Manitoba Hansard — 1 December 1977 (Sitting 9A, 31st Legislature, 1st Session)

31-1-9a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 First Session - Thirty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Vol. xxv No. 9A 26 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker 2:30 p.m.Thursday, December 1, 1977 Printed by P. N. Crosbie - Queens Printer tor the Province of Manitoba

Time: 2:30 p.m. THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY of MANITOBA Thursday, December 1, 1977 OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (Birtle-Russell): Presenting Petitions ... Read ing and Receiving Petitions ... Presenting Reports by Standin g and Special Comm ittees .. . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Consumer Affairs. HON. EDWARD McGILL (Brandon West): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a copy of the report of the Man itoba Telephone System for the fiscal period end ing March 31st, 1977. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion ... Introduction of Bills .

ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. MR. EDWARD SCHREYER (Rossmere): Mr. Speaker, I realiz e that the First Minister took it as notice yesterday, but I would li ke to invite him, if he is in a position to today, to indicate whether information has more definitively been brought to the attention of the government with respect to the amounts and proportions of financing that are ava ilable to CCIL on the part of the cooperative groups jointly and the province of Saskatchewan. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able First Minister. HON. STERLING R. LYON (Charleswood): Mr.

Speaker, to the Honour able Leader of the Opposition, I have no further information. The Finance Minister is still away at the Energy Conference. We'll attempt to get that for him next week, early next week. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for lnks ter. MR. SIDNEY GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I have a que stion to directtotheminister towhom the Man itoba Development Corporation reports. I'm seeking precision to questions asked yesterday.

When the min ister indicated that the board of directors ag reed that there would be no further loans, even on a strict commercial basis, was he saying that the board agreed with that position or agreed to follow the directive of the provincial government in that respective? Does the board of directors ... MR. SPEAKER: Order, ple ase. May I remind the member that repetitious qu estions are not considered to be in the best interests of this Chamber. MR. GREEN: I agree entirely with your rulin g, Mr.

Speaker, and I bel ieve if you will examine the questions and answers yesterday, there is an ambigu ity as to whether the board ag reed with the pol icy or merely agreed to follo w the directive of the minister. It's important, Mr. Speaker, in that we know whether the board of directors recommende d or ag reed with the present policy of not advancing any co mmercial loans, or merely ag reed to accept the directive of the government, which woul d be quite understandable. But it's important that the people of Man itoba know which is the case. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Industry and Commer ce. HON.

ROBERT (BOB) BANMAN (La Verendrye): Mr. Speaker, it was stated clearly - our intent has been stated clearly througho ut the years - the intent to wind down the Man itoba Develo pment Corpora tion. That was agreed to by the board of directors to halt loans until a review is conduc ted. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for ln kster with a suppl ementary. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I belie ve that the hono urable member is either studious ly avoiding the question or doesn't understand me and I will repeat it.

Is the board of directors expressing its agreement with the pol icy or is it expressing its agreement to foll ow government policy? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able First Minister. 233

Thursday, December 1, 1977 MR. LYON: My honour able friend, the Member for ln kster- I'm speaking on ap ointoforder- my honour able friend, the Member for ln kster, is wel l versed in the rules of this Ho use.

He knows, and he ag rees, that when que stions are put that are repetitious, he, above all, un derstood and nodded agreement, Sir, with you when you mentioned that He knows very well the question which he is ag ain trying to put which I sug gest is really an abuse of the Question Period but the Speaker has been extremely wide in his latitude and so is the government, if I may say so, in attempting to answer the honour able member. The qu estion that he put was asked yesterday; he received an answer.

How many times does he need an answer to a question or is this just harrassment or abuse of the Question Period to suit his own political pu rposes? MR. GREEN: I wish to speak to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question that has now been put was put yesterday and was not answered. I am merely ask ing whether the honour able member misun derstood the que stion or doesn't wish to answer. He doesn't have to answer but I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is not an abuse of the .

T Question Period his is the point of order to determine whether what is being follo wed is government pol icy as recommended by the government which is clearly acceptabl e, and I have no objection to that - or whether what is being done is a pol icy recommended by the Man itoba Development Corpor ation. Is the min ister relying on the government pol icy or is he trying to sugge st that it's being done by the recommendation of the Man itoba Development Corpora tion? Now, Mr. Speaker, if that is not a legiti mate que stion in the Question Period, then there woul d be no legitima te questions.

My honour able friend knows that. He asked me whether I do it for pol itical pu rposes. Of course I do it for pol itical purp oses. Is the honour able member saying that he is not a pol itician? That he is not seeking support for his position? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order ple ase. Order pl ease. The Member for ln kster has made his point I bel ieve as far as the poin t of order. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, I would li ke to know from the Min ister of Industry and Comm erce whether it is a recommenda tion of the Boar d of Di rectors of the Man itoba Develo pment Corporation or a pol icy of the Man itoba Development Corporation thatthey not make loans at the present time, or whether they have ag reed to accept government polic y in this connection. I think that's a simple question, Mr. Speaker, which the honourable member could answer. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Government Ho use Leader. HON. WARNER H. JO RGENSON(Morris): Mr.

Speaker, that qu estion has been asked on a number of occasions and the honou rable member knows full well that he can pose a question but he has no right to insist upon an ans wer. Now he knows that, and if the min ister chooses not to answer, that's the end of it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Industry and Comm erce. MR. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, the MDC board of directors ag reed with the government pol icy, if that's what the member wants to know. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for ln kster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I would lik e to direct a question to the Min ister of Industry and Com merce.

Is the minister able to tell us to which provinces $1 bil lion dolla rs - to which Canad ian provinces - $1 billi on, which would have come to Man itoba if not for the estate tax, has gone, and in what way has this investment been made? I would li ke to know. A MEMBER: Ask the former min ister. MR. SPEAKER: Order ple ase. Order ple ase. The Honour able Member for Rupertsland. MR. HARVEY BOSTROM: Tha nkyou, Mr. Speaker. I have a question I bel ieve should be best directed to the leader, the First Min ister. In what way, Mr.

Speaker, will the governme nt's annou ncement of freezes and cutbacks affect those individu als who have le ft the emplo y of the province temporarily to take educational upupgr ading, whether it be on a formal leave of absence or in such a way that there was an informal agreement between that person and his department that that job would be held open for him or her on their comple tion of their course? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able First Minister. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, the question that is posed of course is incapab le of a generaliz ed answer because it depends on the par ticular arrangements made by each emplo yee who is on that kind of le ave or wha tever. As and when, if there is ever any general pol icy adopted in that respect we will certainly advise the Hous e, but I am not aware of any change in that at the present time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Rupertsland with a supple mentary. 234

Thursday, December 1, 1977 MR. BOSTROM: A supplemen tary, Mr. Speaker. If there is a formal ag reement between a particular department and an individual who is want ing now to return to his position as a result of his comple tion of the cou rse, will that job be made avai lable to him or will the freezes result in him not being able to return to emplo yment? MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, the question is hypothetical. MR. SPEAKER: Before we go any further, may I sug gest to the honour able members that I have allo wed the greatest of latitude in Question Period.

The use of the Qu estion Period is you rs, if you so desire that you continue with questions that fail to elic it answers that is your decision. If you would wish so I would be will ing to read to you

section 17 1 of Beauchesne which does li st in there what types of qu estions are of leg itimate use in the Chamber, however, I know that you all have ead that at some time or other, so I le ave it to you rselves to use the Question Period for your own benefit. The Hono urable Minister for Consumer Affairs. MR. McGILL: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Member for Fort Rouge in a series of questions concerning the use of aluminum wire in construction directed one to my department and inquir ed if there had been any instances reported of hazard relating to the use of such material.

My staff has advised me that there have been no instances brought to our attention of hazards resul ting from the use of aluminum wire. They also advise me that because of the chang ing price differential that there is a tendency now to revert to the use of copper wire. I am further advised that any hazards which might possibly become associa ted with the use of aluminum wire are most li kely to occur in respect to the installa tion, or the techniq ues used in its instal lin g.

In this sense, after consu lting with some of the government agencies, it bears out the report that has alr eady been given to you by my colleague, the Minister of Labour , who indi cated that instal lin g technique s were of critical concern in this area. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Rup ertsland with a supple mentary question. MR.

BOSTROM: In view of the fact that there have been comm itments made to the staff who have le ft on educational leave, comm itments that they wou ld have a job when they returned from the comple tion of their work, will the First Min ister confirm that these comm itments will be honour ed by his government? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Fort ROUGE . MR. LLOYD AXWORTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have actually two que stions for the Minister of Consumer Affairs, one arising out of his statement, by which I thank him for providing.

My question wou ld be first, if the concern is there about the install ation procedu res, would the min ister undertake to acquire the evidence that is presently being presented in the Un ited States jur isdictions concerning the hazards of the use of aluminum wire, or its installa tion, to determine whether in fact that it projects any possible hazards to safety in the province of Man itoba and whether that information should be app lie d and reviewed in that context? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Consumer Affairs. MR. McGILL: Mr.

Speaker, I am informed and my un derstanding is that there there are no court cases in Canada presently before the courts rela ting to any problems in respect to the use of aluminum wiring. I am also informed that there is only one such case now before the courts, or having been recently before the cou rts, in the Un ited States. Certainl y we are aware of the mem ber's concern and any devel opmen ts in respect to this subject, I would be very ple ased to convey to him. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Fort Rouge with a supp lement ary. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Speaker, it's to the same min ister.

It's another question on another topic, if I may be allo wed. It has to do with another court decision of the Su preme Court rel ated to the affirmation that the federal government has full responsibil ity for the regul ation of the cable systems. fhere are cables in each province, and I wou ld li ke to know whether this means that the province of Vlanitoba will now change the stated pol icy of the previous government, which asserted that the Vlanitoba Telep hone System had power of regul ation over non-tel ephone uses of the cable and �ould all ocate those uses as it saw fit.

Can we now expect a change in that poli cy as a consequence of his court decision? MR. McGILL: Mr. Speaker, I have read the ju dgment to which the honourable member refers, and I 1ccept his concern and his interest in how this will impin ge upon any previous pol icy decisions or mnounc ements that may have been made in respect to cablevi sion by the previous admini stration.

"his government has under consideration polic ies that have al ready been undertaken and whether >r not these will be changed is a matter forth is ad min istration to consider, and when these decisions 1ave been made, they will be reported in the proper form. 235 m a T M M c t a a T o h

Thursday, December 1, 1977 MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Fort Rouge with another suppl ementary. MR. AXWORTHY: A supple mentary question, Mr. Speaker. In lig htt of the review then that the min ister has indicated will take pla ce, would he indicate to the House whether the government will proclaim the legis lation that was passed last year concern ing the regu lation of the cable system by MTS or does it intend simplyhto allo w that leg isla tion to lapse, as was recommended byhmembers of both sides of this Hous e la st year? MR. McGILL: Mg.

Speaker, I bel ieve the Member for Fort Rouge is referring to Bill No. 57, which was not proclaime d, and that is a matter, Mg. Speaker, whpch thps govern ment is reviewing .hAgain, I mig hthsay that when any decisions are made, they will be annou nced tohthe Hou se. MR.hSf:>EAKER: . Orne moge question for thz Member for ForthGouge.

