Manitoba Hansard — 15 March 1979 (Sitting 21B, 31st Legislature, 3rd Session)

31-3-21b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

" .. I • .. .. .. ,. LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, March 15, 1979 Time: 8:00 p.m. SUPPLY - DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE MR. CHAIRMAN: We were dealing with Item 4.(c). The Honourable Minister had the floor. The Honourable Minister. MR. CRAIK: I think there is nothing further, Mr. Chairman. We took a number of questions as notice . We will get back with the answers. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Inkster . MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr.

Chairman , I do believe I had the floor and I think we were discussing the issue which could well be discussed with this Minister - it may have to be discussed generally in the House - w ith regard to what I would call clinical information , which really doesn't involve compiling or analysis , or secrecy, and whether it is necessary for any citizen to have to write a letter to the Minister to get that information , or whether it's available to the media , or whether it's available to people who are writing books and whether it is available to researchers in the Department of Commerce.

Things like if I wanted to know, for instance, on the sales tax what the receipts were for January , February , March and April, rather than knowing the full year, would the Minister feel that it was incumbent upon me to get i n touch with him or shouldn't somebody in his department be able to give me that kind of info rmat ion. If, for inttance, we had the motive fuel tax and I phone the department and say, " I'd like to know the breakdown as between diesel and non-diesel ".

If that doesn 't happe n to be a feature which is on the Estimates Book, does the Minister really believe that that kind of informa tion, which is clinical, it's public, it's informational in natu re, i s someth ing that anybod y would have to go through the Minister for? Because right now I think you have created an intol erable situation that nobody in the administration can give me informat ion of the simplest natu re unless I ask through the Minister.

Now, may I tell the Minister that I believe this can be done without any embarrassment whatsoever , and I will give the Min ister an example from his own experience . I believe he asked my departmental officials , when I was the Minister of Mines , as to how much drilling there was in a particula r year. He didn 't ask me; he asked the department. Now, I want you to know the depar tment told me that you asked and I said , " Give it to him." I would also like to have the same information, but there is nothing wrong with g iving it to the Member for Riel, as you then were.

And it seems to me that that kind of thing should be available . If you are concerned that an MLA is receiving information which may take you by surpr ise politically then wouldn 't it be a better direction that if this kind of information is requested I would apprec iate knowing that it has been requested and I would appreciate receiving the same information that has gone out to the particular MLA so that I am aware of it if anything ever touches on it. But I am not talking about analysis, Mr. Minister.

I am talking about information which is clinical, which is public and which would be included , really, in your public books if you didn't have to categor ize in terms of effic iency. And I think that this type of thing, the type of edict that appears to have been issued to various civil servants in the government is a self-defeating edict. When I was the Minister of Mines and somebody said, how many fishing licences are there on Lake Winnipeg , there would be no suggestion that they couldn't be told how many there were.

I would appreciate the Civil Service then saying, we were asked how many fishing licences there were and we told them that there were 864. Now, isn't that something that can be easily facilitated by your department? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister . MR. CRAIK: Well, Mr. Chairman , just let me sort of go back to the fundamentals . There's an executive and there's a legislative responsibility in government. I think it's pretty well recognized in the parliamentary system that that exists . When you set up the executive responsibility, the 1057

Thursday, March 15, 1979 with the majority is elected to govern , the group with lesser than the majority is usually asked to be the opposition . We are all MLAs but those that are elected to gove rn are usually asked act as an executive . And, when you act as an executive you act in the role of runni ng the affairs of the province until the next time the people decide whether or not you are an executive or not. I don 't think it's any more complicated than that. We are not asked to run the government by committee . You know , I've listened to the debates in the House that have gone over the last few years.

The Member for Fort Rouge has had a resolution on the table for year on end, every year since he's been here about the availability of reports and all the rest. And , I've seen the Member for Inkster mount a very convincing argument which generally 1 supported , I was opposition, he was government , you know, about that very same matter , which is very similar to the matter that he's referring to now .

I don 't think that it was the intent of our system to run government by committee but I think there should be a degree of openness that is provided by the committees for examination in the government - which I incidentally feel are maybe open to some weaknesses at many times because they tend to be pretty highly personalized and policital, if you like, in terms of scoring points of the moment. But I can use two or three examples . One I used this afternoon was with regard to a particular issue in filing an order for return . Let me cite one more .

I don 't recall going to the member, when he was Minister, going to his department and asking for mining drilling information . MR. GREEN: You did . MR. CRAIK: But, I do recall at one time, when I had an involvement in looking at the Mackenzie r Valley pipeline , and going to him and asking for the services of his Deput y Minister in an advisory role to act as an advisor on setting up the studies. And the Minister at that time who was the Member for Inkster said to me, he said that there 's no way we can have a Deputy Minister of the Crown involved in any way that his name would be recognized in looking at this .

Well, all we wanted that Deputy Minister for was to advise us on biological studies because he happened to be a person that was foremost in Canada . He's a former head of the Canadian Wildlife Service, and was brought in by the government that preceded the last government, the government that pre-dated 1969, to head up the Natura l Resources Department from his former job as head of the Wildlife Service . I remember going to the Minister and saying , " All things being equal, this is an important study and I happen to be involved the group that's looking at the Mackenzie Valley Studies .

We're setting up a group of Engineers and Biologists who are to do a combined study on the impact on the environment of that group and I would like to have your Deputy-Minister in an advisory role be a member of this group ." His answer was that under the Executive role of government we could not have such as Winston Maier identified as a member of this group . Period. That was it.

Now, he's saying - and I find the analysis a little bit analogous to what he's now saying - that since he walks in off the street and wants certain information , that the Executive responsibility of government which he exercised when I approached him - and I use it only as an example - he says now, in spite of that, plus the very valid arguments that he presented to the Member for Fort Rouge I would think three or four years running in the House when he was in government, he says now that under the Finance Department Estimates , if he walks in and says to a member who is employed by the government of the day and wants certain information regarding financial matters that that ought to be wide open , presented , and the Minister ought to have no say.

Mr. Chairman, I would say that that 's a complete contradiction of everything I've seen in the past performance of the Member for Inkster either as a Minister executing Executive responsibility or of the arguments that he has presented on private member 's resolut ion in the House. MR. CHAIRMAN: To the members of the Committee, if I could possibly ask for some guidance in this matter here .

In my opinion I've allowed a fair amount of latitude in terms of the Item that we're discussing , and I'm wondering if some of these subjects possibly should be disuussed under the Minister 's Salary as such unless the members can indicate to me that we're still basically under 4.(c). The Member for Inkster . MR. GREEN: We're on that report and the administration of that Item , and there was a member of the Legislature who tried to obtain some information under this Item . He was refused, and we are stiU dealing with his request for information and the obtaining of it or not obtaining it. May I say, Mr.

Chairman , that the Minister , and I regret to say this , is either very obtuse and has not understood what I've said in the Legislature or, if I am wrong , then he has made more for Mr. Axworthy's argument and I would have to start going the other way. 1058 :. .....

• .. '" Thursday, March 15, 1979 I said that Mr. Axworthy's argument was not right because a government, responsive to the people, would freely give this type of information. I never ever said that this would permit and encourage the Minister to tell the prothonotary of the Court of Queen's Bench that if somebody asks you how many divorce petitions were issued last year don't give it to him until he writes a letter to the Minister, because that information has always been available.

And if the Minister is saying that my arguments are that that information shouldn 't be available, then if he is right I would reverse my arguments . But I have never said anything of the kind . As a matter of fact, I said that if you enact the legislation you will encourage the type of thing that the Minister is now doing. Because he will say that that's what the legislation says I must do. But up until this government has come in and given these edicts, that kind of information was always available . And look at the comparison that the Minister makes .

He came in, asked whether he could use Winston Maier, the Deputy Minister of Mines, as a name of one of a team of a group of private consultants who were working on a particular project so that the team would show the following people: Winston Maier, Deputy Minister of Mines of the Province of Manitoba. And I said there is no way that the Deputy Minister of Mines of the Province of Manitoba can be used as a means of promoting a private company . And he says that somebody coming in asking, for instance, under his edict I couldn't ask how much sales tax did we collect in 1957? I've lost my Estimates Book .

And the civil servant would say, "Write a letter to the Minister." That's the comparison. That if I would come in to Mr. Perrin and say that I am opening a tax consulting business, I would like to show on my letterhead that you are the consultant vis-a-vis minerals, and he says, "Well, if you don't let that go out, then surely you shouldn't tell him how much sales tax has been collected last year." Now, is that not a clear indication of the example that was given by the Minister of Finance? Because that's the comparison that he is making, which is absolutely ridiculous and shows the weakness of his argument. Mr.

Chairman, I am suggesting to the Minister that he did, and if he has forgotten that's his problem. He did ask how much drilling there was done in the last year that we were in government; that my department gave it to him ; that he did not have to write a letter to the Minister, and he used it in the Legislative Assembly. He got up and said, "This is what was done . These figures were obtained from your depar tment." Well, if the Minister forgets that's his problem, but he used the figures in the Legislative Assembly after obtaining them from my department .

And if the Minister says that my arguments with regard to a secrecy of information bill support his position, then I repeat, either he is being obtuse or I have to change my arguments and I am not, Mr. Chairman, going to change my arguments , so that leaves only one possibility . The Member for St. Vital says I asked them - the department - how much was collected on the second tier . And I suppose in the Estimates Book they could be put first tier , second tier. I am inclined to think that there has never been any payment or any substantial payment on the second tier .

There was very little paid on the second tier, if anything. My remembrance is that we didn 't collect anything on the second tier and I would say that that kind of information - which I repeat is clinical; it's something that does not involve analysis - should be information which any citizen of the Province of Manitoba should be able to phone the Finance Department and say, "Can you tell me whether there was any taxes collected on the second tier in the last fiscal year of the government?" and the man on the phone could say, "Just a minute.

Yes, the total amount collected in mineral taxes was X millions of dollars and so many hundred thousand or so many million was collected on the second tier. To preserve that situation, I argued against the Secrecy of Information Bill because if their Secrecy of Information Bill was in existence , the civil servant would say, "If you look up this Act you will see how you get that information ." And the Act would say you will send a letter to the Director. The Director will either answer you or refuse within 10 days.

If he neither answers or if he refuses, you shall then direct the letter , registered mail, to the Minister. The Minister shall have 30 days either to answer or to refuse . If the Minister refuses , or does not answer, you will file an application in the Court of Queen's Bench and it will be returnable seven days after the filing thereof and you will hire a lawyer and maybe he will tell you how much was collected on the second tier if the judge doesn't come to the opinion that that information is reserved to the executive branch of government.

Now, if you have not understood that, that's not my fault , but that's what 1 said . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. CRAIK: Well, Mr. Chairman , I think the Member for Inkster is maybe extrapolating his argument just a bit too far . I told the Member for St. Vital this afternoon that if the information was readily available it certainly would be forthcoming in his question to the committee. If it wasn't, it should be applied for by Order for Return and that's the way it stands. And, 1 get that feeling, perhaps 1059

Thursday, March 15, 1979 it is only a feeling, Mr. Chairman , and unfortunately, feelings run a little high after you 've been around this place long enough and you see some of the tilts that different people take. 1 just get that uneasy feeling that there probably isn't anybody in this room that understands better than the Member for Inkster that it used to be elucidated by the former First Minister over and over and over again when he was on the government side about how much money it was costing to dig out certain information as a result of the over extended requests of Orders for Return .

