Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 62 (28th Legislature, 2nd Session)

28-2-62

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATNE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Thursday, May 2, 1968 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. 1\IB. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions Reading and Receiving Petitions Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees Notices of Motion Introduction of Bills 1537 Before I call the Orders of the D:iy, I would like to direct the attention of the honourable members to the gallery where we have 48 students of Grade 5 standing from the Sherwood School. These students are under the direction of Mrs. Borody and Miss Falk. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Kildonan.

We also have 45 students of Grade 6 standing of the Lord Roberts School. These students are under the direction of Mrs. Ilausk""y and Miss Lambert. This school is located in the con stituency of the Honourable Minister of Labour. We have also with us today and I'm proud to introduce 16 students of Grade 10 standing from the Swan Ri\·er High School. These students are under the direction of Mrs. Stirling. This school of course is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Swan River. We also have with us today 40 students of Grade 11 standing from the Brandon Collegiate.

These students are under the direction of Mr. Loaks and Miss Einarson. This school is locat ed in the constituency of the honourable Member for Brandon. On behalf of all the honourable members of the legislative assembly, I welcome you all here today. 1\IB . SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. 1\IB. GILDAS MOLGAT (Leader of the Opposition)(Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the Attorney-General.

In yesterday's newspaper there was a report of - comment by a judge of the Province of Manitoba who stated that the Attorney-General's Depart ment - he condemned them, censured the department for conduct entirely contrary to the prin ciples of Canadian justice. I wonder if the Minister could make a statement to the House at this time on the particular case that was being discussed . HON. STERLING R. LYON Q. C. (Attorney-General)(Fort Garry): We've asked the de partment to obtain a transcript of the Judge's remarks.

I understand that that is in the hands of the department now and they will be ad\'ising me in due course as to the facts of this situation. 1\IB , MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a subsequent question. I believe the Judge also indicated that payment should be made to the indi\'idual in question. Has the government considered this matter? 1\IB. LYON: Once we ascertain what the facts are, Mr. Speaker, I'll be in a position to answer that question. 1\IB . MOLGAT: A subsequent question, Mr. Speaker.

Has the Minister ascertained whether or not the indh•idual in question was held in jail for the period of time mentioned? MR. LYON: No, Mr. Speaker. 1\IB . SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. 1\IB . LEONARD A. BARKMAN (Carillon): Mr. Speaker, with permission of the House, I would like to make a short announcement. A baby boy arrived this morning making Agnes and me grandparents for the first time and if you should find time this afternoon - coffee and soft drinii:s will be served in the canteen. Please be our guests. 1\IB . SPEAKER: The Honourable the Provincial Treasurer. HON.

GURNEY E\'ANS (Provincial Treasurer)(Fort Rouge): Before you proceed, I'd like to express my regrets to the Honourable Member for Hamiota about what is my fault in neg lect to bring forward the Order to which he referred yesterday. I had lost track of it; I expect to be able to present it in the next two days, perhaps at the longest. 1\IB. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. 1\IB . STEVE PATRICK (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Education.

According to the CBC news media yesterday it was an nounced that new immigrants to the Province of Manitoba have no facilities to take English les sons in the City of Winnipeg. Is this true? HON. GEORGE JOHNSON (Minister of Education)(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I don't know just what is being referred to - what this is all about. I'd be happy to get further details on the

1538 May 2, 1968 (MR. JOHNSON cont'd.)... matter. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney General, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried, and the House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply with the Honourable Member for Arth ur in the Chair. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY MR. CHAffiMAN: Committee proceed. The Department of Health, the Honourable Mem ber for St.

Boniface. MR. LAURENT DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Mr. Chairman, I wish that the Honourable Member from Wolseley would remain long enough to discuss this increase in premiums but ap parently he's too busy somewhere else to be interested in the affairs of the people of Manitoba. I see that he has left us already. It is rather unfortunate though because this gentleman had an av.1ul lot to say when we reduced premiums a few years ago. I just notice that he's also taking the First Minister out with him so I guess that this is par for the course; this is the interest of this government in the people of Manitoba.

But we have the Honourable Minister of Health with us, so maybe we could follow with the discussions that we started yesterday. --(Inter jection)-- You stayed. Well I'm very pleased. I'd like to congratulate my friend the Attorney General and I'm glad he stayed because I think I'll remind him of some of these beautiful words that he gave us a few years back. Mr.

Minister, I think that yesterday -- I hope that we will have this today -- I was asking for the provincial grant, the break-up of this $20 million and so on and the five percent income tax, the equivalent of one percent and the one percent corpora tion tax. I hope that we will get this fairly soon. I hope that we will hear something also on the exemption of all students under 21, even those who are the only child of a widowed mother or a widowed father - I think that this is something that we mentioned last year.

And I hope when the Minister will get up to reply that he will give us the assurance that we will not leave the Minister's salary until we have a chance to see what is going on in the medicare field. I'm not talking about rehashing the debate that we've had so far on Medicare, but I'm talking about we want to know what the Doctors fee

schedule would be, we want to know who's going to take over MMS and so on, and we're told that we should have an announcement soon. We covered the ambulance field yesterday and I also discussed the question of -- I think I congratulated the Minister for some improvement that we've had in the field of nursing, but I felt that there was much more to be done and I wanted the Minister to tell us why, for instance, we haven't started in this two-year course for the nurses that we've heard so much about.

I al so mention and I mentioned at the time that this was something that I was advocating, not neces sarily the party, and I talked about utilization fees but I see that there's no point in continuing with this at all because the Minister has already rejected this. I saw the Minister being inter viewed on television yesterday and that has been rejected. I thought that this was ... case when he said - I think it was the Minister of Agriculture during the campaign said that this man is not afraid to make a tough decision - talking about the Premier.

The toughest decision he's made so far I think has been to leave the House with his friend the former Premier, but I thought they would look into this. I warned and I'm warning again, the Minister and the government, to look out for 197 0 when the Federal Government start phasing out of all these programs. I think we'll be in trouble then and it'll be too late to cry. I think we should be ready by now.

Now, I think the interesting part, as far as I'm concerned anyway, what I was discussing yesterday at 5:30, I felt that we had this -- I was talking about the one of the resolutions that I have on the Order Paper -- and that is that we should insist on having a meeting - a provincial federal meeting - to di scuss this hospitalization plan that we've had with us for 10 years now. And although I did recognize - and I do the same thing, again today, I repeat that there is no doubt that the expenses will grow, that it v.ill increase.

When we're talking about the field of hospitals -- there are two things then; how to finance the cost and also what to do to get as much as we can, get our moneys worth. I felt that we should take a look at the hospitals now, the constructions of hospitals. I think that we should maybe stop building these acute beds -- 1 think this is the costly thing, these beds for acute care -- and start at the bottom of the ladder,

May 2, 1968 1539 (MR. DESJARDINS cont'd.) ... look at our home care program, we certainly could improve on this, then extend the treatment in nursing homes. I think that this is very important and I hope that the Minister will favour me with a reply and I hope that he will see some advantage to this when he replies a little later on today. I wonder if the Minister can tell us now with all these construction of beds - is the Minis ter ready to guarantee that no wings of any hospitals or no beds will be closed because of shor tage of nurses.

I think this is an important thing because this has repeated itself for a number of years now. I want to gi\·e the members of this House and the Attorney-General, who told me that he was going to listen to me, so I would like to give them an example of the way things are done here. And I'm not blaming the government for this at all - just saying in the hospital field that I know of one case - I know of many cases - but I know of one case of a person that was ready to leave the acute care bed, this was at St. Boniface Hospital, and the per diem rate at St.

Bon iface Hospital is $38. 00 - in other words an acute care bed cost $38. 00, this is what it cost the people of Manitoba. But in this case they had no place to send this person so he stayed in this bed after he could have been discharged and he stayed there for three months. Now three months, multiply the 90 days by $38. 00 and find out how much the people of Manitoba had to pay. And there's all kinds of examples such as these. So, this is why I say we should start at the bottom of the ladder.

Let's see what we can do in the home care program, the nursing home - and we 're way behind on this - where you don't need the same care, where it'll be just a frac - tion of the cost an.d the people though will receive probably better treatment and we won't spend as much money. Now there is another resolution that I'm sure the Minister and the members of the House have seen, there's another proposed resolution. I think I'm going to read this one, it's the easiest way.

I don't want to start debating it now but it's certainly something that comes under these estimates: "Whereas the administration of some hospitals is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health while the administration of other hospitals as well as nursing homes comes under the jurisdiction of the Depa rtment of Welfare and that the state of affairs is highly unsatisfactory; therefore

be it resolved that the GO\·ernment of Manitoba consider the advis ability of placing the administration of all hospitals and nursing homes under the jurisdiction of the Manitoba Hospital Commission. " I don't think that I have to explain too much on this. I think that it is quite obvious that the administration of the hospitals should all come under the same people, should be under the Minister of Health or directly under the Manitoba Hospital Commission.

I think that this is the only way, that we'll be able to plan the building of more beds and so on and I think that it will be a lot more satisfactory for all concerned. I think that the Manitoba Hospital Commission certainly has to know what's going on and I can't see where this is not under their jurisdiction and in fact it's not even under the Department of Health but rather the Department of Welfare. I want you to remember that I'm saying the admini&ration now.

I know - I know what you're going to say, that we do not get any help from Ottawa in cer tain instances and so on and therefore it's not the same thing. I'm talking ab out the administra tion now and I hope with this other suggestion that I've made that we have this provincial-federal meeting and that we will get Ottawa and the other provinces to see that we change our system here in this field of hospitalization. I think also that we should review, reassess the role of the Hospital Commission.

We've had that commission for quite awhile now and I think that we should find time to see what their policies are and all these slow procedures that we've had at budget time and the duplication.

I said before, without naming any names, I think that it is obvious -- and I must say it again be cause I think it's right and the people of Manitoba are suff ering -- I think that some of these peo ple on the Board - one that I think of who's quite active in certain complex around the Childrens and mostly General Hospital and clinics and so on - I think that there is vested interest and I think that it's high time we start looking at the people that we will place on that Commission. I don't think I have to name him; I think the Minister knows exactly who I am referring to.

This is not criticizing the individual at all, I think that it -is our duty as elected representatives of the people to see that there's no such a thing, or as little as possible vested interest or conflict of interest in people that are going to govern these boards. It seems that the people of Manitoba are governed more and more by these beards anyway. Now we've heard about the secret formula, at budget time the Commission talked about their secret formula and they won't devulge anything about this. So, it's very difficult to plan,

1540 May 2, 1968 (MR. DESJARDINS cont'd.) ... to budget, when you're told, "well this doesn't meet with our secret formula". And then we're talking about everything is based at budget time on past per formance - see what happened last year. And this could be kind of ridiculous at times. For instance, a certain hospital was informed that the water rate was going to increase but they couldn't put that in the budget at all, it was a "past". The rate is increasing but you can't put that because past performances the year before meant that the water was such a cost so this is what you had to put in the budget.

This is kind of ridiculous. I wonder what the people would do, what the government would do here, if I would say, ''Well, r\·e arranged my bud get for next year and the past performance, the premiums were $4. 00 so therefore that's all I'm going to pay. Probably this is what affects the per diem rate. I would like to ha\·e an explanation from the Minister. I mentioned this yesterday, I would li ke to see why the big change. For instance you ham the Winnipeg General Hospital, at the per diem of $45. 95 and you have the Grace Hospital $44. 20 and you have St. Boniface at $38. 00.