MG.hAXWOGTHY:6 Mg.hSp eaker, thank you for the final shothin the barrage.t I wou ld simpl yhask a supplz mentary of the min ister then, that in li ghthof thps reviewhof thz legpsl atpom that is being taken, would he indicate whether there is at all hany enforcement of the practices of the use of the cable byhMwnitobw Telephome System under the anticipatpon that that leg isla tion would be in effect.hPn other words, are theyhin any way presentlyhproy cribing the use of a cable byhprivate man ufacturers or uses in accordance withhthe terms of that legpslation at the present, and will theyhbe so instructed to cease and desist that at the present moment.

MR. McGILL: Mr. Speaker, I would lik e to consider that question, which has a nu mber of interesting ramifications, and I'd be ple ased to take that as notice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Heal th. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT HON. L.R. (BUD) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, this morn ing the Honour able the Leader of the Opposition asked me for a situation report on the strike situation at Misericordia Hospital. I gave him what information was avai lable at that time. I'd lik e to give him a current status report now, with his le ave. Mr.

Speaker, the Misericordia Hospital is resumin g normal opera tions at the present time, despite the fact that there's been no final resolu tion of the strike as yet. The union, demons trating considerable responsibili ty I might say, has been reporting for duty - its mem bership has been reporting for duty more or less on a normal basis. At the mome nt, the hospital is down to 13 0 patients, which is substantially below its capacity, but they've been visited by nurses who have been discharged to work in the commun ity, and those patients are now being returned to the hospital.

The hospital is resumin g normal opera tions. As far as I know, an offer from the hospital board is either in the hands of the union negotiating committee or in transit to the union negotia ting comm ittee. That's where the situation sits at the mome nt. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, that is welcome. Flowi ng from the honour able min ister's report, I should li ke to ask him if he meant to imply that the interim intake polic y of the hospital would now henceforth be changed to proceed back to normal accommodation and therefore increase intake. MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, it's my understand ing that that is what is happen ing, and that's the procedure that will be follo wed. There is, of course, some risk in that, but the hospital is proceeding on that basis anyway. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. MR. SCHREYER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is not a supple mentary, butto the Min ister of Public Works reporting for MPIC.

I should li ke to ask the min ister if he wou ld care to take this opportun ity to indicate directly to the House if a decision has been taken as yet with respect to proceeding, or not proceeding, with the increase in death and disabil ity benefits payable under Autopacto those in that circumstance or the survivors thereof. MR. SPEAKER: The Min ister of Public Works. HON. HARRY J. ENNS(Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I can indicate, through you to honour able members opposite, that no pol icy decisions affecting any changes in the present level of services at MPIC have been taken at this time. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Industry and Commer ce. 236

Thursday, December 1, 1977 MR. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Several days ago I took a que stion as notice from the Member for I nkster with regard to the public involvement in Fl yer. Today I would lik e to reportthatthe net investment to the people of Mani toba is a li ttle betterthan $1 4 mill ion. The los ses of that particular enterprise have been $1 6.2 mil lion so the member was qu ite correct in stating that there wasn't a $40 mill ion loss. There is an investment of public funds with a loss and current investment of a little over $30 milli on. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for ln kster. MR.

GREEN: Wel l, Mr. Speaker, given the fact thatthe total accumu la ted losses are $16 million and not $40 and that the Free Press and Tribune have lib elled the Conservative government by sugges ting a $24 milli on loss in one month of opera tion, would the min ister not inform the media that they are lib ellin g the Conservative ad ministration by suggesting that in one month you have lost $24 mill ion and that the opera tion has a total accumula ted loss of 16 and is making money this year. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honour able Member tor Brandon East. MR. LEONARD S. EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, through you, I would li ke to address a question to the Min ister of Industry and Comm erce and ask the min ister if he is prepared, at this time or within the next few days, to table a report or docu ment regard ing the estimated outflow of $1 billion, over five years , because of the succession duties? MR. SPEAKER: I w·ant to bring to the member's attention that that question, I bel ieve, has al ready been asked today. The Honour able Member for Brandon East have another que stion? MR. EVANS: Well, Mr.

Speaker, then, I would lik e to ask the Minister of Ind ustry and Comm erce another qu estion rel ated to this subject. If he's not prepar ed to provide us with a copy of the report, could he provide us with the basis of estimation of this figure, or with the methodology used in compiling the $1 bil lion estimate? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for St. George. MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I would li ke to ask the Min ister of Public Works whether he is intending to change the rating policie s of MPIC. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Min ister of Publi c Works. MR. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I belie ve it's just as wel l that the honour able members ought to know that it's not our intention to indicate to the honour able members opposite what we intend to do about this, or what we intend to do about that. We'll an nou nce it as government poli cy when we do something about it. MR. URUSKI: A supple mentary qu estion, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister accept the lon gstand ing insurance practice of rating automobile s on the basis of use and mil es driven? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member tor Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, I would li ke to ask a que stion, through you, Sir, of the Min ister of Industry and Comme rce. Does the Min ister really bel ieve the reliabil ity of the estimates in the so called report which shows the $1 bil lion outflow? I ask that qu estion, Mr. Speaker, by way of clarification, I ask that question very seriously because the Min ister of Fina nce, in introducing the bill last Frida y said, and I am quoting from Hansard , "Mr . Speaker, it is difficult to assess, in any formal way, the impact that this le gisla tion has hadin the paston driving investment capital out of Canada.

It is difficult to say because there are no direct ways by which a government can get and develop actual figur es." Based on this, I wou ld li ke to ask theMin ister of Ind ustry and Commer ce if he really bel ieves the reliabil ity of the estimates provided in that report? Does he really bel ieve them? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Ind ustry and Commer ce. MR. BAN MAN: Mr. Speaker, if the member will read Hansard, and read my statements, I said it was a guesstimate provided by the department, and the deg ree of which we have no accu rate way of assessing. However, Mr.

Speaker, this is an assessment that was done by the department and the degree of which can be argu ed. However, the point that I was trying to make - and the min ister knows very wel l - is that there was a migr ation of capital out of the province, the min ister knew of it, maybe he couldn't do any thing with his colle agues about it but he knew of it and we're going to rectify that problem. MR. EVANS: Well, Mr. Speaker, a very simple suppl ementary.

Is the Min ister of Industry and Comm erce now tel lin g us that he bel ieves every piece of paper that's put in front of him, by his staff, even though it might be Mickey Mouse research? -(I nterjection)- 237

Thursday, December 1, 1977 MR. SPEAKER: Order pl ease. Order ple ase. The Hon ourable Min ister of Industry and Commer ce. MR. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, I just throw a question back to the former min ister. Is he trying to tell me that the staff that he le ft me with is a bunch of Mickey Mouse researchers? I take exception to that. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Oppo sition. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, leaving Mickey Mice and Goofies aside, I would li ke to ask the Min ister of Industry and Com merce whether he is prepared to make a gue sstimate due - to use his own expression - as to whether he is willin g to vouch that there was no migration of capital out from Ma nitoba in the decade of the 19 60s? Sin ce you li ke to make gu esstimates, would you care to make one on that? MR. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should compare apple s with apples.

We are working under a different set of rules, there was no such thing as capital gains tax and there were no other provinces in Canada that were faced with the problems that we are now, having three neighbouring provinces not having this type of le gisla tion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opposition, but before I recognize him, I want to warn members that we are almo st appr oaching an argum entative stage here. The Question Period is for the purpose of sol iciting information. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I can easil y avo id being arg umentative by ask ing a question that is purely interrogative and tha t is, is the min ister in a position to confirm that there was no significant migration, out migr ation, of capital from Man itoba in the decade of the 19 60s? That is a matter of record. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for St. Vital. MR. D. JAMES WALDING: Mr. Speaker, I wou ld lik e to ask the Honour able Minister of Labour whether she has an answer for the question that she took as notice on Monday. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Labour. HON. NORMA PRICE(Assiniboia): Mr.

Speaker, I do have an answer, but I was at a meeting at noon and I forgot my gla sses and it is figures that I have to give you, and I can't read them without them, so if you would bear with me until tomorrow morn ing I will be gl ad to give them to you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for El mwood. MR. RUSSELL DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I would lik e to direct a qu estion tothe MinisterofContinu ing Education. I would li ke to know whether he could confirm that there is a staff freeze at Red River Commu nity Col lege in terms of (

a) no further addition s, and (

b) no repla cements of normal retirements. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Educa tion. HON. KEITH A. COSENS(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, adequate staffing is being provided at Red River Communi ty Colle ge. MR. DOERN: Wel l, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could rephrase my question and just ask him whether he could confirm or deny reports that people who are retiring at the coll ege are not, in fact, being replaced, and therefore, the col lege is functioning short of staff. MR. COSENS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware that that's taking pla ce, whether our staff retirements are being fill ed. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Transcona. MR. WILSON PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, my que stion is directed to the Min ister of Labour. In li ght of the fact that a worker was kil led in an industrial accident at the Border Chemical Plant in Transcona on I think November 7, 19 77, has the min ister establi shed an enquir y into that industrial death? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Labour. MRS. PRICE: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take it as notice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Rup ertsl and. 238

Thursday, December 1, 1977 MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Commerce in his capacity as Minister also responsible for tourism and recreation. Does the Minister recognize and will he respect the agreements that have been made with respect to educational leave in his department? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. LYON: On a point of order. That question has been asked and my honourable friend was given an answer.

If he has, as I think he has, the ability to understand the English language, an answer was given to him and if my honourable friend wishes then to look at Hansard tomorrow and reappraise himself, I made clear that each case would have to be dealt with on its own merits according to the arrangments made and there was no policy to announce in that regard at the present time. Now surely, Mr. Speaker, even my honourable friend, I think, can understand that. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. JAY COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I address a question to the Honourable Minister of Labour.

In answer to my colleague's question yesterday it was stated that an inquiry was under way to this week's mining fatality in Flin Flon. My s, question to the honourable minister then is where is that inquiry under way? mr. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MRS. PRICE: Mr. Speaker, the inquiry just proceeded as of yesterday and I don't have any answer at this early date. · MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill with a supplementary. MR. COWAN: Mr.

Speaker, then due to the fact that she has informed the House that the inquiry is under way, could she please also inform the House as to what format this inquiry is presently taking. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the day. The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to redirect my question to the Minister of Public Works in case he didn't understand me earlier. Does he accept the longstanding insurance principle of rating automobiles on the basis of use category and miles driven? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Public Works. MR. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I have trouble accepting any longstanding practises by whomever and whatever. I am looking at the responsibilities that my premier has given me in this portfolio with optimism, with an open mind and an objective mind prepared to consider all new and innovative arrangements that a new minister ought to bring in the discharge of his responsibilities in his office and that, Mr. Speaker, is precisely what I intend to do. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish the honourable minister now would answer my question. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rupertsland. MR. BOSTROM: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that he is an individual who is on educational leave and has completed his course, it was brought tohmyh_attention this morning h� form�rly had �n agreement with the Department of Tourism and Recreat1_0� and has be�n ref�sed in his bid_ to rega1_n his position in that department, will the honourable minister please investigate the policy of his department and whether or not they are following through on the commitments that have been made? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Tourism. MR. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll take that question as notice and get back to the member.