I don 't think those Orders for Return ... I never felt at the time that they were particularly onerous. But we used to get that argument put before us. Which I think boils down to the very simple response that nobody is trying to unduly conceal any information that the member might want or that any other member might want but simply the fact that if you 're going to run government by committe , you're going to have an unmanageable operation . And , if you want certain information, you simply put your request in front and we'll deal with i.. Let me quote one more example .

Last year my serious-minded friend from St. Johns who 's not smiling tonight , but rather has a frown on his face , and we'll probably ge into a fight before the night's over too . - (Interjection) - Yeah, right. We'll have another one tonight. You know . - (Interjection) - No it's a good night. Let's have it. Any night at all. I'll take both of you on any time at all. You know , it's all in the gamesmanship . Because when you really get down to it, it's a role of gamesmanship, and that's about what it boils down to.

I think your argument is not intended to gain informat ion, necessarily , it's simply to score brownie points. And that's about the size of it, so why don't we really get down to it. That's what it really comes down to. If you want information about the tax , the first tier and second tier, let's get down to it; that inform ation undoubtedly will be supplied . If it takes an undue amount of effort , it'll require an Orde r for Return . If it's readily available, you'll get it. You know , last year the Member for St. Johns asked for the tax book .

He knew that the tax book was in the department , because there was a guy in the department by the name of Art Roberts that had put it together when he was there . And if Art Roberts put it together , then he must be putting it together now, and therefore why don 't we just get this? And I said , "Well, file an Order for Return for that information ", " Ah, but if I do that it will take . . . You know it's there . You know it's there ." So we filed Art Roberts ' tax book. It's been filed , and undoubtedly the member will ask for it again. You know .

So, as a matter of fact , I have to really admit to you - I have to really admit to you that I didn 't know what Art Roberts ' tax book was. But then I found that Art Roberts , who was in the department , had gone through every state in the United States , fifty or whatever the number is. He had calculated every tax as it existed in every state in the United States , in every state, the province of Manitoba and he had collated all these and the Member for St. Johns wanted them . So I went back and I said , you know, what's all this about? So I found out what it was all about.

I thought , well that 's pretty good informat ion, we'll table it. But had it ever been supplied before to the House? No. In eight years had it ever been supplied? No. Had it ever been offered before? - (Interjection) - Ah. It has to be requested . You know , nobody requested quarterly reports . - (Interjection) - No. No. Yeah, cause you didn 't want them . The Member for Inkster never wanted quarterly reports. But we supplied quarterly reports because it was in the value of the people of Manitoba to have quarterly reports .

So okay , let's carry on our gamesmansh ip; you shift from Inkster and welll go over to St. Johns and now you ask your friendly quest ion s. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Inkster . MR. GREEN: We 're going to sit here and we're going to have fun tonight. Mr. Chairman , let me say this. The honourable member knows well the name of the game . I was not - (Interjection) - Now you keep quiet . The fact is that I was not seeking the information on what is the two tier breakdown . You 're quite right . I am trying to make a point now that you are refusing the information . That is quite right .

And 1 am trying to make a political point out of the fact that you are refusing the information . That is quite right. Because I believe that the people of Manitoba will find much more significance in the fact that you are refusing the information than the fact that there is so much on one tier and so much on the next tier . But that's what you invited ; that's not what I invited . And if you're asking me whether I'm asking this to try to remove you from government' damn right 1 am.

Because 1 think it will be great for the people of Manitoba to remove you from government so that this kind of stupidity doesn 't continue . And may I say this , Mr. Chairman , that if we come back into government, any citizen who phones a person who knows what was collected on the two tiers will get it. They won 't have to phone the Minister , and they won 't have to have a Secrecy of Information Act. Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. The Member for St. Johns. 1060

• • Thursday, March 15, 1979 MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman , I had a serious face a moment ago, tyying to understand what the Minister of Finance was saying ; once I understood him, I started to smile and almost to laugh. MR. CRAIK: Yes, no doubt. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, he seems to think that acquisition of information is needed to justify a committee form of government and I'm not aware that anybody in this Legislature has proposed a committee form of government.

But we have learned, those of us who were both on the opposition and government side, that the most effective government is the one which operates on the basis of a great deal of informat ion being available from which one can draw deductions and make arguments . Now, we are going into a budget period and for all I know , the Member for St. Vital or anybody else, may want certain statistics on the basis of which he can discuss the budget and the philosophies of government and the principles. We have heard a great deal about The Mineral Acreage Tax Act, nuisance taxes.

We have a right to discuss those with knowledge, not knowledge which the Minister may or may not want to give, but knowledge which should be available to the public and which there is no purpose in concealing. That has nothing whatsoever to do with a comm ittee form of government. This committee is sitting here to study the Estimates. This Minister has come to the Legislature and said, I would like certain moneys to spend for certain purposes .

We have every right in the world to examine the program , to examine the costs, to examine the fat, if there is any, to examine the ability with which the Minister can handle money . And these are questions that are desirable to be asked . Now, if somebody wants to have detail regarding how much is collected, then it is justifiable to say, how do you justify the expenditure compared with what you get in. Or, one gets into the philosophy of taxation because this is the opportunity .

The Minister has been around long enough to know that there are certain opportuni ties given to opposit ion members to deal with the government's operations and its Estimates. And to refer to that as being an effort to convert to a committee form of government is ridiculous because none of us pretend that we have the right to make decisions when we are in oppositio n. But the right to question , the right to challenge, and mostly the right to know , is so basic to a proper operat ion that I have not been one to fully support either the Member for Inkster or the House Leader , Mr.

Jorgenson , in their claims that the present system is good for a production of information and you are proving the difficulty that is artifically created by saying , you can 't have it until we are ready to give it. The same thing I might say in relation to the repo rt of a Royal Commiss ion which was being held until the government was through studying it. Mr. Chairman , that is not the good way in which to operate but as Mr. Green said, it's almost playing into the hands of the opposition to create obstacles which are so apparent and obvious and to no avail.

So that to the extent that there is politics to be made out of it, I think that members ought to cons ider that everything they do is in the open , visible to the electorate and the electorate judges the style of governments. That , I suppose, the more there is obstinancy and the more there is truculence , the more it shows up and we can't help but expose it. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman , can I answer that now. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister . MR.

CRAIK: You know , obstinancy , truculence , call it what you like , use all the words you want to use, but the fact of the matter is that the logical place, if you want to ask what the government is - we are dealing with 1979-80 Estimates - if you want to ask what the income is going to be from the mining tax , you do that , and legitimately you ask for the breakdown when you come to the revenue from it. So we go on with this great bloody court case that is going on here between the two membes who are well versed in doing that, talking about things that aren't even on the agenda that we're talking abou t.

You are talk ing about the payroll of the people who work in these departments and so on. This is all to come before the House yet again and you are going to ask it all over again because there is going to be an item in the Budget that says that you are going to have a revenue of X amount out of the mining tax and when you do, you will ask and you will have a legitimate right to ask. So now you are trying to make a case about some - talk about obtuse , I have never heard of anything so obtuse .

You are trying to do an inquisition into the bankruptcies or something that occurred over in tbe Land Titles Office, and here we are trying to talk about the people who are on the payroll of the Mining and Use Tax Branch . You know , these two gentlemen here know as well as anybody else knows, and my slippery friend with a smile on his face is getting into his old obtuse look again. He is going to sit here 1061

Thursday, March 15, 1979 and play games until God knows when , when he really knows, despite all the words he has ever used in every courtroom in this province , wherever he has been , that the real place to find out the breakdown of the revenues from the taxation on mining , comes under that item under the Budget. And nobody is trying to deny him any information whatsoever. I told the Member for St. Vital this afternoon that if the information was readily available on that item, he would get it, in terms of the revenues. You know , I probably should have said no, wait for the Budget.

I warned you when we started out here last night that the Budget is not yet here, or on Tuesday, and this is going to be the same problem you run into all the way through. But nobody has ever denied you a breakdown in the last year - mind you , I restrict that to the last year - of the revenues that are coming under any item under the Budget. So I suggest, Mr. Chairman , that we start dealing with what is before us. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Inkster . MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman , we were dealing with what is before us MR. CRAIK: Salaries of the Mining and Use Tax Branch . MR.

GREEN: That's right . There are people in that branch who , in the month of August when there is no Legislative Session , when we are not talking about waiting to come to the revenue, there are employees in that branch who I am paying, and all of the people of the Province of Manitoba are paying, that I would like to phone in August of the year and ask , " How much money did we get in royalties," - let 's make sure I'm in the - "How much money did we did in Use Taxes last year in 1977?" MR. CRAIK: And you'll get it. You'll get the quarterly report . MR.

GREEN: No, I want to know how much we got in Use Taxes in 1977. And what the Minister has said , and what he has confirmed, is that this government has given an edict to all civil servants telling them that if an MLA asks for information - and that 's what the Minister has said , let it be clearly on the record - that when an MLA asks for that kind of information which is clinical, which is available , which does not have to be compiled , which is public ... MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Point of order, order please . Point of order , the honourable minister . MR.

CRAIK: That the civil servants had received an edict of which I am well aware, they have received an edict , received an edict. MR. GREEN: You said it this afternoon . Well , Mr. Chairman , I do not know whether the minister used the word " edict ". I do not know whether he used the word " edict " . MR. CRAIK: No, I deny that. MR. GREEN: Mr . Chairman , the minister said that he'd like ... MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order . Order please. MR. GREEN: It is on Hansard . MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Let's first have an understanding that the debates are being recorded and 1 have to announce who is going to speak so it's clarified on the tapes that the honourable minister had the floor , and if you just put your finger or something , I'll recognize you and I guarantee you'll have all the time to be heard . MR. GREEN: I spoke on a point of order. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: A point of order from the honourable minister . MR. CRAIK: The point of order , Mr . Chairman , is this MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: We'll proceed from the point of order from the honourable 1062 ..

Thursday, March 15, 1979 MR. CRAIK: The member said that I had issued an edict, or was party to an edict, or was aware of an edict, or whatever it was; that once the civil service has said such and such, and that I said that this afternoon is absolute nonsense . MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Inkster on the same point of order. MR. GREEN: Yes, on the point of order , Mr. Chairman. It is not nonsense. Perhaps the word edict was not used, but the Minister indicated, and he used the words MLA, that when an MLA seeks information, that's what he told the Member for St.

Vital , of that nature, that he had to send a letter to the Minister and that the Minister would tell him whether the information would be made available or not. Now, if I have wrongly interpreted the Minister, then he will be able to show me that when Hansard comes out. That is what I understood him to say. That is what this argument is all about. That's what he said this afternoon , or words ... MR. CRAIK: You find the word edict in .. . -_,.. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, the reason that the Minister says that I won't find the word edict is probably because the Minister , as Cass-Beggs said, doesn 't know what the word edict meant and wouldn't use it, but what he said was an edict. He said that he instructed the staff, or that the staff were instructed, that they were not to give that information without a letter going to the Minister, and if he did not use the word edict, I am telling you that I characterize that as an edict.

He, as a matter of fact, not more than five minutes ago, told us about Executive Branch of Government, and it's the Executive Branch of Government that issue edicts, and that's the kind of thing that was done . I call it an edict ; he can call it an instruction. It amounts to the same thing. That's what he said. If he is now saying that that kind of information will be given to you in the month of August or to any other citizen, or to the Financial Post, or to any other magazine or any News Service, or any person who's writing a history possibly or doing research, then I'm very happy.

