. It acc ounts for about 40 percent of apartme nt starts, and, Mr.

Speaker, it should not be necessary - - and this is the difference between ourselves and the members opposite - - for the Provincial Government to become Manitoba 's biggest landlo rd. Mr. Speaker, that is quite simple to define. It is government that is too big. It is » government that is too much involved and in parts of our life where private individuals have al ways been able to perform more effectively. Mr.

Speaker, on Page 15 of this Budget Address the First Minister claims his spending will increase by only 60 8 percent over the year just ending, and that for this government would be restraint of the first water. But if we are to believe the detailed ari thmetic in the appendix to his budget, the real spending will not include the 615 in his so-called main estimates but a grand total now of 693 million. That means the real increase is 20 percent, or roughly three times what the First Minister asked this House to believeo Now, Mr.

Speaker, that increase is even larger than the unscheduled hike in the cost of Jenpeg Development, and since we first received those so-called main estimates only about three weeks ago this increase has appa rently happened even faster than Jenpeg has escalated. And the First Minister has approached both these increases with a remark_able lack of frank ness that is so much a part of his political style.

The First Minister is not alone to blame for this confusion and, Mro Speaker, we are in what I consider, in a position that must be altered in this Legislature and I would hope, and I would undertake as a government to do that, that estimates must be brought down with budgets so that we are in a position to deal with real estirnates o When the Premier stood up some time ago and talked about a 6. 8 percent rise he was applauded by many people be caus e he had held spending.

When the people now realize that we're talking about a 20 percent increase, they at this point have a right to question the legitimacy of the statements and presentations that he has presented. And, Mr. Speaker, we do not remark on this huge and growing public sector mer ely out of real pique at the way the First Minister has played his numbers game, or the way he bas displayed his ar rogant disregard for those groups he claims his government is there to help. We remark on it because it is the very cornerstone of this government's approach : They would prefer the government to do everything.

They would prefer the govE;rnment to control every thing. They would prefer the government to have a hand in everything, And they have so little faith in the ability of the people here in Manitoba to do things for themselves, and that is the essential difference between the members opposite and the members on this side. Mr. Speaker, that approach will never meet the needs we have in Manitoba as it has never met the needs of any North American society. Mr.

Speaker, nowhere are the dan gers of that approach more clear than in one of this government's most vaunted initiatives, the efforts to stimulate employment through its PEP programs or capital ac celeration programs. Now we do not question that. We did not question that, Mr. Speaker, when they started. These programs were necessa ry. Now if I can quote the Honourable Member for St. Johns, "Manit oba had no choice but to fight the Federal Liberal policy of strangulation of -0ur economy and so we would never suggest that the government should have stood by.

" These programs were a good initiative; they were a good short-term response

1198 March 29, 1973 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) ..... to the exceptional circumstances of the times, but they have stopped being a short-term response. They are becoming permanent, and while they were acceptable at the start as temporary jobs the employment offered by these programs if they are to become permanent, Mr. Speaker, is nothing more or less that for from the people involved it is a poverty trap.

The governme nt does not pay the people who work on these projects very well; a minimal living wage is all, and that program offers no opportunity for advancement for the employees to earn more money by becoming better at their job. And they do not even offer the security of a guarantee that they will continue. But they must continue, Mr. Speaker, for so long as there are no other employment options available to thes e people they will have to continue. And the simple fact is that the gover nment has never thought of that.

They decide from time to time to continue the programs but they have made no identifiable effort to help the people employed in them to find real jobs, permanent jobs, jobs with futures and chances of advancement. Instead they have trapped these people, Mr. Speaker, and this is one of the greatest condemnations against the government. They have trapped these people into continued dependence on the governm ent and they are delighting in that kind of use of the fiscal mechanism which they have available.

They distinctly are putting them in a position of poverty and the Honourable Member from Roblin stood up and told of the incidents in his own constituency where he has people with axes cutting out willows and he says, what are you going to offer them tomorrow; next year ? They're going to have to go out and they're going to have to cut the same willows down. They are going to be trapped in poverty. Well, Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do ? We are going to get the private sector of this economy to move to create the permanent jobs. Mr.

Speaker, we're not going to sit on our hands as the Honourable Member from Brandon East, as the Minister of Industry and Commerce, and say everything is good, We are going to go out, and we are going to do everyting we can to create the kind of climate where permanent jobs can and will be created so that these people · will have opportunity in this provinca. Well, Mr. Speake r, · we are first going to get the confi dence of the business community and we are not going to use them as the whipping boy for the social ills of this province. And, Mr.

Speaker, that's what's wrong· with the NDP belief in the unbridled use of the public sector, with their inability to see that there are limitations to what the public sector can usefully do. Instead of having real jobs in the private industry of Manitoba, jobs with the challenge and the opportunity of potential advancement, these Manitobans are caught in the government's poverty trap. I return to what I said before. No one would question that when they were started these programs were good. They were a necessary response by the government.

They were a good first step in assisting some of our citizens to find places in our economy. But the second step was never taken, Mr. Speaker. If this government understood that it was necessary to take another step, to locate real opportunities and real jobs for these people, then they failed in their efforts to do so. But we fear that they never did understand that, Mr. Speaker. We fear that it never occurred to them that once government acted the problem would still remain. But the actions of government have no special magic, Mr. Speaker. They do not serve automatically to cure problems.

It is not enough to transfer a few funds from this group to that group through some government agency in order to create real equality of opportunity. And yet this has been the governme nt's response, to transfer some money to meet this problem or that problem, and it all amounts to one simple result. This government has adopted a pattern of accommodating poverty, Mr. Speaker; of making dependence on the state, and the taxpayer not only as an easy alternative but for Manitobans the only alternative. Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat that again for the honourable members' understanding.