MR. SPEAKER: I may also remind members there are five minutes left. The Honourable Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a que�tion to the First Minister .. I unde�stan� t�at there is an energy ministers' conference now in_ proc�ss in Otta�a and I w�!"'der !f the First Minister .can advise the House whether his government 1s taking any particular pos1t1on with regard to the topic of 239

Thursday, December 1, 1977 conservation measures. I believe this is one of the items, according to the newspaper reports, to be discussed today in Ottawa. Has the new government in Manitoba taken any particular position today at this conference? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Minister of Finance who is responsible for energy matters I hope and expect will be back in the House tomorrow or Monday and my honourable friend can have fullhopportunity to ask him that question at that time. THRONE SPEECH DEBATE MR.

SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Pembina and the amendment moved by the Honourable Opposition Leader. This question is now open. The Honourable Member for Rupertsland. MR. BOSTROM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all. as is customary in any opening address at the beginning of a new session, I would like to offer my congratulations to you, Sir, on your appointment to the highest office which this House has the honour to bestow on any member.

I would also like to offer my congratulations to all those new members of the legislature who have been elected in this recent election - the new members on this side of the House and the many new members on the other side of the House, my congratulations to you on your election. Particular congratulations to those new members who moved and seconded the Speech From the Throne, Mr. Speaker.

I listened with interest to the new Member for Pembina who gave us a very good description of his constituency and, as other members have noted, it certainly seemed as though we were seeing a new and younger George Henderson in this House and I expect that we will have many interesting moments and discussions with the new Member for Pembina. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to him and his colleague for St.

Matthews who gave their impressions of what they had hoped and what their dreams were for their constituencies I couldn't help but feel somewhat sorry for them in the sense that I don't believe that their aspirations for the many new programs and projects that they are desiring for their constituencies will be achieved by this· government which they are a part of. Mr. Speaker, I have to offer my sympathy to the new members of the opposite side who seem to have been effectively muzzled by their First Minister.

In this session as we have seen up to date, I may be wrong in the days ahead, but the obvious impression that is left with members on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, is that these new members have been effectively muzzled since none of them have got up to speak in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to be proved wrong in the days that follow if we can see some of these new members rising in their places and offering their contribution to this House. But, Mr. Speaker, up to date I can only offer my sympathies to them and, more particularly, to their constituencies because, Mr.

Speaker, in this first session that they are elected to they have failed to represent their constituencies by getting up and making the problems and concerns of their constituents known. And, Mr. Speaker, I believe that each one of them ran as candidates in their constituencies with the promise that they would be effective members in this House. Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my particular thanks and appreciation to the voters of Rupertsland for returning me to represent them in this House with an increased percentage of the vote over the last election.

It is certainly gratifying to me and a very great honour to serve that constituency in this legislature. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the new government of Manitoba will certainly, over time, prove that they are not the best government for this province. They will not be a government of the people of this province. It's very obvious from the workings of just the last few days of the first opening actions of this government, Mr. Speaker, that they will be a party of the rich, a government of the rich and the powerful in this province. A MEMBER: Now, now, now, now, now. MR. BOSTROM: Mr.

Speaker, to be very blunt, I believe that this government will be a government for the greedy, not for the needy. Mr. Speaker, I believe that they will not deal effectively with the number one priority in Manitoba today, and that is jobs; jobs for the people of this province. Mr. Speaker, there is a very great crisis situation in Manitoba right at the present time with respect to the unemployment problem in this province and the recent actions of this new government, Mr. Speaker, have done nothing to alleviate that problem. In fact' Mr. Speaker, their actions have created greater problems and I predict, Mr.

Speaker, that their future actions will create even greater problems for the unemployment picture in this province. I would like to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, about the election campaign which we have just recently come through, six weeks ago. - (In terjection) - Yes, I would like to talk about it, Mr. Speaker. I think the Honourable Member for I nkster put it very well this morning in his analogy of ten people in one room and that in future elections with the kind of polarization that we have seen in this 240

Thursday, December 1, 1977 election it will be an easy task for us to unseat this group across the way. Mr. Speaker, it's not so much that the Conservative party won the election in Manitoba. I believe they possibly could have won with a straightforward honest campaign. But, Mr. Speaker, I believe they did not conduct, overall, an honest straightforward campaign in this province. Mr. Speaker, we saw the spectacle of the TV commercial which was presented to the people of Manitoba which shortly after it was presented and after the damage had been done, Mr.

Speaker, it had to be shamefacedly removed from the television. We saw the feeble excuses that the Conservative party, and with the cooperation I might add of the CTV, we saw the feeble excuses that were put up, that perhaps this TV commercial was all a big mistake. If we overlook that kind of thing, and we get down to the main issues which were put forward in the election campaign' we seethatthe Tories most often, and most fervently, misrepresented the problem of unemployment in this province as it relates to other provinces in Canada. Mr.

Speaker, in their statements publicly, and in their pamphlets tried to create the impression that Manitoba had the worst unemployment problem in this country, and the worst job creation record in Canada. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is not the fact; they chose to ignore the facts; they chose to misrepresent the facts, and Mr. Speaker, this is certainly not a very straightforward way of running an election campaign.

I believe that if the experience of the election campaign is an example of how they will operate as a government, Manitoba people better be prepared to become cynical of politics, and of government action in this province. I believe it will not take very long for that one person, that the Honourable Member for lnkster referred to this morning in his analogy, to switch over to this side. I believe it was significant for the New Democratic party in this province, Mr.

Speaker, that the Conservative party in their election campaign found it necessary to refer to the New Democratic party reforms, while they were in government, and say that they were good reforms; that they were adopting them; that they were going to continue them; that they would keep these things up and, in fact, some of the members who were campaigning in their individual constituencies were even promising to improve upon them. Mr. Speaker, we hear from the mover and seconder of the Speech from the Throne that they would like these programs improved in their constituencies. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I think that they are going to be very greatly disappointed, along with their constituents, if they are serious and sincere in their belief that this group here will improve the services of their constituency, especially with respect to the New Democratic party reforms that were brought in while we were in government. In every piece of literature, Mr. Speaker, they stressed that the voters had nothing to fear, nothing to fear if a Conservative government was re-elected, it would keep all of these things. Mr.

Speaker, if they were honest, and if they are going to continue these programs and adopt them and carry them on as part of their party policy, then the New Democratic party in this province has achieved a great con conversion, they have converted the Conservative p /, the. arty have made the Conservative party one of social reform. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that they have really accepted these programs and have adopted them. I believe that their actions, over the succeeding years, will prove that they were not straightforward in their promises to the electorate in Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, we saw the Conservative promises, during the election campaign, of tax cuts, and these tax cuts were widely hailed as being the answer to all problems in Manitoba. They were going to be the answer to inflation because it was going to put more money in people's pockets, it was going to be the answer to jobs because it would create a favourable business climate in this province and the businesses would flock here, and the ones that were here would expand their operations. Well, Mr.

Speaker, we've seen the results of their promises, they have come into this legislature and made announcements here that there would be tax cuts, and who have those tax cuts benefitted? I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the tax cuts that they have proposed and have announced are benefitting mostly the rich in this province. The removal of succession duty taxes benefit the rich . Clearly, those people who have the highest estates in this province, the greatest amount of estates, the top one percent of the income scale in Manitoba are benefitting from the removal of succession duties.

Ninety-nine percent, I would submit ninetynine point nine percent of my constituents, Mr. Speaker, will not benefit from the removal of this tax. If there's . percent of people in my constituency who will benefit from this tax I probably have yet to meet them. ? Mr. Speaker, I would also make a comment about the promise that the Conservatives made, which I believe was picked up by many people in the vain hope that they would follow through with their promise, and that is the one that there must be, and there will be jobs, and the Conservative government would be the one that would deliver on this promise.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what have we seen since this government has come into power? We've seen the plant closure of CCIL, we've seen the freezes and the cutbacks. Mr. Speaker, we've seen freezes and cutbacks in government programs, particularly those government programs that were designed to directly create jobs in the communities, the rural communities, the remote communities, in the cities, among the unemployed and the people on welfare who require jobs. Mr. Speaker, we saw the cutback at INCO.

Where is this great business climate, this wonderful business climate that was supposed to suddenly appear like we were moving the island of the Bahamas to Manitoba as soon as the Conservatives got elected? Shortly after they are elected I NCO decides to lay off 650 workers in Thompson. We do not see the Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs, who is the member for Thompson, being able to offer any ::oncrete suggestions to alleviate this problem in that constituency. I am sure, Mr.

Speaker, that the Jeople in that constituency , particularly those worried about their security, voted Conservative Jecause they believed the Conservative party would be the best one to hold the mining companies in lll anitoba. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have the spectacle of INCO and we will see what their policies will do 241 S c p b M

Thursday, December 1, 1977 in the future besides giving away resources for nothing. Mr. Speaker, we've seen the Conservative actions since the election. They suddenly discovered this new method of bookkeeping, this new invention of bookkeeping, which Mr. Speaker, it's very hard to accept that this new method was not politically motivated. The Conservative party in government is explaining this away as saying, well this method is used in other jurisdictions, this is the correct way of keeping the books, and so on. Why was it necessary to bring it in in the middle of a fiscal year? Mr.

Speaker, I submit that this was brought in to paint the previous government as black as possible. It is obvious that this is the type of action, by this government, which is very similar to the action of the newly elected government in British Columbia that tried to paint the previous administration as black as possible. Well, Mr.

Speaker, even their former leader of their party and premier of this province, I find it hard to believe, would agree with this method of bookkeeping because if you look back in the records, and refer to the budget addresses of their former premier, you will see that he was the one who brought in the method which the New Democratic party government was using in this province. In fact, he was the one who sold that method, so to speak, to the people of Manitoba. I believe it is a reasonable and just way of keeping the accounts of the· province of Manitoba.

I'll quote from the Budget Address of 19 61 by the former Leader of the Conservative Party, and I quote: " No man in reason should suggest that we should impose on our people, our farms and our industries, onerous and discouraging levels of taxation to pay today for the full capital costs of our economic and social development." Mr. Speaker, this is what this group is planning to do - to throw out that system of bookkeeping and to bring in the most severe fiscal conservatism that this province has ever seen. Mr.

Speaker, it was pointed out by a political columnist, in one of the local papers that this type of bookkeeping that this government is adopting is like the family adopting a system of bookkeeping that would suspend their payments, their expenditures, on food and clothing and the necessities of life, in order that they could buy their house all in one year. Instead of spreading their payments out over a number of years they would cut out all other expenditures and buy that house out of their current expenditures. Well, Mr.

Speaker, if they follow this method it's going to mean very serious consequences for the people of Manitoba, because if they are going to have any serious kind of capital improvements in this province, and they're going to pay those improvements out of current expenditures, and if they try to maintain any kind of balanced budget they are going to have to cut back very seriously, very severely, on the current expenditures in other areas in order to pay for those capital expenditures. Mr.

Speaker, I can only guess, as the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce seems to be very good at doing, I can only guess, but I believe that this will be at the expense of the needy in this province. They will cut back services to the needy people of this province in order to pay for any bspltlleep:jJlglditures that they plan. This is, believe, Mr.

Speaker, a very depressionist type of I'd like to take a further look at their election campaign promise that there must be and there will be jobs and that this will be brought out through the following of their Conservative philosophy of maintaining a complete faith in the private sector to provide these jobs and to achieve this by means of causing tax cuts, of reducing the taxes to the business community and that somehow these people will take this tax money and they will use it to create further jobs in the country. Mr. Speaker, this Conservative philosophy is not new, of course.