Then at least I'll have proved a point to my friend, the Member for St. Johns, who says that this kind of thing won't get the information, or at least is not certain, and you know, the more I see what's going on the more some of the doubts that he's raised become more valid.

But the fact is that that is what the Minister said , and if he is now saying that when I phone the department in the month of August and ask to speak to the Retail Sales Branch and ask them, "Can you give me the latest tabulation as to how much Retail Sales Tax was collected this year?" that they will give it to me, that it is not secret information. • .. MR. CRAIK: It is. MR. GREEN: If it is secret information MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: To clarify the point of order that's under debate may I suggest to the Committee that we wait until the Hansards arrive and then the Chairman will decide if . MR.

GREEN: I wasn't speaking any more on the point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Well, I suspected the honourable member wasn't , and I wish he would have just stopped very briefly and say, I'm no longer on the point of order. I suspected that you were off the point of order , but when you entered the debate you were on a point of order. The Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN: Well, I was interrupted on a point of order , and then I spoke back to the point of order, and went back to the debate. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Well, I apologize to the Honourable Member for Inkster, 1 gave you the floor on a point of order, and so . .. MR. GREEN: ... this is the house in wonderland. I had the floor - you gave him the floor on ~.:"~a point of order. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Yes, and I gave it back to you, sir. 1063

Thursday, March 15, 1979 MR. GREEN: Yes, but after I got it back, am I not in position where I was before I was interrupted 11 by a point of order? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Well, I think, if my memory serves me correctly , that I said, "On the same point of order. " -(Interjection)- MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr . Chairman , and I did speak to the point of order ... MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order please . Before we go any farther , please , gentlemen , it's not going to settle this debate at all.

I apologize , I wasn't here this afternoon , and I'm not sure if the word edict was in the transcripts , but nevertheless the Chairman will rule on it - he'll be back in a Couple of ooments . MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I did not say on the point of order that the word edict was used , as a matter of fact I will concede the fact that the Minister doesn 't know the word edict , and didn't boo use it. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: So there basically was no point of order. MR. GREEN: That's right. He's the one who raised it, and if you are ruling that there was none, well then I'm satisfied. MR.

GREEN: I'm going to end my remarks . I'm going to say that this debate will be used. It will be used to open up information from this government ; it will be used to show the people of Manitoba how obtuse and stupid this government is with regard to their secrecy policy ; with regard to instructing the Civil Servants throughout this province in all departments , not to give information to MLAs unless they get a letter from the Minister. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister . MR. CRAIK: Mr .

Chairman , I suppose that the Member for Inkster , and I would think anybody else who was involved, knows that people who are involved with any of the Finance Acts actually before, and in becoming involved, do undertake an oath of secrecy . MR. GREEN: Of secret information. MR. CRAIK: No, you 're talking about the financial operations of the province . MR. GREEN: . . . told me what we spent last year? If I phoned the Deputy Minister MR. CRAIK: Do I have the floor , Mr. Chairman , or does the Member for Inkster have the floor? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister has the floor . The Honourable Minister .

MR. GREEN: Go ahead. I'm listening . MR. CRAIK: If you can put up with it that long, you know, it wasn 't invented by this government; it's been in place a long time ; it was in place all the time you were in government. You are trying to tell me that if you phoned up - legitimately phoned up a member of the Civil Service and asked him for information regarding The Mining Tax Act that had not been published , or was not cleared, or was not part of a year end report, that you would expect him, in spite of an oath of secrecy, to provide all that information? Is that what I gather? MR. GREEN: No.

I specifically said that this was in last year 's report; that it wasn 't separated because of categories; that the information is not secret and that that kind of informati on could be supplied . If the Honourable Minister is saying that everything that is known by the Civil Servants 1064 -,

Thursday, March 15, 1979 " -(Interjection)- if everything .. . what's the point of order. ? ·• • MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: What's the point of order? MR. CRAIK: What year 's information are you looking for? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I don 't think the Honourable Minister has a point of order . I think let the Member for Inkster finish his debate . MR. GREEN: I don't know what particular information the Member for St.

Vital was looking for . 1 gather he was asking for the breakdown between the two tiers in the last year that they collected the tax, but that doesn't matter - that's not the point - the point is that I then went on to say, if I was to ask last year what was the breakdown of sales tax between January and December in months rather than for the whole year, that I could not get that information without a letter to the Minister. I'm suggesting that not all information is secret .

The amount that we spent in last year's budget, or the amount that we budgeted for last year is not secret, and that type of information could be given to me by the Deputy Minister without violating any secrecy Act. If there is some information that is secret, I specifically said in my earlier remarks , I'm not talking about secret information. If you're telling me that everything that those people know is secret, then we have another debate . MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: 4.(c) - the Honourable Minister. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Chairman , I can only tell the member, first of all, it isn't necessary that a letter be required - he said it has to be a letter to the Minister - it doesn't have to be a letter. If he wants to, I didn't have . . . yes I did . .. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, on a Point of Order. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: A point of order of the Honourable Member tor Inkster. MR. GREEN: On a point of order , Mr. Chairman . The Member for St. Vital asked for the breakdown for the last three available years - that's what he asked for. MR. CRAIK: Yes, that's right. MR. GREEN: And you're saying that that's secret? MR. CRAIK: No.

I asked you . . . MR. GREEN: He was told that he has to write a letter to the Minister before any Civil Servant can give him that information . He did say that. -(Interjection)- MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order please. The tape is going to be all mixed up and it's not going to be able to show who is speaking, when and where . Let's please try and keep it orderly. The Honourable Minister. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Chairman , let me make it clear in terms of the record that if a member is looking for current information relating to taxes or financ ial affairs , current information that is not published and not already available, that the appropriate way to go is to approach the minister, it does not have to be by letter.

If he wants to phone and ask for it, that's fine, but , and I think it's eminently reasonable, if he's going to put someone in the Public Service into what that person may consider to be a compromising position, I don't think it's fair to the person in the Public Service to have to decide on that and to supply the information. And in most cases, Mr. Chairman, if I were that person and I think that he would probably make that decision, and that is what the whole thing is intended about, and I don 't think that that person should be put into that position. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, would it not make more sense, and I sympathize with the last thing that the minister said . He's becoming more reasonable as the night wears on. Would it not be more reasonable to do exactly what I said earlier? To tell the civil servant, if they get a request from Information , from an MLA, which is a problem to them, they should send that request up the line 1065

Thursday, March 15, 1979 to find out whether they can give it to the MLA. -(Interjection)- No, Mr. Chairman, that is not what is happening. If that's what happened, it would make sense, then the civil servant can come back. and say: "I have been told I cannot give yo_u that information ." What they h_ave been told is we cannot give you that information; you have to write the minister. And 1 am not talking about at committee .

I'm talking about when we're not in the House for seven months a year, and would the minister not now say that it makes some sense that if somebody on his staff gets that kind of request - and this happened to me with one civil servant , and I said it was perfectly reasonable - I went to a senior civil servant in the government and said I would like the following information. He said that is all public information, but I will have to ask the minister before I give it to you. I said that is perfectly reasonable.

He then went and asked the minister and he didn't give it to me but at least that was a sensible situation, that I wasn't told that I have to write the minister. And the same thing happened , I tell the honourable member if he forgets, in my department. He asked for numbe of feet drilled, the civil servant asked me, I said , " Certainly . He's an MLA; give him the information. I'd like to know what information he gets so that I can have it as well ." But the information was given . MR. CRAIK: Well, Mr. Chairman, the same thing happened then .

He is saying, which I have long forgotten and never knew if I did know, that somehow I went and asked somebody for the amount of feet drilled, and that person in the Civil Service went to his minister and asked him: "Can I supply this information?" and the minister said yes. Now he is saying that this ought not to happen because no member of the Civil Service ought to have to do that. You know, how ... MR. GREEN: I never said that. MR. CRAIK: Do we have to sit here all night and spin wheels? MR. GREEN: The honourable minister has now turned full circle .

At 4:30 today , I said that that was an acceptable procedure. He said that his procedure is to tell the MLA , the civil servant will tell the MLA he is to write a letter to the minister, and that is what I objected to, that I had to write a letter to the minister in order to get information through a civil servant. If the civil servant said to me, in answer to the request: " I will determine whether I can give you this information," I will accept that. I don't agree that I should have to get that information by writing a letter to the minister in order to be able to deal with it.

And I said that this afternoon at 4:30 and that too will appear in Hansard. MR. CRAIK Mr. Chairman , if there is one department where the Member for Inkster has the least chance of making his case, it is in the Department of Finance because I think even he recognizes that that is one department where information is not going to be given out unless there is going to be the authority , responsibility assumed by the minister in question particularly if it's in a current year and is information that is already not published or in the process of having completed a year end.

But if it is current information in particular, you can almost bet that I would consider it an illegitimate request whether I was in government or whether I was in opposition , and I am going to reiterate a case. In the spring session of 1976, I wanted to know about succession duties and I filed an Order for Return and asked for amounts . I didn't ask for any more information other than amounts . Now if the member's arguments were correct , and if I had thought it correct , I would have never filed an Order for Return.

I would have gone to somebody in the department and said , " I want this information, I want to know this and I want to know that ," and I think the member knows as well as I do that it would not have been a legitimate request. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, just so that we come back to earth , the Member for St. Vital started this discussion by saying he went to the department and asked for the last three available years . MR. CRAIK: Available? MR. GREEN: Last three available years. He was told that he would have to make the request through the minister . MR. CRAIK: Well, Mr. Chairman, let. . . 1066 - ,

Thursday, March 15, 1979 MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Let the Honourable Member for Inkster finish his speech. MR. GREEN: He asked for the last three available years. I am not asking for secret information. 1 am not asking for people to violate their act. I am not asking for information that has to be analyzed before it is given. 1 am not asking for information that requires lengthy compilat ion, I specified earlier.

Generally what is a matter of public record anyway, but is not detailed on some of these pages, and if the civil servant feels questionable about it, he can make sure from his higher-ups that it -; is something that he can give out. 1 object to having to write the minister for that kind of information from a public servant. 1 MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, let's come back to it. He is talking about available years of revenue; we're not even talking about revenue . I don't recall the member using "available." If it's the last three available years, he is obviously talking about statistics that are already a year old .

MR. GREEN: That's right . MR. CRAIK: Nell-(lnterjection)- Nobody's ever asked him to write the minister. MR. GRENN: He was asked to write the minister . MR. CRAIK: He said that if the information was readily available, he would certainly be provided with it, and if it wasn't available, he should file an Order for Return . And that's the usual practice. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. Vital. MR. WALDING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I can clarify this matter, and as you recall, Mr.

Chairman, that I did ask a very general question this afternoon before the specific one, asking if the minister had given any policy statement, I believe was the expression I used, to his staff about giving out information to members of the publ ic including MLAs. What happened was that I was going through the Public Accounts for the year ending - last available - 1978, I believe . On the page dealing with revenues from different acts and differen t taxes, I wanted to know the breakdown for that particular Tax Act in the last three years that were given in the Public Accounts .

I phoned the appropriate department and spoke to a civil servant who gave me some information, Mr. Chairman . When I asked for the specific dollar figures for those three years , that was when he said that he couldn 't give it to me. I was under the impression from what he said that he had it in front of him as he was speaking , but that he would not tell me over the phone, and he said I should get that from the minister .