There might be a reason for this; I don't know why. Is it because these people are more careful, is it because these people are more careful, I don't know. But, I mean will the people be penalized for that? I think that we have to, as I said, have a long look at this Hospital Commission and see if there is not certain things that we can change. There seems to be an a\\ful lot of duplication there also. And the administration - it seems high for me.

The administration, the cost of adminis tering the hospital fund is practically $2 million and there is a lot of this work which is duplica tion, a lot of work that is done in the hospital now. I think that it is high time that we have a little more faith in the people runn ing these hospitals because I think that they have demonstrat ed that they have done a very good job. \Vhile I'm talking about the cost of administrating the Fund, there is something here, a place that I don't think we are spending enough money. Now I'd better explain this fast.

I'm talking about the - we were given a sheet with the salaries of all the heads of the departments, and I see where Mr. Holland, who I think is doing a good job under the circumstances, is be ing paid $19, OOO and Dr. Tanner the Chairman of the new board is getting - this is the Board that we were setting up for Medicare, and apparently we are not going to ha\·e Medicare - he's getting $21, OOO. Now I want to assure everybody here that I'm certainly not complaining about the salary of Dr. Tanner. I think a man such as he, we'd have to pay at least this money, but I can't see where Mr.

Holland should not be - after all, he's doing the same kind of a job, he's the chairman of a commission that's been going for quite awhile - and I can't see why he should be receiving a lower salary. I don't think this is quite fair. This is probably the way \ve lose some of our best men. Now I think that we should go back.

I think that I tried to demonstrate that I realize that we will pay more for the services, that this is going to increase e\·ery year as we are imprO\· ing, but I also wanted to demonstrate that we could sa\·e money, that we can get an a\\ful lot more for our money, so I want this clear that I'm not happy with what we are spending, espe - cially what we are receh·ing in exchange. What is the waiting list? I think we are told that we have the same waiting list now as last year.

I think the waiting list of people wanting to get in the hospitals is between 3, 500 and 4, OOO people at the end of the year, I think 3, 700 people. But let's talk now premiums because yesterday we were told that we would have to pay higher premiums. We've had a jump of 80 percent, from $4. 00 to $7. 20 for a family and I think that this is quite high. I think that the Minister and the government - and I wish that the First Min ister was in his seat now, because this is something that the people of Manitoba want to know: \\'hat is the policy of this gO\·ernment in regards to the financing of hospitals.

I think that it's high time that we were told this, that it should be made quite clear. The reason why I say this ::O.lr. Chairman, is because I went back to 1958. Then the premium was $2. 05 for a single per son and $4. 10 for a family. That was in 1958. That went to about 1960 and then we received the same kind of little book as we receirnd yesterday - Financial Estimates of the Manitoba Hospital Service Plan for the year '61-62 and '63.

And then the premium was raised by 50 per cent, from $2. 05 to $3. 00 and from $4. 00 to $6. 00, and at the time the people of Manitoba felt that this was not reasonable, that was only 50 percent, and we felt that this was quite an in crease at the time. But it didn't take very long, this was 1960 -- let's take the family plan at $4. 10 in '58, then in 1960 $6. 00. Then in 1961, shortly before an election was called, we had a special session and the go\·ernment then announced a clear - cut policy that we were go ing to switch from this type of taxes where you punish the same type of people that are

May 2, 1968 1541 (MR. DESJARDINS cont'd. ) .. • apparently being taxed, or it seems that they are being taxed all the time, the people that can't afford it, and we were going for this ability-to-pay tax. There was an avl'ful lot said at this session, and then the rates, the premiums were lowered from $3. 00 to $2. 00 and from $6. 00 to $4. 00 and we heard all kinds of words as I said and I think it might be wise at this time if I was to remind some of the Members of their feelings - what they said at the time. I'm quoting here, October 1961 , this gentleman was talking about the members of the Op position.

If you remember it was one of these famous motions that you had, you were supposed to \'ote -- if you \'Oted one way well that meant you appro\·ed of ernrything and if you rnted against it, you were against everything. This was coupled with a deal that we've had in the Diefenbaker years that we felt wasn't good enough for the people of Manitoba, something that we could not accept, but this was coupled with this reduction of premium. This is ... MR. CHAIBl\1AN: I would just like to remind the honourable member that he has five minutes left to speak. MR. DESJARDIKS: I sat dov.n for 12 hours. I think this .is . . .

We're in committee, we 're not in ... l\IB. CHAIBMAN: .. . rule of 40 minutes spea ki ng. l\IB. DESJARDINS: All right, I'll quote then Mr. Chairman: "But where do they stand on premium reductions? Are they in favour of this bi ll which is presently before the House on premium reduction which was one of the constituent elements in it. In the summer of 1960 when the premiums were raised I recall the Honourable l\Iember from Lakeside who was then the Lea der of the Opposition, made a public cry for a special session to deal amongst other matters v.ith the premium increase.

It's fine we hear to ha\·e a special sessio n to deal with the increase but what does he say, when we call a special session to deal among other things with a premium reduction. He doesn't pay any attention. \\'hy not? Does the Liberal Party not like to talk about a premium reduction? Are they afraid to admit that the premiums are going to be reduced? Don't they like this? Is this what is bothering them so much during the session. " Yes, Mr. Chairman, you guessed it, that was the Attorney-General speaking in 19 61 . And I wonder what he has to say now. Maybe I could say to him, don't you want premium reduction?

Maybe I could say this. And then there's the Leader of the band, the man that's never here. I don't know why he's getting paid this session, this is what he has to say. --(Interjection)-- Where? Oh he's there. Oh I see that the Honourable Member from Wolseley is here and I think that maybe he should de fend his action. He's speaking about the problems of the Federal Government and so on, what about :\Ianitoba. He hasn't resigned yet, maybe he should come in and sit dov.n in his place and tell us why he changed his mind. I quote from him "Now, Mr.

Speaker, I really and sincerely hope that the explanation of the workings of the 1 percent tax on total personal income, is suff iciently clear for members of the House to follow. I beliern with all my heart that it is the right thing to do and when you hear the figures of income lernls in the pro\·ince, how can anyone doubt that this is the right thing to do?" This was reducing the premium.

"And I can say to you with complete frankness that there is no other way, no other way to do it at the present time in terms of tax rental or fiscal arrangements with Canada and we ha\·e to ask ourseh·es whether we seize the .. . and do something within our power to do so, or that we wait. " This is something that was said not too long ago, again from the same honourable member. --(interjection)-- Oh I thought he'd be leav ing. "Now, Mr. Speaker, I want,-- Mr. Speaker, I think that it's a shame though that the man that is responsible for this, is never in this House to discuss these things.

I think that it is high time that if we can't ha\·e a proper discussion, if this is not important enough for the peo ple of :\1anitoba, we might as well quit this Session and all go hane if the Premier and the for mer members and all the members can't be here. I quot e here, maybe he'll read this when he's rocking himself to sleep some night: "Now Mr.

Speaker, I want to come to what has been one of the most controversial sections of the pro posal we ha\·e before the House, and that is whether or not we should endeavour to introduce an element of ability to pay into the hospital premium structure - ability to pay. Whether we should put ourself in a position to reduce the premiums by one-third from $6 to $4 and from $3 to $2 and whether we should make pro\·ision by means of an extra tax to make this possible. " This is \Yhat was being said than; this is the government that will not increase any taxes. This is what we nre told.

And here on the same page "What we want to do -we want to dedicate one percent of the total

154� May 2, 1968 (MR. DESJARDINS cont'd.) .•. taxable income earned in Manitoba towards the support of the hospital system in the province, because we believe by that method we can transfer not a new burden on the people but transfer the burden from one set of people to another by means of the ability- to - pay tax." Why have we changed our mind? Why have we - what's that? You haven't changed your mind - MR. LYON: No. The tax is still there. MR. DESJARDINS: What tax is still there? We are talking about ability to pay.

You had a special session and it was very popular and the First Minister can go on TV just before the election and say who voted against reduction of premiums, but Mr. Molgat, Mr. Campbell and Desjardins, that's all that was elected that session if you remember right. And you say that we haven't changed. You've got the gall to say that we have, not to stand up, but to say we haven't changed. This is supposed to be an ability-to-pay tax?

We had a 5 percent, 6 per cent income tax -- this was reduced mind you before the last election, it was reduced 1 per cent -- sales tax , and now you are asking the people to pay 80 percent more, 80 percent more. And you feel that this is no change in policy, that this is the ability to pay? Well, Mr.

Chairman, if the Attorney-General and the rest of the members across are ready to come up now and face the people of Manitoba and say we belie\·e in the ability to pay - they are going to have a caucus now, this is going to be very important -- if you can pro\·e, and they can have all the caucus they want, if they can prove that we are still following on the ability to pay principle with this kind of premium, this is the gm·ernment with this great propa ganda machine that has gone out - and you even get letters from Le Soleil and all kinds of news papers where Manitoba should be commended because the taxes are not being increased.

You've got the nerve to stand there and say "hear,hear·• and you think the people of Mani toba are that stupid to think -- you can rattle your head, I can hear it from here. Maybe you \\ill say hear, hear at the next election also, because you are not interested in the people of Manitoba. MR . CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Honourable Member for St. Boniface has exceed ed the 40 minutes I allotted him to speak. Does anyone else wish to speak? MR. DESJARDINS: Forty minutes today or ... MR.

CHAIRMAN: I consider the speech that the honourable member is making now is a continuation of the speech that he started to make yesterday. He has had at least 45 minutes. MR . DESJARDINS: Well, we are in committee . . . MR . CHAIRMAN: The Member for Wellington. MR . PHILIP PETURSSON (Wellington): Mr. Chairman, I wish to add a few words be fore the 80 hours have completely run out, on this particular estimate of the Department of Health. I would emphasize even more strongly at the outset than the Honourable Member for St.

Boniface has done, my opposition and the opposition of the group I represent, I believe, to the enormous - it can't be regarded as anything else but - enormous increase in hospital costs that have been now indicated to us in the report, the Forecast of Costs and Financial Require ments issued by the Manitoba Hospital Commission and endorsed of course by the government.

It seems to me that the imposition of these increased rates are an unfair and an unjust imposition on a great portion of the population who are already burdened with other increased costs, heavy taxes, whic hma ny Jf them feel unable to stand up under or to bear up under. The increase from the present rate for a family to $6. 80 forecast for 1969 and forecast for 1970 as_rising still farther to $7. 28, then increasing from that point rising by another $1. 52 up to $8. 80 in 1971, is an unfair and an unjust imposition on the people.

There are many peo ple in the community who can without difficulty afford to pay this, but, Mr. Chairman, there are many, many people in the community who cannot afford to pay this, with the other demands that are being made upon them. The government proposes to average this rate down so that the increases will be paid now, that is the beginning will be now instead of a year from now or two years or three years from now, with progressh·e increases, and the proposed rate as the Honourable Minister of Health said, would be $7. 20 for a family.

I'm mainly concerned with the family situations; there's a proportionate increase in payments charged to single individuals. The paying is to begin now for an increase that is projected for 1969, 1970 and 1971, I think this is the argument of the government, so that the impact of a sudden increase from $4. 00 to $8. 80 in 1971 will not be fel t as greatly as it otherwise would. But this increase even from $4. 00 to $7. 20 it's just a few cents to go and you'd have a 100 percent increase in the imposition of the hospitalization

May 2, 196 8 1543 {MR. PETURSSON cont'd.)... costs, and it seems to me that there would be other sources from which money could be drawn that would relieve that situation in one way or another. Part of this is the, perhaps the taxes that the people are having to pay all over the city today. Citi zens are opening their tax bills and finding that they have very much more to pay than they did last year.

