Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 135 (30th Legislature, 1st Session)

30-1-135

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGI SLAT IVE ASSEMBLY OF MANI TOBA 10:00 o•clock, Wednesday, May 22, 19 74 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. IN TRODUC TI ON OF GUESTS 3741 MR. SPEAKE R: Before we proceed I should like to direct the attention of the Honourable Members to the gallery where we have 30 students of Grades 10, 11 and 12 standi ng. These students are from Fargo North High School. They are under the direction of Miss Zakula. On behalf of all the Honourable Members I welcome you here today.

Presenting Petiti ons ; Reading and Receiv ing Petitions; Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committ ees; Ministerial Statements and Tablin g of Reports; Notices of Motion; Int roduction of Bi lls; Questions. ORAL QUE STI ON PE RI OD MR. SPEAKE R: The Honourable Leader of the Opposit ion. MR. SI DNEY SPIVAK, Q.C. (Leader of the Official Oppos ition) (Riv er Heights): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minis ter of Consumer Aff airs . It now appears, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the reports that have been presented that the rate of inflat ion in Canada is higher than that of the United States.

I wonder now whether the Minister is in a pos ition to indicate whether his department has conducted any studies that would indicate the rate of infl ation in the Province of Manitob a and whether those studies are available to be tabled in the House ? MR. SPEAKE R: The Honourable Minister of Consumer Affa irs . HON. IAN TURNBULL (Minister of Consumer, Corporate and Internal Services) (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, wit hout conceding that the preliminary remarks of the Leader of the Opposi tion are in fact correct, I can say that I have been advertis ing for staff to conduct just that kind of a survey.

There in at present no very extensiv e capacity within the Department of Co nsumer Affa irs to carry on those kinds of studies but I do hope that we will shortly have that staff and will be able to carry on that type of study, and when they are con ducted, when they are written and publish ed, I would hope that they could be made available. That of course, Mr. Speaker, does not refer to other studies of pricin g that are being undertaken in the Province of Manitob a, particularly of course with regard to price s in Northern Manitoba. MR .

SPIV AK: Then I wonder if the Minister can confirm that the government does not have any studies at this point which would indicate the rate of inflat ion in the Province of Manitob a ? MR. TURNBUL L: Mr. Speaker, I don•t think it bel,ooves me as the Mi nister of a Department to confirm whether or not the government in totality has reports or not. That answer should properly be forthcoming I think from the Premier.

But there are of course national studies available and rather than duplicate everything that the Federal Government does I•m inclin ed to think that we can rely presumably on the impa rtiality and the scientific objectivit y of the Federal Department responsi ble for compiling statistics. MR. SPEAKE R: The Honourable Leader of the Oppositi on. MR. SPIV AK: To the First Minister. I wonder if he •s in a position to produce for this House any studies by his government which would show the nature and the rate of inflat ion in the Province of Manitob a ? MR. SPEAKE R: The Honourable First Minister. HON.

ED WA RD SCHREYER (Premier) (Rossmer e) : Well, Mr. Speaker, even though we, this administration, is not of the same political background as the federal administration does not mean therefore that we do not put any store or co nfidence in studies on rates of inflat ion thm are conducted by the rather comprehensiv e staffing of the Federal Government, and such studies exist. We have no In tention of duplicatin g general studies of inf lation. We are doing some work reh tin g to specific commodities and when we are in a position to announce policy with respect to those that will be done.

But let it be clear, Sir, with respect to general studies of inflation we have no in tention of spending money on duplication. MR. SPIV AK: Well I wonder then if the government's position will be to contin ue to rely on the Federal Government study in view of the fact that the Organization for Ec onomic Co-operation and Devel opment have now proven that the in formation supplied by the Federal Government with respect to inflation was incor rect?

3742 May 22, 19 74 ORAL QUESTI ONS MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, it may be that in certain very technical regards there may be some dif ference of.

interpretation as between the OECD and certain senior public servants of the Government of Canada. I will not enter in to any argumentation as to diff erence of view on technical matters of that kind. But I certai nly want to let my honourable friend know that I would put more store and confide nce in data provided by the Government of Canada than by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. EDW AR D McGILL (Brandon West): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Honourable the First Mi nister.

In view of the effect of in flation on the operatin g costs of munic ipal govern ments in the province and the rapidl y escalating costs that they're faced wit h, I wonder if the Minis ter is able to announce what the increase will be on the per capita grants to the municip al ities this year. MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER : Mr. Speaker, there is a formula. We . antic ipate that the amount by way of per capit a grant that will be availa ble to local government in 19 75 will be approximately, approxi mately $1.5 0 to $2. 00 per capita higher than this year. MR.

McGILL: A suppleme ntary question, Mr. Speaker, in respect to the grants for this year. I unders tand that last year they were $1 0.0 0. Is the First Minist er now sayin g that for 19 74 they will be $11.5 0? MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I jus t indicated for 19 75 . For 1974 I believ e they are $1 0.6 0. For 1973 they were $10 . 00; for 19 69 they were $8. 00; for 1963 they were $3 .0 0. But now it is on a formula which is in accordance with certain phenomenon at work in the ec onomy, rates of inflation in cluded, and is not dependent on the whim and caprice of government such as it was in the past. MR.

SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. BOB BANMAN (La Verendrye): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I direct my question to the Honourable the Minist er of Tourism and Recreation. Is the government proposi ng a restructurin g of cottage lot lease fees in the White shell Provincial Park? MR. SPEAKE R: The Honourable Mini ster of Tourism. HON. RENE E. TOUPIN (Minis ter of Tourism, Recreation and Cultural Aff airs ) (Springf iel d): Mr. Speaker, I didn't get the last part of the question clearly. Was the Honourable Member for La Verendrye askin g, construction of cottages for lease purposes? MR.

BAN MAN: The restructurin g of the lot lease fees. MR. TOUPIN: There is some activ it y in that area. I would prefer taking the question as notice and get a more comprehensive answer for the honourable member. When I say some activit y in the Whiteshell, as the honourable member is quit e aware it has to be somewhat limit ed because of the capacit y that that area can maintain in the future. We have more acti vity in the rest of the province than we will have in the Whiteshell itse lf. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable House Leader. ORDERS OF THE DAY HON. SI DNEY GREEN, Q.

C. (Minist er of Mines, Resources and Env ironment al Management and House Leader) (Inkst er): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would proceed with the adjourned debates on the second reading of bills as they stand on the Order Paper. BI LL NO. 55 MR. SPEAKE R: Thank you. Bi ll No. 55. The Honourable Member for Souris Ki llarney. The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. McGILL: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to proceed on this bill and allow the bill to remain in the name of the Member for Souri s-Killarney. MR. SPEAKE R: (Ag reed) The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. McGILL: Mr.

Speaker, I think it •s an appropriate date to resume this debate in respect to the subje ct of taxation of centennial projects. It was a year ago this date, I believe, that the Bi ll No. 12 in troduced by the Cit y of Brandon which would have provided for an exemption of school taxes on the Keystone Centre came to the Law Ame ndments Commi ttee and was held in that Committee for amendment by this government. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Sturgeon Creek has commented on the general terms of

May 22, 1974 3743 BI LL 55 (MR. McGILL Cont•d) , , , .. this bill and what it inte nds to cover. And he noted, I believe , although I did not hear his remarks, that the four projects that are listed as centennial pro je cts and for which the government would now grant complete tax exemptio n, two of the pro jects , namely the Centennial Centre in Win nipeg and the St. Boniface Cultural Centre are already granted tax exemption under separate Acts, So I 'm not ju st sure, Mr.

Speak er, why those two partic ular projects were included in this Bi ll, There may be some reason whic h escapes me why they should be again covered in respect to there tax status, and also in respect to the title to the land and buildin gs reverting to the Province of Manitob a in the event that taxes or that the use for which the structures were put should in any way change from its present circumstance, I believe that the Acts covering those two centres already states that the land and buildi ngs vest with the Province of Manito ba and that there shall be no taxes of any kind levied by the various municipal jurisdictions , other than amusement taxes which are specif ically menti oned in this Bill, The Fir st Minister also in his explanation mentioned that this Bill would not preclude the le vying of a business tax in respect to the operation of the four centres named, and I think that that explanation was somewhat brief and might bear some further explaining by the First Minister when he closes debate in this bill, I1 .'ll sure that the municipalities involved would like to know precisel y what is intended or what is covered by the explanation that business taxes may be applie d.

I'm not sure that the bill itself specificall y mentions business taxes; it does mention amusement taxes, but certainly the wording given by the Fi rst Minister indicated that there was something additional to the ability to levy an amusement tax, Mr, Speaker, I'm sure that you and other members of this Assemb ly are very familiar with the Keystone Centre and of the fine facilities that it now provides for Western Manitoba as a centre which enables sporting events as well as agricultural dis plays and other events of great interest to the community to take place, and in an area and in a way in which it was not previously possib le.

In the planning of this Keystone Centre, the undertaking was that from the previous administration there would be some grants forthcoming, although those grants were never the inten t of those undertakings by the previous admin istration, were never completed because of the change in government which occurred in 19 69 .

And it is certainly to the credit of this administration that they proceeded to make good on the amounts that had been verbally agreed to by the Progressiv e Conservativ e administration, And I think the way in which the present administration undertook to join with the Ci ty of Brandon in providing grants up to I think $1. 5 million, and the City 1.1 or $1. 2 million and from private contribution s an additional one million plus was obtained, I think this was the way in which the project was join tly funded by governments and private corporations and individuals, In 19 71, it appeared that there was a developin g crisis in respect to the ability of the planners to carry on with the proj ect, and it was at that time that the province of Manitoba moved in , met with and cooperated with the City of Brandon and came up with an agreement in which there would be a 50-50 sharin g of any operating deficits which would occur.

