Manitoba Hansard — 5 May 1975 (Sitting 72, 30th Legislature, 2nd Session)

30-2-72

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable Peter Fox Vol. XXll No. 72 2:30 p.m., Monday, May 5th, 1975. Second Session, 30th Legislature. Printed by R. S. Evans - Queen's Printer for Province of Manitoba

Electoral Division Name Political Address Postal Affiliation Code ARTHUR J. Douglas Watt P.C. Reston, Man. ROM 1XO ASSINIBOIA Steve Patrick Lib. 10 Red Roblin Pl., Winnipeg R3J 3La BIRTLE·RUSSELL Harry E. Graham P.C. Binscarth, Man. ROJ OGO BRANDON EAST Hon. Leonard S. Evans NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova BRANDON WEST Edward McGill P.C. 222a Princess Ave., Brandon R7B OH9 BURROWS Hon. Ben Hanuschak NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova CHAR LESWOOD Arthur Moug P.C. 29 Willow Ridge Rd., Winnipeg R3R 1L5 CHURCHILL Les Osland NOP 66 Radisson Blvd., Churchill ROB OEO CRESCENTWOOD Vacant DAUPHIN Hon.

Peter Burtniak NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova ELMWOOD Hon. Russell J. Doern NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova EMERSON Steve Derewianchuk NOP Vita, Manitoba ROA 2KO FLIN FLON Thomas Barrow NOP Cranberry Portage, Man. ROB OHO FORT GARRY L.R. (Bud) Sherman P.C. a6 Niagara St., Winnipeg R3N OT9 FORT ROUGE Lloyd Axworthy Lib. 132 Osborne St. S .• Winnipeg R3L 1Y5 GIMLI John C. Gottfried NOP 44 - 3rd Ave., Gimli, Man. ROC 1BO GLADSTONE James R. Ferguson P.C. Gladstone, Man. ROJ OTO INKSTER Hon. Sidney Green, 0.C. NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova KILDONAN Hon.

Peter Fox NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova LAC DU BONNET Hon. Sam Uskiw NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C.OVa LAKESIDE Harry J. Enns P.C. Woodlands, Man. ROC 3HO LA VERENDRYE Bob Banman P.C. Steinbach, Man. ROA 2AO LOGAN William Jenkins NOP 1294 Erin St., Winni peg R3E 2S6 MINNEDOSA David Blake P.C. Minnedosa, Man. ROJ 1EO MORRIS Warner H. Jorgenson P.C. Morris, Man. ROG 1KO OSBORNE Hon. Ian Turnbull NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova PEMBINA George Henderson P.C. Manitou, Man. ROG 1GO POINT DOUGLAS Donald Malinowski NOP 23 Coralberry Ave., Winnipeg R2V 2P2 PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE Gordon E.

Johnston Li b. 26-120 - 6th St., S.E ., Portage la Prairie, Man. R1N 1Ea RADISSON Harry Shafransky NOP 4 Maplehurst Rd., Winnipeg R2J 1Wa RHINELAND Arnold Brown P.C. Winkler, Man. ROG 2XO RIEL Donald W. Craik P.C. 3 River Lane, Winnipeg R2M 3Ya RIVER HEIGHTS Sidney Spivak, O.C. P.C. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova ROBLIN J. Wally McKenzie P.C. Inglis, Man. ROJ OXO ROCK LAKE Henry J. Einarson P.C. Glenboro, Man. ROK OXO ROSSMERE Hon. Ed. Schreyer NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3c ova RUPERTSLAND Hon. Harvey Bostrom NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova ST. BONIFACE Hon. L.L.

Desjardins NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova ST. GEORGE Hon. Bill Uruski NOP 10th fir., 330 Portage Ave., Wpg. R3C OC4 ST. JAMES George Minaker P.C. 31a Ronald St., Winnipeg R3J 3.Ja ST. JOHNS Saul Cherniack, Q.C. NOP 333 St. Johns Ave., Winnipeg R2W 1H2 ST. MATIHEWS Wally Johannson NOP 41a Home St., Winnipeg R3G 1X4 ST. VITAL D.J. Walding NOP 26 Hemlock Place, Winnipeg R2H 1L7 STE. ROSE A.R. (Pete) Adam NOP Ste. Rose du Lac, Man. ROL 1SO SELKIRK Hon. Howard Pawley NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova SEVEN OAKS Hon. Saul A.

Miller NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova SOUR IS KILLARNEY Earl M cKellar P.C. Nesbitt, Man. ROK 1PO SPRINGFIELD Hon. Rene E. Toupin NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova STURGEON CREEK J. Frank Johnston P.C. 310 Overdale St., Winnipeg R3J 2G3 SWAN RIVER James H. B ii ton P.C. Swan River, Man. ROL 1ZO THE PAS Hon. Ron McBryde NOP Legislative Bldg .• Winnipeg R3C ova THOMPSON Ken Dillen NOP 84 Pintail Cres., Thompson RaN 1A6 TRANSCONA Hon. Russell Paulley NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova VIRDEN Morris McGregor P.C. Kenton, Man. ROM OZO WELLINGTON Philip M.

Petursson NOP 681 Banning St., Winnipeg R3G 2G3 WINNIPEG CENTRE Hon. J.R. (Bud) Boyce NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova WOLSELEY Vacant

Opening Prayer . THE LE GISLATIVE AS SE MBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Monday, May 5, 1975 INTRODUC TION OF GUE STS 20 53 MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed, I should like to direct the attention of the honourable members to the gallery, where we have 17 students of Grade 5 standing of the St. Norbert El ementary School . These students are under the direction of Mr. Bo se. This school is located in the constitu ency of the Honourable Member for Fort Garry . On behalf of all the honourable members, I welcome you here this aftccrnoon.

Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Repor ts by Standing and Special Co mmittees; Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Repo rts . The Honourable Minister of Mines. TABLING OF RE PORTS HON. SIDNEY GREEN , Q. C. (Minister of Mines, Resou rces & En viro nmental Manage ment) (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has asked me to table the report of the Ombudsman. He's also asked me to make available for distribution the An nual Wage and Salary Survey for 1974, and I have a Flood Forecast to distribute. MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. The Hono urable Minister of Co -operative s.

NON POL ITICAL STATE MENT - FORE ST WEEK HONo HARVEY BOSTROM (Minister of Co-o perative Development) (R upertsland): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to make a non-po litical statement. (Agreed) The three seedlings that are on the front of each member's desk are presented with the compliments of the Manitoba Forestry Asso ciation to mark the beginning of National For est Week 1975. As a featu re of National Fore st Week 1974, the Honourable Minister of Mines agreed to collect cones from an evergreen tree, being symbolic of the fact our for ests are renewable thro ugh the annual seed time and harvest.

National For est Week is publicized acro ss Canada to remind all citizens of their dependence on our fore sts, and their personal responsibility to pretect this essential natural resource. It's being observed this year from May 4th to May lOth. A large Co lorado Spruce, just outsi de the west door of the Legislative Building, was chosen for the Ho nourable Mines Minister's collecti on, and a hoist bucket was used to reach the top of the tree which was carrying a heavy harvest of con es.

These cones were given into the care of the Manitoba Forestry As soc iation, the seeds to be extracted and grown for presentation to the members of the Legislature to mark Natio nal Fore st Week 19 75. The little tree is presented in the hope that it'll be planted as a living and growing reminder of Natio nal Forest Week and the e 3sential contribution of the fore sts of Manitoba to every person in the province.

The theme of National Forest Week is "Trees, the Green Link, " and our fore sts in harnessing the sun's rays to create the basis of nature's food chain, are the foundation on which the intricate pattern of nature has been built. It's something to think about and realize that they, in turn, need our help in keeping them green and growing, not only for the seeds of today, but as a permanent heritage for generations to come . Thank you . MR. SPEAKER : Any other Ministerial Statements or Tabling of Repo rts? The Honour- able Minister of Mines. NOTIC ES OF CO MMITTE E MEET INGS MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to call a meeting of the Public Utilities Committ ee to hear the report of the Manitoba Public Insurance Co rporation tomorrow at 10 o'clock , if that is sa tisfactory - tomorrow at 10 :00. And Thursday is the Manitoba Development Co rporation. Also , Mr. Speaker, there appears to be some indication that the Minister of Highways will not be with us for an indefinite period of time due to regrettable illness which has taken him to the hospital.

The Minister of Agriculture, who is the alternate for the Minister of High ways, will therefore be convening the meeting with the department so that he's in a position to deal with the Es timates of Highways simultaneously in a committ ee outside of the House, poss ibly later this week.

205 4 May 5, 1975 NOTICE S OF CO MMITTEE MEE TINGS MR . SPEAKER: Any other statements or reports? No tices of Motion . Introduction of Bills . Ques ti ons . The Honourable Minister of Mines. MRo GREEN : Mr. Speaker, one more point. I indicated that the Department of Health and Social Development would follow Industry and Co mmerce in the Est imates. The Minister of Health appears to be now ready, and he will be followed by the Minister of Corrections in the same department. So it'll be the Minister of Health first, and then the Minister of Correctio ns. ORAL QUE STIONS MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition . MR . SIDNEY SPIVAK, Q.C. (Leader of the Official Opposition) (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Tourism and Cultural Affairs. I wonder if he can indicate whether the chairman of the Manitoba Horse Racing Commission has resignedo MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Tourismo HON. RENE TOU PIN (Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Cultural Affairs) (Spring field): Affirmative . MRo SPIVAK: I wonder, Mr.

Speaker, then, if the Minister's in a position to confirm that he res igued because of the political interference by the Minister; MR. TOUPIN: Negativ e. MR . SPIVAK: I wonder if the Minister can indicate whether the communication to the Minister of the res iguation of the chairman of the Horse Racing Commission was in writing. MR . TOUPIN: Yes it was, Mr. Speaker. MRo SPIVAK: I wonder if he would then table the letter of resiguation. MR. TOUPIN: I don' t see any need for it, Mr. Speaker.

MR o SPIVAK: I wonder if he could confirm that the former chairman, the chairman who has resigned, indicated in the letter of resiguation that he was resiguing because of political interferenceo MR . TOUPIN: Not so, Mr. Speakero MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. BOB BANMAN (La Verendrye): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I direct my question to the Honour able the Att orney-General and would ask the Minister if he could confirm that the legal costs in the case of the two homosex ual males to whom the Recorder of Vital Statistics in Manitoba refused to issu e a marriage license is being funded by the public purse, namely through Legal Aid. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Att orney-General. HON. HOWARD PAWLEY (Att orney-General) (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I understand that the two parties in question did obtain and were accepted for Legal Aid .

At the same time, it's my understanding that there is a commitment on the part of the two that are involved to pay and return the fees to Legal Aid because of the financial circumstances . MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. R. (BUD) SHERMAN (F ort Garry) : Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Honourable Minister heading the negotiating team between the government and the Manitoba Government Employees Asso ciation, and I'd like to ask the Minister whether, in view of questions and answers and exchanges between himself and members of the MGEA on Friday, whether he can indicate to the House whether attention is being given to the concept of parity for MGEA pers onnel with the City of Winnipeg. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs. HON. SAUL A. MILLER (Minister for Urban Affairs) (S even Oaks): Mr. Speaker, that's a very simplistic approach.

What was indicated was that the government, as it has in the past, will attempt to reach an amicable and fair agreement of all its employe es. This trying to achieve parity, or indicating, suggesting that there is no parity, can be very misleading. It's a question of what jobs are being compared to what, and its got to be apples and apples, not apples and orang es. MR. SPEA KER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MR. LLOYD AXWORTHY (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation.

Ca n the Minister indicate whether the Provincial Government prese ntly has any plans to give assis tance or aid to Manitoba athletes preparing for the Olympic Games in terms of training, travel, or other forms of preparation?