I think without exception -- I was in the bank earlier this morning and got into con versation with a friend that I happened to meet and this was the first subject of conversation and there were several elderly women standing at the wicket with their tax bills waiting to pay - and without exception, each one of them began to wax critical of the authority that imposed these tax rates. And these aren't the only ones. Thereare also the others. From the Tribune for instance, I believe it was the Tribune or the Free Press where Hydro bills were mentioned and shown there that the Hydro rates were going up.

At the present time it won't affect the City of Winnipeg but it will affect all of the rural areas which have hydro service. The report quoted the late Mi·. Stephens, who said that the increases would result from three primary causes: "inflation, continuing rises in interest costs and the trend in the Hydro's rate structure to provide power at reduced rates for large industrial consumers.

" Which means simply that the general mnsumer, the individual, the general public is paying the cost of hydro power to large industrial consumers which in itself is not only unfair but also unjust to expect the pri vate individuals, private citizens of the province to be paying the Hydro bills subsidizing large industrial consumers. It's difficult to conceive of the reasoning in that kind of a policy. These are the people also, Mr.

Chairman, who will be paying the increased costs of the hospital ser vices and I can't really put it too strongly how greatly opposed - not only I, but people across the length and breadth of the province will be opposed to this increase and resent it greatly. I was asked about Medicare, about the increased costs that would probably develop as a result of Medicare. If the government has its way, Medicare will not be introduced in the prov ince.

The Honourable the Minister of Health has all the arguments now and all the reasons now for not introducing it that he earlier had a year ago for introducing it, up to the point of having the Bill drawn right up to the moment that it was to be enacted, I believe. The Bill was not enacted and therefore Manitoba is not going to share the benefits that Medicare would bring to it.

The costs of Medicare, they say, would be too great; it would impose too great a burden on the people, but I don't know how great an additional burden it would impose when most of the people, that is the majority are now paying for medical services. I don't know that the govern ment wou ld propose to pile costs on top of costs so that it would cost that much more than what is now being paid. Their main concern seems to be not to have to extend the medical care serv ices to that comparatively small segment of peop le who now do not qualify, for one reason or another, for Medicare.

In terms of the projection that the Federal Government made the costs would be very small and easily borne, but many different arguments are brought up.

The Honourable the Minister of Health suggested that we should carry out a program of gradualism, not the whole thing at one time but introduce a certain area or certain field now, as they did last year -- and I'm sorry, I regret I don't recall which one it was that he mention ed - then another area of Medicare services, say next year and another later on until the full Medicare program would be in force, about 10 or perhaps 20 or perhaps 50 years from now which is far too long a time for the ordinary average person to have to wait; far too long a time for the members of the Legislature to have to wait I'm quite sure.

While there are some among us who are quite young, there are many who are not quite so young. It reminds me of a story of a man dealing with a somewhat diff erent subject in Iceland but speaking -- I refer to Iceland - it's outside of Canada, it's the country I know the best, along with several other members, the Honourable Minister for Education and other honourable mem bers -- during th is present month in Iceland there is to be a changeover from left-hand driving on highways and streets to right-hand driving, but one old fellow, a Conservative undoubtedly, felt that this was too sudden a change.

He said it should be done gradually. He said, Let us try it with the trucks doing it this year and then see how that works out. Sometimes this philos ophy of gradualism can run llto that kind of a situation where they would be running head on with not only the needs and requirements but of other circumstances that would be involved. The Honourable the Minister mentioned - I think he did - shortage of nursing staff, short age of nurses, the difficulty in staffing hospitals. There are real difficulties, some real and some created, some manufactured. I was out with other honourable members the other day at the R.

B. Russell School and I, as other members were, was very greatly impressed with what is being done there for students that the ordinary academic schools do not seem to be able to do.

1544 May 2, 1968 (MR. PETURs.50N cont'd.)... Among other things we came into a section, an area in the school in which girls were being trained to, well do housekeeping - cleaning house, making beds keeping the kitchen tidy, setting the table in the living room, knowing how to set it and how to entertain guests if guests should come in; an interesting but for many a very important bit of training.

We were told also that while the girls learned many things in this particular department that would fit them for such jobs as ward aids, nurses' aids or practical nurses, fit them for training for these duties, that there was an academic restriction that was being placed on them that would prevent many of them from being able to avail themselves of that training.

The teacher in charge told us of a girl who had been unable to pass the required examination in his tory - she didn't have her history standing; othe,rwise she would have qualified for the very basic kind of training they would give for any one of these jobs, and the teacher took that girl and in a crash course on history taught her the things she felt she should know or at least required to pass an examination; the girl passed the exam and was then accepted but I doubt whether ever again in the job she became suited for she would need some of the details that are given to stu dents in the history book.

I don't know that this crash course in history would have made her any better ward aid or a nurses•s aid or a practical nurse or even if she were able to qualify later on, a trained nurse, a registered nurse. So I say there are some situations that manu facture, that prevent girls from entering training that would help to alleviate the present diffi culty. There are certain manufactured - or - well manufactured is the word - situations which would prevent them from doing that and being able to fill a needful and a useful job and help to alleviate the shortage of hospital personnel. I would like, Mr.

Chairman, to refer briefly to the Mental Health Department which cov ers a considerable portion of the estimates, health estimates. First of all, I would like to in quire of the Honourable Minister of Health whether he has received a request from the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Manitoba Division, for an increased grant to the Mental Health Association.

I attended the annual meeting of the Mental Health Association last night, in their new building on Edmonton Street, a beautiful building which they acquired because of a gift from a man who was deeply interested in the work that the Mental Health Association is doing. Not knowing whether the government is going to give an increased grant to the Mental Health Associ ation the Association is being held up in some of its programs just waiting for that news; held up because if it does not receive the grant, then it ·will have to cut back on some of the facilities, some of the programs that it is carrying out.

I've been reading some statistics about mental illness and it strikes me that there are few ailments from which the human being suff ers which are in greater need of assistance than the mental illness and the disability that it creates. There's a statement I read here which says: "30 percent of the population of any community has suffered from definite illness with at least temporary disability; that means that one in three at one time or another during his life has some kind of a mental aberration which he himself may overcome as circumstances change but which in many instances treatment is needed.

One out of every 10 babies born this year v.ill spend part of its life in a mental institution or a clinic. '' And then covering the country as a whole, and I don't imagine Manitobans are very much different from any others; we are I think a pretty fair cross

section of Canada, of the people in Canada: "5. 4 million Canadians have disabling disorders at present and 600, OOO suffer from incapacitating illness. Se\·enty-fi\·e thousand Canadians are under care in our mental institutions at any one time. 140, OOO people are treated annually in health clinics. Some 300, OOO seriously ill people are unidentified. There are some 100, OOO acutely ill children with treatment facilities for only 400. " The Minister may dispute this figure - it isn't mine; it is from the Social Action Promotion Campai gn of the Canadian Mental Health Association.

But it goes on, says: "Suicides number 1, 700 a year in Canada and suicide attempts total over 15, OOO. " And so on and so on.

Now there are facilities in various mental institutions in lV!anitoba and the Honourable the Minister assures us that the number in the institutions is actually on the decrease and I wouldn't argue that point with him, but I do know at the same time that through the Mental Health Associ ation a tremendous amount of work has been done and is being done by volunteers , with the re sult that after having found a great number of foster homes, homes which are willing to accept patients from a mental institution -- patients who are of course screened by the medical author ities and found suitable for that kind of treatment -- over 500 homes in Winnipeg have taken patients into their homes as foster homes as - I wouldn't say foster children, but foster adults

May 2, 1968 1545 (MR. PETURSSON cont'd.) .•• then; and 500 people taken out of mental institutions must of necessity decrease the pressure on these institutions and it is because of what the Mental Health Association has been doing that this relief has been found and I would say that it is at least part ly responsible, if the pressure has been taken off the institutions, responsible for the decrease in the patient load in the mental hospitals. There are - I had some figures on volunteers.

It doesn't matter, I can't lay my hands on it right now but the numbers of people who have given of themselves, of their time and of their ability, very often of their personal means, have helped in many ways to bring about the situation of which the Honourable Minister speaks, of lightening of the load in the mental instit utions. I think this points to a way in which mental patients can be worked with - not only now but increasingly in the future.

Mental illness need not be regarded as a stigma and these people isolated into institutions where they are kept away from the ordinary citizens, kept away some say for their protection, some say for the protection of the general public. There are great numbers of people who have been confined in institutions who are perfectly capable within cer tain areas to do normal things and carry on a normal activity.

They may have an aberration in some one or another direction and when properly understood. properly dealt with, properly treated, these people need not be the financial drain that some feel that they otherwise would be on the general purse. There's a - and I have to ask the Honourable Minister's advice on this particular thing, or his information, because I am not too sure about it. I thought that there was a Bill in pro cess of preparation in this connection, of the admittance and the discharge of patients from men tal hospitals.

A patient can, I believe, admit himself to a mental hospital for treatment and while some may feel that this would be an unusual and almost unbelievable thing it nevertheless occurs. A patient may commit himself voluntarily but once committed then he is not perfectly free to come out. Then red tape enters in and it becomes very difficult for a patient of this sort to leave the hospital again; or it has been and I don't know whether legislation either is be ing planned or being drawn up to change this particular situation.

The Mental Health Association has found that it is very easy to train people from Selkirk for instance to come in on their ov.'n on the regular bus and find their way to the mental health headquarters where provisions are made for them to spend a pleasant relaxing afternoon play ing cards if they wish; using the telephone; v.Titing or simply talking with others - some of the volunteer workers - and in the new headquarters even now of indulging in a game of pool.

I was in the building one evening and had a very pleasant short game with Monseigneur Empson but I found that he was a far better pool player than I was so I haven't issued a challenge to him since. I'll have to practice up a little bit. But these are the surroundings into which these peo ple are invited, and those who are in foster homes in the city have free access to the facilities that are given there. The volunteers turn out and give of themselves, otherwise it would be a far more costly operation than it is and probably become impossible to carry on.

But the govern ment has been requested to increase its grant somewhat to the Mental Health Association of Manitoba and I would be interested if the Minister could let me know whether that has been done or whether it is being planned. I would, Mr. Chairman, like to cover more of the program, more of the items mentioned in the estimates but I think I will for the present let this be my concluding words.

I would urge the Department of Health; its Honourable Minister and the government to endeavour to find some other sources, federally if not otherwise, to lift that burden of the additional hospitalization cost which has been suddenly thrust upon us at the very moment ahrnich people are struggling v.ith their own home taxes, their property taxes and so on. But oeing unable to do that, if the government feels that it cannot, I feel pretty well assured that the same group that now sits in the Legisla ture will meet here a year from now.

There v.ill not be an election; the government would not dare to enter that field at this time with all of these things hanging over its head. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. MR. JACOB M, FROESE (Rhineland): Mr. Chairman, my comments will be very brief this afternoon, for more than one reason. I was unavoidably absent the latter part of yesterday afternoon and I did not hear the comments the Minister made in his opening remarks in connec tion v.ith his estimates.

However, I tried to read up on some of the things that were said and also I read the press report of some of the items that are contained in his speech of yesterday afternoon. There is one sentence or one statement that I would like him to enlarge on, and that's

15-!6 May 2, 1968 (l\ffi.