There was an additio nal assist ance from the Province of Manitob a in respect to some deficits which then existed in the name of the Provincial Ex hibition of Manitoba, and all these things were taken care of and it was a very reasonable and good approach by the Province of Manitoba, It demonstrated a completely cooperativ e effort on this part and a real desire to see this worth while facility come into being, I think that there are some occasions when we can given credit to the Government of Manito ba and this is one , and which I think particularly the people of Manito ba realize that this was a worthwhile effort.

I know that members opposite wouldn't hesitate to compliment the previous administrations in Manitob a, as they have done I imagine on occasi on when they are aware of some decisions that have been taken that have worked to the benefit and the advantage of the province , and I'm sure the First Minister has on occasi on seen fit to compliment other admin istrations.

I hope he won •t rise at this time and challenge me on that respect because I might have to do some research to find a spe cific instance of his having done so; but nevertheless I do feel that there have been times in the last few months when he has reason to have said that the planning of the Roblin government was remarkably foresi ghted, and while it was criticized at the time , it nevertheless has in the past few months - by oppos itions at the time at which the project was undertaken and which it was pressed forward by the then Progressiv e Conservativ e admi nistration in Manito ba, But, Mr, Speaker, I would like to again refer to the agreement which was si gned and

3744 May 22, 1974 BI LL 55 (MR . McGILL Cont•d) .•..• which was, after having had a meeting in this respect and having agreed generally on the terms the provi nce, undertook through its legal counse l to draw up and then return to the Cit y of Brandon with an agreement, a contract which would be signed by both

partie s. And this was duly carried out, and it was not until the introduction of Bill No. 12 last year that the Province of Mani toba began to question the taxabilit y of the Keystone Centre and it was then said that the Province of Mani toba assumed that the Keystone Centre was tax exempt because the Provincial Ex hib ition of Mani toba, its predecesso r, had enj oyed a tax exempt status. Well, Mr.

Speaker, the diff erences of course are many, the Provincial Ex hib itio n of Mani toba operated seven days out of each year, had a very large acreage of land which durin g the perio d when the Provincial Ex hib ition was not being held was used as a park and a small zoo. So that the Ci ty of Brandon was not faced wit h any great expense of day to day mainten ance in the operation of the grounds and the area occupied by the Provincial Exh ib ition.

But when the agreement was signed between the province and the Cit y of Brandon, the land was transferred to the new corporation, the Keystone Centre Corporation, and the pos ition of the whole enterpris e changed, because it then became an almost daily operation in the Keys tone Centre where police services, fire services and other maintenance services were required on a much more continuin g basis than had been the case in the past. So, Mr.

Speaker, the diff erences I think were pretty obviouS, and when we came to debate the Bill on the Cit y's voluntary move to grant school tax exemption the Cit y and the Province of Mani toba then stated that it was their understanding that there would be no taxes of any kind levied because the levying of taxes would in effect incre ase the amount of the deficit if any that might have to be paid by the Provin ce of Manito ba, Well, Mr.

Speaker, the fact that there was no mention of taxes in the agreement would indicat e that an assumption was made that was partia lly unwarranted, that there should have been mention of taxes and this it would seem to me was an oversight on the part of the people who drew up the agreement, To make an assumptio n that the Key stone Centere would not be taxable was, I would think, Mr .

Speaker, one that was unwarranted under the circ umstances and I would sugge st that if I had as a privat e individual go ne to court to contest an agreement I had made under these circumstances and I pleaded with the judge that I had assumed certain things to be the case in respect to taxes, he would have taken a somewhat benign view of the whole situation and simply said, Well you didn 't take the trouble to appris e yourself of the facts. Mr.

Speaker, the paradox here is that the government on the one hand assumed certain things about its taxabilit y while another department of government seemed to have no doubt whatevar about the taxabil ity of the Key stone Centre because the municipal assessor as recently as March had written to the Cit y of Brandon explaining clearly that certain assessments were required in respect to the Keystone Centre . For the Province of Mani toba now, Mr.

Speaker, to pass a bill to exempt the Centre from all taxes other than those mentioned by the First Mini ster seems to be clearly unilateral action against a municipal government, a lower level of government, and an actio n which breeches a contract which this province entered into with the Cit y of Brandon.

The paradox which appears to be so evident here is that the government on the one hand is admi tting by its actions and by its words there•s an infle xib ility of the tax sources and the revenue sources for municipal governments at this time , in a very difficult perio d of constantly inflating costs of operation, the municipal governments are faced with that constraint. Revenues do not increas e as they do for the Provincial Government with the gr owing inflationary rates, and they're recogniz ing these problems by increas ing per capit a grants to the municipalities.

As the First Mini sLer menti oned earlier today in the question period, the grants went up from 8 to $1 0 last year and will increas e this year on a formula basis to something like $1 0, 60 per capita. This is in recognition, Mr. Speaker, of the dif fi culties which municipalities now face in covering costs of operation which have rapidl y escalated in the past few years. Now, Mr. Speaker, by this Bi ll, the government of the Province of Manito ba is direct ing the Ci ty of Brandon to grant a tax exemption which will increas e the mill rate in Brandon by 2.9 1 mills. Mr.

Speaker, I think perhaps a good way to demonstrate or to make thi s problem of municipal tax fairl y clear is to do what one concerned citizen of Brandon did and that is to take his last year's assess ment notice and send it to the assessor s in Portage la Prairie and in the Cit y of Wi nnipeg, He wanted to find out really if he were able to transport his home to

May 22·, 1974 3745 BILL 55 (MR. McGILL Cont•d) ... .. a new site in Portage, how his taxes would compare with that which he paid in the City of Brandon, and he made the same suppos ition to the City of Winnipeg. He had a notice of assessmen t and he said, What would my taxes be in the City of Winn ipeg if I were able to transfer my home to a new site in that ci ty? I think, Mr. Speaker, the results of hi.s research are si gnificant and this deals with the 19 73 si tuatio n.

I quote this because there has been a great deal of controversy from the urban centre of Wi nnipeg as to the amount of aid that they're receiving, the amount of tax revenues that they're gettin g from the Provin ce of Manitob a. The First Minister is constantly recei vin g delegations I'm sure , from the Ci ty of Wi nnipeg and in recognition of the Ci ty•s diffi culties they have engaged in more direct cost sharin g programs with the urban centres.

There's been evidence of that, that they recognize that the City has a problem and they are prepared to engage in sort of 50-50 arrangements with the Ci ty of Wi nnipeg in various ways to somewhat reduce the impact of the ris in g tax rate for the property owners. So let me go back to the results of my frie nd's research, my friend from Brandon who sent his tax notice to Portage and Winnipeg.

He found out that last year, had be been able to move his house to Portage his taxes would have been $806; if he had been able to move it to the Cit y of Wi nnipeg his taxes would have been $799, but what he did actually pay in the Ci ty of Brandon was $93 1. 00. I thin k , Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty si gnificant figure because it somewhat takes the steam out of arguments that the taxpayers in the City of Wi nnipeg are the ones hardest hit and are most deserving of assi stance, direct or in direct from the Provin ce of Manitoba.

Let me hasten to assure my colleagues who come from the Ci ty of Wi nnipeg that I am not in any way attempting to downgrade the arguments which they and their constituents are placing. They do have a serious tax problem but I sugge st, Mr. Speaker, that at this moment it is not as serious a problem as it is for the taxpayers in the City of Brandon. The tax rate in mills in Brandon will increase this year by 10 . 69 mills residential and 10 . 36 mills commercial. Now this assumes the present situation, but if this Bill passes those rates will be up 2. 91 mills.

One mill in the Ci ty of Brandon is in the area of $57, 000. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is what this Bill will do for the City of Brandon. Up to this time I thin k in respect to the whole concept of the Keystone Centre we have a very good relationship between the City of Brandon and the Provin ce of Manitoba. Somehow along the line the imp ressi on was gain ed that we've got to stop. We•ve done enough for the Ci ty of Brandon. The words were perhaps used that we have been generous wi th the Ci ty of Brandon and this should -- (I nterjection)- over-generous ?

Well I thin k this tax comparison explains that in the ultimate analysis that has not taken place. I would like , too, Mr. Speaker, to sugge st to the First Minister in the Front Bench that this Bil l should stand on its own merits; this bill should not stand or fall upon other con siderations of other deals made at other times. This has nothin g whatever to do with that. If the bill is a good bill, surely it can stand or fall on its own not upon the past performance of any government or of any in divid uals. So, Mr.

Speaker, I would plead that the Province of Manitob a consider that in the ultimate analysis they have not been too generous with the Ci ty of Brandon and that to take this acti on, this unilateral acti on, to breach the agreement which they now have is in my view an unwarranted action. There is also I thin k embedded in this action by the government , some feelin g that the Mayor of the City of Brandon has not always been as co-operative as he might have been, that there may have been some abrasive ness in the disc us sion that has occurred. Mr.

Speaker, I regard the performance of the Mayor of the City of Brandon as the kin d of performance that a taxpayer should expect from his mayor. He has been fightin g to do his best to keep the load on the taxpayers in that city at a mi nimum and he has done everything in that respect that a mayor should do.

If he has, in some way, durin g his championin g of the ri ghts and the privileges of his taxpayers he has in some way alienated the affections of the Province of Manitob a , I thin k that's unfortunate; but, again, this Bill should stand on its own merit s , there should be no personalities in volved, there should be no past performance data enterin g in to its consideration. Mr. Speaker, a year ago it was in committee, a bill to give exemption for school taxes.

That bill was amended by the Province of Manitob a and the amendment was such as to change the whole intent of the Bill and I thin k the amendment in retrospect should not have been allowed because it changed the bill from one which the Ci ty of Brandon supported to one

3746 May 22, 19 74 BI LL 55 (MR. McG ILL Cont 1d) • . • • . which they did not support and it changed the intent completely. Nevertheless the amendment was allowed, the Bill came for third readin g and I as spo nsor felt that I could not propose the bill for third reading, inasmuch as it was not the Bill that I had origin ally entered for this government. So we are now faced with the same si tuation, the same argument. I put before you that we have an agreement with the Province of Manitoba, a good agreement.