May 5, 19 75 20 55 ORAL QUE STIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister of Tourism. MR. TOUPIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is available within the Estimates of the Department of Touri sm, Recreation and Cultural Affai rs, assistance financial and in kind, that is now being had directly by the department, and equally funds are being made available by the Federal Government for this purpose. I believe that we could deal more ef fectively with an adequate reply during the Estimates. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: Mr .

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Edu cation, Colleges and Universities Affa irs, and I would like to ask him whether he can confirm that construc tion has been ordered to get under way on a new French language school in St. Norbert on the same site as the current St. Norbert English language school. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minister of Education. HON. BEN HANUSC HAK (Minister of Ed ucation) (Burrows): Mr . Speaker, approval was given to Seine River School Division to construct a school at St.

Norbe rt, but in the approval that I gave, there's no indication as to the purpose for which it is to be used. It may well be that the decision of the school division may be to use it for instruction in French, using French as a language of instruction, but that is a decision to be made by the board and not by my department. A s far as the approval that I give for constr11ction of schools, Mr. Speaker, that is determined on the basis of population needs, and there is need both in St. Norbert and Pare La Salle . The school division chose to assign first priority to meet the needs of St.

Norbert and hence that was approved, and the approval only falls in two categories: one, either space for instructional purposes, or voc ational, and the reason for the two classifications is because the form ula that's used in determining the amount of space is different . But I can't go beyond that because if one were to go beyond that, then school divisions could be asking to approve space for instruction in geometry, physics or whatever, which is a decision to be made by the board. MR . SHERMAN: A supplementary, Mr . Speaker .

I thank the Minister for his informa tion, but I'd like to ask him whether he is saying to the House, is indicating to the House, that the basic criteria for the decision on the construction of this school was th at the population, the school enrolment on the St. Norbert side, the old side of Pembina Highway, is increasing rather than stablizing or decreasing, as has been indicated in some repo rts. MR. SPEAK ER: The Ho nourable Minister of Education. MR. HANUSCHAK: The data that we have, Mr . Speaker, shows the present level of population and the anticipated population to justify the building of a school.

In fact, the popu lation 's increasing on both sides. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the House Leader or to the Attor ney GeneraL It refers to the Ombudsman's Report . I won der if he can indicate when the govern ment received the Ombu dsman's Report that was tabled in the House today. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, it was handed to me by the Clerk when I walked in here. It's indicated it was received Friday afternoon. That• s my knowledge of it. MR. SPIVAK : Mr.

Speaker, I wonde r if the Ho nourable the First Minister can indicate when the report of the Ombudsma n was first placed in their hands. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable First Minister. HON. EDWARD SCHREYER (Premier) (Rossmere): Well, Mr. Speaker, I imagine that my colleagues of the Executive Council received the report some time last week. The Ho use Leader has indicated that he was advised of this today or Friday. I should indicate that, insofar as I am aware, it was last week - I couldn't sa�>' whether it was Wednesday, Thursday or Friday - that I had an opportunity to peruse the report brief ly . MR.

SPEAK ER : The Hono urable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, my question then, I guess, is to the Attorney-Gen eral. The Ombudsman makes reference to a case or an examination by him of a matter dealing with the Wabowden District Advisory Planning Commission and the Department of Northern Affair s, which his report indicates was not concluded. I wonder if the Attorney-Gen eral's in a position to indicate whether the Ombudsman has completed that report and recommendations have been given to him or to the Minister of Northern Affa irs.

2056 May 5, 1975 ORAL QUE STIONS MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, just so there's no confusion or lack of clarity here, this particular matter has absolutely no connection with the so-called Wabowden investigation. This is a matter dealing with the Advisory Committee of the Co mmunity Cou ncil in Wabowden.

Now, I think that the Minister for Northern Af fairs can better deal with the matter since the Department of the Att orney-General did represent the Department of Northern Af fairs in the courts of the province dealing with the jurisdiction and responsibility of the Advisory Committee, and as I recall the findings from the cou rt, it was found, in fact, that the Advisory Committee did come under the auspices or responsibility of the Ombud sman. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, to the At torney-General. The remarks that he's just presented are, in fact, as entered in the report by the Ombud sman.

My question, then is to the Minister of Northern Affai rs or the Att orney-General: Has the Ombudsman completed his, or given at least a preliminary report of his findings in connection with this matter, and with what recommendations, if any ? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of North ern Affair s. HON. RONALD McBRYDE (Minister of Northern Affairs) (T he Pas): Mr . Speaker, I have no further report than the one that• s in the bookle t that I saw for the first time today. MR.

SPIVAK: I ask, then, of the Minister of Northern Affa irs: has he not received any information by way of report from the Om budsman in co nnection with this matter? Is he saying to the House that he's received nothin g? MR. McBRYDE : Mr . Speaker, to the be st of my knowl edge, neither myself nor my office has received anything furt her than this. The staff of Northern Affairs is co-operating in what ever way possi ble with the Ombudsman in his investigation of this matter. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR.

ARTH UR MOUG (Charleswoo d): I'd like to direct a question to the Minister respon sible for MDC and ask him if the government or Saunders Aircraft is currently in the process of bringing in 230 families from England for employment in Saunders Aircraft. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines. MR. GRE EN : Mr. Speaker, I could not confirm that. I do n't know whether the honour able member has informat ion which he wants to indicate to me .

There are people working at Saunders Ai rcraft that have been recruited from En gland, but if they are presently in the proce ss of recruiting 230 familie s, I can't confirm it. I'll take the question as not ice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honoura ble Minister of Health. HON. LAURENT L. DE SJARDINS (Minister of Health and Social Development) (S t. Bonifac e): Mr . Speaker, last week the Honourable Member from Roblin asked a question of the Honourable Minister of Tourism in my absence, and those who were taking questions, I'd like to answer them now.

The first question was, can the Honourable Minister advise the House if the Members of the Legislature will get an annual statement of the WestCan Lotter ies ? Will it be tabled in the House ? Well, the financial statement of the activites of the Western Canada Lottery Foundation as they pertained to Manitoba will be tabled at the time that the Manitoba Lottery Commission report s will be tabled. Now, they have not completed the first year, and this one will only be next year, because a Manitoba Lottery report was tabled earlier in the Session.

Will the Provincial Auditor of this province have access to audit the books or who is going to audit the records of the WestCan Lotterie s? Well, the WestCan Lottery has their own auditor, but as far as anything pertaining to Manitoba, certainly the Provincial Audi tor will be able to audit that; in fact, all the participat ing provinces can get all the information that is required re the WestCan. But it is a corpora tion of its own and they determine who the auditor is. They name their auditor.

Can I ask the Honourable Minister, now, why the Lottery tickets are being raised to $3 .0 0 instead of the usual $2.5 0? Well, the Western Canada Lottery tickets are certainly being sold at $2. 50 and the fall draw will also be $2. 50. I think that a dif ferent price structure is now being considered by the Western Canada Lottery Foundation, and they determine that. This is their responsibility . It is a partnership of four provinces and they're responsible for the draw.

May 5, 1975 20 57 ORDERS OF THE DAY - BUDGET DEBATE MR . SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Adjourned Debate, proposed by the Honourable First Minister, amended by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, amended by the Honour able Member for Fort Rouge. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR . WARNER H. JORGENSON (Morris): Mr.

Speaker, during the course of the debate thus far, we have heard a repetition on the government side of the claim that inflation has not been caused by this government, followed by a recital of all those beneficial things that the government have been doing in order to alleviate the more serious effects of inflation. But there has been no recognition given, during the course of those claims, to the fact that the methods that have been taken or are being proposed are in themselves going to be creating more problems in the future, and, indeed, creating further aggravations to the economy and increasing inflation.

The Budget Speech itself •.• and if one has followed Budget Speeches of this govern ment during the past six years, there has been something less than a subtle change in tenor of each succeeding one.

Instead of the boastful promises of those early years when they main tained that so many problems were going to be corrected and so many things were going to happen under this government, we now find a Budget that essentially has been reduced to the plaintive whimpering of a government trying to convince themselves that they're not any worse than the other nine provincial governments even though they may not be as good as some of the other provincial governments.

They now seem to be happy to recognize themselves as a sort of an average government, which is far removed from the kind of promise that they set out for themselves during those early yearso It's interesting to hear the Finance Minister attempting to justify all of those increases in expenditures that have taken place during this past six years, particularly in the light of a statement that he made during the course of his remarks in the First Speech from the Throne in 1969, when he castigated the then Leader of the Opposition, the Honourable Mr. Weir, for having spent money to call an election.

And the amount of money that was involved that the First Minister thought was such a terrible amount of money that was wasted, amounted to about a half a million dollars. Well, in today's terms, half a million dollars, really it pales into insignificance compared to the millions of dollars that they're throwing around today on projects in ways that would have been regarded as unbelievable just six years ago.

So I suppose that after six years of that kind of responsibility, the attitudes changed somewhat, and we now find a government that, instead of worrying about the expenditures of a half a million dollars, find themselves occupied with attempting to find ways that they could spend more than a million at a time. Also, it was rather interesting to go over that same speech, sir, to find that the First Minister was at pains to point out that the government which he succeeded had been guilty of allowing the Manitoba Dev elopment Corporation to be accused of allegations and doing nothing to clear up those allegations.

And I just want to quote back the words of the First Minister, because I think at this particular time they seem to be particularly appropriate. This can be found on Page 119 of Hansard of August 21 , 1969, and these are the words of the First Minister at that time. "How, Mr.

Speaker," he says, "can a government sit there month after month, year after year, when one of its Crown agencies is subject to persistent suspicion, persistent allegations of wrongdoing, without moving to clear it up one way or another for once and for all?" And one wonders why the First Minister does not take his own advice now with regards to some of the Crown agencies that have been under suspicion and where there have been allegations made.

One wonders why there hasn't been an effort to clear up those allegations and those suspicions once and for all, as has been requested by the Opposition and indeed some of the newspapers in this province, time after time. Well, sir, he went on to point out that his government was going to try much harder, he said, much much harder, to try to get away from this great reliance on secrecy as a crutch for a government to take the easy way out.

And I simply recall those words to the First Minister now, to remind him that, at a time when there should be a great deal of examination of the operations of some branches of government, that he might recall those words that he uttered six years ago and attempt to clear up some of the allegations that are made and some of the suspicions that are lurking. But as usual, sir, I presume that this advice and this reminder will fall on deaf ears, because it is quite obvious that the government has no intention of clearing them up but rather muddying the waters even further in the hope that they will go away.

20 58 May 5, 1975 BUDGET DE .BA TE (MR. JORGENSON cont'

d) Now the Member for Fort Rou ge mentioned, when he spoke, that in those days in Ot tawa when budgets were introduced it was a rather exciting occasion and everybody was geared up to expect either the worst or the best. Then he went on to muse about why that sort of excite ment does not exist any longer, and he got me thinking about that very thing myself. And you know, I think, sir, that the reason for it is because budgets do n't mean anything any more.

People know that whether the taxes go up or whether the taxes go down, they're going to be paying more the next year, and it do esn't matter what changes take place in the budget, we find out that the governments go ahead and just do what they planned to do in any case without regard to what's contained in the budget.

When you have variati-0ns in estimates of the amount of money that's going to be collected which can exceed over $50 million in one year on the provincial level and expenditures even exceeding more than that, one begins to wonder just what kind of budge ting and what's the purpose of the budget if there isn' t1 even a semblance of a guide line as to what is going to be spent and how it is going to be spent.

And so I suppose we become somewhat conditioned to that kind of budgeting on the part of governments, and it is no wonder that there is very little, or any, excitement associated with the introduction of the budget when we know that the whole document is a meaningless exercise in any case.

And that brings me to the other point that has been raised by several members, and that is the lack of respect that governments now seem to be getting from the general public - and I think it perhaps can stem from the same cause, when we have governments guilty of all sorts of evasions, deceit, arrogance and pos tures in this Ho use, sir, that would not be considered in years gone by.