So I then took the first available opportunity, which was Estimates of the Department of Finance , when we got to the appropriate section, to ask the minister for it, and that was the beginning of this whole debate . But if the minister's edict or policy statement to the staff is as he said it was, then perhaps he should check as to who that civil servant was who gave me some information . In fact the information he gave me was that I was inquiring under the wrong heading and it was under a different Tax Act. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Chairman, quite apart from all the give and take of the debate and the gamesmanship that is going on, I want to say in all earnestness, that if you want information, why don't you write the minister? It's probably the fastest way of getting it. Why would you hesitate? I mean, why would any member of the Legislature, regardless of what side of the House they are on, why would they hesitate to write the minister to get information? It's probably the fastest possible way to get information .

I find it incomprehensible to think that we sit here and entertain all these obtuse arguments, when in fact the information , to my knowledge - I have never complained during the years about getting information and I don 't really think that the operation of the government has changed that much in terms of getting the - you know, I could have.

I took certain procedures that I thought were normal and appropriate when I wanted to get certain tax information by asking for it in the House, and I've had occasion to ask ministers during the course of several years of being in Opposition, for certain information ; I have written to them and I have usually found that it was a fairly reasonable way to approach getting information. It never occurred to me that they ought to make an argument .

I can say in all earnestness that being a part of the present government, I do not think that you will find that there is any substantial problem in getting the information you want if you want to approach the minister . To repeat again, I think it's probably the fastest way of getting information. I think it's entirely possible, and I repeat again, and particularly in Finance, where the people 1067

Thursday, March 15, 1979 are dealing with tax dollars, and if it's in the current year, I can see it 's entirely reasonable and also would be not only reasonable but they would be in some difficulty if they started passing out information regarding the current year 's operations from a financial point of view. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Inkster . MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, the minister made some progress a few moments ago, but apparently that's against his ideological bent to make progress so he quickly regressed and said that the best ~ way of getting information is through the minister.

I can tell the minister that I think that citizens of the Province of Manitoba , including MLAs, are entitled to get matter of fact, non secret information , by speaking to their public servants, and that it should not be incumbent upon every citizen who wants to get some information from the government to ask the minister. That's where we differ . MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, we're on Mining and Use Taxes , so let's get back down to that issue. ~ Is the member trying to tell me that if he phones up and wants to know in the current year to March 15th, how much . .. MR. GREEN: I didn't say . . . MR.

CRAIK: No, but that's the topic we're on right now. No, Mr. Chairman, let me finish. We're talking about the 1979-80 Estimates , and that's what this table is all about. And the member is telling me now, you know , he's using the item to establish great generalities in terms about government. But I want to turn around and ask him now that he's done that , and had his liberty of doing it, is he really trying to tell me that he should be able phone up the head of the Mining Use and Tax Branch and say: "How much taxes have you collected in the first eleven months of the 1978-79 year? " MR.

GREEN: I have during the last two hours probably, of discussion which I find almost bizarre MR. CRAIK: That makes two of us. MR. GREEN: Almost bizarre . MR. CRAIK: Worse than that. MR. GREEN: I have indicated to the Honourable Minister , the kind of information that I think should be readily available . It bears no relation , or little relation , because I thought it wouldn't be serious to find out what we've collected in sales tax in the first six months .

But if that's a problem, I shouldn 't have any difficulty find ing out what we collected in sales tax month by month for the last year in which the books are closed. I have indicated to the minister what kind of information I think should be readily available. The Member for St. Vital has indicated what he asked for, which was for the last three available years after the books were closed , and these figures were in Public Accounts . The minister, who is in an untenable position, now pretends that what is being sought is secret financial data from the Province of Manitoba .

You can go right through the Hansard edition of what these remarks contain, and more and more , Mr. Chairman , I confirm that Cass-Beggs knew what he was talking about when he said most engineers are illiterate . MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman , that gets us down to the sub-human banal act that we're all about here , which is to really not look after the interests of the people as far as the Member for Inkster is concerned at least , but to score his tiny little debating points , whether you're illiterate or not.

So if we're not going to be literate , you know , let's just step out in the hallway and · sett le it. -(Interjection)- The Member for St. Johns says: " Here we go again ." -(Int erjection) - We're talking about the Mining and Uses Tax Branch . -(Int erject ion)- Yes, that 's right. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: 4.(c)(1) . . . MR. CRAIK: Of course , if that's the way you want to do it, that's just fine , but what you are really saying in essence is that in any current year . . . 1068 ,

Thursday, March 15, 1979 MR. GREEN: 1 never said that . I didn't say, "in any current year." I never used those words. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Inkster; carry on. MR. CRAIK: No, he's just mumbling to himself . You are saying now that the Member for St. Vital said this afternoon: the last three available years? ,- MR. GREEN: That's what he said. MR. CRAIK: The word "available " was there? MR. GREEN: That's right. That's what he said. MR. CRAIK: That's right. That's fine. I'm glad that is clarified . It's taken one hour and five minutes now to find out that the word "available" was there . MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: 4.(c)(1)Salaries, $898,900 -pass ; 4.(c)(2) $337,700, Other Expenditures -pass ; 4.(d)Succession Duty and Gift Tax Branch , Salaries (1) - the Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman , I would like to deal in a general way, and I don't intend to keep it general unless it appears that there is some degree of consensus as to what is happening. In a general way, when the minister is asked to deal with a notice of objection of an assessment under The Succession Duty Act , under

Section 41(3), what does he believe that his function is? I will be more specific so that we won't beat around the bush ; does he believe that his function is to see whether the assessment has been legally made and complies with the provisions of the Act, and that it would be upheld in his view if it was thought out , or does he think that that

section permits him to use compassionate or non-legal bases for chang ing an assessment? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, we're going through this same argument we went through in the House, and you know I might as well ask the member the same as I did in the House, what is he talking about? MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman , I thought I was being quite blunt, and open . . . MR. CRAIK: Well, Mr. Chairman ... MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, order, order please. MR. CRAIK: By the member 's declaration , I am illiterate . Would he just please put it into regular farmer's or plumber 's language . MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order please.

Order . The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman , I will tell the minister what I am referring to.

It has always been my • understanding, that when the minister receives a Notice of Objection with regard to an assessment , under any taxing act , that the objection is that the person making the objection has not been legally taxed, that there is objection taken to the legality of what has happened , and if the minister in fact turns down the objection, denies the objection , that person has a right to go to court to object to the minister 's denial and then when it gets to court , the court considers whether there has been a proper or an improper assessment.

It has always been my understanding, and I believe that I am correct , and I believe that all of the legal authorities will bear this out, that that kind of

section does not give the authority to the minister to deal with the objection on compassionate grounds or because he feels he would like to relieve the taxpayer of some taxes. He can do that , but when he does that, he has to declare that he is doing that and that is why, by Order-in-Council, the Cabinet is entitled to relieve anybody of taxes . And from time to time , Mr. Chairman, that is done. I think that some of the more usual cases involve when a sales tax is imposed on a quick turnover of a vehicle . If it's thirty days, there 's no taxes paid or something ; if it's thirty-one , they have to pay a tax.

And sometimes the government has said well, we'll relieve this taxpayer; there was a real technicality , one day or what have you, and even though legally they are required to pay the tax , Cab inet will say that they don't pay it and Cabinet will tell the public of the Province of Manitoba that they didn 't pay and that we accept responsibility for it and that this is

an act which the Cabinet 1069

Thursday, March 15, 1979 feels is justif ied. But under Secti on 41(3), if there is a Not ice of Objection , then I sugges t that the Minister 's function is to look at the assessment and see whether it can be legally justified , and furthermore, Mr. Chairman , I believe that the ministe r acting in that capa city, is supposed to be protecting the revenues of the Province of Manitoba . He is supposed to be look ing at the assessment from the point of view as to whether his department has legally assessed the individua l. I am going to ask, Mr.

Chairman - and I won 't deal simply with the McKellar case - whether in certa in cases under The Succession Duty Act , the minister allowed notices of objec tion or e ncour aged them , or asked # people to send in notices of objection because he could relieve them from taxati on under that

Section without passing an Order- in-Counc il, whether he did that with regard t o the McKellar case or any other case of succession duties where he felt - And I want to tell the minist er that the Winnipeg Tribune , which he finds so objectionable , came up to me ... MR. CRAIK: I don 't find the Winnipeg Tribune objectionab le. Point of Order, Mr. Chairman . MR. GREEN: But I . . . The words, the words . . . MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Point of Order. Point of Order . MR. CRAIK: Sorry about that. Point of Privilege . MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Point of Privilege? The Honourable Min ister. MR.

CRAIK: Never at any time have I said I found the Winn ipeg Tribune object ionable . MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourab le Memb er for Inkster . MR. GREEN: What the minister said is that he found remarks of mine in the Winnipeg Tribune to be objectionable . MR. CRAIK: No, newspap er ... didn't say that. Mr. Chairman , I said I found the remarks in the MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Inkster has the floor . Point of Order or a Point of Privilege? MR. CRAIK: A Point of Privilege . MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : A Point of Privilege - the Honourable Minister . MR. CRAIK: He's done it a second time .

I said in the Legislature I found objectionable quotation of his allege d comments in the newspaper . Now , I never mentioned the newspaper. I couldn 't even remembe r whic h one it was. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairm an . . . MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order . I think there 's a difference of opinion here , and - (lnterjection) Orde r. Order , please . It's a difference of opinion . I don 't think it' s a point of order . -(lnterjection)- The Honourable Member for Inkster . MR. GREEN: The fact is, Mr.

Chairman , that the Minister - and again it will be in Hansard - found certain remarks of mine which appeared in the newspaper , and I think he said the Tribune , objectionable. That' s what I said . MR. CRAIK: As a m atter of fact , it was the Free Press. MR. GREEN: Well , I thought he said the Tribune , Mr. Chairman . MR. CRAIK: 1 didn 't say either one , but it was the Free Press. - (Interjection )- MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order , please . Again we're having problems. 1070

Thursday, March 15, 1979 MR. GREEN: I can tell the Honourable Member .. . Why do you quote these things if you don't know they're a fact? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order, please, gentlemen. Just remember that they're taping the proceedings of the Commmittee, and I hope that the tapes come out that they know who is elucidating these words. The Honourable Member for Inkster. And if we can keep it, just put your finger up and I'll certainly recognize the Honourable Member for Inkster and we'll carry on with the debate. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to tell the Minister that after he left the House, that the people from the media came over to me and said that you felt that these taxes, in connection with these estates, were harsh and you felt sorry for some of the people because they didn't have the money to pay the tax, and I said if he did it for compassionate reasons, he should have done it by Order-in-Council, and he should have had the courage to stand up and say so. And that is what I said and I, Mr. Chairman, make that same point here tonight.

That if these taxes were relieved against for so-called harsh or compassionate reasons, that this is not the

section to do it under. And therefore I ask the Minister, not with regard merely to the McKellar estate, but with regard to the estates on which either Notice of Objection was given, and I want to know whether the Minister asked people to send in Notice of Objection, in certain cases where they had complaints, and whether he relieved, not on the basis of the assessment being wrongfully made, but because he felt that the tax was harsh insofar as those individual estates were concerned. MR. CRAIK: Well, Mr. Chairman, the member is trying to ask in general terms- I'll try to answer in general terms.

Out of the matters that I looked at under this act, under Succession Duties, I never had one where I felt I had the opportunity, nor did I judge them on the basis of the question of any subjective opinion, and that includes all of them . I have dealt with matters under this act, and I'm answering him in general terms . I forgot hhe exact words that he's used here in this ... his exact question here, but I've never had the, although I may have had the feelings that I would like to have judged them on grounds that were similar to the grounds that were included in the Marital Properties Act.

