Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 37 (29th Legislature, 5th Session)

29-5-37

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o' clock, Fri day, March 23, 1973 INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS 985 MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed I should like to direct the. attention of the honourable members to the gallery where we have 43 se nior cit izens of the Polson Day Centre. These people are under the direction of Mr. Hi lderman. This group is located in the const ituency of the Honourable Member for Inkster, The Minister of Mines, Resources and Envir onmental !.\1anagement, We also have 54 students of Gr ade 6 standing of the James Wood School. These students aee under the direction of Mr.

Friese n, Mrs , LeClair and Miss Hall. This school is located in the consti tuency of the Honourab le Me mber for Sturgeon Cr eek. On behalf of all the honour able members, I welcome you here today. GOVERNMENT BILLS BILL 23 I belie ve at adjournment we were on Bill 23. The Honoura ble Me mber for Roblin was on his feet. The Honourab le Member for Lakes ide. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for Roblin would like to expres s, and pce haps by leave we could consider his appeal, that he was in fact finished wi th his remarks and no.ally did not request that the bill stand in his name.

So if that can be done by leave then I will take my place in the debate at this particular time on Bill 23. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill 23 at this

part icular time which ,·a ils for the expenditures of some pretty massive amounts of money - one -quarter of the tota l sup ply, over $200 million. Mr. Speaker, I really don't expect that there will be any objections t<• the rather lengthy remarks that I have to make on this bill at this particular time, but I would li ke to as sure you, Mr.

Speaker, t�t all my remarks will be pertinent to the subject matter t.doee the Hous e, namely the discuss ion of Inter im Supply which deals with how this govern ment is spending money, our tax money, and I intend to enter or use this occ asi on to debate the dir·ection in which we seem to be travell ing in the way governments raise money and the way ;•.ov ernments apply those moneys and what effect they have on the popula tion at large. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy that the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources is tn his se at. He is of course so frequently in his seat, I commend him for that.

I too try to •;tay in my seat as often as I can because it is worthwhile to list en to what most members have to say. This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I would like to attempt to appl y one of his very good debatin g techniques of trying by reaso n of logic to outline a sit uation that I think he will have to ott: ree to some extent, you know, has a great deal of logic, and then indeed to allow that logic ln �peak for itself rather than necessarily taking my word for it or indeed the word of my Party f(IJ' it, but le t' the fact speak for its elf, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, se veral speakers sp ecifically and indeed just about all of .the members 11ppos ite of this government have indi cated from time to time that under our system of taxation any ti nkering with the tax system, any minor or indeed relatively major reforms or changes in the tax system do not really meet the goal or help ass ist in achiev ing that goal which they so often tell us is their prime function in governm ent, that is the redistribution of wealth, to re dist ri bute the wealth of our country, the wealth of our province more equitably, And particu larly, of course, the Member for Cresce ntwood who is not in his chair.

But even in this �l 'ss ion I've heard the Atto rney -General refer to it; I've heard the Minister of Mines and Natural ltcsources, the Honour able House Leader refer to it, while he qualified it to this extent, that sur·ely in the nature of the progra ms that taxation provides for people that in that sense there is an equality that is brought to the persons who have access to these programs .

But by and large the Fi rst Minist er, the government, the Cabinet suppo rted by their hackbench agree that taxation does not help all eviate the burden on tho se who can least afford it, a nd that under our system the corporate wealthy and bus iness and so forth can pass on any tnce ease in taxation to the general public, to the consuming publ ic. This of cours e, Mr. Speaker, I think is some thing that we can all pretty well agree with and at this stage of my logic al progres si on of my argument I think we have agreement. I see nodding of heads on the other si de.

986 March 23, 1973 BILL 23 (MR. ENNS cont'

d) Mr. Speaker, if we agree to that, if we agree to that, that increased taxation, no matter how progressive that taxation system is, but under our system the burden, the cost of that increased taxation is in fact transferred, is in fact passed on to the general public indiscrimi ately, and the question of ability to pay doesn't enter into it here. So, Mr. Speaker, let's recognize, and I think they recogn ize that here of course is where we

part company with my friends opposite. Mr. Speaker, we have often expressed our philosophy of the Progres sive Conservative Party in reasonably si mple straightforward terms. The phrase that we like to use is we believe in minim um governme nt rather than maximum government. We believe in minimum taxation rather than maximum taxation, Mr.

Speaker, the reason why we believe that is because we unders tand - and do they understand - that increas ingly higher rates of taxation eventually get passed down in a very indiscriminate manner to a.ll our citizens, to our citizens on fixed in comes, to our low income earners and everybody else. So that while the cries and the ple ad ings and the pious talk about having the ability to pay principle fixedly and determinedly in front of them at all times, that, Mr. Speaker, really is not the case.

If they indiscri minately and exces sively raise taxation or increase the taxation burden - which they know, I give them that much cre dit, and they don't deny, - which they know comes back indiscri minately upon all .of us in the form of, to use a general phrase, in the form of inflation, in the general form of excess ive government spending that we all have to carry, Mr.

Speaker, it's as clear as surely as night follows day that if a government spends less and if a government taxes less that then the government is not contributing to one of the greatest difficulties that we have in this country, namely inflation. Then the government is not cont ri buting to the extent that it is contributing today to the high cost of living concurred by all our citizens . Mr .

Speaker, what I'm really trying to say is that when this government raises general taxation to build up a bigger civil ser vice they're adding that cost to the price of bread, and when they lower the Medicare premiums and take it out of the general revenue, they're adding that to the price of a pound of butter, the price of a pound of hamburger, the price of a loaf of bread.

And when they indiscr iminately close their eyes to government waste and government gr owth, they're adding that to the daily cost of living with no regard, with no regard as to the abil ity to pay principle involved; and then we find ourselves looking at a situation where people · in frustration across the length and breadth of this country begin to wonder what is happening to our soar ing cost of living. We have stabs in the dark, investigations being carried on into certain sections from time to time because we believe that the costs are ris ing at an unaccept able level. Mr.

Speaker, we have right now in Ottawa a costly and commendable I suppose inquiry going on into food prices which is probably the No. 1 concern in the minds of many Canadians at this particular time. But, Mr. Speaker, let me humbly suggest to you, paraphrase the phrase that my friend from Roblin often likes to use, · the whole point is be ing missed in this investiga tion.

It is not the government that should be investigating the farmers or the unions, organized labour, or indeed the processors and others, although I don't pretend to say that there could not be ar eas of investigation and that there should not be areas of redundancy or that there should not be areas where there are unnecessary costs built into our food system. But surely, Mr. Speaker, the biggest contributor to the cost built into our food structure is the government itself, the government itself.

I would like to challenge this government or indeed the government in Ottawa to look at that aspect of their respons ibility in terms of ris ing food prices. - - (Interjec tion) - - Right. Well let me put It to you in more graphic terms. Take a loaf of bread pri ced at 30 cents today. I am told that there's been a reason ably sophisticated study taken on what constit utes and what makes up that 30-cent price tag on a loaf of bread.

I am told that the cost of the farmer to produce the grain, to harvest the grain, to take it to his elevator, the eleva tor to take it to the flour mill for it to be ground into flour, for the flour to be brought to the baker, for the baker to bake it, for him to package it and for him to br ing it to the retail store and for the retailer to sell it, costs 15 cents - - 15 cents , including profit. The other 15 cents is made up by the 128 separate and individual taxes imposed by various levels of government on that one loaf of bread - 128 individual taxes. Mr.

Speaker, it wasn't a question of concern when we suggested to the government last

March 23, 1973 987 BILL 23 (MR. ENNS cont'd) . . . . . year their imposition of the five percent sales tax on production machinery would immediately result in an exodus of busines s. What we did tell them then, and what we tell them now, it would certainly be passed on to the consumer in ways of additional food costs, as that machinery was to be used in the food industry. And we see it, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in the making of a hamburger bun or whether it is in the selling of coffee or any thing else. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be detracted, Mr.

Speaker, because I want to refrain my very genuine, you know, emotional feeling about the real culprit involved in the ris ing food costs, but want to get back to my progress ion of presenting to the House a reasonably logical argument. I think it's been agreed, it's been agreed that ris ing taxes, ris ing govern ment spending, ris ing government spending, is ultimately passed back to the consuming public; it has to be, we recognize that. Mr.

Speaker, I then wonder, I then wonder what really - - I really can't accept, I really can't accept the fact that knowing that and referring to that whenever the occas ion represents ... that they are themselves satisfied with it. If tinkering with a tax system and reforming the tax system is not a major manner and way this government can attack the redis tribution of wealth in this country, as has been admitted to on numerous occas ions by the Member from Cres cent wood, alluded to by the Attorney-General, by the First Minister and most other members of the Cabinet from time to time, then Mr.

Speaker, surely we have to search and go a little beyond and to at least speculate on what possi ble other goals will be open to this government or to a socialist governmen_t in trying to meet what to them is their principle objective. I am sure, Mr.

Speaker, that I could get agreement from the members oppos ite, that if we in fact in a very brutal and a very decisive way took all the wealth from private sources and re-expropriated it, and redistri buted it fairly among all our million citizens in the Province of Manitoba but did nothing to change the system, nothing to change the structure, that within one generation, with certain limitations, we would be simply back to the same uneven distri bution of wealth in our soc iety. - - (Interjection) - - Well, Mr. Speaker, I see that there is agree ment generally in the thesis that I am advancing so far.

We're in agreement. And I know although we don't hear the illusion and the reference to Sweden any more as often as we used to hear it in the earlier more heady days of this government, when social democracy became the kind of term that all of a sudden gained a degree of stature, I suspect, Mr.

Speaker, it's because that of late there's been a bit more attention paid to thatfine country, nonetheless a country that has found itself in such a tremendous mess, in so much difficulty as a result of their allowing their fate to be left in the hands of the tinkering and the abuse and mismanagement of socialists for so long. Mr. Speaker, surely if, and I want to progress it, surely the achievements of Sweden can no longer hold out any promise of hope for these gentle men oppos ite, becaus e we know where Sweden's at at this particular time. Allow me, Mr.

Speaker, to refer to what I am given to understand a reasonably noted Swedish psychiatrist, Dr. Hans Lahman, who was commiss ioned to do a particular study in Sweden mainly because of the - it says here, this is a study that was undertaken to determine how come socialism has driven some 83, OOO people a year to the mental hospitals and at the same time is respons ible for the world's largest per capita consumption of alcoholic spirits. Dr. Lahman goes on to descr ibe in a short paragraph the idyllic life in Sweden today. The picture of life in this western socialist paradise has been des cribed by Dr.

Hans Lahman, A Swedish psychiatrist commissioned to investigate the growing deterioration in a Swedes' men tal health: ''Mother and father awake at 5:30 a. m. in their cramped barrack-styled apartments; drag the children to a foster home then stagger bleary eyed to the factory; there for almost nine hours they attempt to fulfill sometimes impossible production norms. At night they slump exhausted in silent underground cars that whisk them home to a dinner of sausage and boiled potatoes.

Food prices" - and that's descri bed here - "being the world.'s highest, food prices being the world's highest, that is about all they can afford. " Mr. Speaker, all I'm trying to suggest to you is that where you provide one service of government if it is to be total services of some social program or another they will surface in another area, and certainly in Sweden they have surfaced in such a basic and elemental subject matter such as food, the highest in the world. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that really they in all serious ness, they in all seriousness are not happy with reaching out for that goal.