And to me it says somet hing for keeping some of the traditions that enabled governments to maintain at least a modicum of respect in the eyes of the public, and it seems now that what governments are preocc upied with is an effort to cover up that reality, that reality of a lack of integrity and a lack of respect on the part of the people, by hurling out reams and reams of paper designed to cover up their real activities and to deceive the people into believing that which is not true.

Can I refer you, sir, to a clipping that came out of the Winnipeg Free Press on February 26, 1975, and this refers to the Federal Government at the present time, but there isn't a great deal of difference in what is happening here or indeed anywhere else across this country.

It said, "Gove rnment Image Gets $200 Million Public Relations Polish ing." You know, sir, when we have to substitute integrity and hone sty in dealings with the people of this country for a $2 00 million image polishing jo b and a public relations job, there is certainly some thing very drastically wrong with the way governments are operating these days. It goes on to point out that "the Federal Government is plunging ever deeper into the high-rolling world of public relations with a bankroll said to exceed $200 million annually, backing an information bureaucracy of 86 3 persons at the last count.

That represents growth of more than 100 per cent in five years. The ranks of the fu nctionarie s continue to swell. There are 403 vacancies as well, and the hardware assembled for helping spread the message includes fu lly-equipped T.V. studios ." And they go on to point out the number of things that are being done, and I won't to into the entire clipping although it's a rather interesting one .

But it's typical, it's typical of what is happening today, and I think answers the questions that are being posed by several people in this Chamber as to the reasons why the public are losing confidence in their governments. But what is worse - there have been confi dences that have been lollt in governments before - but what is worse is, because of this kind of shenanigans, this deceit and everything that's associated with the way governments are operating today, there is a greater tendency on the part of the public to blame the system rather than the people .

And that, sir, is where I must express a great deal of concern, because the system as it is designed is not at fault. lt' s the people who are using it. And I will not go into what I consider. to be the reasons why this is happening because I've dealt with that on other occasions, but I think it calls for a complete re�examination of the manner in which we are drift ing from the fundamental and the basic principles of a parliamentary system of government. Well, sir, it has been generally agreed by the New Democratic Party that inflation has not teen created by them.

We're going to have to accept their word for that. But I think, I cannot resist the temptation to remind them that if inflation was created on the national level, that they must bear some responsi bility for keeping that government in off ice in Ott awa for

May 5, 1975 20 59 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. JORGENSON cont'd) ..•.• two years; not only keeping them in office, sir, but indeed keeping them in office on the strength of the argument that they had to create more inflationary pressures, which is really, really what they were doing. --(Interjection)-- Well, my honour able friend, it was the lesser of the two evils. Is he suggesting that it was better to have a Liberal government in office, operating as they did, or an NDP government, because they, too, were an alternative, and he perhaps has forgotten that?

But, sir, more recently, the government, you know, in spite of the fact that they will not take any of the responsibility for the creation of inflation, and the argument that was posed by the Minister of Industry and Commerce was that, you know, after all, we are just a small part of the North American continent, how could we, representing such a small percentage of the total population of the North American continent, have any great influence on the creation of inflationary pressures in this country, well, sir, they were not adverse to taking the reverse.

Indeed, in a budget, or in a Throne Speech, I believe that was presented to this House in 1972, they took full credit for the increase in the price of hogs simply because they had brought the Hog Marketing Board into this province. Now surely, if it works one way it must work the other.

And more recently, the Minister of Labour - who is not here today but I cannot resist the temptation to draw the attention of the House to his words when he spoke on the Budget; one has got to take what the Minister of Labour says with a large dose of salt these days - but he did assert in his speech that, due to the policies of the Manitoba Government, agriculture throughout the North American continent has prospered. Now what a ridiculous claim that was!

Apart from the fact that that observation borders somewhat on the lunacy, he apparently has forgotten about - perhaps forgotten about the cow-calf operators who are enjoying anything but the kind of prosperity that was attributed to them by the Minister of Labour. Speaking of the Minister, you know, he has been quoted a great deal about having been misquoted when he's spoken to this House and his remarks being misinterpreted.

One thing that has not been explained, however, was the kind of an outburst that took place during the course of the remarr..s of the Minister of Health when he was speaking on motions, and the kind of exchange that went on, that everybody in this place heard, between the First Minister and the Minister of Labour. He has not been able to explain the reason why or how that fit into the whole picture, but we have our reasons for guessing what happened.

The Minister of Industry and Commerce, you know, had a rather peculiar expfan�tion of what has happened and the kind of inflation that we're suffering from, and I want to at the outset, sir, say that in different stages of our history we have been suffering from inflation caused by different reasons. I don't think there is any question about that.

And perhaps one of the lessons that we have not learned is that we must analyze the kind of inflation that we're suffering from and then propose remedies that suit the particular occasion, rather than using what has been thought as a reliable guide of past history when the remedies are not applicable at all in present circumstances. But the Minister of Industry and Commerce said that we have a commodity shortage. Well, what created that commodity shortage, if indeed there is such a thing?

Commodity shortages have not been created by anything other than, in irny view, government's interference in the marketplace and in production, and I think that can be traced back to the time that governments began to assert themselves or to take the responsibility for planning and for production and things like that. William F. Buckley describes government operations in this way, and he does it with a very cute analogy.

When asked what would happen if the socialists took over the Sahara Desert, he said, "Nothing for 50 years, and then there' ll be a shortage of sand. 11 And I think that that really is what's happening today. One economist has suggested that the kind of a letdown that we're going to have from the current round of infiation that we're suffering from, is not going to bz a collapse, as it was in 192 9, but just simply a gradual grinding down to a halt of the economy. And that, sir, is the way I see it. And what the Minister of Industry and Commerce was describing, was that grinding down.

People, lacking the incentive, with their motivation being taken away from them, are just throwing up their hands and saying, "What the heck. Why should we ?11 And that, sir, can be directly attributed to government dipping deeper and deeper into their pockets, taking away their incentives, and I don't care how my honourable friends across the way slice it, human nature, for as long as humans have inhabited this earth, has not changed

2060 May 5, 1975 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. JORGENSON cont'd) •...• and is not likely to change, and one of the prime moti vations for people contributing their talent to the creation of wealth in this country is the profit motive . And to destroy that, sir, is to destroy the means of production. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry and Commerce went on at great length to point out that nothing would be achieved by cutting back on government spending in this province, as if spending itself, without any rhyme or reaso n, was a great \r.irtue.

But then he asks a rhetorical question during the course of his remarks; he said, "What's the diff erence between the person who cleans the floors in this place and the person who cleans the floors in a private industry?" And it's a good question. And I suppose it can be answered this way: Nothing, perhaps, except that here in this place the chances are nine to one that it would be a relative that would be cleaning the floo rs; and secondly, that in private industry, the floors would need cleaning. Here it would be diff erent - somebody needed a job.

And that, sir, is really the big difference between a government enterprise and a private enterprise. The only reason for the existence of any kind of an industry is the creation of wealth or the creation of a profit on the part of the people who run that business, and as long as that is not there, then there is no purpose for them being in existence. MR. SCHREY ER: What about services? MR.

JORGENSON: And then on the other hand, government will brag, all the time when they set up Flyer Coach Industries, when they set up Saunders and when they set up all these other things, their main reason for going into business, as they say, is to create jobs. Well, the creation of jobs itself, sir, is not suf ficient reason for anybody going into business. It's the question of the kind of wealth that you can create and how you can provide opportunities for people . And the First Minister asked, what abo ut services?

Well, certainly no one can deny that there are certain essential services that the government must provide, and certainly nobody is going to deny that. But I think a very clear distinction must be made and that' s where we are in error - or at least where this government is in error because I don't want to take the responsibility for the mistakes that they're making; let them take that; I make eno ugh of my own - but where they are in error is to assume that everything is a public service; that it doesn't matter what area they go into, they have a justification for going in there. And I say no.

They have a responsi bility for providing those services of government - and that's the cons truction of highways, that's the construction of schools, of bridges, of public works, providing recording services which are necessary in order to keep the records, and doing those things that are important to the administration of government. But it certainly does not lead them into the areas that this government has gone into.

And the sooner that they recognize that they are creating their own problems and recognize that there is an area for the govern ment to function and an area for a private enterprise to func tion in, and allow the two to operate in those respective areas, the sooner we will get back to some sanity in government. MR. SCHREYER: Will you permit a question? MR. JORGENSON: Yes, I'll permit a question. MR. SPEAKER: The Honoura ble First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr . Speaker, my question relates back to some thing the Member for Morris said just perhaps two minutes ago, in terms of government spending.

Is the Honour able Member for Mo rris prepared to admit that very recently the Government of Canada has been asked to bring in a new budget that will be expansionary and higher spending, by the Conse rvative province of Ontario? MR. JOR GENSON: You know, the First Minister always thinks that I look upon the government of the Province of Ontario or the government of the Prov ince of Alberta as the 11 altar at which I worship. I do not. I do not believe for one single minute that the Ontario government is a Conserv ative government, to begin with.

They are more socialist than they are anything, as far as I'm concern ed. And neither do I believe that everything that the Prov ince of Ontario does as a government is necessarily right. And I am criticizing the Ontario government and I have included them in my general criticism of high government spending and operating in areas where they have no responsibility to operate. Unlike the First Minister, I am capable of assessing those various governments on my own and making a determination as to whether or not I support what they' re doing in all cases.

And I suggest, sir, that if it's a question of me answering the First Minister as to whether or not I agree with the Ontario government, I say emphatically no, I disagree with them.

May 5, 1975 20 61 BUDGE'I' DEBATE (MR. JORGENSON cont'

d) Now, Mr. Chairman, I have a limited time available, and if my honourable friends are prepared to give me unlimited time I don't mind them asking a lot of questions, but I would like to use the time I have available to me in making the remarks that I want to make, rather than simply enlightening honourable gentlemen opposite in those areas in which they are confused or in which they are at fault. MR. ENNS: But on the other hand, they need so much enlightening, Warner. MR. JORGENSON: Well, as I said, I am prepared to do that with unlimited time, sir, but I don't think that I will be able to get that.

But there are a number of fallacies, sir, when we get on to this whole question 0f inflation and economics in general, and I don't pose here as an economist, but I can tell you this much: if my honourable friend the Minister of Industry and Commerce is recognized as one, then I have no hesitation in posing as one, because some of the statements that he made during the course of his remarks on this budget are ones that I think can be challenged a great deal by a good many economists who are far more learned in their profession than the Ministero The Minister's comments on the question of economics is one that, you know, is surrounded by so many fallacies, and the whole study of economics is one that is surrounded by so many fallacies.

The first one which has to be taken into consideration is the inherent difficulties of predicting human nature itself, and there's no economist that has ever been able to correctly predict what a human reaction will be to a given set of policies. But the second one is the fact that most economists and most people see only the immediate result of any given policy without taking into consideration their secondary effects, and sometimes it's those secondary consequences that show up only a few years later that indicate the fallacy of a particular. course of action.

Then thexe is the question of special interest pleading, and all governments are subject to that kind of pleading. The question of tariff protection is one, and from time to time you will have people pleading for tariff protection, protection on a particular industry, and it will be the industry that will be asking for it, not because it is going to be of any great benefit to them, as they say, but "because it will help maintain jobs in this country", which is another great fallacy that should be exploded.

But then another factor which surrounds the whole question of economics is the one that I think is now becoming recognized more and more, and that• s the apparent deterioration of political morality in this country and the belief that government can do everything for the individual, on the one hand, and then the governments, on the other hand; convincing them that they can, and they can do so and get away with it.

You know, the fact is, sir, that the govern ment has no more leeway to operate than the housewife who has a budget to operate under, and if she spends beyond that particular budget she's going to be in trouble. She's going to find the money by borrowing, and by continued borrowing she gets into greater difficulty. And it's no different with government. But they continue to create the myth that because they're govern ment they can do that and get away with it.