I never had that feeling that in any way, at any time, did I have the luxury of being able to do that. Now, I have no doubts in my mind in answering that, also knowing the case he refers to, and I have to tell him that that case is not settled . The decision that has been made in that has not been acceptable ' and that's where it stands at the present time and has stood since last December . "'R. DEPUTY CHAIRMAM: The Honourable Member for Inkster.$ MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, when the matter was dealt with in the House, I asked whether the Minister had received legal advice , with respect to, or receives legal advice, with respect to his decision when he is dealing with a Notice of Objection under 41(3). The Minister answered by reading me 41(3), and saying that that's the answer to that question . There's nothing in it, I presume, about a lawyer. Then I asked him whether he had received legal advice about this particular estate, and the answer was yes. I think that's Now, what the ... I, Mr.

Chairman, do not want to ask the Minister what his legal advice was, whether he was advised to allow the assessment or disallow the assessment, because I think that that would probably be an unfair question . So I ask him whether, when he allowed that objection, he did so on the basis that he felt that the assessment was wrongly made, or if he felt that this woman should be relieved of some taxation? What was the reason for his decision? No. (1), that the assessment was wrongly made , or (2), that he felt that the woman should be relieved of taxation . MR. CRAIK: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I'm going to have to say that I made it on what I felt to be purely objective grounds, and have in all cases made the decision based on what I felt were purely objective grounds, and that's entirely the answer to his question. I can tell him further that if it were made on other grounds, the decisions in any number of cases that I dealt with might have been quite different. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman. I don't know what the member means by objective grounds. -(Interjection)- Pardon me? MR. MINAKER: You're not illiterate, are you? 1071

Thursday, March 15, 1979 MR. GREEN: No. But I don't know what he means by objective grounds . You know , you can objectively feel that the woman should be relieved of the tax, or you can objectively feel that the assessment was wrongly made . I'm asking him whether he felt that the assessment of the department was wrongly made, based on the law as to how assessments should be made . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister . MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, I'm vested with the responsibility of making decisions, and the decision I made under

Section 41(3) I think was a very valid and proper decision . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman , I am now going to deal with my argument on this question and not deal with trying to spar with the Minister verbally . My understanding is, and I want the member to correct me, is that Mrs . McKellar was the beneficiary of the estate , that one of the pieces of land in the estate was registered in the name of Earl McKellar , that the only evidence advanced by Mrs. McKellar to the effect that she was the half-owner of this property , was her statement that Earl told her it was half hers.

And that the assessment was changed on the basis of her statement. Now, if that is correct , Mr. Chairman ' then perhaps the Minister thinks it is objective grounds .

But he, as the protector of the revenues of the people of the Province of Manitoba, would then have to go back to all of the people in the Province of Manitoba who have paid a succession duty, and say to them, if you can say that your husband , or your father, or your broth er, or anybody else, told you before he died that this property belonged to you, and that's real property, a Certificate of Title, not a piece of personal property , are we going to relieve all of these people from the payment of taxations on these same " objective grounds ".

Now the Minister has further complicated the situat ion, because he is reported to have said to the press , and if he didn 't say it, then that's fine, then that bit of argument will go by the boards, that he felt that this woman shouldn 't have had to pay that tax , that it was based on an attempt to relieve the burden of taxation on this person because she was a . . . and with others, that they were farmers and really the money wasn't there . Although they were inheriting all this money, there wasn't money to pay the taxation .

If that is the basis upon which these taxes have been relieved against , then I say that the Minister has not been acting as required by 41(3) of the

Section , and if that's the way he is going to behave, Mr. Chairman , with respect to his authority, under that or a similar type section, then I suggest to him that that is not fair to the people of the Prov ince of Manitoba who don 't file a Notice of Objection, or who pay the taxes that they are required to by law because they think that they are going to be adjudicated by law, and not by the soft -heartedn ess of the Minister to people who have inherited $250,000 .00. Now, Mr. Chairman , I tell the Minister this on the basis of what was the situation as described by the Member for St.

Johns when we left Government , by what I asked him in the House and the reason that I asked those questions in the House , and by what I am told, and I admit this is unreliable, he told the newspapers after he left the House on that day. That this was based on the fact that the succession duties are unjust , not that the taxation was illegally assessed against these people . Because don 't forget , this assessment is made by the officials in our department , and what the Minister said is that these officials have wrongfully int erpre ted their legal authority in making this assessment. That's his authority under

Section 41(3). And from what little inf orma tion we have, of what he is alleged to have said to the press , he is using 41(3) as a means of relieving against taxation legally imposed. MR.CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister . MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman , the member has some advantage in that I can't answer in the way I'd like to answer . He said he doesn 't want to know what the legal opinion is, and I agree with him that I can't provide him with what the legal opinion is, because he knows better than anything else that if the matter ends up in the courts , that that opinion could well be very important .

So 1 can't answer him, and he has some advantage in the argument. There 's no possible way that it is possible . So all 1 can tell the Member is that despite all the attributions he wants to make for the motivations behind it all, is that in my opinion the decision was made objectively . In my opinion, the purchase of ... well , here we go ... anything I show here now ends up being used against me, whichever 1072 .. - ' .

Thursday, March 15, 1979 way I go. Is that not true? So he sits there, because he's been embarrassed, and wants to score Brownie points . Again we come back to the same old deal, you know . He wants all the financial information from the department, even in current year if he asks for it. He now wants to know my legal position in a case that may not be settled. He has all that advantage, and he knows it, and he sits there . MR. GREEN: I'm satisfied that the Minister has some difficulty, and that's why I asked the questions. I'm satisfied and I . . . MR. CRAIK: You're satisf ied, I guess you're satisfied. MR.

GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied that the Minister has some difficulties , and that's why I asked him earlier whether, when he was dealing with the Notice of Objection, he was dealing with it on the basis that the assessment was wrongly made , or whether he dealt with it on other grounds . And if he would have said he dealt with it on the basis that it was wrongly made , on the basis that it was wrongly made by his department from a legal point of view, then that would be an answer to my question, and he wouldn 't have to tell me what the legal opinion is.

But I'm not satisfied that that's what happened because of the Minister's answer , and thatss why I asked him in the House whether he deals with this on the basis of legal opinion . Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to know whether it is not correct that there was a draft recommendation to Cabinet, I'm not sure how far it got, and the Minister said that he did consider various alternat ives, that there was a draft recommendation to Cabinet to relieve against that assessment by waiving the taxes on the basis of the Cabinet's power to waive taxes. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR.

CRAIK: Well, we're back to the same answer , Mr. Chairman . The answer I gave in the House still stands . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Inkster . • MR. GREEN: The answer in the House was that Cabinet didn't discuss it. I'm asking him whether there was a draft recommendat ion to Cabinet. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister . MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, I told the member in the House that I gave consideration to this matter in terms of a recommendation to Cabinet.

I gave consideration to all factors, I gave consideration to the legal opinion, I gave consideration to a number of cases I dealt with and I gave consideration to

Section 41(3) and I made my decision . And I'll rem ind him that I think that he passed that Act, and he vested in the Minister that respons ibility. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I know what responsibility I vested in the Minister and I don't believe and I am not satisfied because of the way the Minister is answering that he exercised his authority under that responsibility . A MEMBER: Let the court settle it then . MR. Green: Well, Mr. Chairman, fortunately it may get to court because the Minister says Mrs. McKellar is not accepting the assessment. MR. CRAIK: I didn't say that.

I said that the matter that I assumed you were talking about had not been accep ted. I never named any names , unlike you, I didn't name names. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman , I gathered from the Minister 's answer in the House and so did many other people who printed it that way that Mrs. McKellar has rejected that assessment . If that is not so, I think that then it will never go to court.

If she has rejected the assessment then it will go to court , but if she has never rejected the asssssment then a citizen of the Province of Manitoba will have been relieved against a tax, under circumstances where the Minister who now has said, Mr. Chairman, and I watched his words very carefully. He said that I considered a recommendation to Cabinet. Now I'll ask him, did his consideration of a recommendation to Cabinet go so far as the preparation of a draft recommendation? 1073

Thursday, March 15, 1979 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister . MR. CRAIK: Mr MR; CHAIRMAN: The Member for Roblin on a point of order . MR. McKENZIE : I think that this matter that's before the Committee at this time , a deceased brethren, who was a member of this House, and the matter that the estate is still not settled should not be dealt with at this Committee . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Inkster on the same point of order . MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman , we are dealing with it. There 's noth ing that we are dealing with that will be considered by the courts.

The Minister's act ions will not be considered by the courts nor are they subject. The Minister 's actions are not subject to review by the courts , his decision is subject to review . I have asked the Minister , who says that he considered a recommendation to Cabinet, whether his consideration of a recommendation to Cabinet went so far as the preparation of a draft recommendation. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman , does the member want to know everything I write on a memo pad, everything I eat for breakfast or lunch or anything else.

You know , if he's now getting down to the point exactly of trying to know every final facet and detail of every consideration I took into accoun t in this matter. I'm going to tell you right now that I said at the start of this and I say now that as far as I'm concerned the matter is not settled . Probably a lot of things I've already said now will not be to the benefit of any actions that may take place , one way or another , and I don 't see any advantage to the government in fact discussing this further nor to either party in this matter . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please .

To members of the Committee, is there any indication or fact to the matter that this issue is before the courts right now? MR. CRAIK: No, it isn't. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Inkster . MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going . .. MR. CHAIRMAN: Then I would rule the point of order not valid at this stage of the game, unless we have proof that it is before the courts . The Honourable Member for Inkster . MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to say that the Minister says that I'm asking for every slip of paper. I'm not asking for every slip of paper . I'm suggesting , Mr.

Chairman , that a situation has arisen where a former member of the Legislature's estate and other people , it is not one person, that the Minister has a repugnance to the estate tax . It was in existence in 1972. He has the responsibility of dealing with Notice of Objection . I'm not satisfied from his answers that he is dealing with them on the basis of wrongfully made assessments , that his statement that he deals with them object ively doesn 't give us any assistance in this connection .

And I'm suggesting that he chose 41(3) after realizing that if he did it in accordance with his draft recommendation or his considered recommendation, which he won 't tell us whether he put it into a draft or not , because he doesn't want me to deal with every slip of paper that he signs. He wouldn 't do it that way because if it was done that way the government would have to stand up and tell the people of the Province of Manitoba that they were relieving these people against taxation and it would appear in Order-in-Co -uncil and that 4 f(3) results in no Order-in-Council and the hope of keeping ir-secret.

And that that is why the Minister proceeded in that way . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister . MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, I think the important questions here that have been asked and were asked , were those that have been dealt with. The member asked if I had prepared an Order-in-Council and taken an Order-in-Council to Cabinet and I think he even accused outside the House that an order had gone and the Cabinet had said take it back . . . 1074 "- ..

Thursday, March 15, 1979 MR. GREEN: No, Sir. MR. CRAIK: Well, that's what the paper said MR. GREEN: I don 't care. I never said that. d MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please . MR. CRAIK: Why hasn't he got the guts to stand up and say he didn't say it? You know what he said? He stood up in the House and he said my understanding is . .. -(Interjection)- You know, he didn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and withdraw . MR. GREEN: I have nothing to withdraw . -(Interjections)- MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. -(Interjections)- MR. CRAIK: No, because you understood what you said, but the papers didn't . MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman , I asked a question in the House . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. If the members will wait until they individually get recognized then we can probably get proper transcr ipt going. The Honourable Minister was speaking. MR. CRAIK: That's exactly what was reported and the member stood up in the House and he said, "My understanding is that I did not say that " You know who can't stand up in the House and say that. You know we've learned someth ing new this year, that you can stand up in the House and say my understanding is that I did not say that.