We don't hear the First Minister talking about Sweden any more in that context either. Isn't that right, gentlemen?

988 ·M arch 23, 1973 BILL 23 (MR. ENNS cont'

d) Now, Mr. Speake r, what then is the alternative that we can speculate that this government would atempt to move into and what direction are they see king out. They recognize and we agree at this point that higher taxation docs not do what they want it to do.

Oh yeah they get a few extra bucks from the Jimmy Richardsons of this world and from the Cabinet Ministers and a few other people, but it does n't redistribute the wealth, which is goal No. 1. and No. 2, it must bother .their conscience, and I know some of them have a cons cience, that this system of loading, you know, of raising money by the state eventually hurts in a very indiscriminate manner the very people that they thems elves like to say they're fighting for - the fixed income earner ;_ the low income earner; and, Mr.

Speaker, thirdly it manifests itself on those kind of products which hardly come under luxury class or se lective class of goods and services required. Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, we make the token effort to exclude such things as food from our sales taxes or children's clothing from our sales taxes and what have you; but, Mr. Speaker, look at the rate of inflation caused by high government spending. Look at the cost of liv ing spiral that we're in. And that, Mr. Speaker, knows no barrier as to where those costs finally settle on.

Those costs find themselves comfortably settling on to food, on to clothing, on to everything that we require. · Mr. Speaker, I know that while maybe some people back there don't appreciate or haven't taken the argument that far, I know there are some on the government side that must be con cerne d about this. So, Mr.

Speaker, there has been of course the other alternative open to this government which comes to us in pretty clear tones from time to time from the Member of Cres centwood, and I believe others, that, indeed, if we can't effectively amend the taxation sys tem to redistribute wealth - - they have already set themselves on the course of making that redist ribution, but they are reluctant to impose it because they know it will be to no avail - - so the system itself must be drastically changed and the operative word, there in the changes they are talkin g about is control.

Now we can call it takeover which is the operative word I suppose in the interim period while this takes place, but the eventual gain surely has to be controlled because if the state controls fully to 100 perc ent the resources, if the state fully controls the_ production capacity, if the state fully controls all these things, then in fact, then in fact they can, they can meet their aim, they can meet their goal of effectively being in a dominant posi tion with respect to how wealth is ac cumulated in this province, how wealth is distributed in this province and they in their wisdom and their sense offair play to their fellow man can then carry out the kind of policies that they really would like to carry out in the long term.

Mr. Speaker, I think that's fair game. I think that's from one point of view, if I were a socialist I would suspect that I would work as diligently as I could to see that I as a member in a socialist government would bring on to mys elf the necessary control, that I could br ing on to myself the necessary resources - - when I say myself, into the government that I would repre se nt under those circumstances - - so that I could then in a meaningful way create the kind of impres sion and do the kind of things that would satisfy me as a legislator or the person sitting on the government side of the House.

Not the obvious dissatisfaction that the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources now possesses when he admits, and the Minister of course is a candid person and a reasonably honest man, he admits, he admits that at �he moment , at the moment his actual impact or the effectiveness of this governme nt is only to the tune of five percent; inertia motivates 95 percent of what that government does. This is in the words of the Honour able House Leader, a man that I have a great deal of respectfor, the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources.

Only five percent, only five percent of what this government does - I should be fair to the Honourable House Leader - he said only five percent of what any government does, whether it's a Conservative government or a Liberal government, he said five perce nt is what they can do in terms of fresh and new impact; the other 95 perc ent is there by way of its own inertia, it's own being. Well now, Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources is not satisfied with that kind of efficiency. I know, Mr.

Speaker, that if he had that kind of a law student working for him in his office he would fire him because he would demand more efficiency. I know that if he had that kind of efficiency from his people in his civil service he would want to fire them (whether he could or not is another question) but he would want to fire them for lack of efficiency. I know, Mr. Speaker, I would want to too . So, Mr. Speaker, then what really is the options open to the honourable members opposite?

M arch 23, 1973 989 BI LL 23 (MR. ENNS cont'd) .. ... The options open to them is in fact to take that final step towards total control of our economy; towards a complete takeover of our economy. And, Mr.

Speaker, we have to seriously address ourselves to the fact that this is a goal, this is certainly a goal that has top priority in the Planning and Priorities Committee of Management when they devote time and at considerable public expense - if you look at the total salaries paid to that honour able or that estimable group of gentlemen in Plm ning and Priorities - they obviously spent considerable time and money to produce the Guidelines of the 70s, which surely points into the direction and surely indicates the degree of influence that the Honourable Member for Crescent wood, the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs ...

A MEMBER: Don't leave anybody out now . MR. ENNS: Well I'm trying to pick out the real red ones at the moment, Mr . Speaker, you know. I know that that doesn't bother the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural llesources because he has from time to time said he's not particularly worried about whatever labels we affix to him from time to time. It is the logical force of argument in debate that he will rely on at all times to put forward his program. Mr. Speaker, this is precisely what I am trying to do. I think I have established, Mr.

Speaker, that _the approach t!"o.at thi s government is on cannot bring about the results they want. They are going to load increasingly the kind of tax burden that will become unacceptable to the very people they want to serve.

Now they will try to camouflage it, as they will do so on Tuesday, ns they've already done today, because if the government over taxes and it has it's hands on 1 his money, they can then selectively for politically motivated reasons from time to time hand hack certain goodies and confuse the issue properly in the minds of the population that this j.((>vernment is indeed, you know, or that any government is indeed doing something, or that 1 h ·y' re getting something free. Well, Mr. Speaker, I know that you don't believe that; I know lh;•l some members on that side don't believe it, So, Mr. Speaker, they are, Mr .

Speaker on ,, path, they had to be on the path of complete and utter control of our economy. Then, Mr. Speaker, you know it behooves us then, Mr. Speaker, to then discuss the pros and cons of that � ntd of society that develops under those circumstances. Mr. Speaker, I'm not at all adverse to discussing the disadvantages and some of the diffi ··ull ies that would exist under the kind of administration that I propose as being the correct one f•lr our people in Canada and for the people of Manitoba .

I recognize that if you talk about mini mu m government, you're talking about a government that will not have the capacity to do all things for all people at all times. I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that if you talk about minimum li"' c1·nment and resist the temptation of doing all these things for people, that you then face that 'nost difficult of all problems that governments have to face, is that of setting up priorities. \\hen ever you set up priorities, Mr. Speaker, you're obviously going to have somebody arguing ·� 11 h your evaluation of those priorities.

Previous administrations have had to look at this young raw developmental land of Manitoba 011d have had to say to themselves, that we cannot at this particular point in time place on the �.llllc scale certain, many, certainly highly desirable social programs in our priority rating. f •·rtain physical aspects of the development of our province had to be looked after, and they H ml d be accused of being harsh and callous by assuming this posture . I suggest to you, Mr. ;;peak er, that those kind of decisions were the right ones at that particular time. All I'm trying l1> say, Mr.

Speaker, is that if you back away, if you back away from the position of govern- fllt·n l being Big Daddy and being the paternal overseer of all its people, and you allow a greater ·h•1:rce of decision-making in the hands of the private person, a greater amount of money in his t•wkcl to spend it, no matter how unwisely he chooses to spend it. Then, Mr.

Speaker, you have t., restrict government to doing - working in those areas that government feels - - and govern ""'" Is will always be challenged whatever governments they are of that day, whether or not !lot"'' re choosing the right priorities - -but nonetheless governments will not under the proposal .,f ntinimum gov ernment that I subscribe to have the ability to lard out the good news and the !n·u services that will as does the government on its way to taking over the total aspect of the �n momy. I think, Mr.

Spe aker, that is one side of the coin that we have to acknowledge from our 1 1l nl of view when we honestly talk about our very fixed and firm belief in providing as broad �rul as full freedom of choice for our people. I know it's a cliche phrase that we like to use .

990 March 23, 1973 BILL 23 (MR. ENNS cont'd) . • . . . It has its detractors and it has .its dis advantages. The freedom of choice can be a costly one in some areas but noneth eless if you believe in it then you put that pos ition forward. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that in refusing to accept that paternal role of gover nment knowing best that in some instances our priv ate citizens, or private actions, won't know best and errors in judgment will occur. But, Mr.

Speaker, I am prepareq to weigh the disad vantages ess entially found under this system of gover nment that I've just described, and indeed the system of government that we have lived under for the last hundred years, and hope to live under for the next hundred years in this country. I'm prepared, Mr.

Speaker, to equate those, or put those si de by si de with what is the case, what is the actual result in those governments, in those jurisd ictions where in fact that final transfer of total control of one's li Vt)S, that total control of programming on the part of gover nment for both the individual and the country's resources as a whole lie solely in the hands of the state. Mr. Speaker, even in that country that has to date not taken that final step, in Sweden, there is a tremendous reason for concern.

Just the other day in the Tribune and the Free Press article, another article, and perhaps it's for this reason that as I said earlier we're not hearing so much about Sweden these days . March 22 edition of the Free Pres s, there's a line that just caught my attention that I could hardly believe. "One of the more startling conclusions" - - of a particular report that is being referred to - - "is that 25 per cent of the total Swedish population is in need of ps ychiatric treatment. " Mr. Speaker, they're all going nuts. So they are all going nuts in that country, and why ?

Because surely that is a country that is being espoused as having the cradle to grave welfare state looking after all the needs. Mr. Speaker, it goes on to say that one of the highest difficulties that they have is in the area of their youth and their young people. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the honourable member would permit a quest ion ? MR. ENNS: Certainly. MR. GREEN : Would the honourable member be prepared to concede that in this statistic li ke in many others, it depends on how many are examined ? MR. EN NS: Well, that may well be, Mr. Speaker. All I'm saying to you, Mr.

Speaker, it is obvious from any objective reports that one hears about and reads about wi�h respect to a country that has taken socialism a long way down the path, it has deser ved for i�s citizens se veral notable dist inctions . Number 1, that of bei ng the highest taxed country �n the free western world. That, Mr. Speaker, of having a country where its citizens generally by their own admiss ions, and they are commissi oning reports. We haven't come to the point yet in Manitoba where we commission reports at government expense to find out how come we're all not smi lin g any more in this country.

How come we all walk around with carrying the burden of the state on our shoulders. They are doing this in Sweden these days. Mr. Speaker, even acknowl edg ing that remark from the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, even acknowledging that greatest of all inc entives namely the lovely female popu lation of Sweden, it only underlines my argument, Mr. Speaker, why the Swede still remains as basic ally unhappy as he is is beyond me, is beyond me. It must be Mr.

Speaker, and it is, and we know it is to be, the oppres sive load of taxation that he carries , the lack of indiv idual choice that he has, the lack of freedom of movement that he has in terms of doing some of the things that he wants to do. Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this government be honest with the people of Manitoba. Honest in terms of its long-term goals and its long-terms approach in the direction that the New Democratic Party intends to take the population of Manitoba. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I think it's important, not even so much as to whether or not we're moving into an election now or not; I think we recognize, at least, I think we recognize that it will be unfortunately a question of the New Democratic Party in the future or modifications of that party, nonethel ess a so cialist left wing party, that will represent this province half the time probably, and it will be a centre, or right of centre, the cons ervative group of people, like- minded thinking people, that will represent the people of Manitoba in this Legis lature the other half of the time insofar as our long-term future is with respect to who is going tO be, how this province is going to be governed.