The Provin ce of Manitoba made certain assumptions about taxes which were not backed up by their own Municipal Aff airs Department. The Mun ici pal Assessor said the property was taxable, the city had no recourse but to conti nue to consider that those revenues were collectib le . If this bill passes Brandon will be faced with a 2. 91 mill increase in its taxes. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we should revert to the sit uati on which prevailed a. year ago today in committee when the Cit y of Brandon was prepared to grant an exempti on of school taxes.

I think they would still be prepared to do that and in a sense share the difficulty which the province now faces. --( Int erjection)-- Well, Mr.

Speaker, the Minist er of Mines has had a great deal to say on this Bill, both last year and this year, and I1ve no doubt that he will enter the debate and I am looking forward to hearing how he will rationalize this kin d of unilateral action by his government agains t a municipal government, to breach an agreement that was properly entered into , drawn by the Province of Manit oba and then objected to by the Province of Manit oba because they neglected to consider the tax position. Mr. Speaker, I have nothin g more to add to the observations that I' ve made.

I hope that the Minist er will explain what he means in respect to business taxes because the bill doesn't seem to really specify that ability. I hope he can explain in discu ssin g the bill how it is that even the taxes which the old provincial exhibition paid in Brandon are now cut out, they paid local improvement taxes of roughly 8 or 9 hundred dollars a year whi ch still have some years to run to 19 77 which are now cut out. The Provincial Exhibition always paid taxes on residence in the grounds , 3 -4 hundred dollars a year to the city, which are now apparently cut out.

The Ci ty of Brandon also collected a frontage tax which provided for maintenance of sewers along the way, for some hundreds of dollars a year. These are now cancelled. So all in all, Mr.

Speaker, I thi nk a deci si on has been made here based upon what the Province of Manitoba considered tD be their past performance, that somehow Brandon had got a better deal than they were entit led to, and I put to you that the evidence in respect to the taxes that are paid by homeowners in the three areas which have been researched, indicat e that that is not the case, that Brandon is still the high est taxed area in the country and that this agreement that is now in effect, and which will shortly be breached, will be adding to the disparity between the taxes paid in Brandon and in the rest of the province .

Thank you. MR . SPEAKER: The Bill remains in the name of the Honourable Member for Souris Killarney. Bill No. 60. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. (Stand) BI LL NO. 61 MR . MR . SPEAKER: Bi ll No . 61. The Honourable Member for St. James. MR . GE ORGE MINAKER (St. James) : Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make a few comments at this time with regard to Bi ll 61.

My colleague the Honourable Member from Riel generally spoke on the princip le that the Progressive Conservative Party believes with regard to tax reductions for the cit izens of Manit oba and while we are for reducin g taxes we cannot support a bill which takes the approach of a rebate that the government mus t get full credit for and use as a political tool. An d I say that, Mr. Speaker, because from the experien ce that we had with the government when we were on Cit y of Win nipeg Council that they in sist ed that a tax inf ormation form be inc luded in our tax bills .

The first one more or less in dicated in very great propaganda methods that the good guys on Broadway down here were giving back money to the ci tizens and they had to make sure that in big bold print, "Th e Manit oba Government Inf ormation Tax Credit Plan," and at that time the council discussed whether in fact such an information slip was necessary and agreed to it. But this government, Mr.

Speaker, is so uptight about gettin g credit for this particular rebate and bein g recognized that it1s the NDP Gov ernment that's giving it back, that they've even had to go to the point in Bill 38 that we had here before us to make sure there was an

May 22, 1974 3747 BI LL 61 (MR . lVIINAKER Cont•d) ..•.• amendment to The City of Wi nnipeg Act, that the Minister could demand that this slip of paper went in the tax bil ls that were mailed out . This is the type of rebate program we have .

I'm happy at least to see that part of the taxes are going back to the citizens, One of the things that we cannot support is the fact why take it in the first place if you're goin g to use $600, 000 in administration costs to give it back by pattin g yourself on the back and making sure you advertis e on TV and in the papers and so on to say that everybody is getting some money back, I was somewhat bemused by the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources last night with some of his comments with regards to the Ci ty of Win nipeg and I guess what at one poin t got known as the road show.

Last year the Ci ty of Winnipeg Council decided that we should go out to the people at that tim e and try and explain to the people the problems the city had with finances and their belief that they should share in the growth taxes and I might add that the honourable member I guess in his professional trainin g as a former high-priced union lawyer had to twist the facts or leave out facts that implied that the City of Wi nnipeg wanted all the money, nobody else should get it .

But I would thin k the honourable member would concur with me that in presentations both public and with the government that there was indication that the Ci ty of Win nipeg was not looking for anything special, that they belie ved that this was the type of program that should be made avai lable to all urban areas and municipalities, not ju st the Cit y of Winnipeg. And it was publicl y stated by the Mayor of Winn ipeg and it was publicl y stated by the city official s that it wasn•t ju st for the Ci ty of Wi nnipeg, they also felt that this should be made avai lable to other urban areas.

But obviously as the elected members for a city council that we couldn't say that Brandon should get 15 percent or ten percent or five percent. At that time the delegation was dealing on behalf of the Ci ty of Winnipeg but they indicated that they were not askin g for a favour for them alone, that they thought if this was applicab le to the Ci ty of Winnipeg that it should also be applicable to Brandon, Morris, Gladstone and so on. I mentioned last night that I never indicated in this Hous e any percentages.

Well I did n't think it proper to indicate in this House any percentages that the City of Wi nnipeg or other urban areas should get because I believe that they are more intimatel y close to their problems than I am at this time and it is up to them to indicate the type of percentages or the formula that they feel would be fair. So, Mr. Speaker, --(Inter jection)-- Mr, Speaker, the Honourable Min ister of Mines and Natural Resou rces indicated that they wanted 16,6 million and they wanted 80 mil lion, But really, Mr.

Speaker, is it out of the ordinar y to ask for a portion of a revenue that is collected within an area or a plant? This government is very quick, ve ry quick in deed to invest $18 million in Saunders, or very quick indeed to in vest $1 .3 mil lion in W ,E . Clare with the idea of p(Jssibly deve loping work for our citizens but also getting back at some future date a revenue. Yet this same gove rnment won't invest money in the plants in the city and the urban areas where they get their bi ggest revenue from, Where, where, Mr. Speaker, are they investin g ? This year, Mr.

Speaker - and I'm sorry that the Fi rst Minister is n•t in his chair at this time - this year in di scussion of education, debate on the estimates, the Honourable Minister of Ed ucation indicated very clearly that he had all of that $50 mi llion rebate for his department, We questioned him on it and he said that incl udes the $50 mi llion rebate. Yet when we have problems with municipal costs rising and soaring the First Minister stands up and says aha but we have the tax rebate program.

But how can his department have the tax rebate program if the Minister of Ed ucation is claiming it a11 for himself, his own department ? How are you goin g to pull the money out of the piggy bank twice ? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, you can•t. But this is the type of approach that this government is takin g with this problem that the municipal ities are having at the present tim e in Manito ba, that we will use and hide behind the guis e of a tax rebate program. This is the approach they're taking . And one can understand why, because this government wants to control the cash flow of Manitobans.

This is basical ly what they're trying to do. They not only want to control the individuals 1 cash flow but they also want to control the municipal ities and the towns. Because they know as well as we do that 70 percent of the people in Manitoba live in towns and cities. I think the last statistics which were prepared by the then -I guess it•s the Minister of Municipal Affairs -h e gave us the report, itrs right here on the desk. There is somewhere in the order of 700, 000 people who live in towns, who live in cities in our particular area. So that if they can control that one particular

3748 May 22, 1974 BI LL 61 (MR . MI NAKER Cont'd) •.••. level of government, keep them hopping around and saying well we might give you a grant this year and we migh t not but if we do give you a grant we want to have control. A typical example was the Ci ty of Winnipeg Park. They said sure we will give you $1. 5 million, or I imagin e this year somewhere in the order of 1.9 , but we want to have the say in the matter. A 30 millio n-p.lus asset that they have been able to pick up and control, pick up and control by a grant, an annual grant. But this , Mr.

Speaker, is the typical type of approach that this government takes. An d the Honourable Minister of Min es and Natural Resources says that he .ca n't stand bureaucrats. We know why he can•t stand bureaucrats , because they get in the way of dictat ors. And this is exactly what this government is trying to do , become dictat ors. They want to have that dictato rship. And that's exactly what this government is trying to do in all phases of this taxing program.

An d the prin ciple of the tax system that they .are giving out is saying, well we.•ll give tax, we •11 give tax back but you have to earn less than $4, 000 a year or thereabouts, but if you happen to earn up to near $1 4,000 a year and you have a wife and three children then you're co nsidered above the middle class. An d why I say that, Mr. Speaker, there was a question thrown out yesterday to the Honourable Member from Riel by the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources , or maybe it was the Honourable Minister of Finance. He said, what is the middle class?

So I thought about that and I know what the middle class is in terms of the government that we have. It has to relate to the tax rebate program and I thought well let•s look at mysel f. I'm married, I have three child ren, I can claim a rebate or an exemption of about $4,000 on my income tax. So I look at the tax rebate program and it says , well we'll give you $25 0.0 0 this year less one percent of your taxable income. So one must assu me that they thin k that the low in come people - and I have nothin g against that - that the low income people should get the maximum amount at this point, $25 0.0 0.

Then one must then conclude that between the $250 .0 0 and the $15 0.0 0 rebate that they must be the middle income people , that as you get higher in that mid dle income you get less of the rebate back. So one would have to assume in my case that if I happen to earn $1 4, 000 a year I get the minimum rebate of $1 50 . 00. I would be con sidered I guess a fat cat by the Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs because I would maybe be e�rning over $1 4,000 .0 0. So we have to assume from the rebate program that the middle income is somebody that earns between $4,000 and $14,000 .0 0 Yet, Mr.