Well, they may be able to get away with it for present generations that are now living, and may be able to confuse them into believing that they can get away with that sort of thing, but somebody is going to pay for it sooner or later, and I shudder to have to C'.lrry the burdens of future generations in this country, paying for the mis takes and the foolishness of present generations of government. One of those fallacies that you hear from time to time is the benefits that are inherent in a government creating employment, and we hear that all the time.

"We've got to do this and we've got to do that because we're going to create employment." Well, sir, just how much employment does a government create? And one of the more simple explanations of how government do not create employment is contained in Henry Havelock' s Theory of Economics, in which he used a very simple analogy of the broken glass theory, a story of a hoodlum who picked up a brick and threw it through a window, and people gathered around and said, "My, isn't that wonderful?

Now that window's broken, the fellow who owns the store is going to have to replace it and that• s going to create employment." MR. ENNS: That's like Sid Green shooting down his own airplane. MR. JORGENSON: "That's going to create employment. lt' s going to create employment for the glazier, the fellow that's going to replace that window." And everybody can see that glazier going to work and the carpenter fixing that window. Everybody will say, ''Well, that's

20 62 May 5, 1975 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. JORGENSON cont' d}. fine. There is employment that was created." But what has not been recog nized, and which is what I meant by secon dary benefits, is that the person who owns that store would have used that money that he had to use to spend to fix the window, to buy something of his own priority. He might have bo ught a new suit of clothes, and you would have never seen the tailor going to work making that suit of clothes or anything like that, because that's hidden, but it's there nonethele ss.

And the fact that you take money out of one person' s pock et to create employment denies that person the opportunity of creating his own priorities and creating employment on his own with the money that he would have had had he not been forced to spend it on something that was not of his priority. And so, you know, the theory of government creating jobs is one that should be destroyed. It's the :nyth to end all myths, and the one that has created so many dif fic ulties in this coun try. And, you know, speaking of truces. It's the truces that are required in order to pay for those things.

And what's the difference between simply stealing or imposing truces to do things that are not really, in the final analysis, doing an ybody any good? Truces are nothing more than private capital expropriated to meet the priorities - and usually the political priori ties - of the handful of people who decide them.

That• s the definition of . . • Well, I recall also the Premier's statement when he introduced his budget, whenhe said that, and he quoted from Franklin Delano Roosev elt, about the test of a government is not - and I don't have the wording here before me but I'm sure the First Minister will have - but if that is the test of a government, then there are some questions that have to be answered. The first one is, whose responsibility is it to take money from one group of people and give to another? Is that a government responsibility? An d I don't believe that it is.

And secondly - well, what we've failed to do is to make the distinction between wealth and money. There is a great tendency to confuse the two togeth er. And wealth can be defined as those things which are in demand: the railways, the automobiles, the refrigerators, and those things that are created for the benefit of mankind. Money is simply the value that is placed upon tho se things. And we never make that distinction between wealth and money. If we are going to determine what the value of money is, then I think it can be determined in relation to the value of gold .

And one of the reasons why gold is so valuable is because, first of all, it's scarce; and secondly, and I think more importantly, governments can't duplicate it. They cannot produce it and there fore they cannot dilute it and they cannot devalue it. But what we've got to determine in relation to the kind of program that the government's are bringing in, is what kind of people that we want in this province. Are we going to create a haven for the drones and the deadbeats, or do we want the productive, imaginative, hard working people who actually contribute to the wealth of this nation and this province ?

I think the government has got to come to grips with that particular question, because if they are going to discou rage tho se people who can and will and do create the wealth in this co untry, then what they are discou raging is the ability of this country to produce the wealth that is going to be necessary in order to provide for those people who are disabled, who find them selves incapable of looking after themselves .

And the continued drain that is being placed on those who nave been able to create wealth and who have been able to build things in this country, is going to eventually erode the ability to create that kind of wealth, and then we '11 all be in the Poorhouse and I don't know who is going to be creating the kind of wealth that is necessary in order to ensure that we can take care of those people who do need help.

Well, sir, the Member for Lakeside during the course of his remarks - and I know I have limited time - went on to point out something that I think is very significant in relation to the situation that we find ourselves in here in Western Canada as opposed to Canada as a whole, and he went on to implore the First Minister to state the case for Western Canada in more explicit terms. I think a strong argument can be made for that.

Sir, I'm beginning to wonder now if in that context we can continue to allow the drive and the initiative and the ability and the desire on the part of Western Canadians to be continually subjugated to the will of those in other parts of this co untry, who do not see things the same way we do and who do not have the same desire that we do for the welfare of our own comm unity. And, Sir, I'm beginning to wonder if the time now has come when we must start to make an assessment as to whether or not Co nfederation is worth it in our terms.

I think the time has come, sir, when we must start to talk very realistically about whether the kind of government that we have been giving, insofar as it applies to Western Canada, is the kind of government that we can continually tolerate simply for the sake of saying we belong to Canada. Because Canada

May 5, 197 5 20 63 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. JORGENSON cont'd) ••... in our terms will be a meaningless term unless it provides, for the people who live here, that which they desire, and I'm beginning to wonder if that assess ment now should not be made in real terms rather than just simply talking about it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, because the subject matter of my honourable friend' s discourse is so important, I'm wondering if he would agree to answer one question, and that is if he would somehow specify or elaborate, with one or two specific examples, when he states that Western Canada's position in Confederation has suffered as a result of national policies of one kind or another. Could he give one or two examples so that we may better understand his deep feelings on the matter? MR. JORGENSON: I'd be happy to do that, Mr. Speaker. The first one is the question of transportation.

The problem of freight rates that we encounter has been pointed out repeatedly by spokesman for the west, and particularly the Premier of Alberta. It's more profitable to ship live animals to eastern Canada for processing, and then have the grain sub sidized that goes down there to look after them, rather than creating those processing facilities here in Western Canada. That's one example.

The que stion of oil is another one, and I wonder if it is within the responsibilities of the Federal Government to impose that kind of a royalty tax that they imposed on the oil out of Alberta, why it does not apply to other resources as well. Why should they single out oil?

I recognize the significance of oil at the present time, and the First Minister recognizes it because he frequently speaks of the need to seek alternate sources of energy, but if that source of energy is peculiar to the Province of Alberta, then what is the sense of having the resources of the provinces the property of the province, if they cannot be used by the provinces, as was originally intended in the agreement on Confederation?

Those are two examples, and I'm sure that the First Minister knows of several others where, because of peculiar disposition of other provinces, we have to pay for programs that are not either to our liking or to our benefit. Those are two or three examples . The First Minister can perhaps on his own think of a good many more, because he's already done so. MR.SP EAKER : The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I rise to take a small amount of time in the Budget Debate. Mr.

Speaker, the thing, I think, amazes the people in my constituency as well as many other people, is the increased amount of revenue that governments are ever receiving from inflation. And just looking at the Budget, we see that from liquor sales alone we will be getting $10 million more this year. Income tax, almost 50 million. Sales tax up 35 to 40 million. And yet, Mr. Speaker, there are only a million people in Manitoba paying those taxes.

There were a million people paying taxes last year, and yet this year just from these four different items that I me ntioned , each Manitoban will be asked to pay $1 00. 00 per person more tax. The two things that concerned me in the Budget; the No . 1, I think, that shone out above the other items was the drop of the two percent from the income tax which the First Minister said the municipalities would be able to pick up. Mr.

Speaker, I think it's a bunch of fancy footwork that's taking place here right now, in that the government, No. 1, drops the two cents tax, or two percent tax on income tax, then offers it right back to the municipalities. Why go through that whole harangue, if you want to call it? Why not give it to them in the first place? And I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, they have a very very good reason for doing that.

Come the next election and the municipalities, the school boards, the hospital boards need more money, they say, "Why don't you add it on to income tax?" And yet they're receiving, as I mentioned, $100 million more this year just from the inflationary trend that we are experienc ing today. I can see the government saying, "We' re not going to give an 1mcoml itional grant. We" re not going to give a per capita grant. But we're going to drop the income tax and you municipalities can pick it up." Who becomes the culprit? It's the municipalities, the school boards, the hospital boards. They're the bad guys.

They're the ones spending the money. And the members opposite just sit back and smile, not realizing that all these boards and all these municipalities are creations of the Provincial Government and the Pro\incial Govern ment should take the responsibilities for them. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this move is an abdication of responsibility by the members opposite,

20 64 May 5, 1975 BUDGET DEBATE (M R. BANMAN cont'

d) Mr. Speaker, a problem that I think coincides with the problems that the municipalities and eve rybody is having, is one of capital pro jects. In the last number of years, I realize that we have asked for different things to be built, whether it be in urban municipalities or rural municipalities, and the funding of many of these capital projects, such as the regional schools and this type of thing, have been done through federal and provincial moneys. But I think all too often we haven't sat down and figured out what it's going to cost to run those particular things.

And I just think about somet hing that's being tossed arou nd in the Town of Steinbach now with regards to a swimming pool. I know there's a certain amount of money that can be raised as far as the capital construct ions of that particular thing is concerned, and I think that it is within the budget of the town to possi bly cope with the capital construct ion of that particular thing, but I think if we look at the cost of materials, the cost of labour, the esca lating costs that we are faced with today, I think that is when the people are starting to have seco nd though ts .

And this, as far as I can see it, should be of major consideration in the future when we do go into large capital cons traction costs, namely the cost that is going to be in curred in maintaining that particular recreat ion facility or educa tional or hospital facility. The other concern that I, of course, don' t agree with them in this particular budget, is the two cents a gallon on automotive fuel tax .

There 's been a lot of statements released by the government, there's a lot of letters written by the gove rnment, there's a lot of news released made by the opposition with regard to Au topac, and we've had reso lutions presented in this House with regard to Autopac. And the other day the Member from St. Mathews got up and, when discus sing rapeseed, said that he had checked out throughout all the provinces and there were only two provinces lower than Manitoba in rates. One was B. C. and one was Saskatchewan. Well, I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, if we want to have the lowe st rates in Manitoba, we should do the same thing that B. C. did: budget for a $32 million deficit instead of $10 million. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Au topac rates, which were between 18 and 19 to 60 per cent this last year and averaged out to somew here in the 20 percent mark, should have probably been about 20 percent higher, and I say that after looking at the Manitoba Public Insurance Co rporati on' s Annual Repor t. I notice that they had expenses close to $60 million. Mr .

Speaker, if you take that $60 million, you add on the 10 percent inflationary trend, which is $6 million, you add on a 10 percent increase in payouts in claims, that's another $6 million - that means that the total amount of money they'll need next year to run that corporation will be 72 million. The Minister the ot her day said that with the increased rates we'll be receiving $60 million worth of premiums, plus we 're going to get two cents from automotive gasoline . Autopac' s statement ends October 3l st, the two- cent a gallon tax won' t be implemented until May 19th, so I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that the amount of money' that will be raised by this two-cent-a- gallon tax will be ro ughly from three to four million dollars, which, with that very short arithmetic, shows that Autopac again will be sus taining a deficit, barring hailstorms and other things, of another 8 to 10 million dollars next year. Mr. Speaker, that's not making any attempt to try to recoup the $20 million that we've lost already, and if that's the govern ment intention, to go ahead and try and keep the rates down and brag about the low rates and then show deficits of that kind, well, Mr .

Speaker, I think that's a game that the people of Manitoba will catch on to very fast. The two cents a gallon will be paid, to a large extent, by the consumers of this province in that the trucking industry, the people hauling the goods to either rural Manitoba or the urban areas of Winnipeg, will be passing that two-cent cost on to the consu mer. You know, the members opposite like to say, "Well, the Co rporation' s going to pay for it." But, you know, all you have to do is talk to the Minister of Industry and Commerce here who commissioned a $70 , OOO study last year on the trucking industry.