FROESE cont'd.) ••• this, I would like to read from the bottom part of page 1529 of Han sard, ·where this statement is being made: "These revenues >\ill fall short of meeting the 1968 operating costs by some 2. 5 million, and further to that, the Manitoba Hospital Commission in a report on the future of financial requirements of the Hospital Services Program, which is be ing distributed, revealed that under the present rate of premiums, Federal contributions, and of the present provincial subsidy, the Commission >\ill be short by $36 million of meeting its costs between now and 1971. '' The statement to me is not clear.

How much does this mean that we >\ill be short annually? It mentions $36 million by 1971. Is this the accumulative total that we "ill be short, or what is the actual amount that we "ill be short annually? Uuless we know this, we cannot make the necessary projection. We heard the Honourable the Treasur er yesterday stating that we in ::\fanitoba would be short in total by a rnry considerable amount - I think the national total giYen was better than two billions and 1/20 of that would roughly amount to $150 million for Manitoba by 19il.

I take it that this $36 million is part of that $150 million roughly that the Minister of the Treasury made yesterday. In the follo"ing paragraphs he makes mention of the additional nember of people employed in the health department - increased from 7, 385 people in 1960 to 10, OOO by 1967 and also the amount that is paid out in salaries increased by 100 percent from $21 million to $42 million. This is a very substantial increase over these years and maybe in some cases this is warranted but I'm just wondering whether we are not going too fast in making these increases. What is the situation?

How do we compare in the pa�ing of our nurses and the people that work in our hos pital institutions? How do they compare >\ith other pro\-inces? Are we below, are we at par or are we overpa�ing in order to get people into Manitoba to perform such work? How many nurses are being turned out in a gi\-en year? And are we meeting the annual requirements that are coming up because of the increased services required? I think these are some of the things that we should hear a little more about so that we have some idea as to what "ill be re quired in future years. The figure set here is roughly 19il.

Also since Medicare is postponed, and I hope that it will remain that way, if this did come about most likely there would be furth er requirements and additional help needed. Has the department also considered utilization fees, such as they have in Saskatchewan now - or are introducing in Saskatchewan, and some others that have been in effect in other provinces? I think Alberta has a small utilization fee.

Have these been considered because the costs in the services department of the province, health, welfare and education are the ones that have these \-ery substantial increases from year to year and I think somewheres along the line we have to bring in a halt in the total amount expended. Because where is the taxpayer going to get the money from to pay for these services? Emry time we increase the taxes, every time we call for more money, th is means that he has so much less purchasing power inhis own pocket to buy the other goods and the where"ithal that he needs in his daily life.

I think somewheres we ham to institute some type of a program whereby we can arrest these trends that are presently evident and have been for these number of years, where we just see increasing costs in all the different departments. The other question that I have is, and maybe the ::\Iinister has expl ained this although I haven't read his full and detailed remarks, the figure we show under ::\Ianitoba Hospital Com mission in the estimates for this year is $56, 090, OOO and in the other column for the year pre\-i ous it shows $63, 265, OOO. 00.

How much or what is the actual expenditure going to be of the Hospital Commission for the ensuing year? Could we have that total, because when we look at the estimated revenue sheet we find that last year the revenues that were expected from the Federal Government were roughly $31 million or 50 percent of the $62 million that was asked for last year.

This year the amount that we "ill be getting from the federal authorities roughly amounts to $38 million, and in asking the Honourable the Treasurer the other night he more or less stated that it was still 50 percent and on that basis that total cost of the Hospital Commis sion should be around $78 million and not $56 million as is shown here. Could the :\Iinister correct me on this and could he giYe us the total figure that he envisages under the cost of op erating the Hospital Commission?

I would also like to know from him as far as the Dental Services are in this province, what is the future here? l\Iaybe he did comment on this and I'm at a loss because I didn't read all his comments that he made last night. What does the future hold for us here in :Manitoba. Are we bringing about sufficient dentists, new dentists, so that at least in the next se\-eral years that we "ill catch up with the number that we "ill require because we have such a great shortage of dentists in ::\Ianitoba. And that the rural people, if they want service, many of

::\fay 2, 1968 15-17 (MR, FROESE cont'd. ) .•• them have to come into the larger centres, and especi ally Winnipeg, to get services of these people. And that our rural communities are in \'erv dire need of den tists and of their services, I think this would be one item that I am definit�iy interested in. I do take it that the denturists are still ope rating in Manitoba and that many people are getting the services from these people, if it's not so mething of a major matter. I did check over some of the minor items in the estimates but I think Iv.ill wait to discuss those when we come under the various items.

MR . DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I won't be very long, but there are certain things that are not quite finished. I was asking the :\linister if we were going to get a clear- cut poli cy on the financing of the hospital plan, and I want to just - before I put this book away, I want to quote again just a paragraph from page 147, October 19th, 1961, the words of Mr. Roblin. I think this will demonstrate what we want to know, why we're asking these questions. "Well, Sir, I start out by saying that there are a total of 150, OOO people in this province who pay no income tax whatsoever.

I amend that statement - not 150, OOO people but 15 0, OOO families who are pa:Jing premiums whether they are a single unit or married people v.ith a lot of children - 150, OOO of some 36 0-odd thousand units that pay hosp itals premiums don't even pay income tax. If you think that the standard of lh-ing of this province is too high, reflect upon that fact and when you reflect upon that fact you v.ill understand why we v.ill stake our lives - why we v.ill stake our lives as a government on reducing that premium for the people who are in the bracket from 6 to 4 dollars as far as we dare bring it down.

That includes the old aged pensioner, that includes the man living on a pension, that includes the low income group. " Now, I think that somebody should go and get the First Minister and I think that he should explain this. I think that we are entitled to have a cut and dried policy, what are you going to do on this financing? 1958 it was $4. 10.

In 1960 it was increased, after proje cting for three years, the same thing to $6. 00, then reduced to $-±. 00 v.ith the change in policy, now again proje cted for three years $7. 20 - in fact we are paying more than it's co sting us now, because you have an average of the three yea rs; and does that mean that we're all going to be ready for a reduction before the next elec tion. Is that the idea of the gove rnment ? I think we are entitled to know.

I think while we're talking about this -- we'll leave the question of premiums for the time being -- I think that while we're talking on the question of hospitals also, I would like to have a clear-cut idea on this also of the future of the different hospitals. Right now it's quite mixed up, Will hospitals such as St. Boniface and Grace and these hospitals be se cond rate hospitals v.ith this complex that we have around Gene ral Hospi tal ? What is the role of these hospitals? I think that we should know that. I have brought in the question in a few years about recogniz ing and rewarding people up there.

I mayb e haven't named professors and certain - not only people from General Hosp ital and the ::\linister said that there was no reason why it shouldn't be, nothing has been done. I won't mention this man, but there's the heart team, open heart surgery in St. Boniface Hospital that is sec ond to none - I would say, sec ond to none in North America any·way. And we might lose these people if we don't give some recognition so mehow, some time . Apparently, I think they are the only people doing this open heart surgery in :\lanitoba now.

It seems that there 's more politics in the medical profession and some of the people that are running the show than there is in this House. I don't think that this is quite right. Now yeste rday I brought in certain facts that I felt were not too popular, but I felt it was time that we tried to work for the peo ple of Manitoba and not just play politics. There 's a cou ple of po ints that I want to bring in be cause I don't think this is fair and this is not the way that this province v.ill progress.

There is one thing that the :\linister of He alth himself scared the people here by saying that the health resources fund - giving us the impression that this would be reduced. I took the trouble to find out and this is not the case at all. The Fede ral Govern ment announced a $500 million plan, health resources fund, for 15 year program, right or wrong. This is what the government announced.

Now the government has asked the province -- because the way it was going the Fund would be expended v.ithin 7 years -- the government asked the provinces to practice a little bit of self-discipline, to take into cons ideration prior ities so they wouldn't have to do it themselves, because they will have to cut down. But this is still a $500 million program, but it's still a 15 -year program not a seven year program and we hear from everybody, and rightly so, that we have to slow down a bit. So how can they - they announced it's 15 years; there's no reason that all of a sudden it should go to seven years.

I don't think that this was quite right and I think the Minister should rect ify thi s, if it isn't done by my words here today. There is nothing changed; that has nothing to do v.ith �1edicare what soever.

15..)8 May 2, 1968 (l\ffi. DESJARDINS cont'd. ) And there is another thing. When there was something mentioned about the care, the health care of Indians and we heard from the Minister of Welfare. We've heard from a lot of people, maybe rightly, but let's have a look at this: "It was never the intention of reducing the amount paid for this, but maybe not increasing as much as wante d. " This is not the point I want to discuss but if we are going to be sincere v.ith these people and if we are not going to play politics, and if we are going to be realistic, it's time that we take a look at these people.

There is a program now in the Fede ral Government that want to encourage us to assimilate these people, to take them as part of society and they are ready to pay 90 per cent of nearly any care. Now is eve rybody in this House afraid to face some of the abuse when you have this care. Some of the Indians are sent in from the reserve in taxis and they go back in taxis and so on, You have to put an end to these things. I don't think that you are giving these people any favours by paying everything and keep patronizing them. I don't think that this is good enough.

I think the only way that we are going to solve this problem is by welcoming these people in \\ith the rest of our people in this society and therefore they must take some respon sibility themselves. I don't want my words to be changed, that I' m suggesting that we should abandon these people but I think that we should try to help them instead, to come in, in the society and be just ordinary citizens here in Manitob a. It's not the kind of talk that we have had -- well this is more than a few days ago, a few weeks ago -- this question that is going to help at all.

Now there are some other questions that I would like to ask the Min ister. There is some thing very important. We have dealt \\ith the hospitals, we see how costly it is and now we are going to deal - we haven't talked at all about the medical care, the medicare of the people of Manitoba. And as I said, I don't intend to rehash all our policies, what we believe in, our pr inciple and so on. This has been made quite clear and we'll have another chance to do so. But I would like to ask first, the follov.ing questions of the Minister. Will the govern ment play a major role in the administration of MM:s ?

I think that this is something that we're entitled to know. Is l\fMS going to be set up as a Crown Corporation or be operated by civil servants ? This is another thing that we want to know. Now will the government have a direct interest and control on premiums and doctor fee schedules, The people of Manitob a want to kmw this.

And then, probably more important than anything else, what is the government alternative to not joining the federal Medicare plan now, be cause surely they can't just say we're not going to go in and abandon these people, bec ause by the very action of this govern ment who pass this Bill 68, the condition has changed here in this province. First the doctors are asking, and I don't blame them for this, they are asking for total payment instead of 80 per cent. And there has been a large increase in fees - and that I blame the passing of Bill 68.

And then now there is extra charge being made to the patient; coupled \\ith this hospital, it's going to be pretty rough. I don't know what the old age pensioner \\ill do, Some of these costs have increased up to 50 pe rcent or so, And then, of course, who is going to take over l\fMS ? Mr. Chairman, I don't want to add anything now except one thing. I'm going to make a motion; I'm going to move a resolution because I think it is very important that the people of Manitoba are assured this.

We are dealing \\ith the health estimates and I'm moving, seconded by the Honourable Member from Selkirk, that resolution No, 34, Item 1 (a)

(1) Ministe r's Compensation -- Salary and Repres entation Allowance - $15, OOO, be held in committee until such time as the l\finister makes a full report on the negotiations being carried on between the Manitoba Government and the medical profession relative to medical services in Manitoba. MR, CHAIRMAN: I pointed out in Committee here the other day that the only two motions that can be entertained by the Chair is the motion to reduce the amount of the item that we are debating or a motion that the committee rise. So I have to rule the motion is out of order. This is not a motion to reduce the salary. :-.m.