By their actions, by their lack of understanding of the way in which this economy has run, by their distrust of the community, the business community and the private and voluntary sector, they have in fact provided for many the necessity of dependence on the state and the taxpayer and they have provided them as the only alternative to be able to make ends meet, or with the other alternative of going on welfare. We have sometimes suggested, Mr. Speaker, an alternative. For instance, Mr.

Speaker, earl ier in the session we suggested that instead of welfare payments to women who had been deserted by their husbands, the government should use its power to protect the women 's rights, I ,

l\'[arch 29, 1973 1199 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) ..... to assure that those who had a personal obligation to pay towards the support of these women were compelled to do so. This would do nothing more than provide these women with an independence to which they had a legal and moral , entitlement. The government prefers to continue welfa re pay1ne nts, Mr. Speaker, the dependence on the state, to keep these women trapped in a position of deµendence on government. And that does not work, Mr. Speaker.

That does not provide the mechanism that people need to solve their own inequities, to meet their own problems, and to be able to run their own lives independent of government. But of course that last may not be something the First Minister would desire. But, Mr. Speaker, all of this does not invalidate the good things included in this budget, They do not invalidate the unparalleled good fortune of the First Minister in finding himself with 78 million extra dollars to give back to the people, and all coincidentally with an election just around the corner, But where, one might - - (Interj ection) - - you know, Mr.

Speaker, one word about - - no, Mr. Speaker. One has to ask; we didn't know it until we got the revenue estimates. You know, we have to ask; "Well, where do you get the 78 million ?" Well quite clearly he got it from the people, the people who pay taxes, the people who earned the money in the first place. Well, that being so, one might go on to wonder just what he was doing with the $78 million of the people's money that he did not need to run even this very expensive government, Well, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't entirely his fault that he found himself with all that money.

A large portion of it came from Ottawa, the place where we usually get our unemployment. But this time they appeared to send us a gift, or did they? About $40 million more than we expected to get from them. Now the Premier was not very clear about just why we got all that extra money from Ottawa. He suggested that someone down there had made some mistake in calculating what was due in previous years, but if we look at the figures, that does not appear to explain it very well. And, Mr.

Speaker, here are the figures: I want to deal with the year 197 2-7 3 and the forecast year 1973 -7 4, and I'd like to compare tr.e equalizati on payments made to the other provinces to be able to see what kind of rise they can antici pate in their equal ization paymen ts, and this does not deal with, Mr. Speaker, the la st rise in equalization payments to come as a result of Mr. Turner's budget in February. Mr. Speaker, in N ev.1oundland - let me deal with Ne wfoundland first - N ev.1oundland received la st year $113 million; this year $129 million is forecast, it will receive a rise of $16 million. P.

E. t received last year 23 million; it's going to receive 27 million next year; that will be a rise of 4 million. Nova Scotia realized 112 million last year; it's going to realize 131 million this coming year. Ne w Brunswick received 107 million last year; it's going to receive 120 million next year. Now Sask atchewan, our next door neighbour, received 109 million last year; it's going to get 110 million next year. Manitoba received this past year, although the budget showed 58 million, $61 million; on this formula it's to receive $87 million. Mr.

Speaker, it's going to receive $26 million more, which is higher than N ev.1oundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Sask atchewan, with the exception of Quebec who received a bit more. Now, Mr. Speaker, let's now talk about the buoyancy of our economy. If our economy was as bouyant as the honourable member suggested, the Honourable First Minister suggested, why would we be receiving equalization payments which put us almost with the "have not" provinces? Surely, Mr. Speaker, surely, Mr. Speaker, surely there is a ba sic contradiction - - (Interjections) - - surely there is a contradiction.

Now if, on the other hand, the Honour able Minister of Mines and Natural Resources wants to suggest that we received a windfall, then I'm going to ask him: how does he expect to pay for what he's offer ing this year and the years to come? Because are we going to get a windfall every year, because if we're going to get a windfall every year, Mr. Speaker, if we're going to get a windfall every year, let me tell you, that means that our econon1y obviously will be going down, Mr. Speaker, if it is a wind fall - - oh, it's a windfall, Mr. Speaker, somehow or other we got a windfall. Yeah.

We got a windfall this year, but next year we're not going to get a windfall, where are we going to get the money?

1200 March 29, 1973 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. SPIVAK cont'

d) Well, we're going to have exactly what the First Minister's doing. We're going to auction if off. We're going to find out how we're go ing to tax this, we may tax liquor next time or we may tax gasoline next time, we may put another tax on production machinery and tell the people "Y ou're not being taxed" but in effect raise the sales tax by another one percent, or we're going to be able to do some other thing::i but in order to hide it. But, Mr.

Speaker, one of the questions, one of the questions of the credibility of an NDP government, and it's been borne out by the history of Saskatchewan - and I don't have to tell the members opposite that I know what I'm talking about - that every time an elec tion, - (Interjections)-- that every time an elec tion came, every time an election came there were election cuts and right after the ele ction, after the NDP were elec ted, taxes went up. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Governm ent has found it necessary to pay almost as much in equalization to Manitoba as to the Maritime provinces.

The increase -- our share of the equalization payments, Mr. Speaker, is larger than any other province than Quebec, and I believe the members opposite were heard to murmur, and they've said it before, when the First Minister was talking "Tha t's performance." We got $90 million for equalization from the Federal Government, which the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources says is a windfall, which is the response, which gives us half of the surplus that we were able to give away, and the honourable members yell, "That 's performance". By whom ? By the Federal Government, not by the Provincial Government. And Mr.