The report came back and he's never spoken much of it because it was a bad report. It showed that the intraprovincial carriers, the fellows that are hauling the goods and services from Steinbach to Winnipeg or from Ste. Anne to Winnipeg and hauling out from the small little comm unities, those fellows are in difficulty right now. And if the members opposite think that they are going to absorb this two cents a gallon tax, which will amount on the average truck to $3 00 or $400, you could tack that on as far as the insurance is concerned, I say to you they've got another guess coming.

May 5, 1975 20 65 BUDGET DEBATE (MRo BANMAN cont'd) • • . . . So when you use the example that the people driving will be the ones paying, that's not true, Mr. Speaker. It's the consumer, the average person in Manitoba, that's going to pay for Autopac through increased cost of goods, and it's as simple as that. Mr. Speaker, I've commented on only several aspects of the Autopac dilemma as I see it, and I'd like to point out another one. The members oppos ite like to use the example of, "Look at the private insurance companies. Look at the private insurance companies.

They are going to lose almost $300 million this year." But the thing that they fail to say is, what percentage is that of premiums written. You look at the total premiums written in 1973, in the total insurance industry in Canada it is about $3. 1 billion. So that that general insurance, that total insurance written, if we are to use the figure of about $2 80 million loss, represents about an eight percent loss of total premiums written. But, Mr. Speaker, Autopac is doing a much better job. They've lost 20 percent of total premiums written last year.

The other thing is that the Minister in charge of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corpora tion gets up and says, "But, lookit, our operation costs, they're really low, they're really low. " But Mr. Speaker, you have to realize that the more he spends, as far as claims being paid out, the lower his operation costs are. In other words, if it costs $18 million to run the opera tion, if he pays out $36 million, it would be 50 percent of the operation, we in Manitoba would be much better off. A MEMBER: We sure would. MR. BANMAN: But if he pays out $80 million it's less than 20 percent.

So that kind of argument, if you're sitting down and discussing business in a strong business sense, is a non sensical argument, I would like to end in saying, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to caut ion the municipalities - and I realize they're strapped for cash right now, there's no question about it, whether it be the smaller municipalities in my area or the larger urban communities such as Winnipeg, and they won't have any alternatives but to ask for that two percent.

I don't know by what vehicle they'll ask, if they're going to have a - if the First Minister is going to ask the Union of Urban Municipalities and Rural Municipalities to get together and have a vote and then say 51 percent carries, and they're going to get the two percent, is the two percent then going to be doled out on a per capita basis, or what is the procedure that will be followed here?

I would caution the municipalities, as I mentioned, to tread lightly on this because I can see them becoming the villains, governme nt's implementing policies, not making any changes in their education granting structure, not making any changes with regard to different muni cipal funding and the per capita grant, and come the next election the members opposite say, "Look, we're the lily-white boys, but it's those municipalities that are socking it to you ." Thank you, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Tourism and Recreation. MRo TOUPIN: Mr.

Speaker, we've heard a lot of comments made, especially from Members of the Opposition, what the Budget does not includeo I'd like to refresh the memories, the memory of the Members of the Opposition and refer them to Page 40 as an example of the Budget Address, and to mention only a few things that the Budget Address itself includes. First of all, a major increase in direct municipal and school tax relief through our property tax crediL I understand, Mr. Speaker, especially from the Member from Sturgeon Creek, he doesn't like to hear that.

Well, it's too bad, it's there and there is an increase, and it's to the benefit of those living in different parts of the province. There is a 65 percent increase in total benefits under our cost-of-living tax credit plan. That's in the Budget. There is a genuine growth tax-sharing plan for our mu nicipalities, along with sizeable additions of all other forms of assistance to local governments and school divisions.

And I'll mention a few additions in a few minuteso Increased exemptions for spouses and children under our Succession Duty legislation, and the selective sales and fuel tax reductions for farmers and fishermen. That 's only to menti.m a few. What it does equally include is what we consider to be a small deficit. I say a small, especially if you compare it with the size of the deficit of the budget table in the Ontario Legislature, being the size of the total budget for this province, over a billion dollar deficit. Now, that's som ething our budget doesn't include, is that size of a deficit.

2066 May 5, 1975 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. TOUPIN cont'

d) But the honourable member, espec ially for Sturgeon Creek , doesn' t like you to compare with other provinces . Well, unfortunately, Mr. Speake r, we live in Ca nada and we have to compare with other provinces in Canada; we have to compare with some of the states across the border, and we have to rub shoulders, and we have to compare not es, and we have to offer services that can even tually receive unilateral agreement across the different provinces in Canada.

But what this government has done which the honourable members of the other side of the House don' t like to hear, is a health care delivery system that is unique, to my knowledge in the world. They don' t like to hear that, but all they have to do is go elsewhere in Canada, go into the United State s, even to Sweden, Denmark and Finland, and they won' t see a health care delivery system as we have it in this province . Now, they say that they'v e started Medicare, back in late 168, early 19 69. Yes, that' s true they were instrumental in jo ining in with other provinces in Canada in st arting Medicare .

But what they don' t say, Mr. Speaker, is the amount of premiums that they were charging. They were charging premiums of $2 04. 00 a year. --( Interj ect ion)-- Whether an individual was making $2, OOO a year, or making $200, OOO a year . And let' s look at the services, Mr. Speaker, that they were offering through that Medicare system. There was a basic service, as offered elsew here in Canada in regard to acute care, but down the line when you talked of other levels of care, home care, nursing care, hospital care, that was not covered on the Medicare, even for $204. 00 a year.

I know so many individuals that had to be placed at a different level of care th an acute care in the years that the Conservatives were in power, then had to pay directly through their pockets. Had to pay what, Mr. Speaker, $1 00, $200, $300. 00 a month per individual? No way. If it was a heavy care within the nursing care home, the cost was well over $400. 00 a month. I saw individuals, Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, individuals lose their lifetime savings because they had to be placed in a nursing home, lifetime savings . That' s the type of service that they had covered under Medicare.

And what if an individual had to be cared for at home, could not be admitted in a hospital or a nursing home, what happened then? He had to pay the nurse to come down and give them the basic care at home . That wasn' t covered under Medi care either. How much were the premiums for the services offered in regard to acute care ? The premium for all Manitobans was in excess of $58 million, $58 million. That represents how much per man, woman and child in the province in regard to the health care delivery system in the province ?

The last year that I was res ponsible for Health and Social Development, it meant well over $300. 00 per ma n, woman and child in the Province of Manitoba. Tha t's the type of in surance that they believed in under Medicare. That' s the type of administration that they' d like Manitobans to go back to ; that' s why they criticize us so much for the system of adminis tration that we have, because eventu ally they' d like to come back and go back to the old system of charging more for those making less.

And if you go back in his tory - it' s very easy to go back to, say, prior to June 1969, and those making, say, $10, OOO or less, were paying more by the type of administration of the Co nserv atives than they are today . And the proof is right here . We can prove that. The type of administrat ion that the Co nservatives had prior to 1969 caused individuals that were making $10 , OOO or less, to pay more taxes then than they are to day in 197 5 . Now, if Manitobans want to go back to that type of administration, well then they should vote Conse rvative or Liberal.

But if they want their --(Interjection)-- Sure, I mean, it' s all the same; it's all the same whether it' s Liberal or Conserv ative, I put them all in the same bag. --(Inte rjec tion)-- One goes a bit quicker than the other, but I mean, it' s the same basic philosophy. Re ally, I unders tand Mr. Speaker, why sometimes they gang up at provincial elections and don' t run a candidate, a Conse rvative or a Liberal candidate, because re ally it' s so close to being the sa me . But in regard to the administ ration and in regard to the philosophy that we have here to day, Mr.

Speaker, that we've had in this province since 1969, most of the taxe s - not all yet - but most of the taxes that we have in this province are based on the ability to pay. Now, as long as we remain in power we'll have more and more taxes based on the ability to pay . Now, if the people in Manitoba, the voters in Manitoba don' t believe in that basic philosophy, they should throw us out and they sho uld elect more Conservat ive s and/or Liberals in the House.

May 5, 1975 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. TOUPIN cont'd) .•.•. It' s as simple as that. 2067 But, I believe , I believe, Mr. Speaker, that - well, first of all, we were endorsed in 1969, re-endorsed in 1973, and again I'm quite confident that we'll get a new mandat e in 1977. I'm quite confident of that. A new mandate in 19 77. I don' t ask for 50 members in this House, but we'll be satisfied with 40. Forty members on this side of the House and we'll give the people of Manitoba what they've always wanted for so many decad es.

I'd say for at least 15 0 years in this province, and we must go back 150 years and look at what has been acc omplished by either the Liberals or the Conse rvative s. What have they done in 150 years ?--( Interjec tion) Really? Oh, for Pet e's sake, for Pe te's sake. A MEMBER: Well, the government should take and educate you. MR. TOUPIN: Daj Boze . In case you don' t unders tand, that means a votre sante . No, Mr.

Speaker, when you go through the Budget Address as we had it given to us by the Minister of Finance, our Premier, the philosophy of our party came through and I was very happy to see the many nE;!W things that were reflected for this coming ses sion, the session that we're now in. I'm quite sure that as the people in Manitoba making, say, $10, OOO or less were better off in 1974 as compared to 1969, again we'll see that reflected in 1975 and 1976, as we go through the different estimates of all departments of government.

I could spend hours and hours talking only of one area per taining to the development of individuals in this province as it relates to one department that I spent about, well, over four years of my life, Health and Social Dev elopment. So many things have happened, are happen ing today, and will continue to happen under this type of administration. Senior citizens have been treated like they sh ould have been treated so many years ago in regard to health care, in regard to pharmacare, in regard to so many services that are basic to individuals that are resp onsible for what we have in this province. Mr.

Speaker, I have difficulty unders tanding why the Honourable Leader of the Opposi tion - that unfortunately he 's not in the House today, I mean at this moment - saw voidness in the Budge t Addre ss. But now I underst and why he saw such a big vacuum there, because he can' t unders tand this type of language.

Those members on that side of the House can' t under st and this, so they can' t relate it to the public, and nat urally it' s their role to attempt to be critical and to try to indicate to the citizens of this province what leave s to be desired in this Budget Addre ss, but to see a complete voidne ss in what we have before us, I have very much difficulty in being able to unders tand the Leader of the Opposition. Anyone in the Province of Manitoba that can read and un ders tand, can see great things in this Budge t Addre ss. But the Le ader of the Opposition couldn• t.

He saw a lot of difficulty in relating what was good in the Budge t Address. But naturally what is good for him is less good for us - if I can put it that way - in a sense that their way of raising taxes is not our own. We don' t believe in raising taxes by means of premiums . We don' t really believe in raising the sales tax to get addi tional revenue, but we do believe in raising the pers onal and corporate tax, and we' ve done that in the years past, and we did get the funds that we felt were neces sary to render services that are needed in this province . But in one breat h, Mr.

Speaker, the Leader of the Opposi tion, members opposite sa y, "Cut down taxes . Offer more revenue to municipalities. Offer more service by means of civil servants that you have in your different departments, and yet less taxes. " Well, they sh ould know bettero They should know that if we're going to offer services, additional services, they should know that if we're going to increase payments to municipalities, direc tly or indirectly, that we need more funds, and the se funds have to be gotten one way or the othero And they know that the way we'll get additional funds won' t be their way.

We' ve proven that in the las t five and a half years, We don' t raise funds the way they raise fundso Now, the people of Manitoba appreciate that, but the Members of the Opposi tion don' t. Well, that' s unders tandable, because they want to get back in office and want to go back to the old system of charging more to tho se that make less. Really, isn' t that the philosophy of the Honourable Member for Virden ?--(Interjec tion)- Well, if it isn' t, then I'd like to he ar it. I sort of like the Honourable Member for Virden.