Speaker, as I indicated earlier --(Inte rjection )-- Well he's trying hard, Mr. Speaker. An yways, Mr. Speaker, getting back to what's happened in our urban areas with regards to the tax rebate and the problems that the city has whether it be Brandon or Portage la Prairie or the towns, they're all experiencin g the S'lme problem. And the Ci ty of Win nipeg last year went with the approach of five percent.

Well I guess when one is dealing with a former union lawyer one starts to thin k that you'r e in union negotiations and there has always been that ri valry between the City of Wi nnipeg for some reason and the Provincial Government. And there is a rivalry there because we at that time were part of the offi cial delegation, we went and said, we'v e got a problem and this is one of the ways wethin k can satisfy that problem. And we got our answer , we got our answer: Two million dollars is what you' ll get. And I would presume one million dollars for the Ci ty of Winn ipeg and one million for the other urban areas.

So that that way they can control and that •s what they want. They want to be able to control the cash flow of the municipal governments, they want to be able to control the cash flow of the in divid uals. An d was it out of the ordinary to ask for $1 6 millio n? Because if we look at the anticip ated growth of revenue this year in five of the taxes that were mentioned the Liq uor Control Commission is going to have an increase of $3 million this year. The individual income tax is goin g to increase $31 million this year in the province.

The corporation in come tax is going to increase somewhere in the order of $9 million. The natio nal equalization - now there' s an in terestin g thing, Mr. Speaker. One of the arguments the government uses that why the municipalities and the cities cannot share in the growth tax is because they should be responsib le for their spending ; they should be responsib le by collectin g taxes. Yet on the other hand right in our book this year the province is going to get somewhere in the order of $1 13 million in equalization payments, and are they responsib le , are they responsib le for collection of these moneys?

So that we have an increase of $15 million in that. We have an increase of $30 million in the revenue tax. Somewhere in the order of $75 million increased

May 22, 1974 3749 BI LL 61 (MR. MI NAKER Cont•d) • • • • . revenue in one year and about I would think somewhere in the order of 60 percent of that revenue is collected in the Ci ty of Winnipeg. And is that out of the question to say, well let•s maybe consider giving a share to Brandon, a share to Winnipeg, because really if the cities break down our source of revenue is going to break down with it. And for some reason, Mr. Speaker, the government feels that busin esses shouldn't have any breaks. They shou ldn't have any tax reduction, no, or anybody over $1 4, 000 shouldn•t have any tax reduction.

Yet I sugg est, Mr. Speaker, that our busin esses , our cities are in competi tion with other citi es , who I am happy to say have go vernments that not necess arily think in the same pattern as the one that we have on the other sid e thin ks , that they at least recognize that it's just as easy to locate in say Ed monton or Calgary as it is to locate in Wi nnipe g.

So that if the taxes keep rising on services withi n an urban area - and again I have to review the si tuatio n, that 70 percent of our people liv e and work in cities and probably more, that if we run into problems where our busi nesses cannot compete and say it's not favourable to live in Brandon or have our companies in Brandon or in Wi nnipeg or Portage then we will have employment problems . And so, Mr. Speaker, I say that anY, moneys that go to our muncipalities and urban areas are an in vestment.

They're an in vestment into our revenue because you can look at them as if they were plants, plants that house our particular ind ustries, our commerce where we get all these revenues , where we get probably 70 percent of the $800 million that is collected, So that we have to look at the thing from an over-all pictur e , not from an individual itself type of picture. And I suggest it•s about ti me that the mi ddle man got a break in some of this particular tax rebate and so on, and I'd like to read one comment. Because, Mr.

Speaker, I think this is where we •re heading, and it •s a sati rical type of comment that occurred in the Florida Police Journal, in a publication of the Florida Peace Officer s As socia ti on. And this is exactly what is happening in our society these days with the idea that the middle class doesn't count. An d I will read it verbatim. "The mid dle class is dis advantaged. For years the greatest fear in a man•s life was to be poor. It was about the worst thing that could happen but gradually that •s changing .

In fact nowadays you can get subsidized housing, health and dental care, unive rsity scholarships and various other welfare benefits provided you are poor." That•s if you're poor now. " Al l you need to enjoy many of the advantages of life is proof that you are disadvantaged, Nobody can complain about that, it's humane and kind. However in curing poverty society has created another problem group and that•s the midd le class. Nobody wants to be middle class anymore because middle class has an awkward amount of money. Too much to be eligible to liv e as well as the poor, too littl e to live as well as the rich.

The middl e class wage earner is caught in between. Instead of liv ing downtown (like the rich and the poor) the poor chap has to buy a lot 35 miles from town because that's all he can afford. And then he spends the rest of his life trying to pay his bills , educate the kids and meet the mortgage because nobody will help him. If poverty gets any more attractive this is the sort of thing we may run into at the department. " And this I said related to a comment in a Police Journal in Florida and it goes as follows: " Captain Goody , I wonder if I could speak to you for a minute ? What is it Smedley?

I•m busy. lt1s about my salary, Captain Goody. I wonder if you could give me a decrease ? You had a decrease less than a year ago, Smedley, I kn ow, Sir, but I wouldn't ask if it wasn•t importa nt but I sure could use less money. What si ze decreas e did you have in mind ? I was hoping for a $25. 00 cut in salary. Twenty- five dollars? That's a big sl ice , Smedley. What have you done to merit it ? I have worked for the force 22 years, Captain Goody and I've never let you down. My work has always been up to standard, I realize that, Smedley, but $25,00 ? Wouldn't you be satisfied with a $1 5.0 0 cut ?

We have a budget right how, we're already below last year's salary figures and I hear that the province is furious taxwi se. Captain Goody a $15. 00 cutback is better than nothing but my wife and I had our hearts set on a $2 5,00 decrease. How about $20. 00 ? If I made $25 . 00 less we1d be eligible for an apartment in the ci ty•s new development , the one downtown with a pool, sauna and tennis court. Besi des , my son would qualify for a gove rnment scholarship and we could get his teeth fixe d. You drive a hard bargain, Smedley, but you win. You get your $25.0 0 decrease on this condition.

If your work slips you'll take a $10,00 raise , no questions asked. Bless you, Captai n Goody. A nd Smedley, will you invite me over for tennis and a swim some night when you get into your new place? Certai nly, Sir , !believe the poor should share with the less fortunate. "

. 3750 May 22, 1974 BI LL 61 (MR. MI NAKER Contrd) And that •s what we •re leading to , Mr, Speaker, that •s what we •re leading to in this type of tax policy that the present government has is that, take from those people who want to work and add to our community and give , give to anybody that, you know, we've got to give it back but we've got to take the credit and we'll select who gets it back, And, Mr. Speaker, I suggest, why take it in the first place?

Why not operate, and instead of collecting $50 million and givin g it back and spend ing a million or thereabouts to give it back so you can pat yourself on the back and so on, Why take it, Mr. Speaker? Because. this is what we're leading to, It might sound funny now, but that's exactly what's happening to our people in the provin ce, that we have to change this approach, that we have to recognize that there are other methods of providing tax concessi ons .

And also, that's simply not to charge the taxes in the first place so you can give it back, because what" this gove rnment is saying is, we're going to save your money, Mr. Speaker. They're saying to the individu al.

We' ll decide how we're going to save the money for you and who will save it, Because if you happen to be qualified to pay more taxes to the Federal Government, they say to themselves, Ah hah, this individual has some money to save and that•s not too good, so we'll take it in terms of a rebate.and we'll save it for him and give it back the way we think he should spend it or what services he should get. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is the wrong approach, It's the right approach if you want dic tatorship, I guess , Mr.

Speaker, but I don 1t stand for dictatorship - but obviously those people in the first row do, There's no doubt about it, That's what they want, they want to have control and the easiest way they can control is, they know, by controlling their finance s. and that's the basic policy of this tax rebate program is, that we will select who gets it back, who we'll give it back to, and it 's obviously they're giving it back to the people that are not generally in the mi ddle income ; some of the people , you know, I can't understand it why they would think somebody earning over $1 4, 000 -I think a corporal in the police force or a constable is making close to $14, 000 now - I guess he's considered a fat cat too, --(Inter jection)-- Yes, you know, it's too bad that our government feels this way, but I think the people are realizin g it now, and you can twis t the facts around but the people look at their bill, their tax bill - and I got mine yesterday like everybody else , and I can tell you that three years ago my taxes were less than $450 ; you know what my taxes are today, Mr.

Speaker? They're $797 - $79 8; and then if we take off that famous rebate of $1 50 - $650 thereabouts . In three years, three years, Mr. Speaker- and what does that government do? It stands up like big heroes and say;We 1re going to give you another $8 million this year'; $8 million for the whole province, And you know what the increase in municipal costs - not just for the City of Winnipeg, but the towns and the villages and the education costs to the whole province - I would sugge st, Mr. Speaker, that it has probably increased in the order of $40 million.

So the big guys on the other sid e have decided, we're going to give you $8 million back- $50 per homeowner, property owner, that's what they're going to give back, less than 20 percent of the increased costs . And yet they have no intention of changing their process because , Mr, Speaker, obviously if the taxes have gone up - and in my particular community alone in three years, the cost for municipal services has gone up 90 percent - three years - and this year alone our education costs went up 45 percent. But the government does n't care because eventually at some point, Mr.

Speaker, these houses will have to go up for sale and if everybody has to sell their home at once , who •s going to buy it? Probably the province , because after all what are they after is ownership of land; they're after the ownership of corporations , they want to control, Mr. Speaker, so this is the type of tax rebate poli cy that we have before us. It's one where they want to control the cash flow of the individual, they want to control the cash flow of the municipalities and cities because they want to be the dictat ors, that•s exactly what they want to do . And, Mr.