Speaker, that's performance because the economy of Manitoba was lower and warranted the equalization payments. -- (Interjections)-- MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. SPIVAK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't sure whether this amount would appear in future years a_nd the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources indicates that it won't So we've also gained another 10. 8 million through Mr. Turner's budget, and Mr. Speaker, that money was r!esigned to be used for municipal tax rel ief. And realistically that makes part of the $78 million. Well, what about the rest ?

That still leaves about $40 million in the First Minister 's gift package. And that $40 million, Mr. Speaker, comes from the taxpayers of Manitoba. It comes from excessive taxes charged in the years between 1969 and 19 73. Now it may be a surprise to some to find that the government has been accumulating surpluses, because they've never announced when they tabled their budget that they intended to tax us more than necessary. In fact, the estimates and the budgets produced by this governme nt have never reveale d the true extent of their reve nue.

For instance, in 1969- 70 actual revenues exceeded estimated revenues by-more than $13 million; in 1970-71, by more than $32 million; in 19 71- 72, by more than $18 million; and in this budget , they are transferring a surplus of $42 million from the last fiscal year, $42 million that need not have been taken from the people of Manitoba in the first place. And all together, Mr. Speaker, the First Minister found himself with $78 million, 78 million extra dolk.rs. And that shouldn't be surprising, Mr. Speaker, when you consider that his gover nment has taken a great deal of money from the people of Manitoba.

Through personal income taxes alone, he propose s this year to raise more than 2 1 /2 times as much as was raised during the last year of the previous government. In 1969, the last year of the previous Progressive Conservative government, the provincial personal income tax was oniy$e4. 7 million, but this year's estimates predict personal income tax revenues of $166. 8 million for Manitoba in 19 73-74. Mr. Speaker, in four years that's $100 million more taken from the taxpayers in Manitoba, the same taxpayers .

But in any event, with an elec tion just around the corner, the First Minister found himself moved to return some of the money to the people of Manitoba. And the most important part of his program to return that money was the elimination of the Health Insurance premiums. In doing this, the First Minister has returned to the scene of his most successful past reform. Mr. Speaker, we are the 5th province to elim inate this premium following Newfoundland, New Bruns.wick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and this is a legitimate and important reform. Mr.

Speaker, the members opposite are saying "no ", but -- yes, I know what you're saying, but I am going to repeat, we are the 5th province to el iminate this premium - Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia -- did they not have voluntary plans ?-- (Interjection) I

March 29, 1973 1201 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) ..... Did they not have voluntary plans? Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are the 5th province to eliminate this premium, following Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island -- and this is a legitimate and important reform. It will have some beneficial effects on the economy generally by stimulating demand. Politically, it is clearly acceptable to the people of Manitoba, and my Party supports it wholeheartedly and we offer to the First Minister our congratulations on taking this step0 The provision of pharrnacare is also welcome and important, Fbr a relatively small amount of money, this program will play an important

part in eliminating hardship for the aged. It is an example of the kind of reform, a just kind of reform - a program that is not overly complex or expensive but that responds precisely to a specific problem area. Now, Mr. Speaker, the foundation program is to be enriched up to 80 percent • We find ourselves agreeing with the First Minister. This was the original intention of that pro gram, that as resources became available to the provincial government, the provincial share should expand. As in past years, this government is filling the intention of the program. We are predictably, Mr.

Speaker, less enthusiastic about the education property tax credit. We maintain, as we have since the start, that this program is wasteful of the resources that are passing through it. I believe we are correct to say that it has already cost something or will cost for this years's administration something in the order of $1 million for advertising and administration, in the first year of the program.- That is $1 million that has gone, not to lighten the burden of taxation on Manitobans, but to pay for yet more govern ment supervision.

We are prepared to acknowledge that through the costly complexity of this program it achieves a very precise progressiveness, but it is more expensive to realize these marginal gains, Mr. Speaker, in progressiveness than it is worth. We can achieve, Mr. Speaker, the same end by a less complex program. And we would remove entirely those school taxes that are a hardship for the aged, and that contribute to the high production costs of farms - simply and with specific adjustments that would cost nothing in administration but would themselves be guaranteed of a substantial progressive nature.

And we would make some other specific adjustments too, to relieve the pressures of taxation on those who are most vulnerab le to them. One would be, Mr. Speaker, a sliding mill rate for commercial properties, so that the owners of small businesses, like stores or restaurants in rural .communities, Mr. Speaker, like stores or restaurants in rural commu- nities, whose incomes are usually low, should not be subjected to the full burden of the current commercial mill rate0 And we would propose that, and would undertake that as a change. There are other tax measures that would help this group.

One would be to consider the owner of such businesses, and the owner of family farms, to be exempt from succession duties and gift taxes on his business or farm should it pass to one of his children who will continue to operate it. This would, Mr. Speaker, this would be important for the srnall business people in this province and for the growth of small business, and would have a stsbilizing effect on the rural community particularly. And then we would address ourselves to the real problem of taxation on property - a problem that received nothing more than a gesture in this budget.

We would take the remaining money of the NDP's tax credit shell game and give a direct credit to the people in their municipal tax bills. Mr. Speaker, there is a problem in the basic realignment of revenues and responsibilities between the provincial and municipal governments.

You know the First Minister speaks of his determination to deal firmly with the Federal Government, to see that it recognizes that the increases in provincial responsibilities have out-stripped the easy increase in provincial revenues, while the Federal Government is making much more money then it needs from its broader tax base" Now, Mr, Speaker, he's right in this.

In this, there is no difference between the provincial government regardless of their political party, And if we want to talk about actors and the Academy Award, the First Minister looked and sounded and appeared like Duff Roblin when he talked about this. And he includes in his budget --( Interjections)-- Mr. Speaker, at the same time while talking to the Federal Government, he includes in his budget , as an example of his government's response to the same problem where it exists between provincial and municiJlal governments in Manitoba, a token. .