So I think, Mr. Speaker, faced with that kind of an option - - when I say faced, the people of Manitoba are facing that kind of what I believe to be a fair observation, that kind of an option, in the two schools of political thought that will ess entially be governing them as we

March 23, 1973 991 BILL 23 ·(MR, ENNS cont'd) ....• go into the next century. This group, this New Democratic Party has a responsibility to the people of Manitoba to indicate to them in clear terms, what the other side of the coin is that they have up to now not shown us and not really talked about. The Minister of Mines and Natural Resources talks only so far; the Member from. Crescentwood talks only so far; and finally if we restrict ourselves, and this is where I have to become a little mean as far as my friends opposite.

It's fine if we're only talking about taking away Jimmy Richardson's money; and it's fine if we're only talking about accruing to the province certain rights of lands and resources, and things like that; it's fine. if we talk about restricting, or indeed confiscating the rights of Inco or Sherridon or Hudson's Bay, that's only three big mining companies, but, Mr. Speaker, you can't talk about that without talking about restricting me on my farm, or anybody else on his farm, you can't talk about taking away the last vestiges of private ownership, private control, over our destiny with any credibility because, Mr.

Speaker, you know, it doesn't - the wealthy, or the corporate wealthy did not ·start that way, just like that. Given half a chance unless the system is changed basically and completely, all you can do - you can redistribute the wealth that has now accumulated but it will essentially accumulate back in the same form. So, Mr. Speaker, they have to tell the people of Manitoba what is thefr - - never mind if it's the Guidelines for the Seventies - - what does the New Democratic Party stand for in the future years that it will be active in this arena? I suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that they are inevitably, inevitably on a path that leads to totalitarianism, that leads to communism, in the most •.• form that we see it and there are members in that government that know that, and support it, and will see it to its fruition. Those are my charges to the Honourable Members opposite at this particular time and this is why, Mr. Speaker, it becomes important, it becomes important when we consider the Supply Estimates, we consider the amount of money that they are now spending.

They are not particularly concerned about the facts of the escalating costs of living, the rising food costs, because all that means is that we'll pick out the next sector, the next profit center to attack. It will be the chain food stores next maybe, because after all there's as much .•. for that as for the mining industry. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member's time is up. MR. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. JORGENSON: Mr.

Speaker, I perhaps would like to take off where - - (Interjection) - - or start out where the Honourable Member for Lakeside left off, when he was discussing about the - - when he was discussing the question of freedom and individual choice. Sir, just before the noon recess, and on a couple of other occasions, the First Minister rose in his place and reminded us of a particular rule in our rule book Beauchesne, which says that Interim Supply normally is put through with some dispatch, or words to that effect. And that, Sir, is true; normally that does happen.

But the thing that must be taken into considera tion at this time is that that particular rule, like so many of the rules and so many of the pre cedents that are established, by Beauchesne and other authorities, are precedents and are rules that were developed at a time when things were a little bit different in the Legislatures, and things were a little bit different in the House of Commons. Well my honourable friend the Minister of Labour says they were all capitalists at that time. He has that kind of a one-track mind that it makes it difficultf or him to see the light of day.

The difference, the diffe'i:'ence, Sir, is that in those days at the time that that rule was developed, there was no limitation on the number of powers that were allocated for the con sideration of estimates; there was no limitation on the amount of time that a member could speak; and there was no limitation as to the closing hour of the Legislature or the House of Commons, they could go on all night if they liked. And so under those circumstances - - (Interjection) - - Well I wonder, Mr.

Speaker, if the Minister of Labour in his spirited way, wants to take the floor now, in which case I will be glad to come back later, or be prepared to remain quiet in his seat and take his turn when it comes. For one who continues to talk about the decorum in this House, I've never known one in sixteen years in politics, who broke the rules more frequently, and had less disregard for the rules than the Minister of Labour. Sir, in those days ministers were held responsible because they dfdn't have to watch the clock. Their estimates were considered and they were anxious to get their bills and their

992 March 23, 1973 BILL 23 (MR. JORGENSON cont'

d) o . . .. estimates through the Legislature as quickly as poss ible. We've had one department before us at the present time. I've done a rough calculation, Sir, on the approximate division of time between the time that the Official Opposition was occupying the floor, the time that the government was occupying the floor, and it works out to roughly 60-40 in favour of the government_.

Sixty percent of the time has been utilized by the government and only forty percent of the time by the Opposition, and I might add, Sir, very much of that time by the Leader of the Liberal Party, and I don't begrudge him that, I am simply pointing that out as a matter of fact.

Now then, Sir, if we are to assume, and that was the general assumptions, that the time occupied in consideration of estimates normally is considered as opposition time - - (Interjec tions) - - then, of course, one would assume that much of that time would then be taken up by the Opposition, and since that has not been the case in this particular instance, then the Oppos ition will inevitably find some way, because you can't suppress freedom of speech, at least, I hope even my honourable friends opposite will not think that they can do that.

It's like trying to push down an inflated rubber tube in the rain barrel, if you push it down one end,, it will come up another. And if we cannot, if we cannot find the time to make our points during the consideration of estimates, then we'll do it during the question period; we'll do it during other occasions, and this is one of those occasions that we are taking advantage of, which is our right under the rules.

Sir, notwithstanding the admonitions of the First Minister, notwithstanding the frustra tions of the Minister of Labour, I notice that my friend the House Leader, the Minister of Mines and Resources is not complaining, because he is one member on that side of the House, Sir, who, although we may disagree philosophically on many things, at least my honourable friend the Minister of Mines and Resources knows the purpose of this place and understands the rules, which is more than I can say for the Minister of Labour. MR. 'PAULLEY: It's a good job you have one friend in this House.

MR0 JORGENSON: Well it is not my purpose to come into this Chamber simply to make friends. I feel that I have a responsibility and I intend to carry that responsibility out. One of them, one of them, Sir, in my opinion is pointing out what I consider to be the weaknesses, the fallacies, and the mistakes of this government. Sir, much has been said about income taxes.

This government stoutly maintains that the years they have been in office there have not been an increase in taxes and although from their point of view they might be able to establish a case, weak as it is, the fact of the matter is that in the public accounts, one gets some idea of actually what is being collected by personal in come taxes during the four years that they've been in power. I am not going to deal in percentages. I am not going to deal in portions.

I simply want to deal in figures as illustrated in public accounts to indicate to this House what is being col lected in the way of personal income taxes by this government, since they assumed office. In 1969 the first year that they came to government, they collected in income taxes a total of $64, 654, OOO. 00. Last year, 1972, they collected a total of $119, 354, OOO which is roughly double the amount that they collected in 1969.

My honourable friends opposite say that they are not taking more from the taxpayers of this country, is just not borne out by the evidence that is contained in the public accounts. ·At the same time, Sir, in spite of the fact, in spite of the fact that they continue to pose as the friend of the working man, and the enemy of the corporations, we find that during that same period corporate income taxes rose from 24 million to 34 million.

It took approximately $60 million more from the individual taxpayers through income taxes, and only about $10 million from the corporations. - - (Interjection) - - Well you see, I said that I was not going to be dealing in percentages, I was going to be dealing in absolute figures, and these are figures that are contained in the public accounts and those are the ones that we have, knowing exactly in dollars and cents how much has been taken from both the corporations and from the individual taxpayerso Sir, it is a - I'm not saying that it's a reflection on this government, I'm saying its a reflection on the tax system, it's a reflection on a system that encourages a government, that provides a built-in incentive for governments to create inflation, and what happened, Sir, is that our labour unions in this country who normally are guided in their negotiations by the price indexes, and quite frequently in labour union contracts.

There is a built-in escalation of wages according to the increase in the price index.

March 23, 1973 993 BILL 23 (MR. JORGENSON cont'

d) Under our system, in most cases even though an increase is granted to a working man, at the end of the year he finds that very little of that increase goes to him. Most of it goes to the government in the form of taxes. And so when I say there is a built-in incentive for the govern ments to create and foster and encourage inflation, I mean that by doing that they don't have to increase percentages, they get more money simply by virtue of the fact that they take it from those increases in wages.

That, Sir, is the basic problem in the taxation system, and one that I think needs to be overhauled more than anything. In the House of Commons recently, we had an amendment to the Income Tax Act. Now normally one would think that there are two methods by which the Income Tax Act and the method of collecting taxes, could be changed; one is a more effective and a more equitable distribution of the tax load.

That would be one way of effecting a tax change; and the other would be a means of collecting the same taxes for less money, for less cost, so that a greater proportion of those taxes would not be charged against the consumer in the form of higher prices, and still would find its way into the government coffers in order to meet the needed expenditures, and the needed and the legitimate expenses of government. The tax changes that took place in Ottawa recently did not take into consideration either of those two objectives. Mind you the changes that took place were simply a means of collecting more taxes, period.

And that's exactly what's happened. The increase in the revenues to the Federal coffers has been largely as a result of that change in the Income Tax Act. Now, Sir, let me define what I think - - honourable gentlemen opposite very frequently seem to think that it is their responsibility to effect a greater distribution of wealth through the tax system. Now I question that.

I have always questioned it, and my observations were substantiated not so long ago by the Member for Crescentwood who delivered a Sermon on the Mount in Vancouver and then repeated that same thing in the Chamber here during the course of the Throne Speech Debate. He outlined the weaknesses in the - what he called the Schreyer system of social democracy, and why it wouldn't work.

He went on to point out that the answer, of course, as my honourable friend the Member for Lakeside has pointed out, is a movement further to the left, and that is - - he says, "now this won't work, this brand of socialism is no good, but we can make it work, if we move further to the left." And I think, Sir, that that is the decision that the people of this country have got to make in the next election. Are we going to go further to the left?

Are we going to do as my honourable friend the Member for Crescent wood says, and which is contained in the manifesto that was drafted by this government, by taking over completely the control of production in this country? That's a decision that I think should be given to the people of this country, or this province, and for them to make a decision on. I'm prepared to accept the decision of the people but I think that alternatives should be provided for them.

Now then even in the question of local retail stores; you know I can understand the government wanting, their desire to get their hands on vast quantities of money, because after all they know what to do best with money, people don't. But I'm somewhat alarmed at that one reference in the Manifesto which says that a Municipal Development Corporation would set up a retail store to compete with a local monopoly.

In other words, in the Town of Morris if we have one retail store there, that, Sir, is regarded as a monopoly and that capitalist has got to be destroyed, notwithstanding the fact that people can drive from Morris and have effective competitive right from the city of Winnipeg - - and indeed many of them do - - but we've got to set up a monopoly or a government store in the Town of Morris to compete with that poor guy who's invested a lot of his time and energy and money in providing a service to a community. He must be destroyed. That is the thing that I find so incomprehensible.

They have a tendency, Sir, to equate free enterprise with multi-national corporations; that is their opinion of free enterprise. Sir, in my view free enterprise is much more than that. Free enterprise is a man, who took on the Government of Ottawa here in Winnipeg by starting his own mail delivery ser vice in Winnipeg because he felt that the government was doing a lousy job - - and indeed they were and I might add, Sir, Eric Kierans was the one that set up that system of mail delivery.

He is the man that went down to the football stadium last fall and because he felt somebody was �harging too much for programs, $1. 25, that he was going to sell them for 25 cents, and he took m Winnipeg Enterprises very effectively. That's a free enterpriser, Sir. Free enterprise Llso is the man who is a farmer; who instead of delivering all his eggs to a government

994 March 23, 1973 BILL 23 (MR. JORGEN SON cont'd) .••.• controlled agency, he decides he's going to provide a service to his customers and delivers them right to the customers, at a price that is lower than he would pay through a retail store, and at a price that is higher than he could get through any govern ment agency. Sir, that's free enterprise. A person who can find a better way, a cheaper way, and a more effective way of providing service to the people of this country.