It's followed by a number of governments in Canada. A number of Conservatively ruled provinces in this country have this faith in the ability of the private sector to create all of the jobs and, as my colleague the Honourable Member for I nkster pointed out this morning, Mr. Speaker, this is basically a declaration of dependence - a declaration that the people must be dependent on the private sector to do everything for them, that they cannot do anything themselves as a group collectively. Mr. Speaker, I submit that in the short term following this policy as the present government is doing, nothing will happen.

No jobs will be created. And we see that happening right now. They are not creating one job, not one job, Mr. Speaker, with the present policies that they have enunciated in this House and announced since the election. At best, Mr. Speaker, the most optimistic prediction, if you take the long range view, which they appear to be taking, several months will necessarily have to pass before these tax measures even come into effect and when they do come into effect they expect that jobs will be created like magic. Right now, Mr. Speaker, we need jobs for the construction industry.

Their freeze on the construction activity through the Public Works announcements that they have made have aggravated the situation by reducing the number of jobs available by 14 00 in the construction industry alone. We need jobs for those displaced miners in northern Manitoba. We need jobs for the graduates of schools, colleges and universities in Manitoba. Many of them put their faith in this government by electing them as the government of this province.

The rural and remote areas of this province particularly suffer from very severe unemployment and many of the people that are unemployed in the remote and rural areas of this province do not show up in the statistics that are put out by the Canada Manpower and other agencies because they're simply not on the unemployment rolls. Mr. Speaker, many of these people do not show up on the statistics and even though statistically we may have 50,000 or more people unemployed in this province right now I would say that a conservative estimate would be that we probably have 70 or 80,000 people unemployed in this province.

The recently announced tax cuts that this government has brought out will do nothing to help 242

Thursday, December 1, 1977 these people. They pay little or no income tax now so they will not benefit directly from the tax cuts. They are not paying enough income tax or any income tax to benefit. They will have to wait months or years tor the hoped-tor jobs to be created by the private sector and I would say, Mr. Speaker, that this government is ignoring the most urgent priority of this province at the present time, that is job creation.

Let's just see what this marvelous philosophy that this government is following and is putting its complete dependence on, what this philosophy has done tor other provinces and other jurisdictions in Canada. If you look at the recent news releases by the Free Press and the Globe and Mail and other newspapers, Financial Post, Mr. Speaker, you can see what's happening across the country and the kind of philosophy that has been enunciated by the present government. "In Ontario unions demand work to ease plight of Canada's jobless. Just recently, Mr.

Speaker, the trade unionists staged a march " on the legislative building in Ontario. How long has Ontario had a Conservative government? Don't they have a good business climate? Isn't there a business climate that's conducive to the private sector there creating all the jobs that are necessary and answering all the unemployment problems in that province? What's happened to the business confidence in that province, Mr. Speaker?

Here we are hearing that the delegates to the Ontario Federation of Labour endorsing an economic statement calling on the federal and provincial governments to rearrange their economic priorities to provide more jobs. Mr. Speaker, what happened to their great business climate that is supposed to come about as a result of having a Conservative government? They also said, Mr. Speaker, that they believed those needed jobs will not be provided through the economic policies advocated by the Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties in Canada. And if you are looking at the two parties, Mr.

Speaker, the Liberal party and the Conservative party, you can take it or leave it. Tweedle-dum, tweed le-dee. Neither one has any effective policy for dealing with the problem of unemployment in this country or this province. Mr. Speaker, if you look at the B.C. situation - and here's a government and a party that this group over here tried to model themselves after in their election campaign and even in the way they approached and made their promises to the electorate in this province. Mr.

Speaker, their promises, their commitments to the electorate had a, you know, a great effect for them in both those situations - both in British Columbia and in Manitoba. They ran just about on the same platform. So they may call that group in British Columbia by a different name but actually they are the same group, Mr. Speaker. Let's see what's happening in B.C. after two years of having a Conservative philosophy in action. "B.C. government prods business to stop stalling andget going" is the headline. You read further into the article, Mr.

Speaker, and you see that in Vancouver the elimination of 90 jobs last week in MacMillan Bloedel's head office looks like another shock to one of the shakiest sectors of the British Columbia economy - the business psychology. The shakiest sector of the British Columbia economy, Mr. Speaker, is the business psychology. That's after two years of this group in government over there that promised to restore business confidence and get that economy moving. Mr. Speaker it states here, "The Bennett government was elected on a promise of getting the economy moving." They are coming up to a party convention, Mr.

Speaker, and the convention is at the midway point between elections; two years after the election and two years before the next one. And it says, "The anxious party members are due to begin asking the premier when the economic action will be noticeable enough to permit a winning election victory." Well, Mr. Speaker, here we have the Conservative philosophy in action in British Columbia and even the party members are starting to get a little shakey at the knees now because obviously this new philosophy in action is not working. And, Mr.

Speaker, if we look at those great bastions of Conservative thinking and those bastions of Conservative support, the ones that obviously supported this party over here to get them into government in this province with the promise that this group would get this economy going: " The MacMillan Bloedel job chop was one of two shocks last week from the forest industry." And, Mr. Speaker, one of their senior executives speaking to a meeting forecast substantial pulp mill shutdowns next year to reduce abnormally high inventories. So, Mr. Speaker, things don't look very good in B.C. and in tact, Mr.

Speaker, it said all these developments in B.C. are bound to underline "the prevailing mood of pessimism in B.C." The business community in B.C., Mr. Speaker, is not doing very well. It is not feeling very well asa result of the policies in action of the Conservative philosophy. Mr. Speaker, another one of their senior executives of one of these major corporations said, "I don't want to be a doom and gloomer but I think our economic prospects are dim." Well, Mr.

Speaker, here is a Conservative philosophy in action for two years and the economic prospects in that province are acknowledged by their own supporters to be dim. Mr. Speaker, this is not just the case with the Conservative philosophy in action in those two provinces. We have a Conservative government in Ottawa, too. It's called a Liberal government but it's really a Conservative government. It has exactly the same philosophy when it comes to job creation. Their answer to dealing with the problems of unemployment is to give corporate tax cuts. The most recent, Mr.

Speaker, was a $1 .2 billion tax cut to the corporations. The New Democratic members of parliament, Mr. Speaker, moved an amendment to that proposal in the House of Commons. They proposed by their amendment that that $1.2 billion be used for the purpose of putting the unemployed to work on socially useful projects. Well, Mr. Speaker, who opposed that project, that proposal? Both the Liberals in power and the opposition Conservatives in the House of Commons voted against that New Democratic party proposal. So they both are cut from the same 243

Thursday, December 1, 19 77 cloth, Mr. Speaker . They are cut from the same cloth. They both believe that all you have to do is lay your cards on the table with the major corporations , ask them to do the job for you of getting the economy going, and they will do it. Naturally the corporations are going to accept the donations from the federal and provincial governments; they'll take the donations, they'll accept them as largesse and do no more, Mr. Speaker. Then you have the headl ines, "PC Government Prods Business to Stop Stalling and Get Growing". I predict, Mr.

Speaker, that in two years in this province, after two years of this Conservative government you'll have headlines which may not even be as polite as this. It may be, "The Premier Kneels at the Feet of the Big Business in Manitoba and Begs Them to Get Growing. " - because, Mr. Speaker, I believe after two years of Progressive Conservative government in this province things are going to be so bad, Mr. Speaker ... A MEM BER: Things are going to be so good you'll even want to stay here. MR. BOSTROM: Things will be so bad, Mr.

Speaker, that maybe the two former Premiers of the Conservative party will move out of the province, instead of moving back here as they did under the New Democratic party government. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the New Democratic party does not object to business, and Mr. Speaker, we were greatly harassed by the Conservative party during the election with the idea that somehow the New Democratic party was chasing business out of this province. Well, Mr.

Speaker, small business in Manitoba never had it so good as they had it under the New Democratic party government, and the small businessmen in my constituency, Mr. Speaker - Mr. Speaker, I can speak from personal experience - the small business people in my constituency to a man never had it so good as they did under the eight years of New Democratic party government, and you know why?

Because the people had money in their pockets, people had money in their pockets, there was activity going on in the rural areas - our Stay-Option Program or our Job Creation programs were putting money into the pockets of the people, and when people have money in their pockets they are going to spend it, and if they spend it who benefits? It is the businessman that benefits, it is the businessman that responds to growing demands to increase his business. Mr.

Speaker, if people are not working, and you give tax breaks to the businesses, all they're going to do it say, "Thank you very much", and put the money away in their pockets and it will do nothing to stimulate the economy, nothing. MR. GEORGE MI NAKER (St. James): You said you weren't against business. MR. BOSTRO M: That, Mr. Speaker, is not going to assist in getting the economy going in this province.

What will assist businesses is if you can get effective demand working; if you can get effective demand so that the businesses will respond to that by increasing their production, increasing their staff to respond to the increased demand, if they are providing service, they will respond to increased demand. They are not going to respond to reduction in taxes. The few hundred dollars that they are going to save in their taxes are going to do nothing, nothing, to get the businesses of this province to expand and to create jobs. Mr.

Speaker, the most classic example of the failure of tax cuts to create jobs in Canada has got to be INCO. You can just look at what has happened with INCO over the last few years. Mr. Speaker, the International Nickel Company has done very well for itself in Canada. Over the past ten years its profits amounted to $1. 7 billion or a 14 percent return on its investments. Its profits for this year are estimated at over $10 0 million plus a tax concession of $10 million. In addition to all this largesse, INCO has deferred taxes of $378 million, which are in effect interest loans.

To put some icing on the cake, the federal government's Export Development Corporation operating on a Conservative philosophy has loaned INCO $70 million at lower than commercial rates for the purpose of opening up mines in Guatemala, Indonesia, and New Caledonia. ··.;: MR. JORGENSON: Which government has loaned them that money? MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Speaker, the federal government operating under the same philosophy as the Conservative government in this province. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable gentleman has five minutes. MR. BOSTROM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr.

Speaker, I submit and I said earlier that it's tweed le-dee or it's tweedle-dum, if you have a Liberal government or a Conservative government in Ottawa. In fact if anything I think the Conservative government is probably even a little bit worse, a little bit worse, and I will get into that. Mr. Speaker, with all these handouts you would think that INCO would appreciate the things that the Canadian taxpayers have done for them, and they would hire additional manpower in Canada, but what have they done? It has announced it will lay off 4,000 workers, 650 of them rig ht here in Manitoba, Mr.

Speaker, at the International Nickel Plant in Thompson. Mr. Speaker, Canadian taxpayers should know that they have made it possible for INCO to expand its operations abroad while 4,000 of its workers in this country have been laid off. All of this, Mr. Speaker, can be used to prove that this idea of priming the pump at the top in order that you would hope that some of it will trickle down tohhelp the people at the bottom is just a bunch 244

Thursday, December 1, 1977 of nonsense. These big corporations and the companies that get the tax cuts just take the money and they keep it, and particularly at this point in our economic problems when most of the capacity of these plants is being under-utilized. So, Mr. Speaker, if somebody is under-utilizing their capacity, whether it is in the service industry or in the manufacturing industry, why will they expand their operation if you give them a tax cut. It is not going to getthem to expand their operation.

The only way they wi 11 expand it is if there is effective demand out there so that they can sel I their service or sel I their product. Thi s idea of handing out tax cuts to under-utilized industries, Mr. Speaker, is just the greatest degree of foolishness that we have ever had. Mr. Speaker, this is what we have from this government in Manitoba today, is the foolishness of thinking that their idea of tax cuts to big business is going to create jobs in this province. It has been proven to fail in the past and it will fail in the future. Mr.