DESJARDINS: l\Ir , Chairman, on a point of order. It's not a motion to reduce the salary. I don't know all the fancy terms and so on, I'm not tr)ing to reduce the salary of the }finister. This would be \\Tong. I just want assurance and maybe we can do this v.ithout a resolution then; I just want assurance we will not pass this item before we have a chance to discuss the health estimates. This is something that is rnry interesting and something very vital to the people of :Manitoba and I think that the Minister can - if he wants to stand up now and assure us that he'll agree with this that \\ill solve everything.

I ce rtainly don't intend to -

May 2, 1968 15 .+9 (MR . DESJARDINS cont'd. ) • • • • • I think he's worked too hard. he's got too much work ahead of him to reduce his salary. This is not my point at all. This is not . . • MR . CHAIRM AN : Well - Order, please. I don't think that I can deviate from the two rules that it is my understanding are hard and fast in com mittee • • • MR. DE SJARDINS: Well can I ask the Minister if he would - can I ask the Minister then if he would assure us and if he v;ill agree with me tben this will be held until we have a full discussi on, a full statement from the Minister.

I am told that the doctors are sworn to se crecy now. And I don't blame them. They want to be able to negotiate fairly and I am told that maybe this is where the Premier has been going these last few days, I don't know. But I think that it is importa_ rit to the people of Manitoba and I thin k that it is important to the members of this House. We cannot deal v.ith the estimates without getting these answers. I would beg the Minister to agree v.ith me and give us this assurance and I think that everything would be all right. MR . DOUGLAS L. CAMP BELL (Lakeside) : Mr.

Chairman, before we pro ceed, I would like to on a point of order, ask you on what you base the ruling that such a motion is out of order. l\IB. CHAIRMAN: Well under Citation 242 in Beauchesne the only motion allowed when a res olution is under cons ideration ill Com mittee of Supply is that the amount be reduced or that the Chairman leave the Chair. This is ••• MR . CAMP BELL: That is not our rule. That's a citation only from Beauchesne. My understanding of our rule is that the same rules apply in committee as apply in the House, and in our House such a motion, in my opinion, would be in order. Mr.

Chairman, I don't know how many times I have to repeat it in this House but why don't we look first at our ru les. l\IB. CHAIRMA. ""'1: Order, please. It is correct that there is no reference to this par ticular ruling that we have. My unders tanding is more or less conformed with - through the years that I have been here - that those are the two motions that are accepted by the Chair in com mitte e. Now if we are going to deviate from the rule which we have been following then it's thrown v.ide open, that we could be sitting here entertaining motions of all kinds in com mitte e and I can see no point in it.

Unless that the committee are pre pared to deviate from the proc edure that we have been following. MR . ELM AN GUTTORMSON (St. Geor ge) : Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. In all the time that I've spent in this House I never heard this rul e adhered to before. I've never heard this rule applied that we couldn't move another motion other than those two cited by you in Beauchesne. MR. CHAilU1AN: • • • on the particular subjec t that we are on right now, the motion which I have ruled out of order. The Member for St. Boniface he has asked a question across the House to the Minister.

I think the Minister is prepared to answer him on it and we could pr obably proceed. I can see no point in arguing this bec ause I' m not prepared to establish the rules of the committee other than what we have been follov.ing through the years that I have been in the House. MR. DE SJARDINS: Well, Mr.

Chairman, unless the Minister is ready to give us this promise, this agreement, if you say this is out of order, I ce rtainly don't intend to reduce his salary, but I ce rtainly cannot - and the rest of my colleagues either, the rest of the members of this House repres entative of the pe ople of Manitoba - when we don't know what's going on, so I move that the Com mitte e rise. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The motion that the Comm ittee rise is not debatable. MR . CHAIBMAN pres ented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. HON. J.B. CARRO LL (Minister of Welfare) (The Pas) : Ayes and Nays, Mr.

Chairman. :'.\IB. CHAIRMAN: Call in the Members. l\IB. CHAIBMAN: The question before the Co mmittee - moved by the Honourable Member for St. Boniface that the Co mmittee rise. A COUNTED VOTE was taken the results being as follows : Yeas, 23; Nays, 29. MR. CHAIRM A..�: I declare the motion lost. The Honourable Member for St. John's. MR . DESJARDINS: :\fr. Chairman, haven't I still got the floor ?

I would ask the :Minister to reconsider - I mean the actual call was 16-1 4 before we called the members in but I guess that's not important, but I think that - I again beg the Minister to reconsider and to give us this assurance.

1550 May 2, 1968 HON. CHARLES H. WITNEY (Minister of Health) (Fli n Flon): Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to reconsider. At the time that we were talking about the point of order I was on the verge of getting up from my seat, the Honourable Member had moved a motion .to adjourn which is not debatable, and I was going to advise him that all the questions that are asked of me during my estimates I will answer. MR. CHA!Rl\IAN: The Member for St. John's. l\IB. SAUL CHE RNIACK, Q. C. (St. John's) : I agreed to let the Member for Emerson go ahead of me. MR . CH AIRMAN: The Member for Emerson. MR . JOHN P.

TA-'�CHAK (Emerson): I wi.sh to thank the honourable member. We had a mutual agreement because I promised not to be long. -- (Interje ction) - He says four minutes, I hope. The Department of Health is a very impo rtant department; in fact Health is the second largest spender in this government of all the departments, and I'm happy to see now that after the bell rang that the Premier is in because we so rarely see his handsome face here that it 's a treat to see him sitting and listening to what transpires in these debates in the Department of Health.

I would like to see the Fi rst Minister, the Premier, sitting there more often. We don't see him more than about 15 -20 minutes a day and some days not at all. The same thing applies to the Honourable Member from Wolseley. Of course he's disappeared again so I can't compliment him on bei ng here. As I said before, the Department of Education is the greatest spender, and Health, the Department of Health is the seco nd largest spender; all in my opinion of the utmost importance in this House.

But something I do not like about this is that the Provincial Government ha\·e been, and is , playing politics "l'.ith these two departments.

Now nobody can stop the govern ment from playing politics "l'.ith any of the departments - probably I could say it's their prero gative and it's the Cabinet decision to do it or the government's decis ion to do it - and I would say that if playing politics was clean politics I'd have nothing against it either, but this govern ment plays with the people of Manitoba as the cat does after it has captured the mouse and plays with it before it devours it, and that's the way this government is playing with the people of Manitoba.

I would say that the government is destroying Manitoba by excessive increases in taxa tion, as has happened just lately at the municipal level, and now again playing with the people of Manitoba by excessive increases in premiums, Manitoba Hospital premiums, and no matter what ::\linisters or the boys across say, they are dire ctly responsible for both. They're re sponsible for the increase here in the ::VIanitoba Hospital Services premiums. They'r e dire ctly responsible for that, and I'll try to prove that as I go.

I would say that this government, this increase in premi ums is definitely not warranted, because if you go back to 1962 we had a special sessi on, as was mentioned by one of my colleagues, and the express purpose of this sessi on was to load the people of Manitoba "l'.ith more taxes, the Revenue Tax Act that we passed in 1962. And \\·hat was the purpose of this Re\·enue Tax? The express purpose of this tax was to hold the premi ums on the ::\1:anitoba Hospital premiums down.

In fact they boasted about decrea sing them, and now I would say that the answer from the opposite side, from the Minister may be, "But we succeeded in doing it for a short period; now the hospital expenses are rising and therefore we need money. " But I would like to remind the Honourable Minister and the government that if the hospi tal expenses are rising, so are our revenues derived from these taxes. The revenues are also risi ng from these taxes that were imposed on the people in 1962, and in later years; they're also rising.

We know that the revenues from income tax is rising bec ause the Minister of Industry boasts that employment is high and people get more money. And the income tax, we share in that. The Federal Government -- (Interje ction) - I said that before, once before, that rather than increasi ng direct taxation I said that the income tax would be a fairer way. I made that statement once before - maybe the honourable member did not see it - increase it by one percent or so. The income tax revenues are rising so this increase in premiums is not warranted. \\'hat about the gasoline tax?

We have more people using the automobile; we get more revenue from the gasoline tax. And people are travelling more, they are more mobile than before, so our revenues are rising. \\'hat about the liquor taxation? People are drinking more and more and more - I pre sume probably to drown their sorrows. They're sorry for electing this government, I'm sure

I • �fay 2, 1968 1551 (MR. TANCHAK cont'd. ) • • . . . of that, so they're trying to drown their sorrows so they probably drink more and there's more revenue coming from there. So that would be no excuse to say, as was mentioned before, that hospital expenses are rising. We know they are rising, but so should our revenues be rising. The Premier said. or mentioned some few months ago, that we're going to hold the line on taxation, and this is not true. Somebody said yesterday that this is a lie. I' m not going to go that far, but it isn't true. This gove rnment is not holding the line on taxation at all.

As I mentioned before, our real property tax has been increased by the actions of this government, so that's not holding the line ; and now the :-Olanitoba Hospital premiums are going up too. There's an increase in hospital premiums and this government, I would say, is responsible for that. Now if you look - this was referred to by the Honourable :-01ember for Rhineland - Item No. 6, last year the expenditure was $6, 326, OOO, or 63 million, and this year it's 56. There 's $7, 175, OOO less that this go\·ernment is contributing towards the Manitoba Hospital Commis sion.

No wonder the premiums are rising, because unless the Minister has a good explanation for this decrease then I would say that the gove rnment is firing the Manitoba Hospital Commis sion and the Manitoba Hospital Commission has to raise the premiums. On Medicare, I'm just going to say - I'm getting pres sure here - I'm breaking my promise so I'm going to cut off. On Medicare, I'm just going to say that people are confused. Ottawa has given us the law, or it's the law of the land of Ottawa; Manitoba, here in Manitoba last year we legislated -- and will M:anitoba receive the benefits?

We are being taxed now; Manitoba is not going to recei ve the ben efits of this taxation. The people are waiting and they are wondering, and they are confused. And the last question I would like to ask: Will :Manitoba ha\·e medical coverage after the second half of this year and what kind will it be ? • • . • • continue d on next page

1ss: May 2, 1968 MR , CHAffiMAN: The Ho nourable Member for St . John's. MR . CHER. NIACK: I feel that we are indebted to the Honourable the Member for St .

Boniface for citing to us the Hansard of 1961 when there was a change in the method of financing the Manitoba Hospital Services Commissi.on requiremen ts . \Vhat he has shov.n to us was what took place at a time when we had a government that was two or three years old which found a situation in Manitoba which needed co rrec ting and wh ich rec ognized then that it had a responsi bility to the people, that that responsibility was one which should be measured on the basis of providing services to the people and financing these services on the manner in wh ich it was best capable of paying for these services.

I was not in the House at the time and I do not remember why it was that the Liberal Party opposed the proposal of the Conservative Party that the premiums be reduced and the additional costs nec essary should be provided by an increase in income tax so I cannot comment on it, and possibly it will be a matter of interest and something I should learn about for the future, but I won't take the time of the House in questioning or even speculating as to the manner.

I' m glad that the Honourable the First Minister has returned to the me eting that we're having this afternoon because I feel that he , of all people, has made the decision which is car ry ing this government and taking the people of Manitoba into a poorer position than it was before he entered into the leadersh ip of his Party.

I had occasion to refer some time ago this session to the four-ring circus that we all watched and which some people participated in in the attempt by four aspirants to achieve the leadership of their Party, and one of the forecasts that I made was that the Premier who has made it now , who is v.ith us , if he won, would bring back the Conservative Party to its old traditional role in government and in the political aspects of Mani toba, because I felt, and I' m not such a great student of political affairs in Manitoba or else where and I do not propose to show that I have a great knowledge of the past and of the different attitudes of political parties such as the Conserv ative Party , but I did feel that when the Honour able Duff Roblin came into the leadership of the Party it was one which had sunk pretty low in its attempts to speak on behalf of the people because it did not reflect the people ; it did not re flect the needs and the aspirations of the people.