He said in the House that an order had gone to Cabinet . .. MR. GREEN: On a poin t of priv ilege, I never said that ' Mr. Chairman. MR. CRAIK: That 's what the pape rs reported. Why didn't he have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say that he was wrongly repor ted? MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman , on a point of privilege , what I said in the House appears in Hansard. What I said to the press is I did not know and that' s why I was asking the questions . -(Inter jections)- That's well. . .

You know what the papers say? -(Interjections)- I told the membe rs of the press exact ly what I told the House , that the reason that I was asking these questions was because I had been given that understanding and I wanted to find out and I think Mr. Chairman , that I have found out more tonight possibly than we found out the other night. Because where the misunderstanding arose, was whether there was an Order-in-Council prepared .

But what the Minister obviously won 't say is to whether a draft recommendation was made and then decided not to be proceeded with because it results in an Order-in-Council, which would have been made public. '9 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister . MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Inkster has presented his own case and drawn his own conclusions without any substantiation. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Johns . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman , this matter raises concerns in my mind that go beyond, I think, what has already been discussed.

In the first place, the Minister said that he would not discuss the legal advice he received because this may go to court. I cannot conceive that the taxpayer would appeal that portion of his decision which was favourable to her. In other words he made a decision that land which was registered in her husband's name, not hers, was jointly owned. And I can't conceive that she would object to that because that was her contention. So 1 don't see that that is a matter that has yet to be reviewed in court. I would assume that her not accepting his other decisio ns might go to court . That I can understand . Mr.

Chairman, I do believe that it is the responsibility of a M inister who has confidence in his staff to support his staff in its decis ions and recommendations. I do believe that in this case the 1075

Thursday, March 15, 1979 staff made an assessment contrary to the beliefs of the beneficiary or the applicant. 1 do believe that a Minister under this Act or any other Act where the Minister has review authority, appeal authority , should be to start out by supporting the decision of his staff . Because if he doesn't have confidence in his staff he shouldn 't have the staff. But he must look at the decision as objectively as he can to ascertain whether the staff was wrong .

If there is any doubt as to whether the staff was right or wrong, then I think the Minister 's responsibilit y is to support his staff, knowing full well that his rol e is only an intermediate step beyond which is an impartial objective public court, which would then adjudica te and might disagree with the staff. I need only to refer to one of the costliest cases I know about and that is the case with International Nickel.

Where , in my case, I was supportive of the staff's opinion and then when it was pressed because it was a very big amount of money, went outside and got a legal opinion that supported the staff and made a decision which the courts later obviously disagreed with . MR. CRAIK: How about Air Canada? MR. CHERNIACK: And the same applies to Air Canada. It was the staff 's opinion. But the point I'm making is that it is for a Minister to be supportive and not the other way around because the Minister , like his own staff , is charged with carrying out the Act and to protect the taxpayer's moneys.

Now in this case, I venture to say based on a fair amount of experience that his staff believed that the beneficiary was not entitled to this consideration. I venture to say, based on some experience , that no lawyer would have said to him that the decision of the department was wrong and should be overturned . So on that basis I'm assuming that the Minister applied his own judgement. From there on in, I have to go by newspaper reports and bi think it's rather serious because in one case, and this is the Winnipeg Free Press, there are quotes of the Minister .

"The Minister said he had legal advice from the Attorney-General 's department." No question about that. It doesn't say what they advised . Then it goes on to say, Craik told reporters, "Mrs. McKellar was left with a 12 year old son and no rights to the land , house , machinery or the grain in the bin ." Mr. Chairman , I assert that through inheritance she had all the rights to all of these assets and was not left destitute with no rights . But rather that there was no recognition given to any acquisition or of a share of these during their lifet ime.

The fact is that the grain in the bin or whatever else was always reported by the deceased as part of his estate . He reported his income tax, it aas his during his lifetime and now there is an allegation that they had no rights to the land, house, machinery or the grain in the bin. Well, that's true . They didn't. But then he goes on in his quotations , and , of course , he may have been wrongly quoted . " On paper she had this kind of an estate . . . " - that's an estate well in the excess of $250 thousand. And the quote continues , "She did not have the cash ." Mr.

Chairman , I happen to know that she had cash well in excess of the succession duties. I know that she had life insurance and I know because I was part of the House, which along with the Minister voted a lump sum indemnity payment to her for the year in which Mr. McKellar was a member but did not attend the House. So if he is correctly quoted and this in quotes, "She did not have the cash ." Then that's not correct . Then it says: "The quarter

section was not jointly registered, but rather was registered in McKellar's name ." Now, Mr. Chairman , we went through a great deal of debate in 1977 and 1978 on the rights that should be given to a spouse under the sharing of marital property . There was a lot of debate ; there was a lot of objection . We finally passed legislation which gave considerable rights to a spouse , but those rights did not exist prior to the legislation we passed . Those rights were rights that some Courts found in some cases applied and in other cases didn 't. The Murdoch case went to the Supreme Court and was lost.

Now, I am wondering the extent to which this Minister, and I'm concerned about his action as a Minister , whether or not he had proper hearings; whether or not there was proper consultation with people with knowledge ; whether or not there were affidavits filed ; whether or not there wa any evidence supplied as to the extent of any participation in the building of the assets, because it would have to be a rather considerable background of decision by a Court to justify it. Why, right now we're witnessing what 's going on in the States with a tremendous case involving a share of assets that a person is claiming .

And if the Minister just went ahead and did it, then I would say that it was not a responsible thing to do - I don 't begrudge her the money - but I do begrudge the fact that the Minister has apparently made a decision on what appea rs to be inadequate evidence . I turn also to the columnist , Fred Cleverley , who has comments to make on this , and gives information as if he was aware of it, and I don 't know where he got the information - I must 1076 -.

Thursday, March 15, 1979 assume from what was said to the Member for St. Vital, that no member of the staff of the Department gave Mr. Cleverley the information - but he says that she had already appealed the assessment to the former administration three months before the election was held. Mr. Chairman, when I first heard of this whole problem it was when the Minister heard of it, when the Member for Inkster stood up and asked a question.

I had no forewarning what he was talking about, or going to talk about, but at that time when he asked for information, I asked the Minister if he would make available to us the correspondence that took place with the former government.

He did not produce it, I don't even recall that he promised to produce it, but I checked with the Minister of Finance at that time, who was Minister for at least a year before the election, and he had no recollection of an appeal having been filed with him three months before the election, and no recollection of anything that came before him other than a letter that he wrote to the beneficiary in January of 1977.

Now it would be helpful, I think, to a proper understanding of the Minister's actions, and what may have been his report to members of the press, if he made available to the former Minister "' that correspondence or that informatinn which the former Minister had had during the time he was Minister, so that we could more fully appreciate the decision he made, the reasons for the decision, and the justification.

I am now talking about the person who is responsible for the management of so much of the public funds of the province, and if his judgement was wrong - and I'm inclined to think that it was - then I think that's a matter of real concern. Whether or not there was any suggestion of favouritism is something altogether different.

I'm talking about his judgement and his administration of the estate . :, So I come back to what I said at the beginning, I doubt very much if his decision was based on a recommendation of his department or of legal advice , and I don't know how we're going to find out his basis, other than his assertion, but it would still be helpful to me if we had made available to us or to the Member for Seven Oaks, Mr.

Miller, the file with which he dealt, so that at least Cleverley's statements could be confirmed or challenged , because Cleverley speaks with so much assertion that I suspect that he thinks that he knows the truth, and he must have gotten it somewhere. I think it would be helpful to clarify that part of it at least, because otherwise one would not give too much credibility to Cleverley's statements of fact . MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(d)(1)-pass; 4.(d)

(2) Other Expenditures, $17,300-pass; 4.(

e) Corporation Capital Tax Branch -(Interjection)- MR. CRAIK: No, I'm going to ask for a Point of Privilege on that. You know, I think that's a real cheap shot coming from the Member for Inkster about we see now how estates are dealt with. The only reason , Mr. Chairman , let it go on the record, that I haven't replied to these questions is the simple fact that I happen to be in the posit ion, and they're not -(Interjection)- I happen to be in the position right now, and they 're not, of having to be responsible for executive action on behalf of the people of the province , and I can't answer, you know .

In due course, I will. History will speak for itself, and let's just wait and see. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Inkster . MR. GREEN: I just want to tell the Honourable Minister that he did not hear me correctly. 1 said, " I'll show you how they deal with estates." MR. CRAIK: Yes, I heard that. I heard you correctly . MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(e) . .. MR. CHERNIACK: Just on the point of privilege I do point out ... MR. CRAIK: . . . smart ass. MR. CHERNIACK: Could you put that on the record? MR. CRAIK: Yes, smart ass. MR. GREEN: It's better than being a horse's ass. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. 1on

Thursday, March 15, 1979 MR. CRAIK: Us that aren't so literate just call you a smart ass. MR. GREEN: What you have proved is that there 's more horse's asses in the world than there are horses . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please . We have passed Item 4.(d). The next Item 4.(eX1) Salaries , $287,300-pass - the Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: The government brought in a substantial increase in exemption of Corporate Capital Tax , and it was intended to reduce the number of returns , as I recall it, substantially, because so many firms would become exempt of taxation .

On that basis , I would like clarification of what is the impact of the increased exemption in terms of staff and staff responsibility. MR. CRAIK: We'll obtain the numbers on the staff for that. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman , that, of course, applies to the question I'd asked in relation to Mining and Use Tax, Succession , and Corporation Capital Tax, but I would point out that in last year's Estimates book it showed $341,000 for this Branch for the year ending March 31 , '78; a ~ request for March 31 , '79, of $416 ,500, which in hhese Estimates is translated to $425,000, which is obviously the increase in the salary adjustment , and now there 's a greater increase from $425,000 to $461,000 , which I believe without having checked the arithmetic is more than the normal percentage increase in costs .

And therefore , I think we ought to get a fairly full clarification of why it is that it's costing more than it did before - and maybe it isn't, maybe it's just estimated to be costing more than was estimated last year - but surely the Minister has the information as to the actual and the justification for the present amount , it's not just a mark-up by percentage . MR. CRAIK: Well , the SMYs are the same - well , the member 's gone now. A MEMBER: He can hear you. MR. CRAIK: The SMYs are the same as last year .

What may have changed from the year before we can determine; there are three vacant spots in the SMYs of this year that were not there last year , the same number of SMYs are available. It hasn't made a large change in the SMYs obviously ; it has made a large change in the number of companies , particularly small companies that are required to fill out forms , but it hasn 't changed substantially the number of people involved. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Johns . MR. CHERNIACK: Well, perhaps the Minister could explain why there isn't a tremendous drop in the work? MR.

CRAIK: Well, as the member may recall, the tax collected by the change in this reduced from $13 million to $11 million , or $14 million to $11 million last year, approximately . The reduction in the amount of tax collected is about eleven-fourteenths of what it was before . It hasn't made a large change in the amount of forms to be dealt with , it has changed substantially the number of forms that have had to be filled out by the smaller companies . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman , assuming that every form received a review , and there were many taxpayers in the smaller brackets who made payments , which means money came in - money came out - assessments were made . If there's a substantial reduction in filings , then surely there should be a substantial reduction in workload. It just makes sense to me,bbut maybe I don 't understand how computers work . MR. CRAIK: It's very likely Parkinson's Law, Mr. Chairman , it's set in . MR. CHERNIACK: Do you expect me to take that statemett seriously? MR.