Speaker, we have seen the Conservative philosophy in action only very recently in Manitoba over the last five weeks. Well, already we have seen what is happening. Here, "The Government Public Works Freeze Adds To Construction Industry Woes; five percent increase in unemployment in the construction industry, 1, 400 people out of work lining up at the Unemployment Insurance desks in Winnipeg to collect federal unemployment insurance ." All of which adds to the fires of inflation, Mr. Speaker, because this money is being handed to people for doing nothing, for doing no productive work, and, Mr.

Speaker, it is not creating any sort of alleviation of the inflationary pressures in this country. We see the farm machinery co-operative in this province getting publ ic rejection by the Minister of Finance in this legislature, a public rejection. He couldn't just send them a polite little letter and tell them that, no, the provincial government doesn't want to assist you, and allow them to go off on their own and try to find more investment. He has to make it public by getting up in this House .and announcing it to the world that this industry is getting a slap in the face. Mr.

Speaker, the cutbacks and freezes on the Job Creation Program, which would have provided thousands of jobs in Manitoba, has been frozen by this government, and/or cut back, we are not sure which yet. It will certainly not assist in the unemployment problems, in fact, it will aggravate them. And, Mr. Speaker, what is the Honourable First Minister's reaction to all of this, his responses to inquiries by the press as to what could be done. "Let the Un employment Insurance do it, let the Unemployment Insurance pay these people that are out of work.

We have no respons ibility to try to create jobs for them as a government. Let UI C do it." That is the kind of calloused, uncaring attitude that this government has already displayed in only 35 days or whatever it is, of office in this province. Mr. Speaker, I am sure from his comments where he calls the Prime Minister of this country 'Trudeau and His Gang", I am sure that he will be advising his federal colleagues in his own party in the Federal Commons to be critical of the federal government for paying out too much in unemployment insurance, while he is advising them to pay it in this province.

The result, Mr. Speaker, of these freezes and cutbacks is going to mean a long, cold winter for the unemployed in this province, a long, cold winter, and the Minister of Public Works and all of his colleagues will sit back and do very little about it by the looks of it. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the future . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. BOSTROM: Five seconds, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Okay. MR. BOSTROM: I believe the future of this province looks gloomy with the depressionist policies and depressionist philosophy that this government is following. MR.

SPEAKER: On the proposed motion - the Honourable Member for St. James. MR. MI NAKER: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Emerson that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. ADJOURNED DEBATES - SECOND READING BILL NO. 2 -

AN ACT TO RATIFY AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PROVINCE OF MANITOBA UNDER THE ANTI-INFLATION ACT (CANADA) MR. SPEAKER: Bi ll No. 2 - the Honourable Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In rising to speak to this bill - first I want to make my position quite clear on the bill - quite unequivocally it is going to be non-support. I do not intend to vote for the bill, and I don't intend to take too mu ch time of the House telling you why I'm not. I will say 245

Thursday, December 1, 1977 this, Mr. Speaker, that le gisla tion that was introduced by the federal government two years ago, or around two years ago, was one that was oppo sed, and is still opp osed, by the Trade Unio n Movement of Canada. I've been a member of the Trade Un ion Movement myself for many more years than I care to remember. We, in the Trade Un ion Movement, do not oppose wage and price controls per say.

I mean , if we had their type of wage, price, profit control that would have been something, but what we had introduced and has been proven, was a wage control for the workers of the province of Man itoba and the Dom inion of Canada. But prices, especially those prices on food, rent-w e were forced into rent controls - and I certainl y don' t suppor t the concept that the federal government introduced - in their leg isla tion, that they wou ld look after the workers in the private sector, and that the provinces would have to look after the wo rkers in the public sector.

As far as I am concerned these people are all part of the work force. You know, I made my mind up qu ite some time ago that I was not going to support this leg isla tion, but the Hono urable Member for ln kster, in speak ing yesterday, convinced me more than ever that I should not support this type of legislation. I know the Honour able Member for ln kster says that he is going to support the leg isla tion. I know also that the Honour able Member for ln kster is opposed to controls of any kind, and he has said it on more than one occasion. Wha t has this caused for we in the trade union movement?

It has caused us wage negotiation costs in deal ing with our emplo yers who hide behind gui del ines of the Anti-I nflation Board. If we're not satisfied with that negotiation we go then to the Boar d itself and again costly legal fees. You know, we tal k about infla tion, wel l, the wage negotiations that have been carried out by trade unions all across this country, in the last few years, have been infla ted, infla ted by this type of legi slati on .

Not only have they had to negotiate with their employer, not only have they had to negotia te with theAnti ln fla tion Board, and if they don' t agree with that they have to negotiate with the Admin istrator. Speak ing of the Admin istrator, you know that's a beauty. That's li ke pla ying dice with a Mississippi gambler who has loa ded dice and pla ying on his boat. You know there have been cases where wage negotiations have been ag reed upon between management and labour , the Anti Infla tion Boar d has stepped in and rule d that the amount was not in keeping with the spirit of the Act.

The Uni ons then involved had the opportun ity to go to the Admin istrator. They may have got 10 percent or 11 or 12 percent from the Anti-I nflation Board or a lesser figure, but lo and behold, you go and you carry on this third negotiation with the ad min istrator, and by God, he cuts you down even more. As I said, it's li ke pla ying dice with a Mississippi gambler, on his boat, and his dice which are loaded in the first place. And, then you ask the working people of this country to support thattypeof leg isla tion.

You know when we talk in this House about the government here bringin g in leg isla tion to curtail, or even do away with, and I think that's it, that's really the main thrust of the le gis lation with Fami ly Law that has come across. Tha t's what they are going to do, they are going to kill it and bury it, and we tel l them that they have no manda te. That's bad enou gh, but the federal government, the Trudeau government went out in an election cam paign and campaig ned on a cam pai gn issue that they were not going to institute wage and price controls.

You know if anybody should have been impeached for lying to the people of Canada it should have been the Prime Min ister. He was the one who stated, at an election cam paign addres sing workers in Southern Ontario, that he woul d not institute wage and price controls. That was part and parcel of their campaig n. That is what you people may be doing with famil y law and mai ntenance, their's was even worse. You didn 't even mention it. You pla yed it cute, in what you're going to do to family law.

But Trudeau, in his wisdom, said "Ok, no, we are not going to institute wage and price controls", but by God, they were in power less than a year before they introduced it. As I said, Mr. Speaker, you could talk on this for 40 min utes, 40 hours and I still don't think we would be getting anywhere. As the honour able member for ln kster said - I bel ieve it was yesterday or was it the day before, in debating this - the federal government had the opportunity, it was their responsibil ity, it was their le gisla tion, why didn 't they introduce this leg islation to cover all workers?

We, when we run as a party in an election, we come out with an election campaign and our cam paign prom ises. We carry out those prom ises. We did in 19 69, and when we were finished as a government in 19 73 all the camp aign pl edges that we had made were carried out. I don't see why this House and myself in particular - I can't speak for other members in this Ho use and I don't in- tend to speak for other members of this Hous e but I don't see that I should be compel le d to pull Trudeau's chestnuts out of the fire.

As the honour able memb er for I nkster said, the method that we used was one that was used by the province of Ontario, it was one that we tried. It was appealed by civil service un ions here in Ma nitoba, appealed to the Su preme Court, and it was rule d ultra- vires by a cou nt of five to four. As the Honou rable Member for ln kster said this morn ing, in his contribution to the Throne Speech Debate, five to four, and that's appro xima tely the ratio of the government over there and the opposition over here.

One Su preme Court Ju stice - and the Hon ourable Min ister for ln kster bringin g it down to very simpl istic terms, to very simple numbers, ten people in one room - all right, you had nine people in that room in the Su preme Court who made a decision, five to four.

It cou ld have just as easily been the other way, and it was my understanding that the main thrust of the Prog ressive Conservative Party, who were ele cted as government here in the province of Man itoba on October 11, it was their main concern for bringin g us here for this first session - I'm not goin g to cal l it a special session -f orth is first session of the thirty-first legisla ture.

That's how close it was, and to condemn my leader, to say that he opted the easy way out, you can do what you lik e and I'm not sure how I would have voted if he had brought it in, I'm pretty sure I would still be voting that way, that I'm tel lin g you how I'm goin g to vote now. I'm not agai nst wage and price 246

Thursday, December 1, 1977 controls per se if they're fair, but we have not had fair wage and price controls. The controls have been on those who have to fight for their wage increase once a year, maybe it's a two-year contract, maybe a. three-y�ar contract. W�'re .not like the people in the stores, or in industry, or what, who,under this beautiful setup of leg1slat1on that the federal government introduced can increase theirprices. We have one "kick at the cat t" to increase our price, and we have to' live or die by thatagr�ement that we achieve at that time.

That's not to say that some of the wage settlements that went on in the past were not accepted, because some of them were. To blame the Trade Un ions al one I think, is simply not right. As I have said before, I'm not condemning my leader and the members of theTreasury. B�nch for adopt�n� .the method that they saw fit, it wasn't their piece of legislation. I think itwas a shirking of respons1b11ity on the part of the federal government.

It was their legi slation and if they were going to bring in legislation that was going to deal with wages, then they should have said "we cover all of the work-force, all in Canada". They have that power under the National Emergency Act, they did it in World War II, they had a Wartime Prices and Trade Board. The provinces didn't have to legitimize their

section of it during wartime. It worked, it worked fairly well, and as I said - I think it was last spring in the Throne Speech Debate - wage and price controls will work under two circl!mstances. They wi.11 work in times of dire emergency, national emergency, they will work in wartime when you convince people that they must do so. The federal government did not convince the people of Canada that wage and price control was the measure to bring in. There is one other way w.here it w!ll work it will work in a dictatorship. -(I nterjection)- Certainly, it worked very well in ad1ctat�xsh1p.

You can set prices of wages, prices of goods and commodities in a dictatorship. - (I nteqection)- Oh no. My friend wants to talk about socialists, he wants to talk about communists. There's a very vast difference. I'll be called to task by the Deputy Speaker if I stray from the spirit of what this bill is all about. This bill is deali g with ratification of the Anti- Inflation Board and that's what I am going to try to keep my remarks to, I don't want to get into trouble with the Speaker.

He's a fine gentleman and a good friend of mine and I want to keep on the good side of him because there may be a time when I may err and stray and I wanted to look back now and realize - the member for St. James, Mr. Speaker, is trying t·J lead me astray and I don't want to do that, so, I want to come back to the bill. As I said, Mr. Speaker, you know the honourable member for St. James has achieved his point, he's thrown me off track here. I'm glad that the honourable member apologizes. As I said before, I have given this considerable thought. I just can't support this type of legi slation.

I think that if the federal government wants this legislation, it's their legislation, it's their plan. I can't say it was their campaign platform because that certainly was not. It was just something that was dreamt up in the ... I guess in the cabinet room. I don't know if they even discussed it too much with their federal caucus. But anyway they got it through. So how on one hand the federal government can say to the provinc esof this country of ours asfar as wage and price control is concerned for those in the private sector, you have nothing to do with it. We will take over that group of people.

We will say that you have to abide by the rules and regulations of the Anti-inflation Board. We've got two sets of citizens in the work force. Those in the private sector ... And you know, what we should have done and said to the federal government, especially the federal Minister of Labour when we had wage disputes -w e had a wage dispute here at Griffin Steel - his was a pr:ivate sector; these people were under the Anti-Inflation Board; the federal Minister of Labour should have been down here trying to settle those di sputes.