He is prepared to transfer an additional four million dollars to the municipalities.

1202 March 29, 19 73 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) ..... Mr. Speaker, that is four-seve nths of one per cent of the total spending he is predicting. We can only hope that the Federal Government will be rather more generous when it meets here with the First Minister to attack the problems between the two senior governments. And we can hope that the First Minister has much more planned than he has mentioned in his budget, that he has in fact an over-all approach to this problem. Be cause, Mr.

Speaker, it's nonsense to speak of tax reform in Manitoba - and I know the First Minister considers himself to be a reformer of our taxation - it is nonsense to speak of tax reform unless we come to grips with the problems that face the municipalities. If anyone thinks that we can in fact reform taxes with any real effect until we grapple with that problem, I would suggest that you talk to anyone who lives within the City of Winnipeg and talk to them when they get their City of Winnipeg tax bills.

The people there will receive all the benefits of the property tax credit, of the increased foundation program, and they will also receive, Mr. Speaker, a hefty increase in their tax bills in Winnipeg, and they haven't even begun to deal with the problems of the City of Winnipeg and they haven't even begun to deal with the equalizations of services, and both the Minister of Urban -- the former Minister of Urban Affairs and the Minister of Finance know that what I am saying is correct.

The simple fact is that the growing burden of Winnipeg responsibilities will more than offset anything the people there might think they are gaining through this budget. Mr. Speaker, I have already told the honourable members how my Party would approach this problem. We would start by recognizing that many of the problems of Manitoba could be most effectively solved if there were sufficient resources at the local level to undertake local and immediate problems.

And we would meet with the municipalities and find a new alignment, a way in which our resources could be applied through that le vel of government which is in the best position to meet each of the challenges facing us. That new al ignment would almost certainly include revenue sharing on a rather large scale. And I know this is unattractive to this government, since to give up some portion of their revenues often strikes friends opposite as tantamount to giving up part of their power to reform Manitoba.

But I would suggest that a lessening of the power of senior governments relative to local governments, especially over the day to day affairs of our people, would be in itself a considerable reform and would open the way to a much healthier society here in Manitoba. And so, Mr. Speaker, I come to the end of the reply. As I said at the start, the First Minister has proved to be a formidable Minister of Finance. Replying to his Budget has not been easy, because it contains many measures of which we approve: the removal of Medicare premiums, the institution of Pharmacare.

The increase in the foundation program is also good, although we regret that there have been no programs, save vne, advanced that would attack the inequities in education between the var ious regions of the province. The Minister of Education has announced a program of per pupil grants that are inversely related to the financial capabil ities of the regions of the province, and that is a step in the right direction. We hope to see more of the same, for since 1967 the educational resources in rural Manitoba have been falling rather behind those of urban areas. But the increas_es in the foundation system was good.

Even the school tax credit plan is better than nothing. We regret its wasteful complexity. We suggest that there's no alternative to a real re- examination of the entire range of services that are currently financed through the property taxes at the municipal level. The $4 million that this budget makes available as additional aid to the municipalities is not adequate. But I suppose we have been more critical of the things this budget does not say, and of the things it implies about this govern ment's attitude towards taxation. There is no real mention here of the poor.

I have already chided the First Minister for that. I have suggested that it would be a budget that he and his party could take a gre at deal more pride in if it dealt frankly with the problems that still face us rather than presenting such a distorted picture of our economy. And, Mr. Speaker, there has been no comment in this budget either of the surpluses accumulated by this government through overtaxation. Therehas been no acknowledgement that this government, like the Federal Government, have in fact been a profiteer of inflation. Mr.

Speaker, each time the price of goods goes up, the government gets more revenue through the sales tax. Each time workers here get a raise to help them keep up with the rising costs of

March 29, 1972 1203 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) •.... living, the government gets more money through income taxes. And so, as rising prices threaten the prosperity of the people of Manitoba, the government grows fat on them and then spends more to add to the inflationary pressures. And to speak of income redistribution against a background in inflation is simple nonsense, Mr. Speaker. Inflation is the mostregressive form of income redistribution; only the very strong can benefit from it and, Mr. Speaker, the government is the strongest of them all. So, Mr. Speaker, what is our criticism of the government ?

It is that they have lost their objectives. They have abandoned serious efforts to reform in favour of marginal adjust ments of income between middle income groups. They have taxed us excessively to further their tinkering with these marginal adjustments. And the reai poor in Manitoba remain trapped in dependency. This budget is indeed proof that this NDP Party in Manitoba has changed a gre at deal since the Honourable Member for St. John sat in opposition in the Chamber and instructed us on compassion; Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry the Premier is absent. My next few remarks are addressed to him. Mr.

Speaker, the Premier has indicated that Manitobans. now pay the lowest personal income taxes in Canada, and I quote, Mr. Speaker, from the March 26, 1973 , edition of the Winnipeg Free Press, under the heading - The Lowest Income Tax. Mr. Speaker, "Manitobans will have the lowest personal tax across Canada'! Now, Now, Mr. Speaker, like so many other statements that the Premier makes, this is simply not ti"ie. In fact, we are almost the highest taxed people in this country. MK SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader.

MR GR EEN: The honourable member should make it clear that he is quoting the Winnipeg Free Press comments on what was said and not the Premier. MR SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, if a point of privilege was to ariEie I would assume that it would be by the First Minister, unfortunately that -- (Interjection)--Mr. Speaker, I am quoting the Winnipeg Free Press and l'!Il quoting what the First Minister said. I'm quoting what they said he said. Just like they said he said 10 or 15 percent on Jenpeg. Just like he said that he changed the Churchill Forest Industry agreement from two-thirds equity to one-third.