He gathered about him a group of people, mainly in his Cabinet and not behind him , who were anxious to go ahead with the grov.th of Manitoba and achieve those things which the government which preceded him had become fro ze n in doing, that is, was not actually doing it, and we had a change then with Roblin in the leadersh ip of a government which was showing a trend towards dealing with the needs of the co=on man.

Well, last year we obviously reached the stage in the minds of both the pres ent Pre mier and his supporters where it was necessa ry to go back in the tr aditional ways of financing the needs and the operations of government in such a way as to do as little harm as pos sible to those who had the financial strength in the province. I put it as bluntly as that , because I can only say that since his assuming the leader ship we have had retrogressive steps insofar as growth of the provision of services in this province, and of course it's something that he fore cast.

It was he who indicated that his platform was a hold-the-line platform , and if those aren't his wor ds , those are my words and I still attribute their me aning to what he said. It was an indication that Manitoba government has gone as far as it should go. Incidentally, this is not unlike the statem ents made by the new Prime Minister of this country: we'v e gone as far as we should go and we'v e got to hold the line.

And holding the line in the light of what the Honourable the First Minister must think me ant going backwards , because every tax meas ure that we have co nsidered since he became the Pre mier is one which has put a greater burden on the man least capable of pa}ing. When this government came along some weeks ago and an nounced its budget and the Honourable the Pr ovincial Treasurer , with pride , said there's no increas e in taxation , we knew then that that was not the full picture.

We said then it was not the full picture and yester day we got another step, another installment in the picture of this government's dealings with the financial requirements which it needs to operate. The install me nt we rec eived yest erday came possibly fortuitously but came at the same time, or within the same few days in which the people are fe eling the other heavy load of tax incre ase for wh ich we blame this government , and that is the municipal tax incr ease.

The moneys which the people will now have to pay in inc reased real property taxes are moneys which should have been as sumed by this Pr o\incial Governm ent in acc ordanc e with the promises it made in 196 4 at the special session , in bringing in the sales tax, in all the prote stations by this government that it was going to see to it that the burden on the real proper ty taxpayer would be relieved; and this

I I May 2, 1968 1553 (MR. CH ERNIACK cont'd) . . . • . is a negation of that fact. And now we find that , in the lowest level pos sibly, this government has se en to it that there is a dispr oportionate increase in taxes. And we were waiting for it. I must confess, Mr. Chairman , I didn't expect it to be as grea t as it was . Somebody ca lculated it to be 80 perc ent. That's pro bably right; I haven't checked it exactly .

But this kind of an incr ease which is put acros s-the-board to all people other than tho se who are in the indigent group , that is those who are unable to pay acc ording to the standards set by this government , the increase there across the-board is the most regressive - no, it's not the most - it 's almost the most regressive form of taxation of which I am aware, because it says to every family head of any income bracket , other than as I say that small group at the bottom of the scale , you shall pay SI. 20 a month to help finance hospitaliz ation costs in this provinc e.

Reg ardless of whether you earn a small amount or a large amount, you shall pay that. And I would say, ).fr. Chairman, that in my opinion the additional -- the incre ase, this S7. 20 rate as compared with S4 . 00 will not affect any perso n who is sitting in this Chamber. None of us will feel it.

An additional S39. 00 a year will not affect our living standard one bit , but is the Pr emier or is the Honourable Minister of Health prepared to say that this increase will not affect many many people in the Pr ovince of Manitoba, people on fixed incomes ; people on pensions - old age pe nsions; veterans • pensions; people who have to measure every penny - and there are many of them in this pr ovince - will suffer this increase of $39. 00 which any of us could smoke up in a month or two, be it in cig ars or cig arettes , which many of us could spend without noticing but which so many will feel it hard and will feel till it hurts .

And note, Mr. Chairman, that this increase -- and I must say I' m sorry for the Honour able Minister of Health for having to be the whipping boy and that's why I'm directi ng most of my remarks to the Honourable the First Minister because I rea lly think that he is the one who got the instructions from the people who elected him to his post that they expect thi s to happ en.

I believe also that part of this is part of the mood of the gover=ent, as depicted by the Minister for Industry and Commerc e, of needing to entice people into the pro vince, hold people in the pro vince, se e to it that we grow in the provi nce; and in their concept, grov;th mea ns to attract people to either come or to stay who have the greater capacity, and that grov;th to me is what is making, what is the attempt of this government to make this prov ince attractive to people who pa y income taxes rather than to people who are in this provinc e and who are in the lower income groups.

The Honourable Attorney-General this year , it se ems to me, makes more speeches from the seated position than he does from the standing one , and I would invite him to pa rticipate in the debate. Fo rtunately , I know I can still answer the speeches that he makes in Co=ittee and I' ll be happy to do so rather than rise to the bait of every word that he throws out from his seated position. MR . LYO:c\: When a logical debate comes along, I' ll be glad to participate in it . l\ffi .

RT:SSELL PAL'LLE Y (Leader of the �ew Democ ratic Par ty) (Radisson): He wants to keep his brain warm , that's why he doesn't get up. lVffi. CHERNIACK: Mr . Chairman , the "Fo recast of Costs" which was supplied to us by the Minister , pre pared by the Hospital Co=ission, indicates several tables which are of interest. One table is Table 5 which gives more information than Table 2.

Table 2 is the justifica tion, as I se e it, of the increase in pr emiums; Table 5 gives us a proj ection of costs of both expenditures and of re venue to show the net prov incial costs , and acc ording to this table we se e that the federal contributions will be rising substantially year by year and have risen substan tially from 19 60 through until 1971.

But dealing with these years , in 1968 the federal contribu tion - S34 million; 1969, the federal co ntribution - S38 million, an increase of $4 million; 19 70 , the federal contribution - $42 million, another S4 million increase - that's about 10 perc ent in each ca se; 1971 - S47 million. So there is a very substantial increase proj ected from federal contributions and I' m as suming - and I stand to be correcte d - that this is a co ntribution from the federal sources of re\·enue.

And now moving from here to Table 2, which starts where the other one ends off, that is pro vincial costs, we see substantial increases pro j ected but not the prov incial app ropria tions . As far as this government is concerned, it does not expect - and it says so in as many words - it will not raise its S21 million contribution by a pe nny in all of these next three years . Indeed, it reduc ed it by Sl00 , 000 this year - that 's from 19 68 to 1969 - and it does not propose to make

155-l May 2, 1968 (MR . CHER KIACK cont'd) . . . . . any increase in 1970 or 19 71 out of its sources of revenue.

This same cute game that this government is pla }ing is the one that applied in the ca se of municipal taxes , not one increase in any meaningful way to reduction of real property taxes from its sources of revenue, not one bit of increase in the needs for the hospitaliz ation from its source of revenue, but rather passi ng the needed increases back to the people on what I said was one of the most regressiYe methods of taxation , and that is an across-the-board compul so ry contribution made without any regard to the ability-to-pay of the people involved, except for that small number of people that fall into that category of exemption, some 65, 000 persons.

And let's bear in mind that the 65, OOO persons , not all of these are people from whom the prov ince. is contributing because some of them are still classi fied as dependents and therefore don't come under the pro\incial contribution.

So this government is prepared to increase the premium on this - and which is a tax - on the lowest possible income group as far as hurt is concerned, as far as proportion is concerned, and it's pl anning to finance this over the next three years and one wonders why, We are told by the Provincial Treasurer, we are told by the :Minister of Industry and Commerce, that we're in a gro,,.,ih stage. This pro\inc e is developing, this province is growing - and we don't really have to ask them to know that there is a natural increase that takes plac e year by year anyway.

There is a normal increase which we know takes place and has traditionally taken plac e in terms of gro'>\ih and in terms of inflationary dollars as well. And even this gro\\ih is not being reflected by this government in its participation in the hospital sen ice costs .

The fact that we know that next year, by inflation if for no other reason, or by the natural gro'>\ih which we have had up to now, if that alone, or by the expectations of this go\·ernment to see some gro\\ih any way in the act i\ity in this province, not a penny of that '>\ill be reflected in this government's co ntribution to the hospital co sts . And that , I sa y, is the most deplorable thing of this gove rn ment's actions . Then it proceeds to spread it over three years. Does it need it next year? ::\o, no , :\fr. Cha irman, they say they don't need it. Do they need it in 1970 ?

According to my ca lculation they don't need it. I am looking at Table 2 and it 's just a simple thing of dividing S75 million required from increased premiums by three. I'\ ·e got S'.25 million, and I may be wrong in my formula, but it seems to me that they will not be needing this additional premiums until some time - let's guess in the middle of 19 70 - by then there'll be a ca tch up. But do you know what might happen about that time, :\Ir. Chairman ?

It just occurred to me, although I' m sure it did not occur to the Honourable the Premier or his ad\isors , I' m sure it did not occur to them that the re's every likelihood of an election about that time. Surely that wouldu't have been a matter for them to consider because el ections happen for various reasons , and ce rtainly you don't plan budgets on that basis . But somehow, somehow there will be no need for any increase in premiums - hospital premiums - until after the next election, and maybe that 's just a coincidence, maybe that's why this three-year period was taken into ac count .

But we are hitting the people now. We hit them last year with sales tax right after an election.

We hit them this year with a very substantial increase in costs of financing municipal and sch ool di\isions , real property taxes , and we're hitting them this year with what I consider - and I' d like to be challenged on that - one of the most regressiYe forms of taxation, and by the time the next election comes along the people will have beco me accustomed to living with the sa les tax and with the high municipal cost ta x and with the high premium, and they will have adjusted because they will have given up certain of the things that they now have, and maybe even then this government will throw them a bone and maybe reduce premiums or reduce sales tax and make some other reduction.

But the fact is that they are pla nning ahead three years. Three years is the basis on which they think they should finance this , admitting as they do that the co st will not rise to that extent for some period of time. I was very pleas ed, :\Ir. Chairman, to hear the Honourable :\!ember for St . Boniface state that he would finance this additional cost in a different way.

The reason I say that is that I honestly belie\·e that the Liberal Pa rty has been guilty in the past of attacking increased co sts and methods used by the government as to the manner in which they propose to raise the tax, but without gi\ing an understandable alternative method of co llecting that additional co st. ::\ow this is my sincere belief that they have failed to do that .

They have talked about waste in gov ernment, which I believe is probably true and I think I' ve sa id before that I don't believe that any government is free of waste; they 've talked about inexcusable expenditures, and I agree with that too and I think that much of this government se nic e information in inexcusable expen ditures , but I don't believe that that kind of contribution or that kind of criticism is sufficient

I May 2, 19 68 (MR. CHERJ\"'IACK cont'd) . . . . . to provide the dollars that are really needed. I think that there have been occasions when the Liberal Pa rty has not been prepared to suggest alternative methods of collection, but in this respect the Honourable Member for St. Bonifac e did.

I think he was car eful in what he said to assume the responsibility for himself , as to the way he would do it, and I think he stated that he was not speaking for his Party, but then the Honourable Member for Emerson did indicate his opinion as well that increased in come taxes were justifi ed. �Iind you , I think the Honourable ::\!ember for Emerson did not ad mit that there might be a need for increased income taxes, he suggested that the natural in crease in income tax might be sufficient. Well, it isn't; it wouldn't be. And I think it was clear from the :\!ember of St .