Because if we're responsible for those people under provincial jurisdiction when they are totally within the confines and boundaries of this province, and that as far as wage and price control is concerned if we have no say-so whatsoever when it comes to anti-inflation legislati on, well then, do we have any say-so when it comes to diutes and wage stoppages? Oh no, no. He's not going to come and stick his nose in a hornet's nest like that. He's going to leave that with the provinces.

But when it comes to a thing that they have, they want to shoulder the blame and they have done so very well for those in the public sector and also for those in the private sector. Because those in the private sector have condemned us for going along with putting the people in the public sector under the Anti-Inflation Board even though they are themselves under that type of legislation. I don't think that the workers of Manitoba, be they in the private or the public sector, want to be sorted out and classified: you're a public employee, you're a private employee.

I think those that work for the public in Manitoba ... I don't look upon them as any different. They put their shoes on; they dress; they eat; they buy things the same as those in the private sector. And so if the legislation that the federal government introduced was good enough for the private sector and they could enforce that type of legislation which I disagree with with my whole heart ... I disagree with that type of legislation. If there was some way that we could make that type of mechanism work, if there was some way we could convey to the people of Canada that there was a dire emergency ...

But they didn't sell their program and they still haven't sold their program. Even the Chambers of Commerce are telling you; the Manufacturers Association are telling the federal government, "Get the hell out of this pla n." That's what they're telling them. They're telling them to get out of this plan, and at this late date. And you know I might even be persuaded to just ... No, I don't think I could, Mr. Speaker. MR. MINAKER: Oh, go ahead. MR. JENKINS: I don't think I even ...

If the First Minister got up and said as of January 1st we're going to opt out, but I think this government over on that side of the House is going to hang in there as long as the federal government is going to hang in there. 247

Thursday, December 1, 1977 A MEMBER: ... in on New Year's Eve. MR. JENKINS: That's my prediction. I mean I may disag ree with my leader and I think on that point I do have a serious disagreement with him, but it's an honest disag reement. That's more than what I can say for you people are sitting over there. There may be some of you that disag ree with this marital law but I haven't heard one of you get up and say anyth ing about it. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I'll come back to this piece of legislation. -(I nterjection)- Yes, we'll be home for Christmas and I'm gl ad that you will be home for Christmas.

I wish you a healthy and happy Christmas and the same for the New Year. But as I said, Mr. Speaker, and I'm not going to drag this out any lo nger. As far as I'm concerned there is no way that I can, in this present bill, and at this la te date in time, the Godfather is ju st going to go out. It's going to go out very shortly.

And to those people in the publi c service, especially those in the Liquor Control Comm ission who were in negotiation before the AIB came in - fortuna tely they got their settlement after the AIB and the two ro ll backs that they received at the hands of the ad min istrator and the AIB are such that I, Mr . Speaker, unfortunately, have to inform this House cannot suppor t this le gisla tion and I intend to vote ag ai nst it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Fort Rouge. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I intend to take about eighteen min utes to speak on this bill.

The reason is I have to be back to teach a cl ass by 4:30. Considering that the Honour able House Leader has not yet brought in any bill to identify the indemnity we are about to receive, some of us are still forced to put bread on the table even though the le gisla tive session is still in force.

So I would prefer to wax longer and more elo qu ent than some other members of the Hous e have on this particular item because while it is a bill that appear s to have a deg ree of alm ost automatic necessity to it, it does strike me certainly as a major reason for cal lin g this session in the first place, but also because I think it shou ld act as a point upon which we examin e some of the issues that are facing this province in relation to the econo mic strategy that should be emp loyed by a new government.

And so to whatever degree this, as the Member for ln kster described it this morning as the fragil e, del icate representative of that unspoken minority has to say, I would li ke to offer a few words. I wou Id begin first by disputing almo st everything that the Member for Logan had to offer because I don't think he was either dealing with fact but much more in the area of what I would call trade un ion fiction about the importance of the Anti-Inflation Board.

The unions of this cou ntry, along with many of the large corpora tions, I think have been in a serious act of myopia for the last two and a half years, that they have consistently and continually tried to portray their stands ag ai nst the Anti-Inflation Program as something that was defending the interests of the li ttle man. Wel l, Mr. Speaker, that of course is sheer hogwash. They were defendin g the interest of a high ly organ ized group of people with a great deal of power in society who simply were in a position to get more for themselves and let the rest take the hindmo st.

And to try to portray themselves as the defenders of the li ttle man I think really has been

an act of very serious misrepresentation. Because the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, if you talk to the unor gan ized people of Canada, if you talk to the li ttle people of Canada, whoever they may be. I happen to know that the trade unioni st describe them as li ttle. I presume they mean non-u nion.

They have been enthusia stically, fervently in suppor t of an anti-inflation program because they have seen it as the only possible way to protect themselves against the ravages of double digi t infla tion that hit this cou ntry in the beginnin g of 19 73 and was galloping by 19 75 into a ferocious pace where most people on low or moderate incomes withoutthe protection of organ ized un ions were suffering serious hard ships as a result. So I think for representatives who are close to the union movement to try to pretend that they were doing anything more than defending their self-interest is

an act of misrepresentation and we should treat it as such. We should not try to pretend that somehow the anti-i nflation program was something that was imposed by a small minority and was universally un popular. Tha t is simply not true because almo st every opin ion survey that has been done when they asked a cross-section of Canadians and a cross-section of Ma nitobans whether in fact they not onl y were in favour of the an ti-infla tion program but whether they would li ke to see it continue, they usually would respond in the overwhelming majority "Yes". And the reason is very clear, Mr.

Speaker, that the economic position of this country in relation to wages and salaries and productivity had in a period from the late 19 60s turned into one of the best records in the world to one of the worst. I simply would lik e to read into the record a report from the Science Cou ncil which is a relatively objective body and doesn't have any particula r partisan points to make, and I quo te from a report by the executive director J.J.

Shepherd on March 21 st, 19 77, a report issued by the Science Council which states that labour rates in Canada have moved from a level 20 percent lower in the Un ited States in 19 64 to six percent higher by the fourth qu arter of 19 75. Productivity is still substantiall y lower in the Un ited States, indeed perhaps the only remainin g edge we have is mar gin ally lower cost of energy, which has since been wiped out.

I would also ask you to bear in mind that this loss of competitive indus trial edge is generally expressed in relation to the Un ited States which is itself losing ground dramatically in the face of Japa nese and German compe tition. So on grounds alo ne, Mr. Speaker, the rate of salaries being paid in this country had really exceeded a point where were we were no longer able to sel I our goods. And that same report from the 248

Thursday, December 1, 1977 Science Council indicates the percentage of exports in the man ufacturing field of this country accounted for dropped dramatically from the 19 6# %] o 1970#Where at one time we prod uced and sold about 15 percent of the export field of man ufacturing, it went down to six or seven. And one of the primary reasons is we were simply pricing ourselves out of the market. Now that has a very serious impl ication at home. It is not only that we are un able to produce and sell our goods.

It also meant that the kinds of costs being encou ntered by the people in this C01Jntry were also equally high. The Member for Logan and others who have spoken against this conveniently forget that in the periods of 19 75-76 we were reaching stages of 14 , 15 , 18 percent inflation in some areas. The fact of the matter is it is now down around seven or eight percent. So to sugg est that it hasn't worked is sheer nonsense.

Now they can look at all kinds of other reasons, but the fact of the matter is that the terminal changing point was the imposition of the anti-i nfla tion program from a point where you had double digit inflation rating at 15 and 16 percent down to one where it is seven or eight percent. No one is totally happy with that but at least we're not suffering the same kind of ravages as we suffered before.

There is also a kind of fal la cy that both the Member for ln kster, as I read his remarks, and the Member for Logan are trying to enuncia te, and that is that it was a federal prog ram : Of course the federal government took its actions, but if they would read their history more carefully they would understand that those actions were taken in consu ltation with the provinces, and that the premier of this province and that the Min ister of Labou r for this province and the Min ister of Fina nce for this province were part of consu lt ative federal-pr ovincial ag reements where the provinces ag reed to go along with federal programs in those areas which were outside federal constitutional ju risdiction.

It was not a matter of declaring an emergency under the BNA Act. The federal government requested in the areas of public service and rent control, which were un der

Section 92 clearly within the purview of the province of Man itoba, they asked for the co-opera tion and they received it from this province. Wha t they did not receive, Mr. Speaker, was the kind of leg isla tive comm itment that should have been necessary and which, at that time, some mem bers may recall, our own party issued a statement saying that this is the wrong way to do it, that it should be a le gisla tive matter, not a matter of Order In-Council, and ag ain that tact is conven iently forgotten. I am sure, Mr.

Speaker, it would have received perhaps the un animous appr oval of the Ho use, but it wou ld not have received the un animous appr oval of the NOP caucus at the time. So the interest of the government of the day to go by Order-I n-Counci l was to their own pol itical convenience, not to the convenience of the people of the province of Mani toba, because un der the second requirement the best form would have been to establi sh leg isla tive commitment. And that, Mr.

Speaker, might have even been a better way of doing it, because then we might have been able to design, in some ways, our own mach inery, that if certain members of this Ho use were concerned about losing their independence or their ju risdiction, then we could have set up our own mon itoring agency, but this province didn 't want to do that. We could have establi shed our own rule s of the game, such as the province of Saskatchewan did.

Bu t to sugge st that somehow or other the province of Manitoba was seduced into a prog ram , and thatthey went into it sort of un knowing ly, thatthe federal government was und ertaking these naug hty actions, simply flies in the face of facts and of history. It wou ld be unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, if those facts were not corrected. MR. DOERN: What about price controls? MR.

AXWORTHY: Well, the tact of the matter is - the Member from El mwood sugg ests, "What about price controls?" Again if he would read the la test report from the Bank of Canada he would find out that in tact the profit mar gin s of most large compan ies, dur ing the period of the Anti-Inflation Board, have been sign ificantly reduced. And so to sug gest somehow, ag ain, this mythology that appears in the monthly jour nals of different trade un ions, ag ain it fl ies in the face of facts.

I know that certain members, I gu ess of all sides of the House, never want to get confused by the facts, but it is useful from time to time to consider them, because it may have a b�aring upon the rational ity with which you treat an issue. Certainl y to sort of put our heels in and now try to rewrite history really doesn't do us much service. Mr.

Speaker, the point of my standing is not to dwell on history as other members have, but perhaps more to consider what about the future, because it is ind icated now that there will be a decontrol period, that there will be a transition period where we will revert back to col lective barga ining arrangements, where the so-ca lle d ma rket will be al lowed to operate with less intervention than they previously experienced. Wel l, do you want to know something, Mr. Speaker, I am very worried about that.

I am very concerned that we are going to go "co ld tu rkey" into a decontrol period in this province, without any prepara tion, without any forethought, without any planning, so that all of a sudden, at some point in time, in the sprin g or summ er of 19 78, the residents of this province are going to wake up to find themselves with 20 or 30 percent increases in rent, to find themselves being faced with enor mous increases and demands for wages, in both the private and public sectors, and that there will have been no anticipation or any way from doing it.