Just like he talked about all of those things. I'm quoting what he said. And, Mr. Speaker, what he said was and what he tried to infer by this article, is that Manitoba will have the lowest personal taxes across Canada. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is not true. In fact, we are almost the highest taxed people in this country. It was convenient to the Premier and misleading, Mr. Speaker, that the tables appended to the budget deal ing with income tax and premium tax, refer only to Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. Mr.

Speaker, the people of every income level in the Province of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland pay less tax than Manitoba. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat that. The people in the Province of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, in the Premier 's terms pay less personal tax than Manitoba. All of them are have-n ot provinces, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Manitobans will become the lowest personal taxed province in this country after the next election when we form a government, because we will do what the governme nt has not been prepared to do and, Mr.

Speaker, that is to cut government spending and then cut the rates of personal income tax in this province. You know, Mr. Speaker, the people of this province know that they have been over -taxed. I challenge the Premier on his taxation statistics. The people of Manitoba who are paying the tax know the truth. Mr. Speaker, before I present the motion of non-confidence, I want to make reference to one quotation, but I will not quote Franklin Delano Roosevelt, I'll quote John Kennedy, and I want to paraphrase it. Mr.

Speaker, John Kennedy said, and a very famous quote: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. " Mr. Speaker, I'd like to paraphrase this: Ask not always what the government can do for you but what you can do for yourself. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Lakeside: THAT the motion be amended by striking out all the words after the word"th at:1 in lil19 one, and substituting the following; THAT this House regrets that:

(1) The pres ent administration has taxed excessively and despite the reforms in this

120 4 March 29, 1973 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) •.... budget, clearly intends to continue to do so;

(2) While Manitoba will become the fifth province to abolish Medicare and Hospitalization premiums, the budget before us confirms and perpetuates Manitoba's status as one of the highest taxed provinces in Canada;

(3) The present administration has failed to provide measures of spending control and expenditure reforms, a failure which has left untouched over half of the potential for provincial tax reduction;

(4) The prese nt administration has refused to cut income taxes or sales taxes on necessary items whose contribution to rising living costs is substantial and direct;

(5) This administration has failed to introduce its succession and gift duty legislation ame ndments which would recognize the husband and wife as an economic unit and which would permit the penalty-free transfer of farms or small businesses from parents to children will:ng to continue operating them;

(6) This administration has written off the North:

(7) This administration has failed to offer realistic long-term support for Manitoba 's agricultural community;

(8) This budget contains no significant measure of hope or relief for the real poor of Manitoba;

(9) This administration has failed and continues to fail in this budget to respond to unemployment, especially among the young and among Manitoba's Native people, and has failed to create a climate marked by opportunity and a sufficient number of permanent jobs . A MEMBER: Let's have an election. MR. SPIVAK: Let's have an election ! (10 ) This budget fails to answer adequately the growing financial problems of Manitoba's municipalities and does not adequately stimulate each of the regions of this province. (Applause) MOT ION presented. MR. SPEAKER: .

The Honourable Member for Wolsele y, the Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. ASPER: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie, that debate now be adjourned. MO TION presented and carried. ORDERS FOR RETURN MR. SPEAKER: Orders for Return. The proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Morris. MR. JO RGENSON : Mr. Speaker , .• MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I'm sorry, it's the Honourable Leader .of the Opposition. MR. JORGENSO N : I believe I'm properly on _my feet. The resolution stands in my name. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the.

Member for Rock Lake, THAT an Order of the House do Issue for a Return Showing the following information: 1. Total number of employees working for Western Flyer Coach Industries as of March 1, 1973 2. Number of employees at: (

a) Fort Garry plant (

b) Morris plant 3. Number of supervisory personnel above the rank of foreman at: (

a) Fort Garry (

b) Morris 4. Number of personnel on administrative staff. 5, Total amount of salaries paid to: (

a) administrative staff (

b) supervisory staff MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to raise the point of order with relation to this motion and in doing so, Mr. Speaker, I want the Honourable Member.for Morris to be aware that I believe that the information that he is asking for I will be able to obtain, and I believe

March 29, 1973 1205 ORDERS FOR RETURN (MR. GREEN cont'd). • • • • that there will be no objection to him getting it through the normal processes of the Economic Deve lopment Corporation. But on a matter of principle, and because I don't want it to be assumed that this type of order is one which the government is able to, or required to, respond to I would like to suggest that you, Mr. Speaker, take this order under consideration as being out of order in that it does not relate to a matter which is within the jurisdictional competence of the Legislature.

Now it is true that the Government of Manitoba owns considerable shareholders in Western Flyer Coach Industries but it is not the owner of the company, it is not a fully owned Crown Corpora tion or subsidiary of the MDC. There are other companies which the Crown has an interest and it cannot be suggested that every company of which the Crown has an interest becomes a matter which a Minister has to respond to on Orders of the Day, and -e xcuse me - by Order for Return. And there fore I tell the honourable member that I believe that I will be able to give him this information..

I see no reason for not giving him the information, but I do say that the order is not one which is the proper subject matter of an order, and in making that presentation, Mr. Speaker, I refer you to Bourinot Parliamentary Procedure Fourth Edition, "a document of which it is proposed to order a copy" - this is page 253 - "must be official in in its character and not a mere private letter or paper, and must relate to a matter within the jurisdiction of parl iament. " Now, Mr.

Speaker, I really must stand on that point of order and in doing so I want to assure the honourable member that I want him to have the information that he is seeking. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. JORGENSO N : Mr.