Speaker, the people of Manitoba realize this and the twis ting of facts, the attacking of ind ivid uals or tryin g to claim that the City of Winn ipeg is greedy won •t work, because you look at your tax bill and you see it - and the Honourable Member from Brandon indicated the same problem that they have in their city. Why don •t we hear from the Honourable Member from Brandon West, and let us hear from him about the costs in Brandon?

You know. -- (I nterjection)- - I mean Brandon East, my apologies to my colleague, But, you know, they think that the Ci ty of Brandon got too many rebates because they're still free in half of Brandon and that's a problem. That's a real problem, because they don't have quite control of that area

May 22, 1974 3751 BI LL 61 (MR. MINA KER Cont•d) .. ... yet arid so they feel, well, there'S a problem. So, Mr.

Speaker, with those comments, that we cah support a tax reduction but we cannot support a principle where a tax rebate program is used as a political tool, it is not the solution to the problem that's facing our munic ipalities - and I say that again, our mimicipal ities and our citi es , i ncluding Winnipeg, that if we keep on this particular path that eventually the only people who wi ii be able to afford the homes and the hoUses wi ll be the government, and heaven forbid that to happen because I cannot help bUt see that from then on the dict atorship will take over and they will have co!itrol of our residence and everything else.

So, Mr. Speaker, with those comments , thahk you . MR . SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for StUrgeon Creek. MR. J. FRANK JOHNSTON (Stlirgeon Creek): Thahk you, Mr. Speaker. Mr, Speaker - yes, Mr. Speaker, I notice the coi:mhents that are comihg from the other si de this morning, the first time we have sat in the morning other than oh Friday s , and the ci rcus seems to have come out and been watered this mornih g and they're all hep to go and chattery.

I noti ce the Minister of Mines and Natural Res ources is in a very charming mood this i:ii orning when people are speaking; and that's probably one of the reasons I ohce said.t o him, I wotild never vote for speed-u p while he was the House Le ader because his personality goes completely crazy and we never know where we•re going from there, Mr. Speaker, I'd ju st like to ris e to speak on this bill because '""" as I mentioned a ci rcus. You know, we now have the Minister of Finance in front of all the performers over there wit h his little shell game.

Be has got the little shells oh the table and he •s saying, "C ome forward everybody and see where the pea. is " type of game. Now, Mr; Speaker, the MinisLer of Ed ucation got up and said; I gave you back a rebate, That's one. The First Minister has got up on occasion Wheti we 1ve talked about provincia l tax and he says, I gave you back a rebate. The Mi nister of Mines and Natural Reso urces yesterday spoke a long ti me on real taxes and said, I gave yoU back a rebate. Now there's where, you know, where' s pea, you see.

Now the bean is being moved around in the shei l game by the Minister of Finance i n front of the ci rcu8 over there arid nobody really knows Where it's goi ng. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the fellows on the other side would take out their pencils , and I'll tell you how -- you take it out of your pocket and you hold it in yoUr hand like this - :t know you have to learn these things because I don it think you ever really fig ure these type of thin gs out. Now in 1969, M:h Speaker, the provinCial tax, the provi ncia l tax, you know, the percentage we paid of federal tax was $346 in 196 9.

We also paid, Mr, Speaker, $204 medicare or medical. Hi 1969 the real taxes paid in the City of St. James-Ass inibo ia was 49 .8 9 mills which was on a $8 , 000 asses sment, would work out to approximately $399. 00 . Now that would be, the assessm ent is usually a third, it would be about a $24, 000 hoUse, I guess . Now that, Mr. Speaker, adds up to $949. 00. Mr. Speaker, if the same person in a $8 , 000 assessed house, earning $6, 000 a year net, which wotild probably be about 10 ,0 00 if he has a wife and two or three children, but $6, 000 a year net.

His provincial tax now is $5 17; in 1974 his taxes will be at a rate of 91 point something mills which will be $729; that all adds tip to $1, 246 '- and this man because he•s $6, 000 a year net, he would receiv e $190 rebate and he is now paying $1 ,0 56 in taxes, Now if the government is going to use all of these things - i:i' you i re goi ng to say, I'm getting it backfor educati on, I'm giving it batik on real ta.Xes , I•m giving it back dn provincia l taxes ; now tell me -I want the Min is ter of Finance to answer this and I'v e asked this questi on on the other si de before when I've given out these figu res - when you total up the actual taxes paid by a person ih St.

James-Assi niboia which is 91, or you could take it pretty well anywhere in Winnipeg, it•s very close, on a $6, 000 a year net inc ome, $8, 000 assessment, you are going to be paying more taxes than you paid i n 169, totai taxes. Itis a lot of money. But, Mr. Speaker, we have those hypocrites on the other sid e who stand up and continua lly say,'' Well, you know, you•re paying less taxes because I gave you a rebate," and when he figu res out the provincial tax he says ,1'It•s less; because I gave you a rebate. " He uses that same rebate.

Then he says , ''You •re paying less real taxes,'' and he takes the same rebate. And then he says;'Yo u•re paying less education taxes" and he uses the same rebate again. Now the Minister of Finance better get the shell game organized arid start. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance stood up about a few days ago and he said, We don't fig ure out how much of that rebate is for education, we don it fig rii'e out how tnilch is for

3752 May 22, 1974 BILL 61 (MR. F. JOHNSTON Cont•d) .•... real tax and we don't figure out how much is for provincial. Now isn•t it time the Minist er of Finance started to tell us how much of the rebate goes towards education, how much of the rebate goes toward provincial tax and how much of the rebate goes to real tax. And, Mr. Speaker, last year, we got a $100 in 1973, we got it off our taxes ; this year, if you had $190 coming like this gentleman has, he gets 90 -h e got 100 last year, In fact I phoned -- well, Mr.

Speaker, the Minist er of Fina nce better explain it, I phoned the -- (I nterjectio n)-- He' ll have a chance to close debate, Mr. Speaker. I phoned the office that asks you about the number they gave us about tax rebate. You know, the office that costs $400 , 000 a year to operate the tax rebate. An d I phoned that office and I said to them," Now if I get my $100 off my taxes this year, do I get the $1 00 again next year?' No, no, it was an election year so we got $100 and you'll only get the balance this year.

So, you know, they split up the rebate between years, of course 173 was an election year and these bunch of hypocritical guys over there play around with the money again. MR . SPEAKER : Order please. I would like to remind the honourable member that that particula r word is unparlia mentary . I•m sure it was a slip of the tongue and he 1ll reconsider how he's going to use that language. MR . F. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would withd raw the word, I thank you for bringing it to my attention. But these gentlemen over here, honourable gentlemen over here. A MEMBER: Do funny things . MR . F.

JOHNSTON: Right, do very funny things . I've never seen a shell game played better than played by the Minist er of Finance . So, Mr. Speaker, now we have the disc ussion about who's paying the most, you know; I took this out of the 173 book and I've repeated it before and it was right, it's the Minist er of Finance's book on 173.

I notice he didn't put this table in in 174. 62. 5 percent of the people were making between 5, 000 and 15,000 in Manitoba - pardon me, it' s 62. 5 percent of the income in Manitoba was paid, people making between six and 15, 000, that's 48. 5 percent of the people . 2. 9 percent of the people of Manitoba make more than $20, 000. --(I nterjectio n)- Yes . 2. 9 and they pay 13 .4 percent of the money. A MEMBER: They're the fat cats . MR . F. JOHNSTON: They're the fat cats . An d the fellows that make over $20, 000 a year have a benefit of inves tment, they'll put their money into IN TRODUC TIO N OF GUESTS MR.

SPEAKER: I wonder if I could in terrupt the honourable gentleman for just a brief moment. We have up in the gallery with us some 26 senior citizens of the Golden Age Club. On behalf of all the honourable members I welcome you here this. morn ing. The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. BI LL NO. 61 Cont1d MR. F.

JOHNSTON: The gentlemen that make more than $20, 000 a year will place mone y into pension plans, so the person paying the big taxes, the person paying most of the taxes in the Province of Manitoba is the man between 5, 000 and 15, 000 a year, and this government does n't seem to have any attitude whatsoever that would give any relief to these people . And the Min ist er of Finance keeps saying, I'm giving you back a tax rebate. You know, Mr. Speaker, the Minist er of Mines said, well you know, I think he intim ated yesterday what would you do, you know, how are we going to give back senior citizens taxes?

Well our policy was we would take the school tax off senior citizens homes . There's be no question about it. We said it would be done, we would take if off. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I remember the meeting that was talked about by the Minist er of Min es, and it was at the St. James Ci vic Centre ; it was referred to again as the travellin g show, as my colleague from St. James said. And I spoke to the Minist er after that, I remember saying to him, I said, you know, by go sh the NDP sure packed that meeting.

He said, well you know, he says, they have the right to speak too, you know; they've got the right to come out. And mind you at that meeting in St. James-A ss inib oia , we had councillor Chernia ck there who spoke for a long time - it seems to run in the family. We had councillors from all over the city; we had NDP people from all over the city - not many

May 22, 1974 3753 BI LL 61 (MR . F. JOHNSTDN Cont'd) ••••• NDP people from St. James - and I say to the Minister ri ght now , as I said to him in the hall, it was a packed meeting, almost a representation of the Provincia l Government•s attitudes at that meeti ng. Mr. Speaker, there's no questi on about it. But I don't want to dwell on a meeti ng, I ju st want to go back and say this , that here we have a tax si tuati on, and if you happen to be making more money net and your assessmen t happens to be high er, it's going to work out even worse for you.

There is no reason to keep taking money out of people's pockets , you decid ing how much, and when you will give it back; the old deal of the man who pays the piper calls the tune. You know, I said this before, and the Minister of Mines wasn't there, because he use d to like to talk about how many people were on the dole in Lond on, En gland, or in Bri tain at one ti me , Brita in. Well I said to him also , and he •ll argue this again someti mes, that everybody in Manitoba is on the dole at the present time .