CRAIK: The number of people are reduced by about three out of the total of 16, and the amount of dollars they've collected was reduced from about $14 million to around $11 million, as I recall, for the last fiscal year . That's as much as I can tell you at this point. 1078

Thursday, March 15, 1979 MR. CHERNIACK: Could the Minister give me numbers of taxpayers? There must be a much greater reduction? MR. CRAIK: 1 can find that out for you. I'll get those numbers. MR. CHERNIACK: Well, then we can't really deal with this otherwise. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(e)(1)-pass; 4.(e)(2) $174,200- pass. Resolution 51, 5. Federal-Provincial Relations and Research Division; 5.(

a) Economic and Federal-Provincial Research Branch; 5.(a)(1) - my apologies to the Committee. Resolution 50: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,960,200 of Finance Taxation Division- pass. Resolution 51; 5. Federal-Provincial Relations and Research Division; 5.(a)

(1) Salaries, $372,100-pass - the Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman , could we find out any change in staff? MR. CRAIK: There are three new people, but they were in last year, so there haven't been any new ones this year, that's strictly the existing staff . MR. CHERNIACK: So there's no change in the complement. MR. CRAIK: No, there were two people came from Planning and Priorities Committee into the department, and one secretary last year, though; so there hasn't been any change. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5(a) (1)-pass; 5 (a)

(2) Other Expenditures, $104,700-pass; 5 (b)

(1) Salaries, $111,500-pass -the Member for St. Johns . MR. CHERNIACK: The program that was carried on by this branch , which was directed to assist people to complete their tax returns , and which ran into a problem of reduction in programs substantially, was partly helped I assume by the legislation attacking the refunds and the discounting of refunds . But I would like to have some kind of evaluation of the value of this branch now, as compared with what it was before , and I'm wondering the extent to which the minister can tell us. MR. CRAIK: The value? MR. CHERNIACK: Yes, Mr.

Chairman , the minister reduced the cost of this branch, if you call it that, from some $344,000 sstimated for the year ending March 31, 1978 to some $140,000 for the year ending this month. I'd like to know what was the impact of that reduction ? MR. CRAIK: HOw much of a reduction? MR. CHERNIACK: Unless I don't quite follow what the money was spent for previously , the year ending March 31, 1978 had an allocation of - it doesn't show on that, I'm looking at the previous year - $344,000 .00. And, last year the minister reduced his request to $140,000, a reduction of $200,000 .00.

I do not recall the explanation, but I know it had to do with a reduction in program . MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman , that's the year before , though. MR. CHERNIACK: I know . - (Interjection)- I believ there was support given to CITS, which was an income tax service designed to help people to do their own tax filing and I don't remember whether it was our government or whether it had not yet been done, had prevailed on CITS to impose a fee, which I think they are now charging.

I saw a report recently by that organization, which is a voluntary organization on the work they're doing , and a complaint in their annual report that their work has been hampered by lack of funding. So, I want to hear from the minister on that. MR. CRAIK: There's only one group , as far as I know that gets support - that's that CITS that gets it. They get support from the government. But I think that's through Consumer Affairs; it's not through Finance. -(Interjection)- It's through Consumer Affairs. 1079

Thursday, March 15, 1979 MR. CHERNIACK: Can the minister indicate the impact of the change during this current year from last year to now? MR. CRAIK: Yes, I guess that's primarily because of the change in the advertising and also the temporary people that we had doing the assignments of going out on the fill ing out of the income tax forms that we discussed in the House some two weeks ago. In total the SMYs , there were the equivalent of eight SMYs involved , and that's before they were involved in filling out forms.

We've ""= gone exclusively to the long distance and local telephone numbers and the advert ising, and the enclosures in the tax forms for the purposes of the filling out of the form s. MR. CHERNIACK: What yardstick , what measure do the research people have to show the impact of this change in the delivery of the program in terms of numbers of peop le served , returns filed , refunds . Is it too early to know , is there some mechanism whereby the research branch is able to come up with some measure that would justify the change in prog ram, or might justify a further change in program? MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Chairman , the amount of the program was roughly - the amount of the grants that were out were roughly $3 million over those that were initially budgeted a year ago. That was done by special warrant in January , so that will give some indicat ion of the amount of cash distribution by way of the tax rebates that would be influenced by this operation . If you want the actual numbers, we'd probably have to do some research to find out the actual numbers . MR. CHERNIACK: Is that a supportable comparison , the $3 million? Surely there was some kind of . ..

Wasn't the amount payable - property tax - wasn 't it increased , wasn 't the ceiling raised? Aren't there other reasons that would justify that kind of increase , or is that a direct relationship? MR. CRAIK: Well, all I said was that there was $3 million over what was budgeted a year ago . Now, whatever the increase would be, would be another question . MR. CHERNIACK: But the minister isn't trying to relate the $3 million to the reduction in the program of filling out of forms . MR. CRAIK: Oh, no. No, I'm trying to answer your question as to what was the impact of the change .

I said the only measurable thing I can tell him that has happened in the overall terms, rather than $130 million or whatever the figure was last year , it turned out to be $133 million . MR. CHERNIACK: But you can't relate that to the tax assistance program . MR.

CRAIK: No, but you know, the tax assistance program, the accusation in the House was that we had saved $20 million by not having part of this thing operative , which were the people going out, and these were the eight SMYs that were involved in the program , and all I'm trying to tell you is that if that's the case it's not evident because , in fact , the cost of the distribution of the funds through the rebate system was $3 million higher than what was budgeted . MR.

CHERNIACK: In the first place , I didn 't make the accusation , and in the second place , I don 't know the basis on which it was made , and in the third place , I think he was talking about this year for what has not yet been refunded, not last year and , therefore , although the accusation , 1 don't know how accurate it can be, will not be known for a number of months to come, I should think .

But surely , if - I'm not saying surely , I don't know ; but we do know , I assume , how many tax forms were completed last year through any assistance of this program , and we should know how many tax forms were completed this year , so far , with the assistance of this program. We do notice, as I did, that the chartered accountants are proudly saying that they 're going out and doing this job now - which is good , it's commendable that they should be. But are they covering to the extent that the Tax Assistance Office was doing formerly? MR.

CRAIK: Probably the only way we can be helpful in your question would be to attempt to get the numbers of applicants and forms . There is some information by way of the telephone service , because there's a record kept , as you are probably aware , of the types of calls that come in to the central information system . Those two, other than the total numbers of dollars would probably be the most likely indicators . 1080

Thursday, March 15, 1979 MR. CHERNIACK: Well, then I understand the minister will look into the question of the ... MR. CRAIK: I'll try and get you those . MR. CHERNIACK: ... numbers , and we'll be able to sort out in the telephone calls those which came in relation to a federal program , and those which came in relation to our own tax assistance rebates . MR.

CRAIK: Yes, there are a lot that come in with regards now to the federal program, because of the new Child Tax Credit currently , but we can probably tell to the end of the calendar year anyway pretty well. -(Interjection)- Apparently we don't break out in terms of whether they're income tax calls, or they are rebate calls. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman , I'll leave it at that. I would expect the minister to produce as much information as he can from which we can try to draw conclusions if possible in due course . MR. CHAIRMAN: 5(b)(1)-pass; 5(b)

(2) Other Expenditures , $38,200-pass . Resolution 51: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $626,500 for Finance, Federal-Provincial Relations add Research Division-pass; Resolution 52: 6. Tax Credit Payments, $140,000 ,000-pass - the Member for St. Johns. MR.

CHERNIACK: There were matters that I wanted to raise under this section; there was even a justification I expected for this new amount, but I will desist on the basis of the understanding I received from what the minister said earlier in this committee, that there will be a policy change proposed in a White Paper, and that this amount is based on their calculation of an increase over last year, but it's not really the program which you expect to carry out. If that's correct, there's no point discuss ing this . MR.

CRAIK: Yes, it's a project ion based on the continuation of the previous program, and we do expect to make changes as a result of a White Paper that has been indicated, and therefore, the amount tha t is in there is an approximation and the appropriate time to deal with it would be when the White Paper comes out , and the final figure is more accura te than the one indicated here. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman , in the event that - and it wouldn't surprise me if there is a reduction as a result of the government's program - will that be shown as a reduct ion in the Estimates by an offsett ing amount in supplementary supply or some other way? MR. CRAIK: Yes, I would think so. It would have to be. Sure. MR. CHERNIACK: Well, I don't think it has to be. I don't think it would have to be, because you could project a surplus or deficit at the end of the year, and not ask for more money if you needed less, and you would just not spend it and it would lapse , and that would affect the proper accountabi lity.

So I'm saying then in all fairness, if there's a majo r change in what is a really major program, and that major change is designed to reduce the cost to government , then I would expect that it would probably be in some way reducing the budget's requirement, and thus, reducing the surplus or increasing the deficit as it will appear at that time. MR. CRAIK: I guess the answer to it is that the White Paper, when it comes out, will indicate the projected costs of any changes that would be proposed and ultimately the government policy with regards to both changes would have to be known.

The influence of that on the budget up or down would have to be spelled out. If the quest ion is if it is down, would that be reflected in Supplementary Supply . . . MR. CHERNIACK: In a negative. . . MR. CRAIK: ... in a negative way? I guess we'll have to cross our bridge when the time comes. I can tell the member that it hasn't occurred to me that that might happen, but if that's the case, well ... 1081

Thursday, March 15, 1979 MR. CHERNIACK: It's occurred to me. MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 52: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $140 million for Finance Tax Credit Payments -pass . Resolution 53, 7. Program Analysis and Review, 7(a)Salaries $201 ,900-pass - the Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Since this is a departure from what went on befo re and not necessarily right now, but could we get a breakdown . .. well, you probab ly have it now, of the staffing of this branch . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR.

CRAIK: Yes, there are 7 people , 6 and 2 vacant ; 6 people and 2 vacant in that operation right at the present time, and they are all people who have been seconded from the former Management Committee , except the 2 vacancies . MR. CHERNIACK: May I suggest the word " seconded " probably should be " transferred ". MR. CRAIK: Transferred , yes. MR. CHERNIACK: Who is the person currently directing this program? MR. CRAIK: Eric Preston . MR. CHERNIACK: And reports to whom? MR. CRAIK: To the Deputy Minister. MR. CHERNIACK: Direct to the Deputy . And works with the Treasury Board. MR.

CRAIK: The Deputy Minister of Finance is the Secretary of the Treasury Board , and Eric Preston , who is the Director of the Program Analysis group reports to the Secretary . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if at this stage I could ask for clarification . I thought that Mr . McCance was sort of the head of the administration of Treasury Board . Am I wrong about that? MR. CRAIK: He is Executive Assistant to the Chairman, which is myself . He's not lline person ; he's a staff person . MR. CHERNIACK: Is he Executive to the Minister of Finance or to the Chairman of the Treasury Board? MR.

CRAIK: To the Chairman . MR. CHERNIACK: Chairman of the Treasury Board. MR. CRAIK: Yes. MR. CHERNIACK: So that this Mr. Preston reports to the Secretary of the Treasury Board and not to the Assistant to the Chairman of the Treasury Board . MR. CRAIK: Right. MR. CHERNIACK: And the Treasury Board . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. Johns . MR. CHERNIACK: I'm sorry , I know , it's my fault , I should slow down . The Treasury Board consists of Cabinet Ministers only . 1082

Thursday, March 15, 1979 MR. CRAIK: Right. MR. CHERNIACK: And it is served by the Deputy Minister who acts as Secretary, and it has an Executive Assistant attached to the Chairman, and other than that there are these 6 to 8 people. MR. CRAIK: That's it. MR. CHAIRMAN: 7.(a) -pass - the Honourable Member for St. Vital. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I did ask the minister a couple of questions I believe it was on !Tuesday evening that he took as notice and said that he would attempt to get hee information for us at a later date.