Speaker , the rules of our House indicate that when an Order for Return is submitted the Minister responding either indicates that the Order for Return will be complied with or that it will be refused, in which case the member then submitting the Order for Return has the opportunity of either redrafting it, dropping it, or transferring it for debate And at the present time it seems to me that is the only consideration either the information can be supplied or it cannot be supplied, or alternatively as has been suggested by the House Leader that the motion is out of order.

Now I should like to speak to that particular point, Sir, because the House Leader him self, who is also the Minister who handles the Manitoba Deve lopment Corporation, stated that any of the enterprises in which the Manitoba Deve lopment Corporation has an equity will have information provided whoever see kds that information. Indeed he went so far as to suggest that the House would be apprised of information they sought on those various corporations even more readily than they would in a pr ivate corporation as shareholders of that corporation.

Sir, what I am seeking is information that is important to me as a member of the constituency in which one of the plants is located, as to the manner in which that plant is . . . MR, SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member is not debating the point of order, he's debating the reason why he wants the information. I was willing to listen to the point of order that was raised by the Honourable House Leader, I'm also willing to listen to the point of order if the Honourable Member for Morris wishes to speak to but not to the debate on the subject.

If he can show me reasons why the point of order is invalid I'll listen, if not I'll take the matter under advisement and rule. A MEMBER: I suggest you do that anyway. MR. SPJ<;AKER: Very well. I'll take the matter in respect to this Order for Return under advisement. The Honourable House Leader. MR, GREEN: Just , Mr. Speaker, by way of clarification. It should be made as soon as it comes forward so that there 's no question of any misle ading of the House.

When asked the question about the information that I would be giving it was in response to a question from the Leader of the Liberal Party with respect to CFI, I said that on corporations we would give not only the information the member was asking but more than would be given at a shareholders meet ing of such a company; that is a company which is fully owned by the Crown, and if I didn't specify at that time I specified the next day that where we are a shareholder all we can give is what we get from that company as a shareholder. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON.

RUSSELL PAULLEY (Minister of Labour)(Transoona): Mr. Speaker, I beg to mOVE\ se conded by the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented and passed. The Honourable Member for Logan in the Chair,

1206 Marc h 29, 1973 SU PPLY - AGRICU LTURE MR .CHAIRMAN : Order , please . Resolution 7(a) . The Honourable Minister of Agricul ture - you have 27 minutes . MR . US KIW: Mr . Speak er , the other day when I was addres sing the House on the Esti mates the Member for Rhineland had hoped that I would re spond to a number of questions put by him and unfortunately he is not here this afternoon so that perhaps I may not go into the kind of detail that I had intended .

However the members opposite during the course of the debate did express some desire for more information on a number of programs and I would like to touch on some of those very briefly. It seems apparent to me that members opposite are des irous of proceeding on with the estimate s, that they are not too interested in dwelling on the question of the Minister's salary, and perhaps maybe I should appreciate that point , Mr . Chairman .

But nevertheless let me say that I do want to elabo rate somewhat on a statement that was made to the House in my opening remarks having to do with the new arrangements in the admin istration of Crown lands wherein the administrative procedures are now housed within the Depart ment of Agriculture which is a move from the Department of Mines and Resources and Environmental Ma nageme nt . And that has been decided for a very obvious rea son and purpose, Mr .

Chairman, and that is that we would want to have these lands administered in such a way that would most closely conform to the objectives of the rural people of this province, and in deed not to be in conflict with the agricultural thrust that we are now involved in . The arrangements are going to be changed to a slight degree . However anyone who is now in contract or ha s a binding lease with the province should have no concern about changes in the arrangeme nts . There will be no midstream changes made .

Those will continue as they are , but we will set a new criteria for the annual leases in keeping with the intent and philoso phy of the government . And that is that we would want to take into account, Mr. Chairman, the position of the applicant in determining whether or not that applicant should indeed be suc cessful in adding to his farm holdings .

Under the old system where we had competition for certain parcels of Crown land by wa y of tender it was often the cas e where notwithstanding the fact that certain entrepreneurs had sufficient land base for their operatio ns, that they were always in a position at the same time in competing, you might say , unfairly with their neighbours or people in the general area for ad ditional land use through our Cr own lands allocatio ns .

We would hope that in keeping with the desire to maintain larger rural popul atio n and to have more viable farm units in the coun tryside than we now have ; that we should wa nt to use greater discretion in the alloc atio n of these public resources . And in this connection, Mr . Chairman, we will take into account the income position of the applicant; the need of the applicant in terms of the use of that additional land base . It will be somewhat on a point system.

The prior use of the property will be taken into ac count, the proximity to the applicant of the land in question, and of course family re sponsibilities, and so on. All of those will be part of the criteria towa rds the allocat ion of Crown lands which have now been transf erred , or will be transferred on the first of April from the Depa rtment of Mines and Environmental Ma nagement to the Department of Agriculture .

So that acc ordingly the fa rmers are going to be advised when they do apply that these are the new rules of the game ; that competition is thrown out as a criteria; that competitfon through the bid process is not considered to be an ideal system, and that indeed it is a departure that we hope will bring about a greater degree of stabilit y to many of the fa rmers who so much rely on fhe use of Crown land because of being land short themselves through ownership.

We would hope to enter into arrangements wherein there is some security; where there are leases that will involve more than the annual type of arrang ement, perhaps even lifetime arrangements with the provision to pass on to the next generation those rights - at least first option to refuse -- so that their investments may be more secure, and based on the·n eed and the desire on their part to have some as surance that on short notice they would not be losing the control of this land area . --(Interjection) -- A question ? Yah . MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Lakeside . MR . ENNS: Mr .