We all go to work every morning ; we all make an inco me; we all get it taken from us , and we all stand around come tax ti me and wonder how much our big brother over there is going to give us back of our money after they've spent close to $500 ,0 00 administra ting the giving back, Now, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, it •s rather rid iculous for a Minister of Finance who passes warrants for his money, mind you; he doesn •t really have to be here.

He just knows that if he would like to, we have on the legislation in Manitoba, we have a si tur.tion whereby the Minister of Finance can go in, and into Cabi net, and pass enough warrants to get all the money that he lik es , he doesn't have to - and then he comes in and he mi ght want the Es ti mates voted on, but he really doesn't care , it•s because he can go in and get as much as he likes at any time , you know, and most of the people in Mani toba don't realize that there's legislation like that in Manito ba, and I voted for it , I voted for it, and I say it's wrong and should be corrected but that government does not want to correct it , So, Mr.

Speaker, why would anybody in their right mind, why would anybody who wants to look their constituents square in the face ..• A MEMBER: . . . in the eye. MR . F. JOHNSTDN: Well, that•s not my saying and if you want to use it, it's probably a good one, because that •s about as backwards as that government can be. So, Mr. Speaker, why would we vote for more rebates of our own money, to line up in front of Bi g Brother over there and wonder how much he •s goin g to give us in any given year:' Thank you, . • . . . continued on the next page

3754 May 22; i974 BI LL 61 MR. SPEA KER: The Honourable Minister of Finance will be closing debate. The Honourable Minister. HON. SAUL CHERNIACK Q. C. (Mini ster of Finance) (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, I would lik e to express my apprecia tion to members who have spoken. I mean that quite sincerely. I know i t' s a customary thing to say in closing debate on second reading. In this case, I feel that it is a correct asses sment of the value to the people of Manitoba of what has been said, and by whom it was said, not that there was anything parti cular discussed on the bill itse lf, and that's the proper way because the bill will be discussed in committee stage and each

section will be looked at separately, but principles have been involved, principles have been di scuss ed, and we have a fairly clear recognition of the dif ferences between the politica l parties in Manitoba, and I think thatis very importa nt.

I suppose the only thing I do regret is the absence of the Leader of the Opposit ion during the major part of the last two speeches by members of his caucus because I have the uncomfortable feeling, it' s satisf ying I suppose although uncomfortable, that the Leader of the Opposition, and the vast majority of the people behind him, do not really agree on many issues that the Progressive Conse rvative Party base on "p rinciple" . The last two speakers to me embodied the exact concept of conservatism, as I understand it.

They are, and of course the Member for Pembina supports that and I agree with him , so he should. Because if anybody is capable of expressi ng the true feelings of the Conservative Party on that as a principle, it is not the Leader of the Opposition, it is members of his backbench, it is members such as already have spoken today. It is the Member for Sturgeon Creek of course who stands out as being one of the more of the reactiona ry members of his party, and therefore a proper description of the majority of his party.

The Leader of the Opposit ion of course is the true Leader of the Opposit ion in that the bitterness that characterizes the party in opposition is best exemplified by the activities and the words and the expressi ons of the Leader of the Opposition. When he called us hypocrites yester day, Mr. Speaker, I accepted it as being so commori to his way of thinking and way of speaking, that I didn 't even realize that it was a word that is not parlia mentary, it has become almost that by the usage to which he put it yesterday, if on no other occasion.

But that again is demeaning of him, it's degrading, it' s not attractive, but His typical, so that that's why I was not really that much conscious of the fact that he was transgressing against the rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, I have a number of, I suppose, disjoi nted remarks I wish to make in res ponse to vario us statements made by honourable members.

I will have to be selective in my response because of the volume of trivia and of peculiar attitudes that have come across from the other side, but then of course selectivity is the basis of this bill that we are discus sing today, and therefore I'm consistent in being selective in responding to remarks made. Let me first comment on some of the remarks made by the Leader of the Libera l Party, who indicated that Mr. Roblin had invented the technique to reduce property taxes and we are carrying it forward.

That of course gives us the true proof that he doesn' t really understand the entire concept and purpose of this bill because it is not only to reduce taxation, it is also to help in the redis tribution of income, which of course is something that the Conservative Party is opposed to, and that is why I appreciate the fact that there is this difference of point of view. The Libera l Party, I don't know how they stand on redistribu tion of income and therefore I can not comment on what the Leader of the Libera l Party really should have said, had he understood what we were dealing with. Of course, Mr.

Speaker, both he and others talked about the use of this as an election gimm ick. They forget that we brought in this form of tax reducti on, tax credit. -- (Interj ection) -- Now you see, Mr. Speaker, another bitter member of the Conservative Party finds that by slip of the tongue I said taxation, and he says taxatio n' s the proper word when he knows full well that it couldn' t poss ibly be, even in his mind taxation is the proper word. But it' s cute, so he is prepared to enter into to make his contribution to the debate, for which of course I acknowledge his presence.

But the tax reduction, this tax rebate plan, was brought in by us a year and more before the election. It was extended last year; it was added to this year and to talk about it as an election purpose is just to recognize that when we do something that people remember at elec tion tirrie it hurts them. When we brought in the reduction in medica re premium and did it in the very best first summer of our election we did that at a time when there was no election

May 22, 1974 3755 BI LL 61 (MR. CHERNI AC K cont'd) . forthcoming but it was consistent with our program and our policy. So, Mr. Speaker, this talk about the Le ader of the Lib eral Party talked about sending our cheque out just before election time, forgetting of course that it was a cheque of the Lib eral Party Government of Ottawa that is the cheque that went out in payment of the rebate when indeed there was a cheque payable rather than a reduction of taxation filed with the federal auth ority.

If the honourable members question the need of this government to make clear to people that they understand where their money goes to and where it comes from it is just that that makes it necessary that we inf orm the people of this province how the tax form they are filling out dif fers from that of many other Canadians in that they do not have the tax rebate benefit. Now the Leader of the Li beral Party seems to complain that when we do rebate taxes, and it's admitted that we do, he says, and I quote him, "Not to all of us, just to some of us" . And that's absolutely correct.

We have no intent and no feeling that it is essential that we should treat all Manito bans regardless of income in the same manner of rebate. That is where we differ from the Member for Sturgeon Creek, from the Member of St. James, from members opposite generally. Of course the Lea der of the Li beral Party also accused the Manito ba Government of the increase in oil taxation, which is typical of a person who doesn' t have any thing to say but feels the need to say it in any event. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are a few other matters I would like to refer to.

I would like to recognize the fact that the Member for Assi ni boia did make the point, and made it strongly, that when it comes to benefitting people that count in his mind, he will vote in favour of the bi ll. That's what he said, and he said that's what his party is doing because it will benefit people who are the most in need of that kind of benefit and he will vote for it because he believes that that's important.

But members of the Conservative Party are so hung up on their age-old con cept of taxation being something that is to be spread across the board in such a way that it 's proportiona l, or at least, I shouldn't say only proportional but regressive as the medicare premiums, hos pital premiums that they had, that they will not recognize that there are people in society today who need a greater benefit and a greater credit than others. They will not recog nize this because to them it is abhorrent.

That is why they were able to live with a medica re premium with a flat tax because they believe in it and regardless of what their leader will say on occasion, his party believes in that kind of tax philosophy. The Member for Riel did make some remarks, questioned whether the system was equit able. He said it was ineffective and then he proceeded with his colleagues to prove that it was extremely effective because it did put money in the hands of those who were in the lowest income, those who had the least ability to pay for the increasing costs and that' s what they are objecting to.

He called it expensiv e with out understanding what he was talking about and he said it was not equit able, and this is a question then of what is equity and that again is a philosop hic ques tion . As to what is equit able depends on the person who assesses equity, and there of course, we have the su bstantial diff erence. He talked about the government policy creating this program and what he didn' t seem to accept or understand is that the program is a selective one desig ned to assist those in greatest need and not designed to assist the Member for St.

James who gave us his problems, and not desig ned to assist the Member of Sturgeon Creek, and not des igned to assist me or any of my colleagues in the front row. Now once we get that clear, then we are really discussi ng philos ophy because it has to be understood that it is des igned in order to create a certain change in the op portunities of people to live a fuller life, and that is the policy and that is the program and unless it is understood that way, then it is not even de batable because you have to understand our point of view in order to be able to deal with it in an intel ligent way.

That's why I said that I apprecia ted the contri butions made by some of the members opposite. The Member for La ke side, the Member for Sturgeon Creek, the Member for St. James, they spoke on the phil osophic basis, because they did understand what we aimed at and they di sagreed with it, and I do exclude the Leader of the Opposit ion who did not disc uss this on that philosop hic basis at all but rather in a vitu perative manner. Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with what has been said in two aspects .

Firstly I' d like to mention the problems of muni cip alities which have been referred to, their taxation needs and their taxation policy. I want to tell the Lea der of the Opposit ion that he delib erately, or through ignorance, distorted the sense of what I said, not only on the occasion in which he quoted, which

3756 May 22, 1974 BILL 61 (MR. CHERNI ACK cont'd) . . . . . was at a meeti ng of Federal-Provincia l Finance Minis ters, but on other occasi ons, and what the Premier said when he spoke on the 1973 budget, and that is the burden of taxation as it affects federal compared with provinc ia l and municipal.

What the Lea der of the Opposi tion, in ignorance of deliber ately, did not clarif y is that we were talking about a comparison on a national accounts basis, and I agree to the possibility of his igno rance be cause he may not know that national accounts basis includes current and cap1tal in the same cal culation. When the Federal people prepare a budget they lump both capital and current expendi tures into one ; our tradi tion, our practice in the past has always been that we separate current from capita l or deficit fina ncing .

When we said what we did, and what was correctly quoted by the Leader of the Opposi tion, we were talking about nationally prepared figures that were calcu lated over a period of time with considera ble study and considera ble expense, which put together current expenditures and capita l expenditures, and projected future needs of both current and capita l at the federal-provincia l and munic ipal level, and putting them together it became abso lutely clear that the federal people were not in any problem si tuation for the future but provin cia l and municipa l are in the future.