But that is not, that, Si r, is not the attitude that these people have across the way, that's not the approach that they take towards free enterprise. Sir, I look upon government as as suming and having an entirely different role. I look upon government first of all as being the protector of individual liberties. A MEMBER: Hear, hear. MR. JORGENSON: Personal freedom.

I think that every piece of legislation and every thing we do in this House should be measured against how well it achi eves that purpose and if it denies personal liberties alid individual freedoms, then I must oppose it, because' I feel that in this Chamber if we don't protect individtial and personal liberties, then nobody will. We are the front line troops in the protection of those liberties. A MEMBER: There's precious few troops around . . . MR.

JORG ENSON: Secondly, Sir, I believe that the se cond role of government, the next role of government, and equally as important, is protection of soc iety against those who will commit cri mes against socie ty, and I ask you, I ask you, Sir, to look at what we're experienc ing today to determine whether or not soc iety is being protected adequately against the criminals. My gosh, Sir, when you're on the outside, when you're a law abiding citizen, when you're obeying the law paying your taxes and attempting to contribute to the development of this country, you're treated like a criminal ...

You try and park for two minutes overtime and they'll pounce on you like a pack of wolves. My car for example has been broken into three times and I've been robbed. I've never heard anything about them catching those crim inals for some reason or other, and I am beg inning to wonder - - (Interjection) - - no, it wasn't in Morris, twice in Winnipeg, and once in Ottawa.

But I'm beginning to wonder, Sir, if justice today now centres around whether or not the particular criminal has to go to jail or whether he can pay a fine, and if he can pay · a fine, all right, let's catch him; but if he has to go to jail let him go. And when they do convict a criminal, when he is put in jail, then the red carpet comes out; then he's treated as though he's som ebody special. You know, the jails are so crowded today that I think that those who are contemplating the missioa of a crime have to book reserv ations in the jails ahead of time to make sure that they can get in.

And I sometimes wonder, Sir, if the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has provided them with a list of the preferred hotels that they're supposed to stay in when they get out. A MEMBER: Break out. MR. JORGENSON: When they break out. Is there an approved government travel agency in there to provide them with the best routes out and the best places to stay when they do get out.

You know, Sir, it reminds me of a story of a - - (Interjection) ·· - story of the farmer who was driving by a penal institution with a load of manure and two prisoners were si tting in the lounge watching coloured television and drinking their Scotch and Soda, and one of them said, "I'm going to have some fun with this hick, " and he shouted out the window, he said, "Where you going, hey Rube, where are you going with that load of manure?" and he says, "I'm going to put it on my strawberries. " And one turned to the other and said, "Well, boy we're better off in here, at least we get cream and sugar on ours.

" But, Sir, - - (Interjection) -·- It's an indication of a kind of deterioration that we're finding in our soc iety today. I say that the responsibility of government is to protect socie ty against those who would commit crimes . And the third responsibility, Sir, as I see it, is the protection of the nation's currency . Si r, I don't have to comment on that particular aspect of government endeavour to point out how abysmally dismal the governments have failed to protect this country against the erosion of the dollar.

Sir, in the last ten years in Ottawa the federal Budget has increased from $6 billion to $18 billion. A MEMBER: It's a Liberal Government ... MR. JORGENSON: $6 billion to $18 billion. A MEMBER: I told you about that last night .

March 23, 1973 · 995 BILL 23 MR. JORGENSON: Sir, the money that is being spent in that way is coming from the tax payers. A MEMBER: Hear, Hear. MR. JORGENSON: If it works out if you want to work it out to the number of people in this country, it works out to approximately $500. 00 increase per man, woman and child in Canada.

At the same time the provincial budget, and part of that is the responsibility of the previous administration I will admit, the provincial budget is increased by something like a half a billion dollars, and you divide that by the million people in this province and that works out to another $500, 00 per man, woman and child. The combination of the federal and provin cial increase in taxes works out to $1, OOO. 00 per man, woman and child.

Good heavens, Sir, is it any wonder that there's an increase in food costs, because that distribution does not quite work out that way, but if it did, if it did, then it's no wonder that there's a decrease in the birth rate because no child in his right mind would want to come into this earth to be slapped with a $1, OOO. 00 debt immediately and $92. 00 is his share of the interest on that money. - - (Inter je,ction) - - MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines. MR. GREEN: .•. as to how children come into the world, They really don't have much to say about it. MR. JORGENSON: No they don't.

But we can, we can describe how they're treated when they do come in. You know normally, and in the past, it used to be the doctor would pick him up and slap him on the buttocks to get him to squawk. - Now what happens is that the tax collector comes along, slaps him on the buttocks and he squawks, he would have squawked any way and who wouldn't with that kind of a burden levied against him.

Now then Sir, that kind of cost that increase in taxes, as was pointed out by my honourable friend the Member for Lakeside, and I'm not going to go into that because he has covered it fairly well, is passed down, passed down in the form of higher costs and higher prices, And as long as we continue to think that we're going to solve. the problems by slapping more taxes on the consumers, by spending more money, more freely, then we're living in a f ool's para dise. Sir, we have so many programs.

We have OFY; we have LIP; we have PEP; we have DREE; and heaven knows how many other programs. - -(Interjection) - - You know recently, Sir, there was a fellow discovered in the jungles of Peru swinging from the trees like a modern Tarzan and after, after an investigation was made it was found that he was· there on a PEP grant. And, Sir, the sort of things, the sort of things that governments are taking taxpayers' money and spending it on is enough to make a grown man cry.

These programs DREE, PEP, LIP, and all of these things, you know, this is not something new, this is not something that these people invented, this was a program that originated with the Pharaohs of Egypt because they build monuments to themselves, too, in the form of pyramids, in the form of pyramids, Sir. They were useless, they were useless, Sir, but by George, they put a lot of people to work! Sir, if that $1, OOO. 00 per man, woman, and child, in this country were left in the hands of the ta.Xpayer to spend as he chose, to establish his' own priorities, there would be much more meaningful employment created.

It would be employment created as a result of a demand, and it would also mean that there would be more wealth added to the country, because that wealth would be circulating amongst the people rather than being siphoned through a government where so much of it is extracted in the form of useless programs. Sir, the building of pyramids is not the only program that this government has adopted.

You know the other - last year during the course of the session I asked the Minister of Agri culture if in any way he advocated or had anything to do with the slaughtering of two million chickens in this country, and he rose himself to his full height and said not only do I support.it, he said, but I advocated it. Sir, that's another program that was borrowed from the Pharaohs of Egypt because if I recall correctly there was one Pharaoh that decreed that all the male born sons were to be slaughtered.

Moses happened to escape from that by hiding in the bullrushes, and happily, happily there were a few chickens that escaped that two million slaughter as well. But Sir, this is the kind of nonsense that you find in modern society today. Nonsense, Sir, A MEMBER: They paid the farmer 50 cents to slaughter them.

996 March 23, 1973 BILL 23 MR. JORGENSON: Nonsense, Sir, because today our older people who are being given grants by this government but before those grants even reached their pockets they have lost it in the form of higher food costs and higher prices for the things that they must buy. And so the cycle will continue. Next year they are going to have to increase something else. More taxes, give more grants. Where will it all end ? Sir, there is no end to it as long as that cycle continues. Sir, I am reminded of .. . A MEMBER: Another story? MR.

JORGE NSON : I am reminded of - - well it might be a story, Sir, but it's not a funny one. I am reminded of an exerpt, of an exerpt that comes out of the - - (Interjection) - - that comes out of the William Shirer book "The Ris e and Fall of the Third Reich. " When he was describ ing what was ·happening in Germany during the inflationary period of that time, the devaluation, he was referring to the devaluation of the German Reich Mark. The slide began in 1921. The first move was made to reduce the value of the mark to 75 to the dollar.

And in August 1923 the mark was worth one million to the dollar, and within a couple of months, the i:noney was absolutely worthless. And I just want to read this one

chapter from this particular book. He said, "The masses of the people however did not realize how much the industrial tycoons, the army, and the State, were benefitting from the ruin of the currency. All they knew was that a large bank account would not buy a straggly bunch of carrots , a half pack of potatoes, a few ounces of sugar, or a pound of flour. They know that as individuals they were bankrupt. And they knew hunger when it gnawed at them as it did daily. In their misery and hopelessness they made the Republic the scapegoat for all that had happened. Such times were heaven made for Adolf Hitler.

" Sir, I am beginning to wonder with the kind of escalation of costs that we're experiencing in this country today how far we are away from a repetition of that circumstance. I think, Sir, that the time has. come when some pretty hard decisi ons have got to be made when we've got to determine whether or not this pell-mell rush towards greater and greater expenditures and as sumption of control and power on the part of the government, has got to be stopped.

In checking through the estimate books this year, we find that in salaries alone, just salaries and that heading that comes under the General Expenditures, a greater and greater army of civil servants assu ming a greater and greater portion of the tax dollars that are being collected. In 1970 under the total expenditures of government under that particular heading, Salaries and General Expenditures , it amounted to $90 million. In .1974, that is for the projected Estimates for this year, it is $176 million, double in four years .

Sir, that kind of an escalation of the cost of government cannot be tolerated becaus e, Sir, if it is permitted to continue I think we find ourselves in a pos ition where people of this country will not be able to buy the things that they require or as in Germany in 1923 where a wheel barrow full of money could only buy a book of matches. We've got to come to grips with this particular problem. And my honourable friends opposite may laugh at my analogies and my comparisons , but I think that we must look very seroiusly at whether or not the trend has got to be stopped and indeed reversed.

Whether or not we are going to continue to allocate more and greater power into the hands of a few bureaucrats, or whether we're going to have a return to government by the people. That, Sir, is another subject and I don't fntend to dwell on that one today. But I do use this occasion and this opportunity to point out some of the dangers that I see and some of the warning signs that are not only on the horizon but are already with us . Failure to recognize it could mean the end of democracy in this country and I don't think any of us want to see that happen. Thank you very much. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Lakeside, that debate be adjourned. MOTION pres ented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHR EYER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Mines and Resources that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

MOTION pres ented and carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply with the Honourable Member for Logan in the Chair.

March 23, 1973 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESOURCES MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 88 - - passed. That completes the Department of the . MR, FROESE: I think I asked several questions of the Ministe r last night before we adjourned and I think we should have some answe rs. 997 MR, GREEN: Mr. Speaker, the type of question that was asked by the honourable mem ber was very sim ilar to the type of question that was asked by the Member for Brandon West. I indicated that the present -- the Chairman of the Manitoba Development Fund will be appear ing before the Committee on Ec onomic Development.

The honourable member will be free to come to that co mmi ttee and detailed questions concerning specif ic matters of that kind in the report will be answered by the President of the Devel opment Corporation. · Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Member for Morris, he's here. I have a tabulation of time that the Chairman made which include s everything but three hours, which I assume can be dealt with that way. There were a total of the -- eve rything but 23 which gets down to about 21 hours, I used eight hours, roughly, ei ght hours less ten minutes.