Chairman , while the Minister is dealing with this subject which is of some considera ble importance to many far mers. as the Minister has indicated , would he be prepared to allo w me to ask him a few questions in the . MR . USKlW : Well, Mr . Chairman, I' m prepared to answer a question or two if the honourable member wishes .

March 29, 19 73 1207 SU PPLY - AGRICULTURE MR . ENNS: Well I would like to expand on the question a little bit or does he intend to go on to other matter s. MR . USK IW : No , I want to complete my remarks , Mr . Chairman, and then we can come back to it later . The intent has been made known and is being made known to those far mers applying to the department . A release will be issued fairly soon indicating to the public that the -- of the new location , the new people in charge of the program , and of the criteria , and new applic atio n forms are going to be issued . Now , Mr .

Chairman, that is a major departure and as I said a moment ago in keeping with the desire to give people greater freedoms and greater opportunity in the use of the public resources of this province.

The Member for Lakeside in his remarks during the debate indicated a desire for more informatio n on what is happening in the Interlake , the FRED Program in particu lar , and I wa nt to indicate to him that the September 15th issue of the Interlake Flyer is proba bly most descrip tive of the changes that have taken place, and that he should perhaps make himself aware of that particular document, peruse it, and in doing so will get pretty well all the information that he is seeking. But I do want to in passing, Mr . Chairman, indicate to him that we have shifted some moneys within that agreement .

The total sum still remains the same -- it's an $8 5 million package -- but there are some shifts in the balance of the five-year period wbich takes us into 1977 and conclusion of the agreement . The Farm Development Plan of the Interlake has a $3 million amount of money allocated and that is the counterpart of the farm diversification ARDA package throughout Manito ba . The Veterinary Cl inic Program of course involves, that is, about $150, OOO and some provisions for five clinics. The Farm Water Services Program is also brought into the FRED Agreement.

The am ounts of money there are somewhere in the order of $400, OOO; there ' s some 700 , OOO in fish eries. Additional moneys allocated for recreatio n and manpower train ing: Those are the major points of emphasis for the balance of the five-year arrang ement, or ten-year arrange ment .

Now again I want to remind the Member for Lak eside, and I know he wasn't listening to me a moment ago , that if he would pick up the September 15th issue of-the Interlake Flyer that he would get all of the -- pretty well all of the details --(Interjection) -- All right, so then I wouldn't have to spend the time of the House , Mr . Speak er, in relating the information to him.

Now another document if he wants to peruse, the program up to 1967 , or including, if he would avail himself of another document, it's the Federal -Provincial Agreement as amended October 12th, 1_97 2, this particular one here, a red document, Mr . Chairman, in the most positive sense , in the most positive sense, if you would avail yourself of this one then I would suggest that all the information is contained therein. Its red basis �- (Interjection) -- Well , Mr. Chairman , let me remind the Member for Lakeside that --(Interjection)-- Mr .

Chairman , I hope the member recognizes that the program was a multi-million dollar thrust; it was a .gov ernment program , and if government programs are red then it was a red program which we have inherited from members opposite. --(Interjection) -- It's one of the red programs of the former admi nistration . A member of the opposition - and I don't recall which one - had some concerns about the operations of the Feed Grain Ma rketing Commission and the question of a minimum allowance provided for trucking .

Let me point out that there is no restriction on the part of the Feed Grain Marketing Commission in fa rmers trucking their own grain, or hiring trucks, to the feed mills, that the only restriction .is on the feed mill itself who may own their own trucking fac ili ties, and therefore the intent there is obvious, it's to make sure that the minimum price regu lations could not be circumvented . The statistics on farm cash receipts, Mr. Chairman, are most interesting for 197 2 . They do represent a substantial improvement in the conditions of rural Manito ba .

In all -cate gories fairly well I think we can see a substantial increase with roughly, well more than $1 00 million in increased cas h receipts. I think it was the Member for Rhineland that wanted to know just where we were in that connection. --(Interjection)-- I presume that is true , Mr . Chairman . The Member for Souris-Killarney indicates that the ba nkers have it all , and I would have to concur with him that because of the serious situation that many far mers found themselves

120 8 March 29, 1973 SUPPLY - AGRICULTURE (MR . USKIW cont'd .) ..... in in the last -- well since 1968 -- and the large arrears situation that has developed in various credit programs, private and public, that I' m not surprised to learn that the credit agencies have been able to recover on a lot of these arrear s, and that really these moneys are not sitting in the pockets and bank accounts of these various people .

Members opposite expressed an interest in the policies with res pect to land leasing wherein there is land repossessed. by the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, and I want to indicate to members opposite that the first arrangement is always to offer a lease- back provision to the original owner so that if they want to exerc ise that option it is quite in order , and from that point on the Corporation tries to determi ne through the various agencies in the region as to possible candidates for the use of those facilities and lands, and the intent is largely to involve younger people on a land-lease basis to get them started .

That's sort of the priority -- arrangement of priorities at the present time . There haE? not been a large incidence of foreclosures nevertheless so that it doesn't represe nt a major program . Mr . Chairman, I think that does cover by and large most of the item s, most of the ques tions that were raised . I didn 't quite deal with ever ything that was raised by the Member for Rhineland but in his absence , Mr . Chairman, perhaps there will be another -opportunity for me to do so. MR . CHAIR MAN : Resolution 7(a)--p assed, 7(b)- passed or 7(b)(l) --pas sed, (b)(2)-- passed MR . USKIW: I wonder , Mr .