At that point, the al arm bel ls will ring and the alarms will go out and people will be shaking their heads in despair and wringing their hands in indig nation saying, "My God, what are we going to do?" And the real reason why that wou ld be happ ening woul d be because so tar, certainl y in the previous government and in the short life otthe new government, I have seen absolutely no indication, no sign, no evidence, that anyone is doing any serious thinkin g about wha t to do when decontrols take pla ce. 249

Thursday, December 1, 1977 And as much as there is some deg ree of merit in the prog ram annou nced by the new government in terms of restrain t and cutting back budgets and everything else, that does not say any thing at all in any way, shape or form about what to do when controls come off. That is not an economic program that takes that into account. And yet, Mr.

Speaker, we know full wel l, we know what the statements of un ion leaders in the province are, they've said, in no uncertain terms, that they're going to go out and try to get back what they think they've lost over the past 2 % years. -(I nterjection)- Well, whoever they may be. I think the faculty associa tions have been as gui lty of those kinds of irresponsible statements as everyone else. And I've seen no economic Minister, Finance, First Min ister, Consumer Affairs, whomever, make any statement about the intentions of this govern ment in terms of where do we go next?

I think that as this buildin g has been turned into one mass seminar for study, review, assessment, re-examination and re-cal cula tion to the point where it probably rivals any un iversity campus to the degree of reflection that's tak ing pla ce, the fact of the matter seems to be some very obvious om issions in that review. And one of them certainl y is, what is the province intendin g to do? It's not without some help or suggestion along the way, Mr.

Speaker, I can recal l-a nd I do it with some risk - recounting, I don't know how many times from this side of the House to the previous government, about what is this province going to do with the recom mendations of the Woods Report. In 19 75, a lot of money was spent in this province to develop what I think was a very good report by Dean Woods of McGill Un iversity, on what shal l we do about labour relations in the publi c arena. A number of recommenda tions were made, some 30 or 40 recomme ndations, at tast cou nt, Mr. Speaker, I don't think any of them have been imple mented.

The previous government seemed to treat reading Dean Woods' report as simply interestingma terial, or book shelf adornm ents. They didn't treat it with a kind of seriousness, and yet Dean Woods, in that report, sugg ested that unle ss something very seriously was done to deal with the whole question of labour -ind ustrial relations in the public service, that we could expect increasing turbule nce and disruption in that area.

He sugge sted, for exam ple, the establi shment of forms of consult ative arrangements so that prod uctivity goals could be establi shed, so that budgets and resources could be all ocated, so at least the public service associations themselves would und erstand what kind of cost factors the government itself was facing, and could work that out over a period of time, to come to some mutual agreement. Well, that's no big radical step. That doesn't und ertake any major sort of extremism. It sounds to me li ke good common sense. It simply means that, -(I nterjection)- that's right, the bel l's about to ring.

It simply means, Mr. Speaker, that the requirement to und ertake some kind of program in the field of the public service is necessary, but it should begin now. I mean, those controls are going to come off in four or five months. The same thing can be said, Mr. Speaker, in other areas that are affected by control periods, rent control being a primary one. We're reviewing it, re-examinin g it, and yet we have none of the cond itions that would be necessary to allo w or enable one to take rent controls off, such as an increased supply of rental housing, or in any way being encou raged or induced.

So we're going to be in a situation where, at some point or other, this government - acco rding to its campaign promises, as indicated by the Min ister now responsible for housi ng -w ill take rent controls off at the same time that we face a vacancy rate of less than one percent in the City of Winnip eg. And nothing is being done, so far, as we can see, to change that situation.

So we're going to take rent controls off at a period when there is no market in housing, and somebody's going to say, "W ell, we're goin g to allo w the mar ket to take care of price all ocation." Wel l, how can you take care of it when there is no market? So agai n, one has to question very seriously how far, and in what ways, is the present government going to go. And that, Mr. Speaker, is really the point of my remarks. It's not simply to go through some castigation of past sins of omission on the part of the previous govern ment, they have al ready paid for those sins on October 1 1t h.

What I'm much more concerned about is what do we do next?

It would seem to me that in the vari ety of considera tions that we have heard announc ed from the government benches in the past week about al l the things that they're look ing at, it would seem to me they better start look ing at what is probably one of the most important economic issues, and that is, in what ways are they going to make some effort to introduce restraint in the public service, salar y claims, to what degree are they prepar ed to take actions that would enable us to main tain a reasonable rate of control in the rental fields, and to what deg ree are they prepared to work out - with their federal counterparts - vari ous steps that could be taken and new mechanisms that should be set up to main tain decontrol.

That, I think Mr. Speaker, is a primary question that people in this province are going to raise. And I think if we do n't have some answer s very soon, then ag ain, events will overtake us and we will be back in the old period where we've got galloping inflation ag ain, and a lot of so-ca lle d li ttle people a re goin g to suffer. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A. R. (Pete) ADAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise to take

part in the debate on Bill No. 2, and I want to say that I have had some concerns about the anti- infla tion proposal by the federal government since its inception. I, li ke my colle ag ue from Logan, am not opposed to controls, however, I have always felt that they should be equitable. If we are to have controls on the one hand, that everything should be controlled - profits and wages as wel l. So I have been opposed right from the begin ning and, in fact, a resolu tion was presented at one of our conventions, and I opposed it on the floor of the convention 250

Thursday, December 1, 1977 because I felt at that time that the proposal that was coming forth from Ottawa wasn't a fair one. I did discuss it with some of my colle agues. Before I begin thoug h, Mr. Speaker, to get into my comments, I would lik e to say that it's kind of disapp ointing to see so many of the members on the government bench being unable to participate in the debate. It's unfortunate to see that the people that they represent have been disenfranchised at this particular session .

However, we are the ones who will benefit by the decision that has beenmade by the leader of the Conservative Par ty to prevent any of his new members to gett up and speak in this House. I am sure many of their constituents wou ld be very, very pl eased to hear what they have to say, especial ly at the first session they attend. One of the things that concerned me, Mr.

Speaker, was that this was definitely a federal program, and here the province was asked to bring the public servants under the wage and price controls, and one of the things that concerned me, among many other things, was that in the event that we did bring the public servants under the gu idel ines, and that there would be a roll back, in event that the government of Ma nitoba had negotiated an agreement with public empl oyees and that there would be a roll back of wages. One of my concerns was, what happens if the workers do not accept this and they go on strike? MR. ENNS: They go on strike, Peter. MR.

ADAM: They go on strike. What happens if the workers at the Misericordia Hospital or the Health Science Centre go on strike? MR. ENNS: They go on strike,. MR. ADAM: They're dissatisfied with the roll back, what does the province do? Do we put them in jail? MR. ENNS: No, no. MR. ADAM: Do we put them in jail, do we say, you work or else you go to jail?

I sug gest to you, Sir, that to me this was revolting, because I said, "H ere is a federal program that will cover our public employees," and in event that we have a confrontation and that some of our empl oyees refuse to go back to work in the final analysis, there are people that are going to suffer in the hospitals, there may be people who will die and we will be responsibl e, we will have to leg isla te them back to work. Now, I don't mind doing that, I don't mind doing that if I bring in the law.

If I am responsible for bringing in that law I have no hesitation in le gisla ting people back to work if it's in the best interest of the people of this province, but I certainly do not li ke to do that. I would not want to leg islate people back to work if it's leg islation that is not provincial, but rather, federal. So that is one of the things that did concern me at the outset when decisions were being made as to whether the province should enter into the wage and price controls.

Another area that concerned me was that the way this was going to be set up was that in the event - well it's alw ays been that way I presume - when there are negotiations und erway between unions and the emplo yer, whether it be the province or whether it be a private emplo yer, the ag reements are always open to scrutiny. Everything is in the open. The press has got it,it's in the media and everybody has it. The same appl ies in regard to prices of grain and so on as far as the farmer is concerned.

When it comes to profits, if there were going to be any profits, then that had to be discussed behind cl osed doors. If some corporation li ke Kraft (in fact they were overpricing consumer

s) any negotiations with the Wage and Price Control Admin istrator would all be cond ucted behind cl osed doors

whereas the wages, the roll -backs, that was all open to the public. This to me was unfair. It wasn't proper. It was unjust. When negotiation agreements were made for a twelve percent increase and the Admin istrator roll ed back these increases to eight percent, it was all public. What about the profits? That was all hidden. We still don't know. We still don't know what was going on behind these closed doors.

I was a li ttle surprised at the Min ister of Public Works standing up very very hurt that we should sugg est that it wasn't necessary to have a short session and he got really upset about the whole thing and he said that we were responsible for this session. Well, I say that I'm not sure about that. I think that there could be other ways that this could be handled. I'm not sure and I want to tell the Minister of Public Works that I'm not sure whether we have to le gisla te this thing. -(I nterjection)- This is a federal matter.

They wanted the wage and price controls, not the province. -(I nterjection)- Well we tried. They accepted the proposal from the Cabi net that an Order-I n-Counci l was satisfactory. I'm not sure whether we have to accom moda te them now. Perhaps we should. Perhaps we should just maybe tell them, "W ell it's your baby, you accepted our proposal, it did n't work, so you come and fix it up".

I'm not sure whether we should have this piece of le gislation at all. -(I nterjection)- 1 sugge st, Sir, I bel ieve the Barber Report on prices, as far back, well in the time of the honour able member for Morris - I bel ieve it was back in 19 67, correct me if I'm wrong - I'm sur e he remembers the Barber Report on the price of imp lements that sugg ested that it wasn't wages that was causi ng the increase in the price of farm implements.

In the days when I was sel li ng tractors in 19 51 and into the Sixties, that a tractor that sold for five to six thousand dol lars back in 19 51 , there was less labour dol lars in that tractor than a ten thousand or fifteen thousand dollar tractor that sold in the late Sixties. There was less wages, less labour dol lars going into it- this is in the Barber Report - it is not my figures, I 251

Thursday, December 1, 1977 might not be perhaps zeroing in exactly on the figures, whether it was ten thousand or twelve thousand, but I say to you, gentlemen, that the Barber Report stated clearly that it was not labour's wages that was causing the increase in the price of imp lements. There were other factors involved. Now I know the member for Morris, the Min ister Without Portfoli o will say, "Well everything is lab our, it's all labour, the whole ten thousand dolla rs for a tractor is all labour " -t hat's what he will say. This is what the Barber Comm ission reported , I bel ieve, back in 19 67, so ... MR.

SPEAKER: Order ple ase. I would remind the memberthat he is talkin g about Bill No. 2 and ask him to stick to the subject matter. MR. ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I felt that in tal king about the wage and price guideli nes, that we are tal king about the cost of goods and wages and the reason why the wage gu ideli nes were brought in in the first pla ce was to try and control increase in prices. I am trying to relate that to the fact that the . . . MR. SPEAKER: May I remind the member that we are tal king about

an Act to ratify an agreement. The Ho nour able Member for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to talk about whether we should suppor t that bill or not and I am trying to demons trate that we shouldn' t, by saying that it should have never been introduced in the first pl ace and that we don't have to pass this bill at this session because accord ing to the Barber Report and some of the reports we have heard here today by the Member for Fort Rouge, that wages to lab our was not the cause of inflat ion.

I suggest to you, Sir, that the biggest contributors to inflation was the price of fuel which didn 't come under the wage gu idel ines, bank interest rates which didn't come un der the wage and price controls. I sugg est to you that these are two of the bigge st factors and the biggest causes for any inflation in our country. Another thing that I want to bring to your attention is that food did not come under the wage and price controls; however, food was used to cal cula te the increase in costs or decrease.