I think he 's a straightforward individual, that he 's a good person in the horseracing industry. He spoke well on the bill presented by the Honourable Member for Flin Flon, and he 's straight forward, and ye t I have n' t heard him get up in this House and say, "L isten, although I am tied to a caucus position, I don't really believe in the philosophy of the Conservative Party as it has been outlined over the years ." He 's never said that, has he, Mr, Speaker ? But maybe

2068 May 5, 19 75 BUDGET DEBATE (MRo TOUPIN cont'd ) .•••• he will. I have enough confidence in the honourable member that he may just stand up when I sit down and say, "W ell, this is my basic philosophy, this is what I believe in, and this is what we'll achieve ." Now the Honourable Member for Pem bina is shaking his head. -- (Interject ion)-- I beg your pardon. --( interject ion)--Well that doesn't matter, we'll let him talk again, we'll give him leave . There is definitely, Mr. Speaker, a great contradiction in regard to what we hear from that side of the House in regard to increased services, less taxes.

Now th at' s some thing that when we presented ourselves to the people of Manitoba in 169, and again in 197 3, we always told the people that we met on the hustings, "Yes, we 'll offer you new service s." We told them that we'd go into different fields pertaining to additional health care delivery systems . We told them about Autopac . We told them about the farm-lease program . It' s not that we have n' t put our case before the people. We 'v e done so. But we never told the m that it would cost them less. We told them that it would cost them more but in a different fashion. And that we'v e done too.

Now the honourable members have been, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, effective in dis torting our land-lease program. That they have . I believe that they lost me votes in the last elec tion, and they lost votes for a lot of our candidates because they were success ful in knock ing on those doors and dis torting, dis torting, and that• s to say the least, the policy of this government pertaining to land-lease with the option to buy.

Now, if any member on the other side of the House, or any individual in the Prov ince of Manitoba, can st and up and tell me that a farmer, one not ten farme rs, one farmer in the Province of Manitoba has been forced by this government to sell his land to the Minister of Agriculture who has the intent of leas ing back with an option to buy - not one . The only letter s, Mr.

Speaker, the only phone calls, the only individual contacts that I'v e had with people in my constitu ency - and I get back to my constituents at least once a day - is that the program is good, the program is available, and you can either take it or leave it. It' s an additional option that we offer to farmers in the Province of Manitoba. No one is forced to buy, no one is forced to lease, it's an additional option that we have . They can still go to the bank; they can st ill go to the trust com pany; they can still go to the credit union; they can still go to the Farm Credit Co rporation and borrow money.

They can still go to the se financial institutions and borrow money and buy farms be cause I know, I have contacts daily with some of my constitu ents. They are never forced to sell their land to the gove rnment. Never to my knowledge . Now I have asked this before in this House, I'v e ask ed it in my cons tituency, not one, not one Manitoban, Mr. Speaker - and I want that on the record - has been able to tell me that he had been forced to sell his land to the government, that he had been forced to lease from the government. Not one .

Now is that an option or is that being shoved down the throats of farmers in the Province of Manitoba? Now the ex-Minister of Agriculture talks about freedom. Now that' s our freedom. Tha t' s the type of freedom we adv ocate. Addit ional options for farmer s. Additional options for busi nessmen or businesswomen that we have in the Province of Manitoba. Additional options to individuals to ac tually move ahead in society, whether it be in private enterprise, whether it be in a co-o pera tive movement, or whether it be in government circles, at the local, the provincial, or the federal level.

Peo ple can accelerate, people can better them selves where ever they feel it is best for them. All we'v e done in our five and a half years of office is give them additional options. Now that' s not the picture that the members of the opposition that are now here, or those that have presented themselves in the 1973 elect ion, have refelcted the policy to Manitobans. Not at all. They' ve attempted to really put a scare into the people of Manitoba in regard to what was happening pertaining to that option that was meant to help more farmers get back to the farms. And really, I'v e had more experien ces, Mr.

Speaker, brought to my attention of young farmers that because of this additional option were able to phase them selves back on the farm, being able to lease initially from the Crown and with the option to purchase that land after a five year period. Now what' s wrong with that? Wh at' s wrong with that ? We have so many people in the Province of Manitoba, Mr.

Speaker, that want to acquire different things in life, whether it be a car, whether it be a home, a motor boat, a combine, --(Int erject ion)-- Yes, a horse - and so many things, and have to make payments, monthly payments, and eventually they own whatever they had intended to purchase but couldn' t by outright cash. Now if a young farmer

May 5, 1975 20 69 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. TOUPIN cont'd) •... • of my age, let• s say, wanted to get back on the farm - and I was raised on a farm for over 20 years - it' s completely impossi ble for me, Mr . Speaker, to go out and say, lay on the line a 100 or 150 thous and dollars. I just can' t, I hav en' t got that kind of money . But if I have an option to go to a credit union, to go to a bank, to go to the Farm Credit Corporation, or have the government purchase say a half a

section or a

section of land for me and I lease it back from them, well to me that' s an incentive for me to go back on the land that I was raised on and I dearly love , and one day will go back. But in regard to my possi bility today, Mr. Speaker, and as we look at the policy im plemented by the Conservative s, and they don' t often say that, but they started that policy of land-lease, Mr. Speaker, but they didn' t really advertise it, didn' t make it that much avail able to farmers in Manitoba, but they started it. They really started it.

No one said that it was socializing the farmers in the Province of Manitoba back in 1968. You didn' t hear any members of the Liberal party say that then. You didn' t hear anyone from the Conserv ative side of the House back in '68 say that the land-lease program that they had was socialistic. No way. Ther e's no one on the Con serva tive benches, and espec ially the ex-Minister of Agriculture, that got up and said, well, we 're forcing people to sell land to the government. But that program was there then.

But it wasn' t rea lly an option because it wasn' t re ally offered truly to the people of Manitoba, as it is today, as it is today, and more and more farmers are taking advantage of the program. Let' s look at who's taking advantag e of the program . Is it mainly people from Springfield in my cons tituency, who I consider to be a New Democratic constituency? No it isn' t re ally. I have some that have availed themselves of this addi tional option. MR. BILTON: So have I.

MR, TOUPIN: But if you look at the list of individuals who have chosen through their free will to sell their land to the government and lease back, they are mainly from Conserva tive constit uencie s. Why is that ? Mainly from Conserv ative constituenc ies, Why is that program so bad, Mr. Speaker, if mainly the people from the Opposition 's cons tituencies are availing themselves of that addi tional option? '..:'here's more farmers at heart here, more farmers at heart here , Mr. Speaker, than you see on the other side of the House. Really. --(Interj ections)-- Well, Mr.

Speaker, I'm really holding my breath to wait for a member of the Opposition to st and up and answer me a question that I - after I' ve finished - in regard to any farmer in the Province of Manitoba that has been forced to either sell or lease his land from government. I hope someone can get up after I sit down and indicate to me who has been forced to sell his land to the government, or who has been forced to lease his land from gov ernment for a farming purpose. I'm not saying to build a road or for a park, but for a farm ing purpose .

I haven' t heard of one farmer in this province of approximately 1, 022, OOO people. Not one . Now again, honourable members of the Opposition like to talk about Autopac and the big deficit of Autopac . Don' t they ? Well, you know, I sold ins urance. Like I indicated awhile ago, I was born and raised in Springfield constituency. My father had a farm, mixed farming.

He had a store since the depres sion, and I sold insurance for approximately ten years for a Co -operative insLirance, general insurance, not only car ins urance but the fire, theft, public liability, the whole bit, apart from life, and I can tell you, Mr.

Speaker, in all sincerity to all members of the House, to any Manitoban that wants to listen to me, that if the Minister resp onsible for Autopac had been charging the going rates, the rates that are being charged by other private companies elsew here in Canada, that we would not have a deficit of six, eight or 10 million dollars, but that we would have an undivided earning in this province. Now --(Interjection )-- undivided ea rning, ye s. Now what would the honourable members of the Opposition pref er?

That we attempt to charge a fair rate for automobile insurance, or that we surcharge in anticipation of a lot of accidents, a lot of hail storms, and ev erything else, and have a surplus. I believe that we should attempt through ac tuarially sound experience charge a half decent rate and, if need be, increase the rate the following year. And that' s what we 'v e done . We 'v e increased the rate.

But even with the increased rates that are coming onstream now, and including the two cents per gallon on gasoline, we will be charging less, less in premiums for automobile insurance than practically any other province in Ca nada, leaving aside two. Now, Manitobans know that but every time ... anytime a member of the Opposition gets up to speak, all they want to talk

20 70 May 5, 1975 BUDGET DEB AT E (MR. TOUPIN cont'd) . • . • . about is that great big deficit, great big def icit --(Interjection) Whose going to pay it? We're going to pay it, you and I by our premiums. Now whether --(Interjection)-- sure we are - whether we paid it last year through our premiums, or whether we pay it this year with a revised rate pertaining to automobile or truck insurance. Now the additional amount needed is not coming through general revenue, and the honourable members know that, because we did indicate that the two cents addition al on gasoline was earmarked as a premium for Au topac .

The hono urable member responsible for the public automobile insurance indicated that if he had his choice that he'd have the whole premium on gasoline, the whole premium . Whether that meant 15 of 16 cents additional per gallon. he'd rather see that system than have it on the syst em that it is today. Now if we had the total premium on the gasoline tax, would the hono urable members still say, would the honourable members still say that we're actually paying a deficit for automobile insurance through gen eral revenue ? I should hope not because it would be earmarked as it is now for automobile insurance .

The same as we said back in 1969 that we'd take so much on the personal and corporate tax to pay for the premium. We did say that, didn't we? Premium in regard to Medicare. We lowe red the premium by 50 percent, which costs us approximately 28 , 29 million dollars, and we increased, we increased the perso nal and corporate tax to do that. Now did the hon oura ble members say that we were takin g general revenue then to pay for the health care delivery system ? I didn't hear that. I didn't hear that.

And then about a year and a half later we took, we took an addition al $2 8 million and abolished the premiums totally . Now the premiums pertaining to health care in the Province of Manitoba, and I repeat, which I con sider to be the best in the world to my knowledge, in the Province of Manitoba is paid through, mainly through personal and corporate taxes - and I believe in that. ' Now if the honourable member who• s responsible for the Manitoba automobile insurance brings a recommendation to Cabinet to look at a switch in taxation pertaining to the method of paying for automobile insurance, I'll look at it.

I'm not here to spell out policy of govern ment. --(Interjection) --! drive my truck too. I have a truck and I pay for· my own gas . --(Interjection )--Yes, I use my truck and I cut my own wood and--(Interjection )--Yes . Pardon? No, no purple . I'm not a farmer. Unfortunately, I haven't got time to farm. A MEMBER: What about the tourists, you•re the Minister. MR. TOUPIN: Yes, yes, that' s right. We'll talk about that later. In regard, Mr. Speaker, to additional funds seemingly needed by municipalities.

We heard the Honourable Member for La Verendrye indicate that we should - and correct me if I'm wrong - that we should make more funds available to them, that he felt that if additional services had to be offered by the municipalities, and if they had to raise funds, that they'd receive the political brunt of that move, and he felt that it should belong to us. Now I disagree with that. Tot ally . If we, as a provincial government, take moves that af fect mainly the provinc e, and if tho se moves happen to be good political moves, I think that we as a province should get the political gains.

Now if we boob-boobed and makebad political moves and raise taxes, and if the ma jo rity of people in Manitoba don' t agree with that me thod of taxation, then we should get the political brunt . Then we should get the political brunt. But if there's municipal services being offered that defer in a lot of cases to a neighbouring municipality, and if the municipal council want to of fer those services, they should raise taxes and should be politically respon sible to their own taxpa yers.

Now, if there's a question of raising a special levy over and beyond the foundation levy, the municipality as it now stands has a responsibility to raise part of that special levy. Now we have, and the Minister of Education will spell it out for you when we get to his estimates. --(Interjection)-- Passed already ? Well, he'll explain again, in regard to the shared ser vices that he has to off er to attempt to equalize the payments across Manitoba. Now there is, over and beyond the foundation levy, an amount that attempts to equalize.