This is in answering questions and I introduced my es timates in 30 minutes. New Democrats used two hours and fifty minutes beyond that eight hours. Progressive Conservatives used six and a half hours, Libe rals used two and a half hours which is nine , Social Credit used 58 minutes and there were an additional 31 mi nutes. So I think it breaks down with the Ministe r using less than half the time ; the New Democrat side of the House using roughly half and the other side using roughly half.

But that's really not intended to say anything other than that that is probably a more accurate es timate of time than has previously been given.

Now I really urge the Member for Rhineland to know that there will be again time on Capital Supply to discuss these matters but more important than that, and I don't think Capital Supply is the place that most information will be forthco ming , there will be a committee meeting of the Ec onomic Development Committee of Cabinet of the House and the Chairman of the Corporation will be there, just as· the Chairman of Hydro is there, to answer the de- tailed questions that the Honourable member .. . MR, FROESE : Mr. Chairman, I think .. . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR.

FROESE: ... there are certain things that should be answered. How much is there in unused authorizations that we have been making ? MR. GREEN: Roughly 1, 100 , OOO the last time I was aware of it. Roughly 1, 100, OOO in unused authorization. MR. FROESE : To me the Deve lopment Corporation should receive more consideration in the House here and its operations. I asked for some projected statement by the Minist,er on CFI. We are showing tremen dous losses here.

Now for the several years of this particular industry, and I certainly for one want to know, are we going to -- at what rate are we going to have these losses year after year, and should we not try and dispose of it then, if it's just going to be a liability from hereon as the report states; then too we find that the credit rating of the Development Corporation in my opinion is very low. If it wasn't for the government guaranteeing the loans -- look what it says under (3) the bank advances, that the government will not advance them any moneys more than up to five million.

Once it reaches five million the government has to take over the amount that they have been advanced by the bank. --(Inter jection)-- No, but this apparently is the rating that the banks give to the Corporation. If it's not the ca se I certainly would like to hear a proper explanation on this because this is the way the note under "bank advances" reads. And .. MR. GREEN: . . . will permit me . . MR. FROESE : Then too on top of that ... MR. GREEN: Well okay go ahead. MR.

FROESE : ... they will not allow any encumbrances on the advance s, on any advance s that have been made so that this is also part of the note in connection with the credit rating. --(Interjection)-- It's found on page -- I ce rtainly would like to hear from one of the Minis ters on the front bench to explain that if that is not the ca se because .. . MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I'v e already indicated to the honourable membecr:-.. . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Mines and Resource s. MR.

GREEN: ... the report is signed by the Chairman of the Development Corporation; the Development Corporation answers to the Minister in charge of the Development Corporation. I assure the honourable membe r that the details with regard to the financ ial statemen t , none

�A-- """"""'*·---------------- 998 March 23 , 197 3 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESOUR CES (MR. GRE EN cont'd) ..... of which he has indicated to me are in any way out of the ordina ry, but all of those details will be answ ered. The details with regard to Churchill Forest Indust ries, the Advisory Committee that has been set up , the operations of Churchill Forest Industries will be answ ered by the Chairman of the Development Corporation when he appears before committee. Now the hono urable member is dissatisfi ed with that.

I am indica ting to him that that is the manner in which I intend to report on the details with regard to the Corporation. I intend to try to deal with the philosophy of the Corporation , the philosophy of the relationship between the Board and the Corporation, the direction of the Co rporation but details of the financ ial statement are surely a matter which have always been handled in that way and I urge the honourable member-- not because I couldn't get the information and then deliver it but that the best way of obtaining it is through the Chalrman of the Co rporation. MR. FROESE : Yah.

Well again under the agreement with CFI we are under certain obligations , and I have asked this on previous occasions. How much did we spend on these various programs such as fire fighting, reseeding and all these things ? Sure he knows that we are under an obligation . . . MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. That ... MR. CHA IRMAN: Point of Order. The Honou rable Mini ster of Mines. MR . GREEN: ... does not come under the Manitoba Development Corporation, that comes under the estimates of the Minister of Mines up until that program, and that has already been dealt with. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speak er, last night the Hon ourable Min ister of Mines and Natural Resources dealt with the point that we're talking about now and I would like to if I may make some commen ts on that and then deal with the Man itoba J)evelopment Co rporation under his estimates. Mr.

Speaker, the proposition that's now put before us is that the Committee, the Stan ding Co mmittee on Ec onomic Development will have before it the Chairman of the Manitoba Develop ment Co rporation and he will be in a position to answer the specifics of questions that we may have relating to particular loans and particular indu stries in which we have an equity , in which the people have an equity. Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources is proposing up to now has not been dealt with in this way.

What he's proposing is a change and I think it's important --.(Interjection)-- No it did not happen last year and I want to deal with that if I may. He, I think , maybe misunderstands what really took place last year. Mr. Speaker, Hydro and the Manitoba Telephone Co rporation come before a Comm ittee of the Legis lature. They present for perusal their annual report which is a year previous , the fiscal year of the previous year. We are always a year behind. Nevertheless Hydro in pre senting itself is prepared and does deal with current matters.

It deals with the current issues; it deals with current infor mation, even current fin ancial information. Last year when we appeared at the Standing Co mm ittee when the Chairman of the Mani toba Developmen t Corporation came before us the information that was supplied was only supplied as of the fiscal year of the Co rporation and in the course of doing this we were preven ted from asking current information.

One has to understand, and one , I think, does understand that a great deal can happen between the time of the last fiscal year and in the case of the Corporation we're talking about different fiscal years, different times for en ding their fiscal year, where as far as government is con cerned it has been March 31st in terms of the Crown corporations, that is Hydro and Telephone. And the result is that the info rmaion that was requested was not received because the Chairman essentially only could deal with the financial information presented. Now, Mr.

Chairman, if we were to examin e the infor mation supplied in the Annual Report which is a year ago plus the current information that is provided as a result of the Reports quarterly in the Mani toba Gazette, we know that in many of the cases in which there have been Crown -- in which the money of the people have been inve sted in terms of some kind of equity, that there have been incre ases in loan amounts , and those incre aseswarrant some scrutiny on our part to determine the specifics of why the loans have been added to or some particular issue. Now in the past, Mr.

Chairman, in connection with this we were really prevented and I would suggest to you that if we had had transcribed in writin g the actual commit tee hearings we'd be in a position to make that assessment properly, and I suggest to the Minist er that it may be worth his while

March 23, 1973 999 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESOURCE S (MR. SPIVAK cont'd ) . . . . to look, or at least to hear, the actual transcri ptions that were made. He will find that we were precluded from asking more than the information of a year ago.

Now if the government is now saying, and I think that this is what the Minister is· really saying, that we are going to change the procedure s that we have followed up to now and we're prepared now to deal in the Committee in detail so that we are entitled to ask the kind of ques tions that the Honourable Member for Rhine land wants to ask there , notwithstanding the fact that the fiscal year may have been a year ago, if that's the case then in this situation then I would take that as an undertaking on the part of the government and then from that point of view, I think we could deal with that matter. MR.

GREE N: Mr. Chairman , I am happy to say that that is ex actly what I intended.

However I want to stipulate that that intention falls within the four corners of what I said the other day, that when we are dealing with an ongoing firm with financial information which reflects on the operations of that firm rather than on the government's positio n vis- a-v is, ' that firm in terms of the amount of finance, moneys that it has advanced, its equ ity position, its hope for the future , etc. , that the members will not be given perhaps in the same way as I might not want to give an answer to a particu lar que stion, and when I do that it is a -- I sort of make a judgment that the public would sustain me in doing that -- that not every question will be answered, but I agree that it will not be limited to asking questions which end with a particular balance sheet, that the questi ons will be with regard to the current operations of the Manitoba De velopment Fund as well as the re view of its statement. --( Inter jectio n)-- Yes.

MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that we're going to really clarify this until we 're into the Committe e, but I want at least to understand something correctly. You see - and I'd like to take one company as an example and then in the course-- I only do this as illustrative of what can happen and what I thi nk will take place. If we were to look at A. E.

McK enzie in which we have four spec ific amounts of 450, OOO, 900, OOO, 3, OOO, OOO and 2, 500, OOO one of the questio ns that we would ask -- and I think maybe the Honourable Member from Brandon West did ask yesterday -- is , what was the profit and loss statement as of the last statement in Decemb er ? Now that's current information, that's not a year ago, that's current. We do not know this. MR. GREEN: • . . I undertake from my honourable friend that the Manitoba Development Fund position with regard to A. E. McKenzi e will be given in that way.

I understnad -- I just want the qualification here so that my honourable friend will not think that I am trying to move in two directions -- I understand with regards to A. · E. McKen zie because of a statute the administrativ e re sponsibili ty goes to the Minister of Finance and not to the Minister in charge of the Manitoba Dev e lopment Corporation. But the Corporation position vis- a-vis A. E. McKenzie, that is the amount of our undertakings, the amount of covenants , the amount of loans , will be given as at the current time.

I would expect that the other information that the honourable member referred to, that is the balance sheets , will be coming out as well, but it may not be coming out at that particular meeting merel y because A. E. McKenzie has a different status to the other firms. MR, SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, I would like to give one other example so that we're clear because I'm mentioning McKenzie and it has a particular situation which may -- well which is unique to it, and I don't want to concern myself with just that one. And I at this point do not know the year end.

But let's assume that we were talking about Saunders Aircraft at this point and let's assume -- and I have here , Mr. Chairman, the number of loans, I have here the number of loans and the amount, two, four , si x, eig ht, ten, twelve - I believ e there have been twelve loans made to -- that we have as recorded -- to Saunders Aircraft. Now it may very well mean that the year end was last year and there were only six loans up to that time.

Now in order for us to make the asse ssment and judgment as to the other six loans,. we are going to ask pertinent information about the financial position of the curren t financial position , and I just want that understood that we're not going to be precluded from getting that information. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, that is my understanding ex actly, that the honourable members will be able to ask -- well here 's where you were at the last statement; how much mo neys have advanced since then -- and by the way that is a matter of record.

What is the - because of the disclo sure quest ions as to what is happening within the firm. the ar.swer will

1000 March 23, 1973 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESOURCES (MR. GREEN cont'd) .... . not be denied because of a certain date. It may be that in the judgment of the Fund the answer is not forthcoming because of a necessi ty of some commercial operation's prudence. But the position of the Fund with regard to that company, how much money has been advanced, what the assets of the company are pres ently worth, that will be made available.

I just can't promise my honourable friend that every single question , re garding every single transaction, regard ing negotiations that are being carried on, that all of those things will be answered. But the refusals if any will not be based on the fact that the last statement didn't show them. MR. CHAIEMAN: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR, SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker , I don't think it's necessa ry to labour this point then. I assume that we're going to have an opportunity that we have not had in the past and we will wait to see in the Standing Committee whether this occurs or not.

And if it does not the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources I think knows the recourse that will - under Interim Supply if we're still at it at the time ... MR. GREEN: ... the honourable member will have my words on the record and I suppose I will be responsible for them. But that is my impression of what we will do; that is my intention with regard to the Fund. MR. SPIVAK: Now, Mr.

Chairman, I'd now like to deal with the matter of the Develop ment Fund and its annual report and the policy matters that the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources has referred to, There are cer1ain facts that have to be place on the record and my information has been taken from the information supplied . . . the Fund and in the quarterly reports that have been furnished, and these are taken from the reports of information from July 22nd of 1970 to September 3oth of 1972. The total number of assi stance transactions is 198, and the total number of recipients is 113. That is , Mr.