Bonifac e that rather than this form of regressive taxation, this form of spreading the cost amongst those people who are least able to pay, he would use two methods he spoke of. One is increased income tax, the other is what he called a utilization fee, which he thought was a more acc eptable fee than a deterrent fee. Well , I want only to co=e nt on the second aspect, that in my opinion that fee , the uti lization fee is the most regressive. And the reason I suggest that is that it is paid by the sick person.

It is paid not only by the person who may be least economically able to pay, or that is v.ith the least income, but he is also sick at the time he is asked to pay for it. He is also a person who, because he goes into a hospital, obviously can not continue to earn his daily bread during that time and therefore it hits him when he is least able to pay. To me, the greatest deterrent in the use of hospitalization is the impossibility for so many of our people to afford to go to hospital. Now again there are many of us who can aff ord to go to the hospital.

There are many of us who might enjoy a respite in hospital for a few days, especially towards the end of a session as we go along, and we could afford it. But the man who is least able to afford it is the man who can not go to the hospital, and to put on him a deterrent fee of 81 .5 0 or 82 .0 0 is a hardship, but to put it on me or to put it on any other member of the Legislature, it's no hardship; it's not a deterrent; it's nothing that will make him think mice about going to the hospital if he'll have to pay a couple of dollars a day additional to his premium or to his taxes to contribute to it.

So that I want to suggest - and I do it very seriously and I don't think there's a diff erenc e in political philosophy about it - to the Honourable :\f omber for St. Bonifac e that he consider this utilization or deterrent fee in the light that I suggest, and that is that it is the hardest type of tax ation.

Of course ha\ing said that, I immediately must admit that I was wrong, because once Premier Thatcher introduced it, once the Liberals of Saskatchewan said it was right, then it becomes a political issue and I guess that we can't agree on the philosophic approach that I haYe suggested on a utilization fee or deterrent fee. But I strongly urge that that is the ca se, that people don't like being sick and people don't like going to hospitals , that people don't like going to doctors.

There are some who are sick in other respect:; that feel driven to ask for medical help , but that's a sickness too that should be cured, and maybe the real deterrent fee ought to be imposed on the medical profession or the health profession which might permit this type of over-use of hospital or medical services. It may well be that the people who render the senice should be the peo ple who control it , and maybe the hospitals aren't doing as good a jo b as they should to make sure that patients aren't overstaying the days that they should stay.

It may well be that the hospitals don't have the courage , acc ept the unpleasant responsibility of saying to a patient or to a doctor: we'v e checked you out; we think it's time you checked yourself out and make the bed available for someone who need it more. That might be a field to explore. But any of those fiel ds, as sug gested, are the wrong fields and are worse than what this government is doing, that is the uti lization field, the deterrent field. But what this goYernment is doing is next to that in the abominable way that it is attacking the problem of financ ing hospitalization costs .

A sales tax - and we in our Party fought the sales tax on principle because we said that that was at most a proportionate -- a tax that has the impact on persons about the same way regardless of income and is not related to ability to-pay. Even the sales tax is a better form of taxation, if that were the only choice, from this premium tax which is the most regressiYe.

And eYen on a sales tax, as the Honourable Member for Inkster ca lculated very quickly, this increased premium is equivalent to about one perc ent additional on sales tax, and people in the 83, 500 group, according to his calculation, would be pa)ing an equivalent tax now of a ten perc ent sales tax if they were to pay as this government insists that they should, a five

1556 May 2, 1968 (MR. CHERNIACK cont'd) ••••• perc ent sales tax and $7. 20 a month in hospitalization tax. The sales tax actually in 1969 would only have to go up • 65 perc ent, that means that a sales tax of 5. 65 perc ent would produce for this givernment its planned $50 million for its budget and the moneys that it needs for 1969's requirements over and above the existing premium. And all along there would be ways of doing it, but this government chose to do it the worst way.

And of course as I said earlier, I blame the Premier for it because -- and I don't blame him pers onally for it and I' m not sa ying he 's \\Tong in doing it because he was elected on that basis. He made that promise to the people that voted for him at that convention. He went up and down this province sa:ying, "I will cut down provincial cost s. " And he did - provincial bud get costs . But he did in one way and we all know the way. He just saw to it that the provinc e would not continue its promised, planned program started way back of reducing the load on the real property taxpayer.

He knew then that he would pass on this kind of a burden onto the peo ple themselves. He must have known it because he wouldn't have just come out and made promises without having seen how he could ca rry out his promises . So that knowing what he did, he went ahead, and if those people that voted for him did not know that this was happening then they were stupid, Mr. Chairman.

And I don't believe - I ca n't believe that the people who voted for the Honourable the Premier were stupid - so it means that they knew what he was going to do , and therefore what he did was only in line with what he promised he would do , not in so many words , but in the statements that he made in his ca mpaign. I think that yester day was a day that we were waiting for. We expected it. When it came, I think that it hurt more than we expected, possi bly beca use of this spread for the next three j years .

Coming as it did, "\\ith the real property tax bill coming along, should give a proper picture to the people of Manitoba what this government means and plans to do "\\ith their dollars and how it plans to financ e its operations .

I think that we on this side, and in this group, can only repeat what we believe is right and hope that some of what we have to say will be considered se riously by the voters , beca use in effect trying to cominc e this group at this stage on this issue is a thankless jo b. -- (Interj ec tion) -- Hopeless not, beca us e I do believe that there are enough people in this House with enough goodwill and enough good se nse to se e through all the aspects of the discussi on and whose ideas will grad ually percolate in their minds and who will possi bly in the future fight this type of action in the caucus in which they participate.

And I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that in spite of ce rtain drawbacks of the Ca rter report, we have yet to hear from this government any approach to taxation other than this negative one that they have taken that was announc ed yesterday. We have yet to hear from this gO\-ernment anything positive as to future forms of income and taxation other than what we heard yest erday in this bac kward way of taxing the people of Manitoba. We have rec eived from this government a very fancy looking brochure criticizing the Carter Report , but we have yet to see something positive in the proposals they would make.

The alternatives they have offered have been just so negligible that they couldn't be recognized. What they did do of course was sa y no, we don 't like any suggestion that life insuranc e companies are getting special treatment in taxation, we disagree with that; we think that concess ions made to the mining industries are methods in which we should not change ; but to financ e health costs , to financ e hospitalization costs in this way is acc eptable to them. And one other reason that they have no doubt done it is to try and bolster their arguments about medicare. The timing is not just acc idental , Mr.

Chairman. They no doubt will now come out and say, well look what we had to do - we had to do - to the people of Manitoba; think of what we would have to do if we went out and did this in medicare. They are >'<illing to give up millions of dollars from the Federal Governme nt in order to make this point, and this con tinued gambling with the people and playing with them - and I think it was the Honourable 1fem ber for St.

Bonifac e who mentioned that this government is pla ;<.ing with the people - it's using the people, it's laughing at the people and that's what hurts , because I think that it is really laughter in the mind of the government that ca n be the only reaction that it would have for what it has done to the people in this year, while sa :ying proudly and openly, "we have not raise d taxes; we have a balanc ed budget." They must only laugh in that respect because they know this to be true. 1IB. L YO�: Would the honourable member permit a question ?

He told us that the sales tax was regressive and was not the proper means of revenue. He told us the premiums were regressive and not the proper means of revenue. Surely he is not telling us that all of the

I May 2, 19 68 1557 (MR. LYON cont'

d) money for the hospital premiums or for the hospital care in Mani- toba, the provincial share thereof, should be raised by income tax ? Is he really telling us that? MR . CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I did not say that the sales tax is regressive. If my honourable friend ... l\IB. LYON: You said it today and you said it last year and you voted against it. MR .

CHERNIACK: If my honourable friend had taken the trouble to listen to what I admit to him was too long, and probably for him too complicated and too dull an exposition of what I thought about the sales tax last year, he would have learned that I did not speak of sales tax as being regressive. I spoke of the sales tax as being proportionate, and I even remember speak ing about the fact that the introduction of some exemptions brought into it an element of pro gressiveness. I certainly did not say it was regressive.

Today, I don't remember exactly what I said, I would have to check it, but I'm assured by those that I have reason to believe that I did not say it was regressive. MR . LYON: Well , we'll check that. MR . CHERNIACK: Well if I said it , let me make it clear. Sales tax is generally a pro portional tax. It is not based on inco me, it is based on spending, and usually that 's pretty much the same. It \vill become regressive as people acquire more income which they salt away into savings and on which they don't pay sales tax. It will become regressive -- progres sive to the extent that people are spared it.

I did not say that the Hospital Co=ission is now being paid out of regressive taxation. Right now a goodly portion of it is being paid out of in come tax, that is the federal

part is being paid out of income tax, but that is becoming pro portionately less , even though it's becoming greater. That is , the Federal Governm ent con tribution is rising by some $4 million a year. That would be through the progressive form of income taxation, but because of this government insisting that the other increases which are greater than S4 million a year be put up under premiums, in the main it is becoming more re gressive, that is the income that prO\ides for hospitalization.

Now we made it clear to the - my learned friend looks dumbfounded which is not an uncommon expression for him , but again he will have to check that out. MR . LYON: Has my honourable friend read this little document that was passed around, ''The Fo recast of Costs and Financial Requirements"? MR . CHERNIACK: I not only read it, I also read from it to my friend and pointed out to him that to look at Table 2 you must look at Table 5 in order to see the beginning of Table 2, and in this there is an indication of increased co sts . Now let me answer his question. I didn't intend to make a second speech.

We have said time and again that there are better ways of raising money for the conduct of the business of government and providing the services. We have said that there are ways outlined by the Carter Co=ission which we accept. There are capital gains taxes; there are increased taxes on the increased rate of taxation in the higher brackets ; there are increased royalties from natural resourc es. There is a participation in it , and I wish my learned friend would listen to it once so that he would become learned enough to remember what I said and not ask me again. MR .

LYON: You didn't answer the question but it's all right. MR . CAMP BELL: Mr. Chairman I think that the Honourable Member for St. John's will not deny that he said what I am going to say he said, and I can plead that as the only excuse for speaking in this vein at this time. If I caught my honourable friend's expression properly, he said that the government that prec eded the advent of my honourable friend from Wolseley's gov ernment was frozen in its efforts to govern or in its actions with regard to government. I think my honourable friend will admit he said that . MR . CHERNIACK: I said it.

I'm kind of sorry I said it because I don't want to go back into ten years of history, but I said it. MR . CAMPBE LL: The point is that my honourable friend did go back into it and I want my honourable friend, if he's going to go back into history , to get the facts str aight.

I never seek the opportunity in this House - I have never done it yet - of trying to get up and extol the virtues of the government that was in office before my honourable friend from Wolseley took over, but when anybody makes the kind of a statement that my honourable friend did this after noon and makes that as an introduction to what he was going to say about the present Premier here, and draws the co nclusion -- and I'm glad the Honourable Member for Wolseley is here because it's nice for him to hear a complimentary thing said about him once in awhile, and ce rtainly what the Honourable Member for St.

John's was saying was that he was one bright

1558 May 2, 1968 (1ffi. CHERNIACK cont'd) . . . . . star for a few years in between two that evidently my Honour able friend for St. John's definitely does not approve of. Now let me tell him something about the government that he spoke of. The government that he was talking about as being frozen took over at a time when the expenditures of this prov ince were less than $29 million. It had taken them from 1870 to 1948 to reach the expenditure of something over 828 million. During the ten years that that government was in office, the expenditures went from $29 million to more than $80 million.