Now if municipal ities want to off er, as an example, say, library service in the Province of Manitoba, now there's a grant system, that we've had for many years - I don' t have to tell the honourable members of the opposition what it is because they started it - that allows a - Steinbach as an example - the Honourable Member for La Verendrye knows this - a basic grant of $200 . 00. Now, they can avail themselves of that basic $200 grant, and if they join in with a neighboring municipality they can qualify for a $10, OOO grant for municipally-operated library service.

May 5, 1975 20 71 BUDGE T DEBATE (MR. TOUPIN con t'

d) Now, starting on the lst of July, 1975, we have a new system. In case we have, say, 10, OOO or more individuals wanting to avail themselves of library service, we have a per capita payment of $2 . 00 per capita, available to those municipa lities that want to group them selves togeth er. Now, as an example, that would give the City of Winnipeg approximately $1 million instead of about $60 , OOO they were receiving.

Now, the system that the Co nservatives started a few years back allowed the discrep ancy that we've seen for many years; to allow Steinbach, as an example, to receive $2 00. 00, to allow Parklands and tbose given municipalities in Dauphin and surro unding areas to receive approximately $85, OOO to serve approximately 30, OOO people, and to allow the City of Win nipeg, which has approximately half a million people, to receive $60, OOO. Now that wasn't a good policy, in my mind, so we worked towards a change in that policy. On having it on the per capita system, we believe that it's fair er.

Now, if municipalities in the Province of Manitoba cannot get together and have, say, 10, OOO people or more, then the old system remains, where they can qualify for a basic $2 00. 00 grant, a $2, OOO operating grant, and a $1 0, OOO grant for a regional library service. For municipalities with less than 10, OOO people, it could be financially advantageous to them to remain on the old system. In regard to Parkland, the honourable members that are interested in Parkland are aware that we've extended the experiment to December 31, 1975, and we've committed an addition al $40, OOO, and that's it.

After that, they 'll have to look at the formulas that we now have - the two alternatives, the old system or the new system of the $2 . 00 per capitao Now, if they have 30 or 35 thousand people in the 27 municipalities involved in Parklands and want to use the per capita system, they could qualify for appro ximately $80, OOO a year, but that means that they have to raise locally $80 , OOO. Now that to me is fairer, that they take a political move locally, as municipalities, and assess the taxpayers and find out if they really want a good library service.

Now, if that' s the case, they'll come across with a few shared dollars, and to me that's sensible . The same with welfare. We hear so much criti cism, Mr. Speaker, in regard to welfare in the Province of Manitoba. Who is re sponsible for the unemployed employables in the Province of Manitoba? A MEMBER: The Conser vatives. MR. TOUPIN: Yes, well I guess you cou ld say that. But I don' t say that. In the main, Mro Speaker, the municipalities are responsible for the unemployed employab les. Now, we know that, the Conservat ives know that, but do they say that to the citizens of Manitoba? I haven' t heard it.

I haven't heard it once in this House, said by a Conse rvative member that the municipalities were responsible for the unemployed employables. Now, I believe that's the way it should remain, because I believe� that the local cou ncillor is closer to hi s people and should be able to define a reasonable level of assistance for that individual that is un employed but employa ble . And if he's able to work, he should make sure that work is given to him at a reason able salary.

Now, in regard to the Local Government Districts, the province, by default in a sense, though they do form their own municipality, is responsible for the unemployed employa bles, and we have certain rights for the unemployed employables. I only have a few minutes left and I had so many things here on my agenda that I1d like to talk abo ut. --(Interjection) --Yes, go ahead . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR.

GEORGE HENDERSON (Pembina) : I'd like to ask the honourable member if he ever knows what happens to the Welfare Appeal Board when a local municipality uses its own judgment and figures some of these unemployed employables should be put to work . Do you know what happens when Una Deeter comes out ? MR. TOUPIN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, again, we talk of the Welfare Appeal Board, and that is a condit ion, as the honourable member well knows, under the Canada As sistance Plan, that we have a Welfare Appeal Board that overrides not only the municipalities, but overrides the Department of Health and Social Development and overrides equally the Local Govern ment District. Now, there's an appeal to that Welfare Appeal Board, and the honourable members well know that too, because we've had appeals on decision taken from the Welfare Ap peal

20 72 May 5, 1975 BUDGET DEBAT E (MR. TOUP IN cont' d) • • . . • Board; some have been won, some have been lost. Now, isn't that democracy, Mr . Speaker ? Isn't that part of democracy ? Obviousl y the honour able member doesn' t agree with that. --(Interjection)-- I happen to agree with it. The honourable member doesn' t agree with the chairperson of the Welfare Appeal Board. I happen to agree with •.• --(Interjection) -- Obvi ously.

But these are things that we'll never, we'll never really, you know, agree between the Conservatives and the Liberals - I mean the Conse rvatives and our side of the House. (laughter) Because the Liberals in Ott awa make it a cortdition, we appoint members of the Welfare Appeal Board and if the municipality or the department --(Interjection) --No, if the department is not satisfied with the municipality, they can appeal to the courts. Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that I haven't got additional time.

I hope that the hono urable members on the other side of the House, although they don' t believe in our philosophy, will see fit to vote for this Budget Addre ss. MR . SPEA KER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR . J. DOUGLAS WATT (Arthur): May I ask a question of the Minister ? MR . SPEAKER: The Minister's time has run out, unless it's by leave . (Agreed). The Honourable Member for Ar thur . MR.

WATT: May I ask the Minister if he can equate the Uncondition al Grants with the extra costs that it is cost ing the municipalities now to maintain the municipal roads because the heavy traf fic now has been diverted from provincial roads to municipal roa ds? Can he give us a figure to equate what that side of the House have so often mentioned in the last few days, the Unconditional Grants ? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Tourism. MR . TOUPIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, again, it depends on what the Honourable Member for Ar thur is wanting to relate to.

If he is wanting to relate to Unconditional Grants pertain ing to being paid by the Department of Highways, that is somet hing that is discussed, as you so well know, between the given municipalities and the Department of Highways. In a lot of cases it's an option that's left open, in a lot of cases it's an exchange of one piece of road for another, and there's a block payment made initially and then the municipality has to actually financially upkeep that road over a period of years. If he wants to review that policy, I'm willing to look at it. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Member for Arthur. MR . WATT: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister if he is not agreed - and un fortu nately in the absence of the Minister of Highways - if he is not agreed that the mainten ance of the provincial roads that were set up by the Conservative Government are now getting half the maintenance on the upgrading that they were at the time the Conservatives were in power, but they have increased the per capita grant. And I want to know from him if he has any idea or any figure on what it is cost ing the municipalities, disregarding the fact of the increase in Unconditional Grants on a per capita basis. MR. TOUPIN: Mr .

Speaker, I believe that with the financial resources allocated to the Department of Highways that that given department is doing its utmost to see that the roads in the Province of Manitoba are kept to the best level possible. MR. WATT: •.. up my question then. How many roads has my hono urable friend driven over in the past weekend, and what kind of a me ss are they in right now ? MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Speaker, this may surprise the honourable member, but I was in his consti tuency in the past weekend and the road s aren't all that bad. MR . WATT: I could have shown you. MR.

SPEAKER: All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment ? QUES TION put, MOTION declared lost MR. AXWORTHY: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member have suppor t? A MEMBER: Yes, he do es. MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Call in the members. Order please. The motion before the House is the amendment by the Hono urable Member for Fort Rouge. A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

May 5, 1975 BUDGET DEBATE YEAS Messrs . Axwor thy Banman Bilton Blake Brown Einarson Enns Ferguson Graham Henderson NAYS Mess rs. Adam Barrow Bostrom Boyce Cherniack Derewianchuk Desjard ins Dillen Doern Evans Gottfried Green Hanuschak Jenkins MR. CL ERK: Yea s, 20. Nays, 28. Jorgenson McGill McGregor Mc Kellar McKenzie Moug Patrick Sherman Spivak Watt Johanns on McBryde Malinowski Miller Osland Pawley Peturss on Schreyer Shafransky Tou pin Turnbull Uruski Uskiw Walding MR. SPEA KER: In my opinion, the Nays have it.

I declare the motion lost . 20 73 The motion now before the House is that of the amendment by the Honourable Leader of the Oppo sition. QUES TION put, MOTION declared lost. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Mor ris. MR. JORGENSON: If it's agreeable, by the same division. MR. SPEAKER: Same division as the one on the first amendment? (Agreed) All those in favour of the Motion as presented by the Honourable First Minister. QUE STION put, MOTION declared carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Lead er. MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that they would like the same Division with the reversal of the Aye s for the Nays. I gather that is acceptable . MR. SPEAKER: Very well. Is that acceptable ? (Agreed) . And so entered in the Votes and Procee dings.

207 4 May 5, 197 5 CO MMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable House Le ader. MR. GR EEN: Mr. Speaker, will you proceed now with the bills on the Or der Pa per on Second Reading. MR. SPEAKER: May I take the Address for Papers first? MR. GR EEN: Oh. I gather, then that the priori ty will be to the Private Members' Hour. As a matter of fact, I think, Mr. Speaker, that it's probably Private Members' time priority right now, so we can deal with the other items later on. MR .

SPEAKER: Very well, altho ugh, by rule, the pr ecedence was that the Budget takes, and since we've got passed the starting of the Private Members' Hour , I believe it's governme nt business, that the House can make its own decision. The Honourable House Le ader. MR. GR EEN : Well , Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, I'm sure that this is a firs t time it's ever arisen. I don't know whether anybody wishes to challenge what has been said.

If the Budget Debate has priority, we have passed the hour of 4: 30, certainly from 4:30 to 5:3 0 would have been Private Mem bers' Hour , then at 8 o' clock we would be back in House time. I don't have strong fe elings about it one way or the other. I'm prepared to go to govern ment business if that is the way you feel it should be done, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Morri s. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Speaker, the hour now being quarter to five, we are 15 minutes into Private Members' Hour , so ther ef ore the next order of business would be Private Mem bers' Hour . MR .

SPEAKER: It's immaterial to me. Fi rst item. Th e Honourable House Leader. MR . GR EEN : Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. Johns brings to my attention that the House has mo ved to go into co mmittee and therefore has to go into co mmittee. MR. SPEAKER: When ? When ? 0 h, you are corr ect. That's right. MR. GR EE N: The motion that we moved was to go into co mmittee. MR. CHAIRMAN: Or der please. Co mmittee rise. Call in the Speaker. IN SE SSION MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lo gan. MR. WILLIAM JE NKINS (Logan ): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Thom pson, that the report of the Co mmittee of Ways and Means be received. MOTION pres ented and carried. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Hou se Le ader. MR . GR EEN : Mr. Speaker, I then indicated I'm at the pleasure of the honour able members whether they wish the balance of 45 minutes to be used as Private Members' time or whether we . They do. Well then it's the Private Members' Resolutions. No. 20 is the first one. PRIVAT E MEMBERS' HOUR MR, SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for As siniboia. RESOLU TION NO. 20 MR . ST EV E PATRICK (Assi niboia): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to mov e, seconded by the Honourable Member for Fort Ro uge: WHER EAS Manitoba's record for supporting public libraries is unsatisfactory; AND

WHEREAS there is no gov ernment co mmitment towards the develop ment of a pro vincial library network through regional li braries, and an overall prov incial library system; AND WHER EAS the rational stay-option for rural areas implies a co mmitment to provide the kind of gover nment service which will allow people to stay in rural areas without suffering the penalty of being denied a reasonable standard of services; TH ER EFOR E BE IT RE SOLVED that the Gove rnment of Manitob a consider the advisability of implementing the Newsom Report in a staged process so as to incur a lesser cash outlay during the firs t fisca l year; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Governme nt of Manitob a consider the advis ability of implementing the reco mmendations contained in the Newsom Report of a designated

May 5, 19 75 20 75 RES OLU TIO N 20 (MR. PATRICK cont'd) .•... period of time so as to evolv e a provi ncial library network through regional libraries and an overall integrated provincial library system. MOTION pres ented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honoura ble Member for As siniboia. MR. PATRICK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My remarks would have perhaps been some what different before the First Minister introduced the Budget, but it's still very pertinent at the pres ent time , and much that I would have said at that time still has to be said at the prese nt time , Mr. Speaker.