Speaker, the total assi stance in the three categorie s indicated , granted to enterprise s that are owned or managed by the government or in which the government has a substantial investment, is $ 69 million while the grand total of the Manitoba Development Corporation assi stance was only $85 million during the same period, so in effect, if I'm correct, $6 9 million or almost $70 million of the $85 million went to government -owned or managed by the government, and I think that that proportion is pro bably correct, .Now the reason I mention that, Mr.

Speaker , is because when we examine the report of this year , we find that there are approximately listed, by comparing this year's report with last year's report , page 18 , there are approximately 86 new loans , Mr. Speaker, 86 new loans that have been provided and, Mr. Speaker , that would represent approximately 33 million new dollars of total capital investment, borrower and MDC . MR, FROESE: On page 5, the third paragraph, a total of 87 new loans at $29-1 /2 million. MR. CH AIUMAN: ... members on the floor at the same time. I think the honourable member understands that. MR, SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, the Honourable Member for Rhineland has referred to page 5, where it says 87 new loans amounting to $2 9 million, I have indicated 86 loans amounting to 33. My information is taken by subt:acting the information supplied on page 14 of the previous year on the Manitoba Development Corporation with page 18 of this year, but Mr. Chairman, the variation is still important in that we are talking a couple of million dollars , but I would like to make my point -- I think I can make my point by going a little bit further into the information that's supplied.

If you compare the loans and the classification of the loans, you find some very interesting statistic s. As an example, for loans over $500, OOO to $1 , OOO, OOO there were the previous year 15 loans; now there have been 17 loans, with an increase of approximately $ 3 million and the estimated direct increase in employment is nil.

There were 905 in 197 1 and 905 shown in 1972. · "If we look at the next category of a million dollars to three million dollars, we find that there have been eight loans increased over the pre vious year and that that amount has been increased by $l3 million, for a provision, Mr, Speaker, for a provision of approximately 220 new positions. And if we look over three million, Mr. Speaker, we find that there's an increase of 13 loans over 11 of the previous year or two, for a total estimated capital

March 23, 1973 _ 1001 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESOURCES (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) ..... investment and borrower investment of $8 million for a total of another additional 106 , Mr. Speaker. Now, Mr. Speaker , what this represents when we examine it is this: that approximately 12 of the loans in the year 1972, which represents approximately about 12 to 13 percent of the total loans that took place in that year , basi cally covered approximately $24 million of the $33 million that is shown as being invested.

So that approximately 12 percent of the loans represent almost two-thirds of the total capital investment and borrower, and they represent about 25 percent of the jobs. Now, Mr. Speaker , I mention this because we on this side have stated that in our opinion the Manitoba Development Corporation should be wound down and wouhd up, and we've said that, Mr. Speaker, because it's our belief that the original intent of setting up the Manitoba Development Fund has been met and that the continuation of the present structure is not going to accomplish very much for a total impact in industrial development. And, Mr.

Speaker, it was interesting to note the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources answers yesterday, because in the course of his answers to the comment of the Honourable Member from Brandon West , he basically talked about socially useful jobs and in ess ence basic ally stated that the government's involvement in the business enterprise was ess entially for the development and creation of make-work situations.

Well the impress ion he gave, and there was reference to the Minister of Industry and Commerce when he talked about the PEP Program , and he basic ally stated that we put $8 million in PEP Programs for make-work situations so why can't we as the people who are investing for the public invest in enterprises which in fact may lose money but they also create work, so therefore they are make-work situations. - (Interjection)-- Yes, Mr. Speaker , but they are soci ally useful and if they lose money they are in the same category as make-work situations . And now it's very interesting, Mr.

Chairman, because I think that's the admission that I think has come for the first time from the government, that a great deal of the industrial development undertaken by the Manitoba Development Corporation now to a certain extent is consi stent with the philosophy that the government must use its fiscal power to be able to try and meet the unemployment situation, and therefore they are prepared through this vehicle to put money in, try and take equity if necessary, but at the same time es sentially to try and de velop the kind of make-work situations . Now if we go back to the statistics again, Mr.

Chairman, and we look at the previous year and this year, we find that for those loans of $ LO, OOO or less that there was an increase of 13 from the previous year. Now I want the members to understand that there were 13 . loans , which are higher than the number of loans from $500, OOO and over , and those 13 loans actually increased in investment an amount by about $83, OOO-- 13 loans increased by 83 , OOO over the previous year , and they created 83 new jobs. Now, the interesting point is that we talked about 12 loans for $5 00, OOO and over, and they created $3 3 million worth of investment. Now, Mr.

Chairman, we have stated that it's our opinion the Manitoba Development Fund has achieved its purpose, that the financial institutions are in fact loaning in this province now in a way that they didn't before , and that there are in fact new mechanisms that must be established to try and assist those people who require financing and are unable to get it. We also stated -- and I will repeat again -- that in our opinion the development of job formation in this prov ince will happen in those areas in which we concentrate on es sentially what would be referred to as "sm all bus iness".

We have proposed and continue to propose to the govern ment -- and this is one of our basic positions and one that we would undertake if we form a government -- to winding the Manitoba Development Corporation and to start to use the Regional Development Corporations in this province as a means to be able to fund them and to allow them to be able to start to loan in those projects in their own areas, which can in fact succeed and which they have arrived at a consenus on, so that they in turn will be able to have both commercial and industrial and tourist activities in their own area , and at the same time will in fact accomplish the objective of the creation of jobs .

And it's obvious, Mr. Speaker, when you look at $83, OOO of new investment creating 83 jobs of 13 loans, compared to 200 or 300 jobs being created of $33 million investment of 12 loans, that in effect the job formation in this pro vince will come from the smaller undertakings and not from the larger undertakings. Now, Mr. Speaker , in dealing with this it's our belief that in the areas serviced by our

1002 March 23, 1973 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESOURCES (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) ..... regio nal corporations there are tremendous improvements in tourism, tremendous improvements in commercial and industrial undertakings , that can accomplish the objecti ve , and these are the areas in which there is additional support required for financing. Now, Mr. Speaker, at the same time that we talked on this, our posi tion has been that a government very --- well, whatever government, including the government, Mr.

Chairman, that I may head, may be prepared both to loan substantial moneys or to partic ipate in some way by way of equity or joint venture , but it would be our propos al, Mr. Chairman, that the way in which we have operated in the past be changed in this Legisla ture and in this province. If in fact a project is worthy of support from a government by way of substanti al loan or by way of some joi nt venture , then, Mr.

Chairman, I think it is now .incumbent in the full sense of open government and accountabi lity, to have such a project on its own bro ught to a Legis lature and to deal with that by way of a pri vate bill. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that we can si mply allow government , through one instru ment or another, basically controlled by government, to allow it to continue as we have now, in the process of dealing -- and we 've done it in the past -- in substantial amounts by way of loan or substantial amounts by way of equity. And what I am proposing is es sentially a new change.

We 've talked about it before ; the members oppos ite have not been prepared really to debate this or to discuss this; what they have done in the past and what they may very well do now is refer to the hi story of the Manitoba Deve lopment Corporation and CFI with re spect to 1966 and 1969 and, 'Mr. Chairman, I want to te ll the Honourable Mi nister of Mines and Natural Re sources and the former Min ister of Fi nance that insofar as CFI is concerned I am prepared to debate that in this House and to debate it on any terms that they want to debate it, and I'm prepared to do that now.

And if the Honourable Mi nister of Mi nes and Natural Reso urces or others are prepared to stand up and take this debate into that area, then I'l l debate it. But what I'd like to do at this time -- and I think this is important, Mr. Chairman ... MR. GREEN: I think we sort of discu ssed this the other day, and if we are talking about philoso phy of investment, I am certain that my honourable friend is right on and I'm raring to go. If he 's talking about the ways in which a particula r loan was administered and how it origina ted, that is before aCo mmission, and we are all waiting.

But if he 's talking about the nature of the deve lopment I'm raring to go. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Leader of the_ Opposition. MR . SPIVAK: Well , Mr. Chairman, I would say to you that I am not going to allow the Mi nister of Mi nes and Natural Reso urces as House Le ader to try and dictate to us about terms because I -- (Interjection) -- Let me finish, let me finish. Mr. Chairman, I -- Mr. Chairman, I'm not on a ... MR . CHAIRMAN: Order please. Point of order, the Honourable Mi nister Of Mi nes and Natural Re sources. MR . GREEN: On the point of order.

It's not me who dictate s, it's the House that sets the rule s, and all I'v e indicated to the honourable member is what the rules plainly say, that if something is be ing dealt with by a commi ssio n of inquiry -- and by the way, you know, people have strayed now and then and I'm not even gre atly worried about that, but I am worried about trying to sustain a certain respect for that type of commissio n; I am sugge sting that the rule would say, not the Mi nister of Mi nes dictating, you are able to do the one but you are not able to do the other.

The honourable member doesn't have to call me a dictator for that reason. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Well , Mr. Chairman, you know, I listened to the Mi nister of Mi nes and Natural Re sources but I also read what his Fi rst Mi nister said, and the Fi rst Mi nister said he 'll talk about it, Mr. Chairman, any time he wants to. And, Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to be restricted and if the Honourable Mi nister wants to debate that, we'll debate it in the House on the terms that it can be debated, not on his terms , on the terms that we want to debate it. But I'm saying , Mr.

Chairman, I never suggested I wanted to debate it as such. MR. CHAIRMAN: Poin t of order. MR. GREEN: I'm sorry. On the point of order. The honourable member earlier today saw the kind of trap that I found myself in by saying what somebody els e said as a result of

March 23, 197 3 1003 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESOURCES (MR. GREEN cont'd) ... .. re ading it in the paper. I have read the Honourable Fi rst Mi nist er's remarks with regard to that subject; they are exactly in line with what I have said. MR, CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Le ader of the Opposition. MR . SPIVAK: Mr.

Chairman, in this House in the last two years when questio ns. have been asked on CFI the First Mi nister has basicall y said it's sub judice , but in the by-elec tion campaigns -- and I know this for a fact and this can be proved if it's nece ssa ry -- he did any thing he wanted to and he said anything he wanted to. So you know you can't have it both ways. But I'm prepared to face that. But I'm now , Mr.

Chairman, talking on a princ.iple and I wonder whether the honourable members are going to be able to divorce themselves from that issue , as to whether in fact we have now re ached a point where in terms of accountabi lity and openness it would not be better to have a government who is committed to loaning money in a substantial manner or becomi ng involved in some joint equity, joint or equity partic ipation with a company, not be in a better pos ition to come by way of priv ate bil l with all the facts to the Legisla ture, Here , Mr.

Chairman, I beli ev e that we 've re ached a point now where-, unle ss this is done, any government who carries on a program as it was in the past -- and I'm now referring to prior to 1969 -- or in the period of time of the last three years, which has been in the presen t government's hi story, will be subject to the same kind of criticism, justifiable crit ic ism , for the manner in which it has been handling itself. Mr. Chairman , there are judgments that can be made now with respect to the Manitoba Deve lopment Corporation and they're not complim entary judgments that can be made.

There are judgments that can be made bas ed on the information, and the information pre sented in here is nothing that a government can feel happy about. There are innuendos and rumours, and not caused by the members here in this Legis lature but caused by a variety of different people who have had contact in1his kind of a situation, which I think basi cally affect -- well, just destroy the effecti vene ss of this kind of instrument . Now if the honourable members want to argue and like to argue, .well what we are doing is really investing the pub lic money here and the public is going to get a benefit. Mr.