Chairman , whether we couldn't get the facilities brou�ht in for the staff members to be brought do wn. MR . CHAIRMAN: Right. Get the tables up there . Resolution {c)(l)- passed, (2) --pa ssed (c) --pa ssed, (d)(lj-- passed, (2)--pass ed, (d)--:passed, (e)(l ) --passed, (2 )- - passed, Resolution Resolution 7, Resolved that there be granted to Her Maje sty a sum not exceeding $936 , 700 for Agriculture--p assed . (Re solution 8-2 to Resolution 9- 3(b)(2) were read and passed) (c)(l) -- the Honourable Member for Lakeside . MR . ENNS: I've been shafted, Mr . Chairma� . MR . CHAIRMAN : Beg your pardon? MR.

ENNS: I' ve been shafted. MR . CHAIRMAN : Not by the Chair I can assure you . MR . ENNS: No , no, Mr . Chairman, not by the Chair, I agree . But it only has daw11ed upon me now that there is possibly no specific area for me to deal with the subject matter that I would like to discuss as I indicated just a few moments ago, namel y the new re sponsibilities of the De partment of Agriculture will be as suming in the Crown lands management, those per taining to the leasing and the lea sing rights. Now perhaps I could have some guidance as to where it would appear under . MR .

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Ag riculture . MR . USKIW: Mr .. Chairman, i f the member would wait till he gets down to 3(

e) on Soils and Crops, that will be the proper place to debate that. MR . ENNS: I thank the Honourable Minister for his ever willingness to assist members opposite . I have a few questions, Mr . Chairman, on the subject matter or the res olution that we 're now dealing with , the Animal Industry Branch , that just very briefly perhaps the Min ister could give us some further enlightenment . My unders tanding is that there is a change in the responsibilities with respect to the former Direc tor of the Animal Industries Bran ch .

Could the Minister indicate to me just what his new capacity is and in what area he'll be engaged in, or what the thoughts of the department or the Minister has with res pect to a new appointment in that regard .. Secondly, I -don't know again whether or not this is the proper occasion but I rather sus pect it is. I would ask the Minister to indicate to us what the current situation is with a matter that has been discussed from time to time in this House, namely the artificial insemination of the cows of this province. It seems that that matter produces, you know, some concern in the province from time to time .

We have passed a piece of legislation some two years ago, I believe , setting up an AI centralized board . I would appreciate perhaps if the Minister could indicate to us at thls time just what the current status of that board is . Are the cows being artificially shafted these days in increasing numbers or are not, and the program that the Minister had high hopes for with respect to that progressive mechanism of agricultural

March 29, 1973 1209 SUPPLY - AGRICUL TURE (MR . ENNS cont 1d.) . endeav our proceeding on schedule? Do we have the board functioning as the Act hoped it would ? Is the board fully appoint ed ? Just generally what the AI situation is at the current time in this part of the animal industry bra nch. MR . CHAIRMAN : The Honourable Minister of Agriculture . MR . USKIW : Mr . Chairman, the position of the Director of Animal Industry has been bulletined and we have had applicatisms and we have perused them and a decision on that posi tion will be made fairly soon .

The question of the status of the former direction of the Animal Industry Branch is one that involves special projects under the direction of the Assistant Deputy Minister of Ma rketing and Production, or in the Marketing Production Division . So that he will be involved in launch ing into new areas as a special ass istant to the RADM in this connection. The question of AI as I indicated in the House during the opening rema rks .

We have allocated $100, OOO within this budget for a program to be launched very soon which will involve a greater degree of support to the AI technician, and indeed the far mer recipient of the service, so that we have more uniform services, more as sured services, notwithstanding density of cattle numbers and whatever , and that will be a subsidy program to the AI technician and the users of those services .

There are other sums of money attach ed , another $50 , OOO for whatever direction is re commended in the handling of the product and we have received their report, their recommenda tion, namely that we proceed into a central distribution system and a study for the province. Now whether we will go all the way in that connection I don't know , but we know that we are proceeding towards a central distribution system . Now the flexibility within that other $50 , OOO I think will allow us to use great discretion in that regard .

The province is prepared to give whatever assi stance is needed in this particular area . Hopefully within a matter of a .month or two we will know more precisely just what direction is being taken but I have their main recommendatio ns . It 's a matter of working out the mechanics to arrive into the implementation area that they are now discussing as a boa rd . I wonder , Mr . Chairman , perhaps to clarif y one or two points so that the member won't have to put the question. We are al so engagi ng , or will soon engage , the advice of our tech nicians in this ar ea.

We intend to almost any day appoint an Advisory Board involving the technical people to be able to set this thing up so that it does satisf y the needs of the various sectors within the industry. MR . CHAIRMAN : The Honourable Member for Lakeside . MR . ENNS : . . the Minister for hi s comments, Sir. I have just one further quei:tion to the Minister on this matter . Is the Minister satisfied that the flow of semen regard less of where it comes from will in no way be impeded, or will be made difficult to obtain for the pro ducers of.

Manito ba, that is the qual ity semen that is desired by the individual producer, its distribution will be as sured. MR . USK IW : Mr . Chairman , that 's precisely why we are moving in this direction . Under the present arrangements the flow of product is really between the supplier and the technician, or the decisions relevant to that question are made by those two individual s.

And it's our hope that when we separate the technician from his supplier and make him responsible either to the department or to the agen cy, or combination of those two, that he will not have any direct liai son or connection with his supplier and thereby will not be involved in the promotion of any product nor have any bias for any product other than the technical informatio n related to the product which he carri es with him in inventory. So that hopefully he will provide a much more meaningful service than he has been ab le to in the pa st. And I' m sure members opposite know what I am talking ab out .

There have been many questions in that regard . It would be my intent, Mr . Chairma n, and I don 't mind saying so , that if the centr

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-5-43
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 5th hansardpdf 43.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0f025e41d9e2887d08c7c71eab8e30da1a039e53

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).