And then he talked about the current surplus of the Government of Manitoba, ignoring completely the fact that we had a capital program that lumped together with the current clearly put us into a deficit position. And he ignored and I'm saying, either through ignorance which is not excusable, or delibera tely which is inex cusable. But that's what he did. Mr.

Speaker, we have had dealings with the City of Winnip eg, the newly created City of Winnipeg, for some two years and there are a couple of members opposite who were members of the negotia ting committee, or whatever they called their committee, who came to see govern ment about a year and a half ago and came and said, give us money, we have a proposal. We want to share in growth taxes . We want five percent of certain taxes, growth taxes, this year, and increas ing multiples of five percent up to 25 percent at the end of five years. They said it. One or both were present when it was said.

It was endorsed by the City Council. When the government came back and said, look fellows, how about looking for your own sources of re venue. Shall we discuss that, and made some proposals ; and the proposals included taking over the responsibility and the lia bility of the management of Ass iniboine Park; and they included an offer to make available the right to tax for the enhanced value of land, this committee and their counsel scurried away and stayed away for a year. No more discussi ons about tax policy, nothing more than a rejection of the provinc ia l proposals.

No attempt whatsoever to carry on meaningful discuss ions over a year• s time in order to consider what the future tax policies ought to be. But a week, or was it two weeks, before the City found it necessary -- or maybe a month -- before they had to strike a mill rate, they were back here again in the same old traditiona l way of saying, give us money . Gi ve us money. Don' t give us the ri ght to tax because the right to tax includes the responsibility for taxation. Gi ve us money. You are rich. Give us money. You know, Mr.

Speaker, I got into a problem because at one stage at this meeting I challenged them and I said, why aren't you coming along with a request for tax room? Why, ins tead of saying give us money, are you not saying, give us the ability to obtain money in dif fer ent ways . And they said, what kinds of ways? I said, well r eally that' s for you to study. That's for you to consider, but I could tell you. How about a payroll tax? How about an income tax? How about an increased parking meter on the streets, if you want to do something to help public transit? How about asking for a sales tax ri ghts?

Now I didn' t suggest that any one or other of these were the things they ought to be asking for, but I gave suggestions as to the kinds of things they could be asking for. Tax room, not gimme money. -- (I nterjecti on) -- Now the Member from St. Boniface, who was talking about the need for the Cit y of Winnipeg to raise taxes, is saying that any tax room where they will tax the City of Winnipeg, will be discrim inatory agains t their own members. Mr. Speaker, now I mus t say there's utter stupidity in that statement, and I hate to say that to the Member for St.

Boniface because I've never used that kind of language to him before. But, Mr. S peaker, in order to reduce a pro perty tax that is being paid by City of Winnipeg taxpayers, I suggest that there could be another form of tax room, and he says those would be discri minatory against citiz ens of Winnipeg. Whom would they benefit? Whom would they benefit if not the people who would be the property taxpayers of the City of Winni peg. To say it' s disc riminatory against the City of Winnipeg is ridic ulous. A payroll tax? A payroll tax would indeed bring into the city the payrolls of people who don't live in the city.

Do you realize that? It would be discrim inatory that a person who

May 22, 1974 3757 BILL 61 (MR. CHERNI AC K cont'd) . works in the city and gets paid for working here but lives somewhere else would have to pay that, or his employer would. So now that's the point that the Member for Morris is now realizing that the City of Winnipeg had been busily asking for a share of taxation, of tax revenues which belongs to all the people of Mani toba, including the people from Morris, and when the people from the City of Winnipeg came and said, we want fiv e percent up to 25 percent of the revenues of the province, whose money were they asking for ?

They were asking for the money from the people of the City of Winnipeg, people of the Cit y of Brandon, the people from Swan Ri ver, the people from Morris, the people from everywhere outside of Winnipeg as a contribution. And that was fine. That they had a ri ght to ask for. But the Member for St. Boniface agrees, he agrees that it' s right that they should ask for it. Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't agree with that, and I'm sorry the honourable member - if he wants to ask a question which is truly a question, I will accept it. MR. DE PUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Bonif ace. MR. J. PAUL MAR IO N (St.

Bonifac e): I would like to ask the Honourable Minis ter a question, and it is truly a question. When the official delegation asked, or made the proposal, to introduce that cost-sharing agreement on the growth taxes, did it at any time preclude other municip al governments in this province of asking for exactly the same kind of deal? Was it asking for somethin g unto itself alone ? MR. SPEA KER: The Honourable Minister of Finan ce. MR. CHERNI AC K: You will notice the honourable member said "cost- shari ng" .

I'm sure he did n' t mean that because they didn' t want to share any cost, all they wanted to share was revenue. I was not present but I have read the brief, and I do believe that they did not pre clude it, which justifies the statement of the Minister of Mines yesterday who said, that if in need they plan that this be done for the entire province , then they wanted that in fi ve years' time 50 percent of all the growth revenues of the Province of Manito ba should be paid over to the municip alities. That' s what they wanted. And the Member for St. Bonif ace agrees, although the Member for St.

James has not yet agreed to that statement. He is the one who rejected the thought that he - who should he in this House suggest a percentage, and what the percentage should be. He did not do it. But the Member for St. Boniface agrees. Fifty percent of the revenues of the growth revenues of the Province of Manito ba should go to all the municipalities in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, I must only excuse the Member for St.

Boniface as being a neophyte here and not knowing something about the provincial financial picture to think that one-half of the growth taxes could be passed on to the municipalities without endangering all the programs of the Province of Manitob a is so far beyond anybody's int elligent appraisal of the provinc e' s budget as to make his comment ludicrous. Well, Mr. Speaker, we had discussi ons with the City of Winni peg, year ago, a month ago. At no time do I believ e did the representativ es of Council come with an intelligent approach to discussing a long-range review of tax room, ability to tax.

When I said, why aren't you asking for the right to sales tax? They said, oh yes we like that. You add one percent on to your tax and pay it out to us. We said, no, we want you to have the responsib ility of deciding that if you want one percent of sales tax, you decide that you want to tax one percent. Where are they, Mr. Speaker? They' ve sort of backed away because they did not want the responsib i lity to tax, they wanted the opportunity to share. Gi mme, was the expression they knew.

When we offered them the amusement tax because we said that is an area where Winnipeg is the bigge st contri butor to amusement taxes today, and we said therefore, as one of our reasons, the amusement tax is a field that we will vacate to make it possib le for municipalities, and I explained then that one of the problems of amusement taxation is to review the exemptions, and most of those problems arise in the small towns where there is a community hall where somebody wants to put on a show and wants to have an exemption , where there is a church that is being used for fund raising where they need an exemption ..

Most of the problems of exemp tions are in the small towns, and we felt that the munic ipal councils were more capable of judg ing the validity of taxation or not at the local level than we are here in Winnipeg, and that being one of the problems we thought let each municipality make its own decis ions, and that would give Winnipeg some three-quarters of a million dollars of revenue based on existing taxes of 10 percent, based on existing exemptions in Winni peg. Apparently they don' t want it. Apparently to continue a present tax, to continue a tax, is not acceptable to the City of Winnipeg. Now we're

3758 May 22, 1974 BILL 61 (MR. CHER NI ACK cont' d) . . . • .not sayi ng that they should make it 15 percent instead of 10 percent and then add 50 percent to their revenue, that's their busin ess. We' re not saying to put it in - to cut it in half. That would be their busines s.

But to continue an existing tax is some thing that apparently they don' t want, and I read somewhere they said, somebody said - they didn' t attribute the quote to anybody - somebody in the City said, well if the government wants to give it up, and if that Fi nance Minister want to give it up, then that's a good reason for us not to accept it, there must be something suspicious about it. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. James spoke about attitu des. No I don' t think it was that member, it was someone else who spoke about attitudes as between the city and the provinc e.

But that kind of an attitude sort of makes you feel that the city is not prepared to study tax methods and to have the courage to bring in taxation on their own. If they don' t want, if they reject three-quarters of a million, and of course if they listen to the Leader of the Oppos ition who can blame them? He ju st told us that the cost of - yesterday - that the cost of collec tion is some $400, 000 because he said that the net would be $300, 000. Mr.

Speaker, that shows the lack of, again, either integrity in making statements, or knowledge of the Leader of the Opposition in suggesting that the costs of collecting that amusement tax is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $400, 000. It is so fantastically wrong that I phoned my department today and I asked, how many people are involved in collecting amusement taxation? I learned that there is not one individual who does only that.

The amusement taxes in the main come from movie theatres, and the movie theatres have a regular procedure whereby they fill out forms - I don' t know how often, weekly I suppose - and remit their cheques. The enforcement means that when ever a tax auditor goes into any one place where there is amusement tax collected, he checks that as well as other things . So I said in the Ci ty of Wi nnipeg what would they need ? They said they would need a clerk, they would need one tax assessor, one reviewer, and maybe they would need a stenographer.

I would guess - and there was a figure given to me of some $20, 000, but let' s say that that is too low so it might cost 30, 000 so it might cost 40, 000. But to put that figure at some 400, 000 is only an indication of the value of the contribution made by the Leader of the Opposition to this debate yesterday. It was just that kind of speech he made where I feel that the person who does his research was not a participant in that at all, because there was just no validity to anything he stated of a factual nature.

And when he called me hypocritical, that's an example of not realizing or understanding, or wishing to, what was said in Ottawa at the time. Of course he and members opposite are supporting the idea that any increase in cost of the City of Winnipeg is completely attributable to the combination of services in Winnipeg, and of course the Member for St. James feels badly about his tax increase. Of course he doesn' t for one moment regret the fact that for many many years he as a resident of St. James was the beneficiary of the tremendous industrial complex in St.