I know that in the last several months , two months at least, the Manitob a Library Ass oc iation has brou ght very serious problems to the attention of the Manitob a public and to many members of this Legislature, and I know it has been brou ght to my att ention and a con siderable amount of corres pondence. I know the Member for Por tage la Pr airie has received petitions and enough letters, Mr. Speaker, that he had a difficult time to keep up with.

But really there are some concerns that I have at the prese nt time, and I would like to express them to the Hous e, and one can draw the followin g conclusio ns, Mr. Speaker: Th ere are an insufficient number of municipal libraries in the Province of Manitob a. Th e pre sent grant structure is such as to discourage the develop ment of municipal libraries, and it was to the time the Budget was pre sented - I know that it was indicated in the Budget that there will be an increase which, in my opinion, will still be less than what it is in other provinces in the country.

Th ere is no governme nt commitment to the dev elopment of a pro vincial library network throughout the regional libraries in the Prov ince of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker , and this is perhaps the most serious problem that we have at the prese nt time.

I know that we should be concerned about a proper library system with a financial commitment that would be one of the govern ment priori ties, and I'm sure then we would hav e a network of provincial library systems that would be the kind of a system that is required in the Province of Manitob a, which some of the other provinces have started or have taken some action in this area quite a few years ago. I know that the current estimates that's befo re us did not disclose any co mmitment as far as the develo pment of a com prehensive library system in the Province of Manitoba for the comi ng fiscal year.

However , I must correct that; I know that the Budget did indicate that there will be a considerable grant given as far as the establi shment of the library systems in the province. Now, Mr. Speaker, if we look at the Newsom Report itself and the Guidelines for the Deve lop ment of a Public Library System in Manitob a, it's quite easy to draw the conclusion what is the problem at the prese nt time and what should be done.

Under the objectives and priori ti es on Page 26, it' s indicated that the library developme nt cannot take place in a vacuum, it demands extensive planning, priorit ies, analysis of costs, and careful conside ration of structur es at the provincial level. Now what has happened and what has been done at the present ti me, Mr. Speaker ? If we look at it very closely, the follow ing issues have to be faced clearly in Manitoba if the develo pment is to take place: No. 1 in this issue is, Accept a Worka ble Plan for Library Development, and they should outline structures for service and prov incial organiz ation.

Now I know that the Minister has indicated and there has been some News Releases, and I know that the Manitob a Library Asso ciation has indicated that the governm ent has indicated that it has accepted the Newsom Report in principle, but that 's as far as it has gone. Now if we look at Item No. 2 under the objectives, and it says: Approve feasibility studies in such fields as the following: (

a) Th e value of centralized cataloging service for public libraries; (

b) Guidelines for the oper ation of a school public library; and (

c) Form of a union catalogue. Now, Mr. Speaker, this has not been done. It has not be en set up, and the feasibi lity studies have not been don e. 3. Th e other most important po int in the objectives is to promote local and regional libraries, - and continuing attention should be paid in the develop ment of small libraries in the Province of Manitob a. Again, this has not been done. 4. Urge the Depa rtment of Library System to become a bona fide library system. Again, this has not been done, Mr. Speaker. 5. Encourage ment should be given to resid ents of municipalities in an area to form a

2076 May 5, 1975 RESOLUTION 20 (MR. PA TRICK cont'd) ....• regional system on April 1, 19 75; and a consultant should be dispatched from the Pro vincial Library Services to promote the concept. Now again, Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate to the House that no consultant has bee n dispatched to the present time, and nothing has bee n done. So, Mr. Speaker, if we ju st go through the Newsom Report on the priorities and what had to take place and what had to happen, did not happen. So really, Mr. Speaker , the governm ent doesn't consider this a very priority item and a priority iss ue.

Now, No. 6, deve lop an area of res ource ce ntres. This has not bee n done. 7. De fine the role of the Provincial Library Services and esta blish an organization pattern for the de velopment of such se rvices. That has not been done. So , Mr. Speaker , even the Pa rkland Library - and that's supposed to be closed July lst.

So if we go through all the items on the Newsom Report with res pect to the financing of the Public Library Systems, we'll find that the most important issues of the objectives and prior ities in the Newsom Report has not been acce pted by the gov ernment, and very little action has been taken. So really, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned.

I know that sinc e the Budget has been tabled in the Ho use, and ther e has been a letter from the Manitob a Library Ass ociation, and they ce rtainly are happy that there was a grant made, but they feel this will not, not be in keeping with the Newsom Report and that very little will be done. So , Mr. Speaker , the other point that we have to consider ourselves with is that Manitoba' s record in supporting public libraries is, if not perhaps one of the worst, it's one of the lowest in the na tion.

The per capita support by the Governme nt of Manitoba and support for the Prov incial Libraries System was , un til the Budget a couple of weeks ago, was 67 ce nts per capita, 67 cen ts , and I know that has been increased I believe so mewher e close to $2. 00 per capita. Now this compares with 2. 97 in Newfoundland , 2. 45 in Nova Scotia, 3. 58 in Prince Edward Isla nd , and 2. 71 in New Brunswick , 2 . 14 in Ontario , and 2. 69 in Saska tchewan. So really, Mr.

Speaker, this is an indication in itself that even with the grant that was made in the Budget it still is below almost mo st of the provinces, or all of the provinces in Ca nada. I feel that we need a more generous scale of grants for municipal libraries because it is necess ary to encourage the deve lopment of new municipal libraries and the expansion of the existing faciliti es, as suggested and outlined in the Newsom Re port. In my view, Mr. Speaker , I think that regional libraries are extrem ely ess en tial and a compon ent in the developme nt of a comprehe nsive, public library system for Manitoba.

And this is the whole thing, the report indicates if we will have a comprehensive public library system the action must be taken as suggested by the objectives and priorities, and this has not been done. In fact, Mr. Speaker , I am of the opinion that the very reverse is taking place, and really I know that there was great concern by the Manitoba Libraries Assoc iation about the Pa rkland library, and I to this day still don't know if it'll stay open or if it'll close on July lst, but I think that there needs to be some clarific ation from the Minister.

I know we've talked a great deal about the stay- option, and so on, but I think that we must be aware of the short com ings of the existing Public Library System in Manitoba as indicated in the Newsom Report. I know that I've gone through the report and I'm convinced that what the Manitoba Public Library Associ ation are talking about is correct, and some thing has to be done. I think it would be a tragic mistake, Mr. Speaker, to not act on the Newsom Report.

I do not say that we have to expend all the money in res pect to the prese nt system, but what I'm talking about is that if we must make a commitment , and we must make an undertaking to acce pt obj ectives, as indic ated in the Newsom Re port, so that there would be a comprehensive library system in the province. I think that we should do that.

Up to the prese nt time I have not heard from the Minister if this is his intention because as I went through the report, I'v e indicated of all the priorities and items that was asked of the gove rnment to act on, they haven't be en acted on, exc ept that the govern ment has acc epted a plan for a library deve lopment, tha t's all, but they haven't approved the feasi bility studies, they haven't gone forward in respect to local and regional libraries, so I think this is where I would like to hear from the Minister and see what is the plan and what is his intentions.

I know he has the money now because I did ask him b� fore the Orders of the Day; I did ask him early in the ses sion if there was any money in his estima tes for the library system, and I believe at that time he answered to me that there

May 5, 1975 2077 RES OL UTION 20 (MR, PATRICK cont'd) •.... wasn't, and he was quite corr ect. But since the Budget debate we know that there is in the estimates some money now allot ted, and I think it's the gover nment responsi bility and the Minister 's respon sibility to accept and implement the objectives and priorities of the Newsom Report, Mr. Speaker. MR , SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of To urism and Re creation. MR, TOUPIN: Mr.

Speaker, on speaking on Re solution 20, the first three WHER EAS are false, and I think the honour able member will agree with me that the resolution itself was prepa red befo re we submitted , we tabled the Budget Address. We within the Estimates of To urism, Recrea tion and Cultural Affairs were given the responsibi lity of public libraries an amount of approximately $500, OOO in the Estimates for the support of public libraries in the Province of Manitoba.

I for one did not believe that this was sufficient to go ahead with what I consider to be a better library service in the Province of Manitob a, reacting to local and municipal and regional needs. But I emphasiz e, Mr. Speaker, that it has to be that the Prov incial Govern ment is given a responsibili ty to react to local, municipal and regional needs and is not taking, or given the responsibility to initiate that input locally.

And thi s is why we had a system first of all, initiated by the Conser vatives back - back when - that was still in force in the Province of Manitob a and still in fo rce today, because our new system do es not become effective until the ls t of July 1975. Where the honourab le member men tions that we go on record as supporting public libraries in Manito ba, he feels that we've be en unsatisfactory. I believe he was at least half right before the Budget address.

But not so today, because if we compare our new system, our new policy pertaining to public library service in the Province of Manitob a, and compare it to any other province in Ca nada, as I have it befor e me, we stand pretty good. We stand about halfway inbetween all other provinces in Ca nada. And I could cite or give a copy to the honourable member of what is the per capita grant made availa ble by other provincial gove rn ments across Ca nada. Now the second WHER EAS is that the governme nt, that we have made no commitme nt towards the develop ment of a provincial library network throughout the pro vince.

Well again if we look at the system as was established by the Cons ervatives a few years ago, and look at the provincial input on the Extension Library Service, there has been quite an addition - and I know that coming from a farm area myself, I had to rely on the Extension Service of the Pro vincial Library Service. Tha t' s the only thing we had.

We had just the one red school house and whatever books we required we had to get from the Extension Library, and for many years back in the 30's and the 40 's, and, you know , after that I continued my education in the cities where we did have a good library service, and I must say that the City of Winnipeg has a good library service and the new policy that we now have effective July lst will react half decently to the budget of the City of Winnipeg pertaining to public libraries. I'm informed, Mr.

Speaker, that the budget for public library service in the City of Winnipeg is approxima te ly $4. 4 million, of which we'll pay them approximately a million dollars. Well that's quite a bit better than what had be en seen in the previous administration and even by this administration up to the lst of July, 1975, Instead of $60, OOO, a million dollars. So that's quite a hike. So there is that policy, Mr. Speaker, and that' s the reason why I don't agree with the second

WHEREAS, Now if you look at the third WHER EAS on the resolution , Mr. Speaker - and again, I did speak to the Honoura ble Member for Assi niboia asking if it was possible to revise his reso lution, but he figured that that, you kn ow, that that wasn't his intent even after the tabling of the Budget Address.

But again, we talk of a rational stay-option for rural areas and we agree with that , and our policy reflects the stay-option even in the rural areas where they can group together , have several municipalities grou p together and go under the new system of a $2. 00 pe r capita grant, or stay under the old system. It may be beneficial for them to stay under the old formula and receive the basic $200 . 00, $2, OOO opera ting, a special $2, OOO again, that gives them $4 , OOO, and if they fo rm a regional library, an additional $1 0, OOO. Th at's the old for mula as the honourable member has it.

And again, supplemented by the extension library service on the regional level. Now, if we look at the Newsom recommendations - and they're spelled out here; there's a

summary - I'm not saying that we totally disagree with the recommendations of Newsom be cause we've implemented some of his recomme ndations already. But I'm not ready to accept as gover nment policy at this stage, Mr. Speaker and collea gues of the House, that all of the

2078 May 5, 1975 RES OLUTION 20 (MR. TOUPIN cont'd) ••... reco mmendatio ns of Newsom will be implemented. And if you loo k at the TH ER EFOR E BE IT RES OLVED , this is what the honoura ble member is

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-2-72
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 2nd hansardpdf 72.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3bf71244fc22905ff80932a7b7d16bcdecc328cc

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