Now if my honourable friend really thinks that's a frozen government, if he really does , then I think he should go back and study the situation. And I say to him , don't us e, don't use arguments in order to try and make your case against the pres ent Premier - I don't have to defend him - but don't use that av.ful comparison of the former government without checking the facts a little better.

When my hon ourable friend says that was a frozen government, I can tell him that that government dealt with some of the most controversial questions that have ever faced the Pro vince of Manitoba during that ten years , and dealt with them not in any frozen method at all but in a way of getting things done and getting value for the money that they were spending. So if my honourable friend doesn't wa.Iit to go back and discuss ten years, then !ion•t talk about that time. I won't attempt to if he does�•t make such reference.

Now he's -- (Interjection) -- that's fair enough, yes , and my honourable friend did not know those facts when he made the statements I am sure. If he had known them, he wouldn't have made them. MR . PAlJL LE Y: He's entitled to his opinion. MR . CAM PBELL: He's entitled to his opinion, yes , and I' m entitled to express mine as well. Now the difficulty that my honourable friend who now sits in the position of First Minister faces - and I' m sure that he was actuated by good intentions and sound motives when he made the statements that he did before that campaign that my honourable friend from St.

Joh n's speaks about - the difficulty that he faces is the one that gornrnment has faced through the years , and that is that the tremendous growth, especially in these so cial service fields, even if you don't add to the generosity of the programs at all, is so great that is simply swamps the good intentions of my honourable friend. In addition to that, he's loaded up with a couple of three or four or more ministers that are real free-wheeling spenders as well, and :Mr.

Chair man, if it were not for the fact that this government, unlike the days of the one that we were talking about a fev; minutes ago, was getting a large proportion of its revenues from a wider field of taxation, the taxes that we are talking about now would really be pretty small co mpared to what we would have to be considering. :\ow, ::-.1r. Chairman, I know that I was out of order in making those remarks and I appre ciate the fact that you didn't attempt to call me to order, becaus e you evidently saw that I was no further afield than my honourable friend from St.

John's was when he started out to talk about the Department of Health estimates and first of all dealt with the awful government that prec eded the one of my honourable friend from Wolseley and then the av.ful Prime ::-.linister - or First Minister that has succee ded to this position. Well , I have a.kind of fellow-feeling for the Honourable the First Minister because I know what he 's inherited. I can sympathize with him and I agree with him in the fact that Manitoba and Canada needs to show some restraint.

This is going to be one of the - and you 'll allow me just one little digression yet bec ause we don •t often have the Honourable Member for Wolseley here, Mr . Chairman - you 'll allow me to say while he is here that this v.ill be his key plank as he campaigns in the national field, that he'll be urging restraint and businesslike government and all this sor t of thing. The fact that he didn't give it when he was here in Manitoba won't cramp his style a bit, he'll be urging now that they should , and he was the one that acted as advisor to my honourable friend who now occupies the position of First Min ister.

Well now, with regard to the health servic es , I haven't a great deal to say on this matter. It's not one that I have ever considered that I have been able to make a special study of and I don't know what the answer is to the tremendously increasing costs .

I know this , that during the time that we were the government and one of the reasons that we had to increase our ex penditures so quickly, one of the reasons that we weren't allowed to remain frozen, was because of the fact that these social service prog rams were being talked about then and it was -- I know that my honourable friends from the old CCF party, now the :\ew Democratic Party , I know that they like to take credit for the fact that they have always been in the forefront of

I May 2, 1968 15 59 (MR. CAMPBELL cont'd ) ..... advocating these prog rams , but the fact is, if my recollec tion is correct, and my judgment of the matt er, that Manitoba got that hospital scheme as quickly as it did, more quickly than some of us would have wanted I admit beca use we weren't ready for it , was because we had one Conse rvative politician and one Liberal jockeying for political position with one another, and through their jo ckeying they pushed it on Canada sooner than Canada was ready for it.

If you want to name them , it was Premier Les Frost in Ontario and the then Minister of Kational Health in the Ottawa government , Paul Martin.

Each one of them figured it was good politics to keep promising hospitalization and each one was trying to out-j ockey the other, and we got hospitalization in Canada more quickly than the KDP or their precedessors the CC F were able to convinc e the pe ople that they should have it, and we in Manitoba faced the same position then with reg ard to hospitalization that this governm ent faced rec ently with re gard to medical insurance, because we had to make the decision at that time.

We didn't have to live with it very long, but we were the ones who did make the deci sion as to whether we' d go in or not, and we went in for the wholly and sole reason that we have been talking about here rec ently in connection with this one, we went in beca use the people of Manitoba were going to be taxed for hospitalization and not be rec eiving any benefits .

In my opinion, this is the kind of thing that these national prog rams almost reg ularly impose upon some provinces that are oftentimes not rea dy for them , but because of the financial implica tions that they had to consider on what are limited budgets , they must make the decision wheth er to go along or not. We decided to go along and we put a good bit of provincial money into that scheme right at the start. Kow I can't help but notice the figures that the Honourable the Minister gave us yes terday with reg ard to the trem endous increase in co st.

I am not able to turn back and quote from the statem ents that were made in those days but I' m quite confident that if some one could have - and I'm sure they're available some plac e - but if someone would dig up the statem ents that were made then, I'm quite confident that we were assured by the experts that the co sts would never rise very greatly from what they were at that time. The same type of thing that we're being assured about now with reg ard to medical insurance. I would predict that the same type of experience will occur with reg ard to medic al insuranc e as has with hospital insuranc e.

How ever, I suppose to some extent it is happening any-way, in line with costs generally. Now my small contribution to the situation that we fac e here in Manitoba would be that I ce rtainly agree with what my honourable friend from St. Boniface has said, that it appears to me that the area that is most, most poorly served now and the one that would contribute most greatly to the pres ent operation of the plan would be to increase the nursing home acc o=oda tions. My honourable friend mentions home care as well , which is a field that I am not so familiar with.

He mentions extended ca re, which is something I don't pret end to know much about. But this matter of nursing home care in my opinion is the greatest weakness in the hospital ser vice today and I know one of the main reas ons that it hasn't been proc eeded with more expeditiously is the fact that it's not covered by the hospitalization plan. And surely to goodness, surely it's time that it were .

We tried at the time that hospitalization was being to some extent fore ed upon us, back in 1958, we tried to get nursing home and TB care and some others included in the plan; if there was going to be a plan, they said at least include thes e. We weren't successful. That was a Liberal Governm ent in the early stages dealing with a Liberal Government. Later it was a Liberal Government dealing with the Diefenbaker Government dovm there.

A little later it was the Conse rvative Governm ent headed by my honourable friend, the Member for Wolseley, dealing with a Conservative Government down there; later it was the same governm ent here dealing \\ith a Liberal Government dov.n there, and over this whole piec e we don't ye t have those vital areas covered by the hospitalization plan, and I would think it 's patent to anyone who looks at it that this is not only an extension of the care facilities but is a money saver, and surely it's time that the various governments should get together.

And I have the feeling - I may be giving too much cred it to one honourable gentleman and too little to another - but I kind of have the feeling that my honourable and distinguished friend the Minister of Welfare is sort of out-manoeuvring my honourable and courageous friend the Minister of Health when it comes into this area where the lines are rather indefinitely drav.n between senior citizens ' housing and nursing homes .

I have the feeling that my honourable friend the Minister of Welfare is building, with considerable help by organizations , a considerable number and adding greatly to the se nior citizens' homes ,

whereas the area that in my opinion is most needed, the

1560 May 2, 1968 (MR. CAMPBELL cont'd) ••• nursing home ca re, does not seem to getthe same attention from my honourable friend the Minister of Health, Now my view is, and I'm not an expert on the sub je ct, my view is that is the area where the ne ed is greatest and that something should be done about it, I dislike to conclude my rem arks with a sort of a pers onal criticism , but in discussi ng the nursing home care I guess that I have to bring this in now beca use it 's been bothering me and some time I have to get it off my chest.

But talking about nursing home ca re, I have a ca se that I wish to mention where a lady of my acquainta nc e, who had been in the nursing home business in this city, applied rec ently for a lic enc e to again operate a home here and she was refused that permission, and during the course of her investigation she had enlisted the serv ices (she and her husban

d) of her local member who happens to be the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre - and she spea ks most highly of the assistance that he gave her.

But dur ing the course of the discuss ions this lady had supplied the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Ce ntre "ith some references that she had, among them one from myself which I had given to her when she had been going to British Columbia and had thought of operating a similar institu tion out there, and this lady has written to tell me that she was told by the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre that when this recommendation from me was used "ith the Department of Hea lth , that someone in the Departm ent of Health asked if this lady was related to me, and made the suggestion, and when this lady asked the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Ce ntre what that had to do with it , she says that he told her that the suggestion was made that it was because she was related to me that she would get a letter of rec ommendation from me.

Now ::\1r. Minister , I want to know who in the Department of Health said that about me. The lady wants to know who in the Departm ent of Health said it about her. It happens that we are not related but I don't see that it would have made any great difference whether we were or not, Probably the fact that she was related to me would have been a good reason for her not getting any consideration from the pres ent governm ent , but it happens that she wasn't , and I would like to know who in the department makes alle gations of that kind against innoc ent and unrelated people.

I think it 's not the kind of thing that departmental employees should be mak ing. This lady has asked me that her name be cleared in this respect . She wants it distinctly understood that she is not related to me. (I don't blame her a bit for wanting that to be made cle ar.) So if that having been made clear - and I'm quite willing to show my honourable friend or anyone else who "ishes to see it the corr espondence in this regard including a copy of the letter of rec ommendation that I gave her - if that will clear her nam e in any way, I hope that proper amends ca n be made to her.

On the other hand , I would like to know who made that suggestion about my rec ord in giving recommendations to people who approach me. MR , LE::\fLEL HARRIS (Logan) : Mr . Chairman , I picked up the paper here today, and after listening to the Honourable ::\Iinister of Health yest erday and seeing what was in the paper, it made my blood run cold for this reason: I speak for the people of fixed income here in Manitoba and them with low incomes , and to see this come in now and after all the effort that has been put in, that has been done.

From the Cons ervative Government of John Diefenbaker , when he got this committee there to bring in this Hall Report , I thought that was a marvellous thing at that time. I went down here on Broadway to listen to the man talk, and by gosh, I thought well , the re's something coming in for us now, There 's something that our people need here in Ca nada because I believe that if we have the proper health planning, this Ca nada of ours -- I don't speak of Manitoba; this is only part of Ca nada.

We are in here to administer this part of Manitoba but it belongs to all of Ca nada, and this plan embrac es all of Ca nadia ns . And when I see this thing coming in here of these additional premiums and have my people phone me up from my constituency of Logan and they say, "V.'hat are you doing in that House? v.'hy do you allow these things to go on like that ? Here am I. a man of 89 years of age and I have a daught er; she is 48 right now and I have to look after her like a child. What am I going to do to this girl ?

I've sc raped the bottom of the barrel ; I can't go no further ." Now these additional expenses are put on and there 's no way that we look forward to try and relieve these people, but to have all these expenses back on these people again. I heard the Member for St . John's speak of these various things . He put up a very good ca se. So did the Member for St .

Bonifac e, and that it comes to a ... on that side, and I don't agree to that because this plan is put out here and this plan says that in 19 66, the Minister of Health told Pa rliam ent that the cost to Fed eral Government to operate a Medicare Plan for a full year would be S340 million. Fo

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	28-2-62
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	28th 2nd hansardpdf 62.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	16aa96b4901e917e471c617d0fa9ac4ad34c665e

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