Speaker, if we take all the Crown corporations in which the government has investment, I think we can question the public benefit at this poi nt. I think we can ask si mple questions on profit and loss and know that in fact there are no profits . We can argue , I guess , and rationalize the posi tion that jobs haven't been cre ated, but then the question that has to be asked is, how long is it going to have to be continue d before in fact they would be succes sful and at least be in a posi tion to carry itself? You see , Mr.

Chairman, when you look at the loans you find, you know , whatever the proje cts are you find two, four , six, seven loans , you find.five or six loans , Mr. Speaker, pri vate business -- and I think I can say this -- who are con strained and limi ted because they do not have , you know, access to a pocket that they can always go to to try and pull out some money , must at one point measure their pos ition and determine whether they can continue on or not.

That doesn't mean that in some cases there are not deve lopment charges that arise or deve lopment costs over a period of years, but pri vate busin ess at one point has to look at its undertaking and say, is there a poss ibili ty of be ing able to make a succe ss , because if not there is just no point. And they do not have the eas y access, the eas y access that the government has to money.

And one of the problems that we have here is that in the kind of decis ion-making that has occurred, you are caught between a socially desira ble re sult in ce rtain si tuations , the poli tical realities that a govern ment faces when it becomes involved in Crown corporations , that in terms of the community invol vement :they are caught in attempting to try and carry on but they are limited because every four years they must go to el ection and they have problems in regards to trying to win se ats if they dis rupt communities in whichprojects have been undertaken.

And as a result, you have a whole series of programs in which errors are compounded, in which waste takes place , in which inefficiency becomes the rule and, as a result, in which people lose sight of the original objectives of developing the projects in the first place. · Now, Mr. Chairman, what I'm saying to the honourable members opposite is that the winding up of the MDC is a very practi cal need in this provin ce. There are needs for smaller business and I believ e that that can be met, and I have indicated that, through the Regional Dev elopment Corporation.

I believ e also it could be met by an arrangement that could be arrived at with the Industrial Devel opment Bank and with the Fe deral Government for some

1004 March 23, 1973 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESOURCES (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) ... .. additional support by way of a guarantee, in certain areas under certain ci rcumstance s, so that the loaning mechanism of the IDB can in fact be used. I' ve referred to this in the pa_st, Mr. Chairman, and I can do this again. But if you iook at the annual reports of the Industrial Dev el opment Bank, you realize that they are now loaning more in this province than they have before both in terms of numbers and amounts, and if you look at areas such as B.

C. where the re was not an equivalen t of a government deve lopment corporatio n, you find substantial, but substantial, rise in the numbers of loans and the amount of loans by the Industrial Deve lopment Bank. So therefore , in terms of a program , Mr. Chair man, I believe the Reg ional Develo pment Corporations can achiev e part of the objectiv e ; I believ e that there is a need for more accountability, and the accountability would come as a resul t of pri vate acts in those si tuation in which the government decides and determines to take equity; and further, Mr.

Chairman , I believ e that there is a need for another program which the Honourable Mi nister of Mines and Natural Re sources made fun of the other day, and I 'l"efer to that as a Manitoba growth fund. He made fun of it, and he made certain as sumptions , and he followed in his logical way.

He always starts with a certain assumption and then develops his conclusions from that, and they're usually amusing , they're usually extreme , and of course we could all become involved in his deve lopment of hi s concepts without reali zing that really what we have to attack is the original assumption because his premises are usually wrong, because he said this is what I believe. Mr.

Chairman, let's talk about a Manitoba growth fund, and let's compare that in terms of the kind of project that we now have with the Manitoba Deve lopment Corporation, and not what the Honourable Mi nister of Mines and Natural Re source s said that I said about a growth fund, or what he assumed I meant by a growth fund, but what I really do mean by a growth fund. If there is a basic dis tinction between the members oppos ite and ourselves it is that we believe that the voluntary se ctor in our community have tremendous potential for the deve lopment of our ec onomic and social areas of responsibi lity.

We do not believ e that government -- we do not believ e the government has to do everything. We believ e that in effect if you participa te with a voluntary sect or that there is gre at opportunity because they are prepared to serve, they are prepared to giv e of their , to presen t their abil itie s, they are prepared to give us advantage -- and I'm not talking in terms of government -:- of their particular skills.

The concept of a Manitoba Growth Fund would allow the pri vate se ctor to assist in the deve lopment of this province with far greater initiative than a government can beca use they would have no political obligations or hangups . Now we have proposed that certain money would be ceded to. the Manitoba Growth Fund , and we talked in general terms of a $5 mill ion amount. But having prov ided that amount, the rest of the money would be raised voluntarily by the people , from the people of Manitoba, and they would be inve sting in a growth Fund that potentially could giv e them a profit . . .

A MEMBER: Exactly what I said it would. MR. SPIVAK: ... potenti ally could give them a profit , and the decisions to be made would not be made by government, not at all --( Interjection)-- no not at all. No they would be made by the board of directors and by the people who have some particular skill and who would be el ected by the directo rs . A MEMBER: You 're going back to 1966. MR. SPIVAK: No I'm not going back to '66 at all. No I'm not going back to '66 . Let's understand very clearly, let 's understand very clea rly what I'm saying.

I'm saying that Manitoba Growth Fund would receiv e an amount of money that in effect the busin ess community would be asked to at least if not equal the amount initially, but at least minimum to equal the amount ... was substantially more , that they in turn, they in turn would provide a vehicle for deve lopment and for risk-taking in this province. And the people in the Province of Manitoba could voluntarily make a determination in their own way as to whe ther they would contribute or not. Ri ght now what we have is the people of Manitoba making a contribution whether they like it or not.

And there 's the basic difference. The Mi nister of Mines and Natural Re sources says we have respons ibili ty and therefore we are in a posi tion to exercise and use the instruments that we have , and the public treasury, and loan on the public credit, to do all the things that we determine , and it's our belief that in doing this you are , by compulsion, making the people participa nts in a series of enterprises that they know nothing about which this Legis lature knows nothing about , and which , in fact

March 23 , 1973 1005 SUPPLY - MINES AND RES OURCES (MR, SPIVAK cont'

d) in spite of the fact that some answers will be given in the Standing Committee , we will not know anything about. The question of its viability, the question of the potential profit , the quest ion of whether this is politically motivated or not, are never going to be answere d, Mr. Spe aker, except in an election, and that' s the way tffi Mi nister of Mines and Natural Resources will rationalize it. But when we vote on this thing , we're going to be voting on myths , nothing but myths.

And the Mi nister of Mines and Natural Re source s knows what I'm saying to be is correct. --( Interjection)-- nothing buy myths. But you see , Mr. Chairman, what I am sugge sting is that those people who have particular skills and experience in our community are capable of contributing in a way that will allow for a greater degree of succe ss and the kind of risk-taking that has now been undertaken by the joint ventures that the government has gone in -- (Interjec tion)-- In what way ? -- (Interje ction)- Oh , Mr. Chairman, lets talk about the objectiv e of the growth fund that I'm talking about.

The objective of the growth fund that I'm talking about is to partic ipate in tlE develo pment of industry in this province , to assist in the expansion of our small industry, to be able to develop the new technology, to be able to in fact co-operate in the new ventures, recogniz ing . that the risk taking will be great but also recognizing that the potential for achievem ent in this province would be great , and the difference will be , the difference will be that you will have some business management. -- (Interje ction)-- Oh you think you'v e got bus ine ss manage ment ?

You think, you think -- no, come on -- (Interjection)-- the difference of course , Mr. Chairman, is that I'm talking about people putting in their own money and I wou ld think that when people put in the ir money they will be content. -- (Interjecti on)-- Y ou know, Mr. Chairman , Mr. Chairman, the interesting

part is that the members of the op posi te si de are taken with this and are concerned with this. And the reason they're concerned, because it does il lustrate the basic difference in philoso phy. The members opposite still believe that as government , they know best; they still be liev e as government they have a right and complete access to the public treasury , and therefore. can use it as they see fit , and Mr.

Chairman, they are not prepared to work or trust the voluntary sector0 and they're not prepared to allow the people the choice of making a det ermina tion of whether they want to continue to invest in the deve lopment of the province , or they want to hold their money to themselves. MR. CHA IRMAN: Order ple ase. The hour be ing 4: 30, last hour of every day is Pr ivate Memb ers' Hour. Committee rise. Call in the Speaker. Mr. Spe aker, the Committee of Supply has asked me to report progress and asks leave to sit again. IN SESSION MR . SP EAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Logan. MR.

JENKINS: I beg to move , seco nded by the Honourable Member for Os borne, that the report of Committee be received . MOTION presen ted and carried. MR , SP EAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR , GREEN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, and I hope that I will not have the difficulty with members of the House, but I real ly must clea r up something which the Honour able Member for Rhine land indicated was some weakness in the credit of the Develo pment Corporation because that is a problem , and I would indicate to the honourable member that

Section 18 of the Develo pment Corporation Act stipu late s exactly the limi tation that the honourable member referred to. It's not stipulated by anything else other than by Statute of the Province of Manitoba. PRIVATE MEMBERS' RESOL UTIONS ' ' MR. SPEAKER: Private Members ' Hour. Fr iday the first item is Pri vate Members resol utions . We are on Res olution 3, the Honourable Member for River Heights , the Leader of the Opposition. The Honourable Me mber for Sturgeon Creek. Twe hre minutes left. MR, F. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker , Mr.

Speaker , the debate on. this resol ution when itcame uporiginally, and we 've had speakers from both sides spe aking on it. We seem to have got a way off the track of the re solution and I would like to try to bring it back to rea lity in what the resol ution says. The res olution is basically asking for disc losure

1006 March 23, 1973 PRIVATE MEMBERS' RESOLUTIONS (MR. F. JOHNSTON cont'd) .... . of budgets and es timates and expenditures of Crown corporations and other boards and commiss ions , etc. The debate , Sir, got into what somebody else did, and the government continually says what somebody else did, and the minute they say well you did it, they're admitting they're doing it, and that's the only way you can really put that down. It got into another part of the debate that you know, who disclosed what and when, and we really got merrily going around. So , Mr.

Speaker, what this resol ution basic ally says is we would like from these corp orations sort of a set of es timates of �heir budgets the way we have before us, and to tell us in some way that it's going to be very costly or very hard to do is just a little ri diculo us, beca use it isn't.

Nobody can tell me that thes e corporations and the commi ssio ns , and what have you, do not submit budgets , do not make up budgets , and in order to make up budgets you have to sit down by departments , or ea ch department head will sit down and make up his budget and it will be submitte d to -- when they all get together -- to the heads of the Bo ard or commis sion, or the heads of the corporation, and they will go over it and they'l l look at· the salaries of one particular department, and they may change it, but what they will end up with , Mr.

Spe aker, is exactly what we have before us here in Es timates when we look at -- take any one at all it starts out -- just looking at the Attorney-G eneral' s it says Law Courts , Accounts , Administration, Salaries so much. We 're not asking what ev ery sin gle person makes; we 're not asking what the fellow in the shipping floor makes, or the fellow in receiv ing makes, or the girl on the desk makes. We're asking for a department, total sa larie s, other expenditures. That's re ally what we're talking about when we 're asking for disc losure of this information to be brought before this Assem bly.