When the Member for Fort Rouge sugge sted that the double digit infla tion had come down some 16 to 14 to 8 percent, and while he wasn't too happy with that, it was better than it was. I sugge st to him that the reason that the inflation rates have come down is because in many cases the food prices have come down. Ho wever, this is small comfort to the consumer whenever they go shop ping every month - and I know that because we do shopping too -y ou see month after month the same

article up two or three cents. I remember we were buying peanut butter a couple of years ago for 67 cents for a li ttle jar; today it is about $1 .08. It has double d in price. It has dou bled in price and everything is the same way. It doesn't matter whether you buy an autom obile, a truck, it doesn't matter what you buy, a suit of clothes. Everything has gone up but the wages are held down. So it's small comfort to hear the federal government applaud itself for bringin g down inflation from 14 percent to 8 percent. You ask any consumer and they won't bel ieve you. So, Mr.

Speaker, I am sorry that you feel that I have taken a bit too much latitude. I thought that we were tal king about the cau ses of infla tion. I have li stened to other speakers and I do not bel ieve that I can suppor t this leg isla tion. Thank you very much. MR. TOM BARROW (Flin Flon): I beg to move, seconded by the Member for Transcona, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Ho use Leader. MR. JORGENSON: I wonder if you would cal l second read ing of Bill No. 8. GOVERNMENT BILLS - SECOND READING BILL(NO. 8) -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

SUMMARY CON VICTIONS ACT MR. SPEAKER: On Bill (No. 8),

An Act to amend The Su mmary Convictions Act, the Hono urable Attorney-General. HON. GERALD W. J. MERCIER (Osborne) presented Bill (No. 8) -

An Act to amend The Sum mary Convictions Act, for second read ing. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Attorney-General. 252

Thursday, December 1, 1977 MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, Sir, this bill provides that

Section 468 of the Criminal Code does not apply to provincial offences.

Section 468 of the code requires that the evidence of witnesses betaken by a court reporter or otherwise recorded. I am advi sed that the practice in our traffic courts for the past few years has been not to provide a court reporter. A transcript of the evidence taken on a trial in traffic court is requested so infrequently that it was deemed that the cost of providing a court reporter was considered and is still considered to be prohibitive. This amendment is necessary because of a judgm ent del ivered very recently within the past few weeks by His Ho nour Chief Coun ty Cour t Ju dge A. R. Philp in the case of Ga ba versus the Queen in which Ju dge Philp held that

Section 468 of the Crimi nal Code does apply to provincial offences in that

Section 9 of The Summ ary Conviction Act states that

Part 24 of the Crimi nal Code of Canada ap pl ies to provincial offences and

Part 24 of the code provides that the evidence of witnesses shall be taken in accordanc e with the provisions of

Section 468 of the code. In any event, the jud gment of Chief Cou nty Cour t Ju dge Philp rel ated to an appeal against a conviction and sentence under The Highway Traffic Act. Ju dge Philp held that since the Crown was una ble to produce a transcript of the proceedings before the Provincial Ju dges Court, the Crown had faile d to meetthe requir ement under

Section 468 of the Crimin al Code and al lowed the appeal and qu ashed the conviction. I would point out, Sir, that of the hundr eds of contested traffic cases heard each month, very few are appealed but this decision will require that the Attorney-General's department provide court reporters in every traffic court in the province. This amendment will merely return the practice to what it had been prior to His Honour Ju dge Philp 's jud gm ent last Friday.

When an appeal on conviction in traffic court is appealed, the Cou nty Court would requir e a new trial before another Provincial Cour t Ju dge with a court reporter in attendance. This provincial Court Ju dge with a Court Reporter in attendanc e, and this arrangement apparently hasn't worked out very well, und er the previous government, un til a judgment within the past few weeks. I should also point out, Sir, that arrangements are made from time to time, for a Court Reporter to be in attendanc e upon request of either Crown or Defence at anytime.

In any case, in Traffic Cour t or By-Law Court, where it appears that a transcript of the evidence is lik ely to be requir ed, special arrangement s are made for a Court Reporter. I stress, Sir, that this amend ment will not change the procedure that has been follo wed in Traffic Courts for some years, but merely permit the practice of not having a Cour t Reporter in attendance on all cases to continue. I don't think, Sir, that it is a controversial matter in any way, shape or form. MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? MR. SPEAKER:3The Ho nour able Member for St. Johns. MR.

CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the honour able min ister would care to elabo rate on the reason for making this leg isla tion retroactive to day one, while he himself has spoken of retroactive leg islation as being opp ressive, whether he is not prepar ed to consider that leg isla tion not to affect future rights of people and not disabuse them or deny them rights which apparently a judge has found that they've had until now. MR.

MERCIER: Sir, I am prepared to consider that further, but the concern is that there could very well be a numb er of appeals within very short time rela ted to very recent Traffic Court convictions in which .court reporters have not been in attendance. Perhaps there could be, if it's a specific date referred to that might be something li ke November lst, and I am prepared to consider that. matter further with officials of the department and advise the Honour able Member for St. Jo hns, 1f he so wishes. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, just a supplem entary to that.

Then what the Ho nour able the Attorney-General is implyi ng, I bel ieve, is that he would still want the law to be retroactive to such a date that would deny anybody the right to appeal an existing conviction until the date when thetime has elapsed. In other words, it will still be retroactive accord ing to the Attorney-General. Is that correct? MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasur e of the House to adopt the motion? MR. BARROW: I beg to move, seconded by the Member for Transcona, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: We'll move on to Bill No. 3.

An Act to amend the Gift Tax Act. The Honour able Member for Brandon East. BILL NO. 3 - GIFT TAX AND SUCCESSION DUTY ACTS (MANITOBA) MR. EVANS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would lik e to contribute to the debate' in as short a time as I possibl y can, on this very intriguin g topic of theGiftTax and Succession Duty Acts and the 253

Thursday, December 1, 19 77 impact that this type of tax, this type of duty has upon the economic health, the economic clima te of the province of Man itoba.

I have been perusing the Hansar d of Friday November 25th in which the introductory remarks are provided by the Min ister of Finance, the explanation for the particular action that the government propos es to take at this time, and I must say that upon very careful read ing of very short introductory remarks, I find the argumen ts to be rather vague and indeed the arguments presented in favour of this particular bill, Bill No. 3, the ar gum ents to be rather questionable. As I read very carefull y, the honour able minister's remarks, he at least two major reasons.

The first relates to the fact that there may be a movement of investment capital out of the province, and of course, Mr. Speaker, as you are aware , in the la st day or two there has been some questioning and some debate in this Hous e as to exactly what has been the impact of these particular succession duties that we have experienced in the last few years in Ma nitoba. The min ister stated, on page 29 and through to page 30, "It does thoug h, Mr. Speaker," tal king about the Succession Duty Act, "It does though, Mr.

Speaker, have a substantial effect in helping to create the mood" - this would be the removal of the Act - "It does help in creating, in hel ping to create the mood or the environment in Ma nitoba which we want to create to try and spu rt he private sector into a more active participation in this province and its growth in the future." So I suppose there is a psychological objective here that is being stated, a particular mood of confidence that the min ister would li ke to ach ieve in the private sector, and I supp ose that could be li sted as one particular objective in this particular mood. But I question, Mr.

Speaker, to what extent thatthe right psychology will be created by this particular move because we are tal king about a very smal l nu mber of people, two percent or so of those famili es or estates that have been affected, of all the famil ies or all the estates that have been processed in a particular year, accord ing to the budget statistics, only two percent or one out of fifty leave estates which were, or which have been subject to any succession duties, and in fact, accord ing to the 1977 budget add ress, in fact, and I am qu oting from page 16 of the budget add ress of this year, "In fact since 1972 the number of taxable estates has averaged well un der two hundr ed a year in Man itoba"' and I think last year it was something in the order of 14 8 estates.

Going on in my quotation on page 16 of the budget add ress, "The statistics als o show that by far the lar gest proportion of revenue derived from the lar gest estates, the vast majority of small estates are exempt or generate a min imal tax li abil ity." So I am wondering just what group, what sign ificant group of people we are talking about here, what sign ificant group in our society that we are affecting when we talk about trying to create the proper psychology. The other point the minister made is that, in saying and arguin g, that there could be a driving of investment capital out of Man itoba.

The Min ister goes on in his remarks page 30 of Hansard, Friday November 25th to state.Mr. Speaker, "It is difficult to assess in any formal way the impa ct this leg isla tion has had in the past on driving investment capital out of Man itoba.

It is difficult to say because there are no direct ways by which a government can get and devel op actual figures." And I must give full marks, full credit tohthe Min ister of Finance for being very candid about this particula r matter, because it is very true, that it is al most impossible at the present time to calc ula te or to give any type of reli able estimate of any out flow of capital. A MEMBER: The Min ister of Comm erce can. MR. EVANS: At the very best you can come up with a gue ss but I am afraid that the reli abil ity of that gu ess is so weak that you can drive a ....

Wel l, not only on the kind of researchers but it depends on the kind, Mr. Speaker, it depends upon the kind of data that the researchers have to work with, and I think we have some very fine people in the Department of Industry and Commer ce, but when they are asked to do the impossible, when they are asked to do the impossibl e, because there are - (Interjection)- wel l, some of them have been here a long time too, more than eight years I must say. In fact, most of the senior people have been here many years. They are very fine people. That is why they stayed.

But this particular, as I said, this particula r estimate has got to be of the Mickey Mouse variety, because there isn't the basis, the statistical basis with which to obtain any reli able estimate and I, therefore, give full marks, full credit to the Min ister of Finance for stating that quite clearly and can didly in introducing this par ticular le gisla tion.

The other point that he makes in his remarks, the minister mak es, is the arg ument of Man itoba rema ining competitive, and ag ain I am quoting from Ha nsard page 30 of Friday November 25th, "The principal reason, as I said, is that Man itoba must remain competitive in the total tax picture. This has been a sel f-defeating tax", and then he goes on to tal k about the other provinces and so on, and that it is very necessary for Man itoba to be able to compete with the other provinces. Mr.

Speaker, with all due respect, I am afraid Man itoba will al ways have a very difficult time in competing with our sister prai rie province of Al berta in particular simp ly because of the fact that that province to the west of us has been ble st with bountiful natural resources, bountiful resources of petroleum for which, incidentally , Man itobans are paying more and more for each year as the years go by and in affect we are being bled to death, al most, and have been ble d to death al most in the past year or two, since the federal government in cooperation particula rly with the oil produc ing provinces, Al berta in particular, have al lo wed the price of petroleum and natural gas to rise exorbitantly, and I certainl y hope that the Min ister of Financ e, who is in Ottawa today, I und erstand, has more succes than I had in persua ding the federal govern ment to cease and desist its zombie-lik e march tor wct•d in al lowing the price of oil and gas to go up.

B;.it the fact is, that Ma nitobans are paying tens upor. �ens of mil lions of dol lars each year, more, to the pr.Jvince of Al berta because of the rise in 254

Thursday, December 1, 1977 petroleum. Even though it cost, li ttle if any additional cost to take that oil or natural gas out of the ground. I can grant them any infla tionary costs of produc tion, fine, we are prepar ed to pay for that, but what we are paying for is world prices, or near world prices, inflationa ry prices for old oil and o

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-1-9a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 1st hansardpdf 9a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2bfef7c22213211b5886c8c596e5f0fb20e8844d

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