If the information was given in my absence, I can read it in Hansard, but I am wondering if it is available at this time. I see that we are getting towards the close of the Department. MR. CRAIK: Was that one question re Highways Vote? MR. WALDING: Yes. MR. CRAIK: We'll have that for you tomorrow. We don't have it at the moment. I understand we can have it by tomorrow for you. MR. WALDING: That would be appreciated, Mr. Chairman, and there was one other question having to do with warm bodies. MR. CRAIK: We'll have that for you within a day. That's in the same category; it's under way. MR. WALDING: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: ?.(a)-pass ; 7.(b)Other Expenditures, $30,000-pass . Resolution 53:

Be it resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty, a sum not exceeding $231,900 for Finance, Program Analysis and Review -pass. Resolution 54, 8. Manitoba Energy Council $514,600, 8.(

a) Salaries $195,800 - the Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: There is an increase indicated. Could the minister explain? MR. CRAIK: There is a provision in here for one additional person in the Energy Council operation . MR. CHERNIACK: Well, that's not enough. MR. CRAIK: That's the $30,000.00. MR. CHERNIACK: Even at 30; 188, getting closer. MR. CRAIK: It's getting pretty close . You got your GSI. MR. CHAIRMAN: Pass. MR. CHERNIACK: No, no. MR. CRAIK: GSI, 5.2, yes. MR. CHERNIACK: Is that $30,000 person the Director or whatever he is called? MR. CRAIK: No, PO 10. MR. CHERNIACK: Who is the Director? 1083

Thursday, March 15, 1979 MR. CRAIK: Morris Chochinov. MR. CHERNIACK: And this additinnal person; is it a filled position or .. . MR" CRAIK: It's currently a contract position. MR. CHERNIACK: Which is being converted to staff? MR. CRAIK: ohe provision is for that. MR. CHERNIACK: For staff? MR. CRAIK: It hasn't been confirmed but the provision is for it. MR. CHERNIACK : I have some questions to ask but maybe they will be answered ... Are we now going to deal with Resolution 109(e), because it seems to .. . MR. CRAIK: Oh yes, yes. MR. CHERNIACK: I don 't want to duplicate , but I have quest ions to ask on this No. 8, Resolution 54, but does it tie in with 109(e)? MR. CRAIK: Yes, 109(

e) should be dealt with at this point. MR. CHERNIACK: Well , I invite the minister to do so. MR. CRAIK: Well , the provision in 109(

e) is the joint federal -provincial program that has been announced by the federal government. It hasn 't been entered into at thi s point in time with the province and with the federal government, but provision has been made for it under that Vote; under the Canada - Manitoba Enabling Vote . I will give you a little more background to it. It's expected that over a five-year period , that the federal government by their announcement on their total energy package , has indicated that they want to distribute an amount of roughly $114 million . I think that's approximately the figure in Canada.

The amount that they have indicated that they are willing to negotiate with the province on a shared basis over the five-year program , is roughly $9 million . So what we have. MR. CHERNIACK: It'll be over five years. . . MR. CRAIK: Five years . -(Interjection)- No, $9 million over five years . So what has been done here is to earmark at this point in time until such time as the program is defined , is to mark $1 million as the total for this particular year. MR. CHERNIACK: What will it be? MR. CRAIK: Well , it's primarily Renewable Resources research ; that's what they are aiming at. MR.

CHERNIACK: We're being asked to vote for half a million dollars for research in Renewable Resources in the field of energy . Well, does that mean drilling for gas ? MR. CRAIK: No, that's not renewable . MR. CHERNIACK: No, that's right, drilling for what? Water . MR. CRAIK: Wood . MR' CHERNIACK: See, it's not even that late , Mr. Chairman, but the renewable energy resources are wood , and water , solar . MR. CRAIK: And conservation programs generally . MR. CHERNIACK: Again for wood? 1084

Thursday, March 15, 1979 MR. CRAIK: Well, no. I mean, renewable is the emphasis, but conservation generally can apply to building standards, development of biomass techniques, solar, anything . MR. CHERNIACK: So this $9 million over the next five years is part of the $100 million program that was announced in the Throne Speech . ., MR. CRAIK: Yes, right. Even without that, it's $100 million, so it could be ... r MR. CHERNIACK: Well, I'd like to know more about it because it sounds very nebulous to me so far and 1 am sure the minister would want to justify half a million dollars a little more detailed. MR.

CRAIK: Well, that's the one exception here that you will find is that the other Enabling Votes are 15 percent of the amounts voted in the individual departments. The Enabling Vote for the Energy one contains all of that Vote, and it's an enabling vote and it's the one that has not been entered into. The agreement has not been entered into yet and there is one other there that has not been entered into at this point in time, I think. No, I'm wrong on that. That's the only one that has not been entered into. It's under discussion and is provided for in the Estimates. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, nevertheless, we are being asked to vote a half a million dollars net, for a program about which we know nothing. I believe we know nothing, because I know nothing about it and I would like to, at this stage, know more about it if we are going to pass a resolution on that. In other words, it seems to me that if it is so vague that we can't discuss it, why isn't it being left for Supplementary Supply, or even Special Warrant? MR. CRAIK: Well, for the reason that we do intend to enter into the program, it has been under negotiation . MR. CHERNIACK: Well, is it a federal program or a joint program? MR.

CRAIK: No, it's the same as the DREE program . It's one that is negotiated on the same type of basis as the DREE programs in conjunction with the federal government. MR. CHAIRMAN: I wonder, members of the committee, if I could get some clarification here. We're dealing with Resolution 109 now, or will this be coming up again? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, sorry, just to clarify. The components that are in 109 actually should be dealt with under the individual votes of the individual departments, and therefore 109(

e) rightfully belongs for discussion under the present vote that we're under which is Vote 54. MR. CHAIRMAN: If I may for clarification again then, do we have these up for rediscussion again when the Resolution 109 comes up? Could the Honourable Ministr clarify ? MR. CRAIK: In total, at least. I think it will be up to the Chairman at that point whether you want to rediscuss them or not. MR. CHAIRMAN: For again my clarification, I believe we cannot pass Resolution 109 today. Am I right? MR. CRAIK: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Whole or part? I MR.

CHERNIACK: I don't see how you can pass Resolution 109 without having all the other ministers present and going into each of these items, and I think also that that would be a matter that would have to be probably cleared by an understanding between the government and the opposition in terms of how best to handle one, two, three, four, six ministers . This minister wants to take on two of us at once , but I don't want to take on six ministers, especially when they're not here. MR. CRAIK: The hallway wasn't big enough to take you both on. 1085

Thursday, March 15, 1979 MR. CHERNIACK: I see, well that's it. MR. CHERNIACK: Well , so I don 't see how we can do other than to discuss that energy agreement of a million dollars , as coming under Manitoba Energy Council , but in the end I think you're going to have to have a separate vote and the possibility of further debate on Resolution 109. So, I don't think we're dealing with 109. Nhat we're dealing with is a proposed program of $1 million dollars to be handled up by the Manitoba Energy Council, and that's why we're debating Resolution ... 54. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well , I'm wondering, if I may, to the Committee then , by the time we would possibly deal with this 1(

e) as such under Resolution 109, possibly more information would be available in terms of the agreement as such . MR. CRAIK: That depends when it comes forth, Mr. Chairman . The only thing is that technically, that's true. It should be voted under 109 and not here. The only thing is that in each case, it relates to the specific department and it's more convenient, we felt , for it to be discussed . But , you know, it's entirely up to the committee . If you wish to discuss it later under 109, that's fine . MR. CHERNIACK: Well , Mr.

Chairman , I'd like to know now what it is that the Energy Council will be doing in relation to this announced $100 million dollar program which sounds good . A hundred million is always a nice, round sum that I've been hearing for many years. MR. CRAIK: One million. MR. CHERNIACK: A $100 million program, of which this is MR. CRAIK: That's Federal. MR.

CHERNIACK: The Throne Speech talks about $100 million dollars , and you say that this is $9 million out of the $100 million, or maybe in addition to the $100 million, and I want to make sure that we have every opportunity to learn what that $100 million is about , because a fifth of it, presumably, is here somewhere . And that's what that $9 million is, is one-half of one-fifth of a $100 million , isn't it? MR. CRAIK: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's not necessarily split one hundred divided by five, because they all flow differently in different years .

But, essentially ,the $100 million is made up from, 44 from the Industrial Agreement, 22 from Tourism Agreement, roughly 20 from the Agriculture Agreement , which brings you up to about 88 . There 's nine in the Energy Agreement if you want to count it in. That may change . The Northlands Agreement is 20 - more than 20, it's between 20 and 30 - I think this year 's alone is pretty close to the 20 . So that if you add them all up together, over the five-year program , you 're up to in the 100 to 120 range .

But the Throne Speech stated that over the five-year period the DREE Agreements would be in excess of $100 million . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman , I want to suggest that we refer to the House Leaders the decision as to how to deal with Resolution 109. I suspect that the best way might be in the House, at the conclusion of all the estimates where all the ministers are present , and it could be dealt with in a sort of an orderly package , rather than split it up.

Now, that seems to me to be logical, but if the Minister of Finance doesn 't agree with me, then we'll have to go int o it more fully here, that Item (e), lest we be told later , well , you 've already passed the Manitoba Energy Council and therefore you're foreclosed in dealing with it. I'm only suggesting an orderly fashion . MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the Member for St. Johns then suggesting that we proceed with Resolution 54 tonight? MR. CHERNIACK: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Leaving the area of Resolution 109 to a later date . MR.

CHERNIACK : Providing 1 can get an understanding , he doesn 't like the word , but have an understanding with the Minister of Finance that we are not foreclosed from discussing 1(

e) at a later date. 1086

Thursday, March 15, 1979 MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be my understanding to the members of the Committee that, until the item is actually passed , whether at a later date or whenever, that it would be open for discussion . Am I wrong in this assumption? MR. CRAIK: Yes, well, we ought not to foreclose that option. MR. CHERNIACK: Actually, that's all we're saying . MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we proceed with passing of Resolution 54 then? A MEMBER: 9Well, we can proceed with dealing with it. MR. CHAIRMAN: 8(a)-pass . MR. CHERNIAK: Mr. Chairman, I have some questions on that. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Johns . MR.

CHARNIACK: I ask the Minister to indicate to us what progress has been made on the study for the ettablishment of the National Electric Power Grid System . MR. CRAIK: Well, the National Electric Power Grid System has been dropped as an objective by the Interprovincial Advisory Committee on Energy. However , the Western Electric Power Grid Study has moved along very satisfactorily, and is to be dealt with by the western First Ministers at their Western Premiers' Conference on March 26th - 27th in British Columbia when they meet, which is only ten days or s away.

The report is in to the joint Interprovincial Study Committee with regard to that , and I expect will be tabled at that meeting . MR. CHERNIACK: Could the Minister indica te Manitoba 's position on the Western Grid? MR. CRAIK: Not very easily, Mr.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-3-21b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 3rd hansardpdf 21b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3ebac2cef69b90481725ac06df6de224167594bc

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