And I really don't think it's a real big thing to ask for when all of these are Crown corporations , all of their funds do come in some way from the gover nment, which is -- and they operate as Crown -- or they operate as Crown corporations taking in income , etc. And those particular budgets should be brought before the Assem bly just basically in this form, and it is be ing done by every one of them now. Ev erybody that makes up a budget does it that way and then it 's put into this form so it could be examined.

Now I know that if I were to ask any Mi nist er's department here if when we question them we can turn around and we can say to a Min ister, you know, salaries so much money. How many people does that include ? That's the question we want to ask, that's the answers the Mi nisters give us. So really lets get back to what we rea lly are looking for or aEjking for in this resol ution. We're asking for the Crown corporations; we're asking for to presen t some sort of a budget like this to us; we're asking also for basically the groups of boards and commiss ions who make up their budgets.

We're not asking how many secretarie s they have , we could ask that. When we get it, but we 're not asking for that detail to be put before us at that time . We will have the right to question it. In fact honourable members on both sides will have the right to question it. This Assem bly will ha ve th e ri ght in other wor ds. So , Mr. Speaker , it's not an unreas onable request. It is bein g done; the information is certainly avai lable , and I'm sure many of them would be cl ose to be ing in this form at the pres ent time and they should be presen ted to this Assembly to be examined. Thank you very much , M r.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Is the House prepared to adopt the motion ? The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE : Mr. Speaker , I hadn't intended to speak on the motion but I think I should giv e my stand on the res olution as it is before us. Certainly I think it is a very worthy one to come before the Assem bly here.

We get our public accounts annually and certainl y it would be worthwhile to have the various items requested in the resol utions be inc orporated into the Public Accounts book, so that we could check back on it and have it compiled with the other accounts , and therefore I ce rtainly would support the resol ution.

We .are getting more and more Crown corporations almost year by year , espec ially the various boards that are set up too, and I feel that these also should be accountable to us in such a way so that we can go through the statements , financial statements, and also be able to debate the policies that are be ing developed by these Crown corporations. I think the matter of the Dev elopment Corporation, it just came up a little while ago as a ques tion in point. We as the members are re sponsible for the moneys that are bein g spent and are allocated to

March 23, 1973 1007 PRIVATE MEMBERS' RE SOLUTIONS (MR. FROESE cont'd) .... . thes e various corporations. And we are held accountable by the public for them regardle ss of how the legis lation is brought in because people back home don't know and can't differentiate between many of the Crown corporations as to what way they are being set up and therefore they are not knowledgeable in niany ways on this very matter. And therefore I too feel very strongly that this resol ution is a very valid one , one that I certainly would like to see brought in and be put into use.

The matter of wages and sa laries, fees, contracts, would then be disclosed and certainly would remove suspicion as has been pointed out in one of the wherease s. We dis close the expenditures; we discl ose the amounts that we get; we disclose the amounts of most of our senior civil serva nts who receiv e a sal ary above a certain amount, this is all public record, and why should it not be the case of those poeple that are working for a Crown corporation? Why make a differentiatio n?

Certainly when we have a corporation such as even the Fish Marketing Bo ard, although this comes into federal jurisdiction, and here I might again run into trouble with the House Le ader who will definitely reprimand me on that. We have been getting reports from them on past occasions. I hope we get one this year again because I'd like to know where we stand on that particular one. Because we have passed legislation, supplemental legis lation to the federal legislation, that no doubt set it up, and we agreed to it.

I think we should take an interest in these matters to see what is happening and whether our fishermen are getting a fair return for their fish, what projections are be ing made for the industry, for the fish plants, and so on. I certainly after vis iting the pl ant last year have an interest in it, or would take an interest in it as to what goes on. So I think this holds true for the various marketing boards that are being set up by the Mi nister of Agricu lture.

There , too, I feel that this should apply equally to them so that we would have proper accounting of those moneys that go and are being spent by those marketing boards so that I certainly fee l that I can support this motion, and I do hope that the govern ment will accept it. MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Me mbe_r for Mor ris. MR . JORGENSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise .just to make a few brief comments on the resol ution now before us dealing with the question of accountability.

One of the situations that has been developing in the past few years as a resul t of the increasi ng growth of government is a difficu lty in maintaining that kind of accountabili ty which is neces sary if the prime function of government is to -- or the prime function of the Legisla ture is to be preserved, that of reviewi ng and examin ing and voting Supply.

This Chamber exists primar ily for the purpose of examining the spending habits of the government and one is becom ing increas ingly frustrated in this endeavour because so much of the responsibili ty for admini stration is now being passed on to boards, commissions, etc. , that are ne ver brought before ei ther the Chamber, or before any committee of the Legisla ture for examination.

The only opportunity that is provided at the present time is in the Public Accounts Committee which is set up primarily for the purpose of re viewin g the expenditures that have alre ady been made and which are contained in the public accounts booklets. As valuable as that kind of an examination is, it is an examination after the fact rather than an examination of the current expenditures of government. We've had the few examples just within the last few days of that kind of accountability.

Questions have been posed for example to the Minister of Agriculture dealing with a board th at has been set up by government, the Hog Marketing Board. The Mi nister retreats behind that board and says they're accountable to themse lves and no one el se , and if that is the pos ition that is going to be taken in increasing frequency by the various Mi nisters of the Crown, then we are going to find ourselves in the positi on where the examination of the spending habits of the government is going to be a meaningl ess proce ss.

Me aningless because so much of .the expenditures will be hidden behind these boards and commissio ns which are not accountable to the Legis l;;iture. The request of the Leader of the Opposition is simply that certain corporations , and one that come s to mind very frequently in this Chamber is the accountabili ty of the univers ity where huge sums of money are spent yearly and yet there is no way, no process whereby the members of this Legis lature can effectiv ely examine those who spend that money. Now in the House of Commons, Si r, much of that examination is carried off and

1008 Ma rch 23, 197 3 PRIVATE MEMBERS' RESOLUTIONS (MR. JORGENSON cont'd) . . . . . and although it has been taken out of the arena of the House of Commons itself, it has been transferred to the many and varied committees that have been set up in the House , and indeed every facet of government is examined by the various committees of the House. Sometimes these committees sit si multaneously.

And so although the expend iture s involved in the Federal Government are considerably more than those that are accountable to this Legis lature they do have some means of carrying on and conducting that kind of an examination and bringing before those committees thes e people who are re sponsible for the admini stration of those boards and committee s.

It has oftm been sugge sted by my honourable friend, the Mem ber for Rhineland, and indeed by membe rs of the government when they were in opposition , that there should be a commi ttee set up to review and examine the Dep artment of Education si nce -- si nce this particula r department is one of the great spenders of government, the other one being the Department of Health artd Social Dev e lopment.

Now there are several boards and several commissions that have been set up by the government, not only this government but previous gove .rnments , for the purpose of carrying on the administration of certain facets of the opera tions of government, and one can't quarrel with that particular concept except that they're becomi ng more and more removed from the scrutiny and the examination of this Legisl ature.

Sir, the people of this province are not able to effectively have represen tation by popu lation or repre sentation and examination or no taxation without repres entation unless they have an opportunity to examine those who spend so much of their tax dollar s. With the limi tations that have been imposed on the -- and the strictures that have been imposed on the Legisla ture by limi ting the number of hours in which esti mates can be examined, and by which departments can be examined, it is just not practical or possi ble that a full conduct of that kind of an examination can.be carried on.

And unle ss there is some change made in the method in which we are able to cope with this increas ing growth of boards and commissions, then a large part of the examination of gove rnment goes without be ing examined.

I can only think of one manner in which that can be achieved without making it nece ssa ry for this Legis lature to si t almost continuousl y and that is to enable various committees of this House the opportunity of callin g before them particularly those departments of government that are responsi ble for the expenditure of the large st per centage of the taxpayers ' dollar, name ly the Department of Health and Social De velopment and the Department of Education. That examination cannot be carried on in this Chamber because of the time limitation.

Si r, I don't know of any other way than the method that is bei ng suggested in this resol ution and so that the people of this province can effectively have the concept of no taxation without repre sentation. I can think of no other way than we enable committees of this House -- and there are many times during the course of the sittings of this Legis lature that there are times or opportunities for various committees to sit to carry on that kind of an examination.

Now unless an opportunity is provided for that examination to take pla ce , the people of this province cannot say that they are effectively having a proper examination of the dollars, the hard-' earned dollars that they are contributing to the coffers of the government. I suggest , Si r, that this resol ution be endorsed. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Municipal Affairs. HON. HOWARD R. PA WL�Y (Minister of Municipal Affairs) (Se lkirk): Mr.

Speaker, I think that insofar as this resol ution is concerned in itself there is really not too much basis for dis agreemen t with it and I would think that this si de would be prepared to consider the advisabi lity of the resol ution itself. There are a number of comments I would like to make hi:>wever . One is that it constantly amazes me , amaze s me a great deal at the type of organized hypocrisy one does see across the way on the part of the Opposition in this Legisla ture. I find it very hard to be kind when I think of honourable members across the way represen ting the Oppos ition in this Legis lature.

I heard the other day the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie express his consternatio n as well over the fact that it was this group, this group that had the audacity to come forth at this time and to pretend that they were in some way holier than thou, better than thou, and of course they in their day and].llleriod had in some way been much more open and ready to produce information than the present government. ' And I shared the Honourable Member .for Portage la Prairi e's sentiments that he expressed in this House , I think he expressed them very we ll , and I would hope that those sentiments would still be

March 23, 197 3 PRIVATE MEMBERS' RESOLUTIONS (MR .

PAWLEY cont'd) ..... ringing in the ears of the honourable members in the 0ppos ition because they ought to weigh. those thoughts very well. 1009 Certainly it was before the period that I was in this Legisla ture but I do know from what has been said here and what one can see by checking the record that if there ever was a govern ment that was persi stent in its refusal to disclo se information, it was the Conservativ e Govern ment in the period prior to 1969 ; and if there ever was a government that has been open , attempted to be open, attempted to provide information in as re asonable a manner as possi ble , it has been this government, the government that Manitoba 's had since 1969 .

And I think most objective observers of the political scene in Manitoba would have to acknowledge that. So let me say this, that though I suspect that if this resol u1tion had been pre sented prior to 1969 that you would have had at that time a conser vative , a re luctant, a cl osed type of group of individuals that would have resen ted the introduction of this reso lution , and to a man would have expressed thei r great indignation and scorn that such a res olution would be pre sented in this House.

But in sharp contrast is the government of this day that has attempted to provide information that can in any way or shape or form be reaso nably presented. There are areas that are of -- are of problem. Certainly in areas where there is a competitive factor involv ed, and the Honourable Mi nister of Agricu lture is not here , but the honourable members across the way are persis tently trying to obtain certain vital information in regards to contract sales involv ing the Hog Marketing Commiusion.

I think any person with just a surface impre ssio n of the relati onship of the Hog Marketing Commiss ion and its dealings with Japanese interests would realize that in the interests of Manitoba farmers this information should not be open to the entire country when you have marketing commissio ns and other groups in Albert a and Sas katchewan that would be adversel y affected by the wide spread disse mination of this type of information. MR, JORGENSON: I wonder , Mr. Speaker , if the honourable member would permit a ques tion ? MR, PAWLEY: Ye s. MR , SPEAKER: The Honourable Me

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-5-37
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 5th hansardpdf 37.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4d9ac9181cba110e64043b18185004f8b51cd89e

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