James, which in itself earned money out of all the other taxpayers of the City of Winnipeg, that he doesn' t resent at alL He never reject ed that benefit he received. But suddenly today he is saying they're taking away that asset of Ass iniboine Park. Mr. Speaker, can you comprehend the problem that must race around in the mind of the Member for St. James of trying to understand why it is that as a former citizen of St. James he could benefit from the fact that the airport was in St.

James, that there was all that industry there, that I used the airport and was thus able to contribute to the fact that there was an industrial complex there that other people from Winnipeg, and all of Manitoba, added to the industrial complex of St. James, that was fine. He would be happy to be the beneficiary of the reduced tax rate because of that.

But when the City of Winnipeg, the former Cit y of Winnipeg of which I was a taxpayer, builds, purchased, maintained, developed the Ass iniboine Park, and he was closer to it than I was, and he and his family no doubt made full use of Ass iniboine Park when it was a Cit y of Winnipeg property, I don' t remember his saying we should be contri buting to that; there should be some entry fee. He didn' t say it at alL He did not for one moment say, I feel that I am using something that somebody else built. He did not for one moment say, I feel that I am using something that somebody else built. You know, Mr.

Speaker, one of the most conservative people I was with on Cit y Council of the City of Winnipeg, was Waiter Crawford, who was the Chairman of Fi nance, I think - well part of the time that I was there - a conservative man with his approach to many philosophical

May 22, 1974 3759 BILL 61 (MR. CHERNIACK cont'd) . matters but one who had a real understanding of money, of money's use and a real commonsense approach. I respected him for his mind, I respected him for his opinions that he held ; I didn' t agree with him in many respects, but I respected him .

And I recall vividly how when I was a councillor of the Cit y of Winnipeg - and before Metro was actually enacted, but while it was in the debate stage in this building - there was talk then about Metro being given Assi niboine Park and Kildonan Park to take over as a responsibility without paying anything for it, but just taking it over. And indeed my fellow aldermen were screaming, What do .y ou mean? The Cit izens of Winnipeg have built, contributed to building these wonder ful parks, and then all you do is just give it to Metro; and when you give it to Metro, why the people of St.

James will get a benefit, look, the y're going to acquire an asset. The people of St. James will be beneficiar ies of what Roblin was doing when he was transferring Ass iniboine Park from the Cit y of Winnipeg to the Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg. MR. F. JOHNSTON: What side of the river is the park on? MR. CHERNI ACK: Well, Mr. Speaker, it 's not my job to give geographic lessons to the Member for Sturgeon Creek, but he should know that rivers don't exist where there are bridg es. However, I' ll ignore that. The fact is that citizens of St. James, citizens of Ass iniboia and St.

James - and I believe the Member for Sturgeon Creek lives in one or other of those areas where people who did not contribute a penny to Ass iniboine Park, a penny to Ass iniboine Park at the time Metro was created - and citizens of Winnipeg then were saying, You're giving up an asset to those people that didn' t contribute . Walter Crawford sat there, he laughed and he said, Are you people so dull and so dumb that you cannot comprehend that a park, no matter what it costs, is an amenity to a city but a liability to the treasury ?

He said, Can' t you conceive that unless you are going to subdivide and sell that park for development, that that park is a burden and you should be happy to be relieved of the burden at the expense of those who are the users of the park - and that is all of Metropolitan Winnipeg including St. James, including the Member for St. James and his family, who no doubt have made use of it. He said it is fair, only fair and proper that the users of the parks who are the members of the Metropolitan Corporation area should be the payers for it, and we in the City of Winnipeg are better off because it is a liability.

And here we have the Member from St. James, who until 10 years ago wouldn' t have - well, wouldn' t have dared say that he had a stake, a share in one blade of grass in Assi niboine Park; who is now righteously saying that we, the province took away from the ci ty this great asset. It is a marvelous asset, an asset to people, not to money.

It is an asset to those who use it, not to the statement of assets and liabilities of any munic ipal corporation, but it is a marvelous amenity and has become such to the extent that it is used not only by the present City of Winnipeg but it is a provincial park in nature and for that reason we undertook it. I would think that the member who sits to his left, the Member for Pembina may com plain about the province taking over the cost of Assi niboine Park because -- (Interjec tion) -- - to his left - Ass iniboine Park, because his people are contributing to the cost of maintaining Ass iniboine Park.

Maybe he'll say that, and the Member for Swan River seems to agree; and yet the Member for St. James says, You're taking it away, and I have not yet heard the Mem ber for Pembina or Swan River say, You shouldn' t have taken it away because we resent the expenditure of provincial funds. Because you can• t have it both ways ; one way or the other, fellows, get together in caucus and make your decisions about your attitude.

Meanwhile I can say, that in addition to the 1. 9 million dollars esti mated for Ass iniboine Park maintenance, the Urban Transit Operating Grant was increased by some 1. 7 million in this year' s, making the grant 3. 8 million.

The Regional Street Maintenance Grant was increased by some $700, 000, to make it close to 2 million; Magistrates Court is being as sumed at a relief of - cost" of some 400, 000; Unconditional Grant has been increased by some 30 0, by a third of a million dollars; Innovative Urban Transportation Grants have been authorized to the extent Of close to half a million dollars; Health Department Grants was increased by close to $200, 000; Transit Bus purchases are being contin ued; Provincial Grants in lieu of taxes of course, are incre ased merely because of the increase in mill rate and there is therefore considerable that is being done to recognize that.

But let• s not forget that the responsibility for the provision of services in the City of Winnipeg is with the councillors, two of whom deserted their council to come here; that the

3760 May 22, 1974 BILL 61 (MR. CHERNIA CK cont' d) . responsi bility for maintaining a level of cost which is acceptable is that of the Council, and the responsibility for deciding on the distri bution of ser vice is that of Council. And I am rather sick of hearing members opposite and members in the Cit y saying that the unification of the Cit y of Winnipeg forced an immediate increase in levels of service and in levels of cost, because that is not so, because there are people in the former suburban areas who were not getting the same level of servic es .

Nowhere do I see that it was necessary in one year to raise the level of services to that of the others, nor am I aware was there a compulsion to maintain a high level of service all along the board. Equalization of mill rate, equalization of assessment, equalization of tax base, equalization of revenues and equal ization of responsibilities doesn' t mean to the highest level. But the councillors were incapable of measuring up to that kind of responsib ility, and I accuse them of that.

And the Member for Sturgeon Creek seems to feel that it is the union that makes all the decisions, and if one were to believe him, one would believe that the unions are doing the work of the council lors . And why the councillors are there, I don' t know, because he seems to feel that a union is to be blamed for attempting to raise the pay of its members. I don' t blame them one bit, but I do blame councillors for increasing services to the extent where they are amal gamating the police force and concurrrently they're increasing the number of policemen. I don't know, it' s not my responsibility.

But just like they feel free to criticise us, I feel free to wonder that when we had 12 police forces, and we are amalgamating them, they now find it nec essary to increase the number. Where the people apparently were satisf ied with a reduced number in various areas, now suddenly there's a need for an increase.

And if indeed there is a need for an increase, then the honourable members opposite should realize that there is an improvement in service; and if the councillors in their wisdom decide that is is necessary to increase the number of police force to provide a greater service to their residents, then they are recognizing obviously that the residents were not getting an adequate service before; and if in their wisdom they feel it necessary so to do, then they go ahead and do it and that• s their responsibility.

But don' t come here and say it' s because of unification; unification made it pos si ble, but did not make it ess ential. And I say that members of the City Council who don' t agree with an improvement of service or who don' t agree with an increase in cost in certain areas, should have said so rather than coming here and saying, We need more money, it is your fault.

I don' t blame them one bit for asking for a greater participation in the revenues of the provin ce; but not to say, Gimme, but rather to say, Give us tax room, let' s discuss what we can do, be cause I believe it is true to say that Winnipeg today is getting more from its provincial govern ment than any other large urban area in Canada, and that is a statement that• s been made time and again without challenge . Now, Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Sturgeon Creek invited us to take pencil in hand and even showed us how to hold a pencil in our hands, for which of course I appreciate his lesson - even though he doesn't know what side of the river Assi niboine Park is on. And I did write down what he said, and here is what I think he said - and I want him to take, not pencil in hand, but take his fig ures before him because I want to repeat them back to him to make sure I' ve got them . -- (Interjection) -- Well I think he can read, because he read the figures - and he has a library, he showed us his book once.

He said I believe, that in 1969 the tax bill of that person that he took as his example totalled $949; that is provincial, medicare premiums and real pro perty tax, $949 -- (Interjection) -- 99 ? Oh, 94 9. And he said that in 1974 a person earning the same income, occupying the same assessed value of home, would be charged a tax of $1246, would be getting a rebate through this Bill we are discuss ing today, of $1 90, netting 1, 056 as his cost. And he' s nodding his head, Mr. Speaker, so I took his figures down correctly. Mr. Speaker, from 1969 to 1974, that person's cost has risen by $10 7 in taxation. MR. F.

JOHNSTON: I gave him back 190, and he's sti ll paying more. MR. CHERNIACK: Yes, he' s paying $107 more, Mr. Speaker, taking into account what we all recogni ze; the cost of government having gone up just along with all the inflationary costs; the cost of government at every level; the provision of servic es ; the increased cost of health, both medical and hospital; which has gone up tremendously and has been absorbed by the pro vin ce; the increased cost of every service that is being contributed has gone up.

And we know that a man earning $6, 000 at that time is certai nly earning more now, but that person at that level is paying more - we know that, but let' s not forget that there are tremendous changes in

May 22, 1974 3761 BILL 61 (MR. CHERNIACK cont' d) . . . . . the contributions which he is recei ving, the services he is receiving from government now than he was then. Mr. Speaker, I have before me one of the inserts in the tax bill that was referred to by the Member for Riel, where the Cit y of Winnipeg gave its breakdown of revenue and expendi tures. Mr. Speaker, it shows 75 cents coming out of realty tax; it shows grants in lieu of taxes of 4. 6 cents ; it doesn' t indicate that that is half provincial, half federal, approximately.

It says Provincial Government Grants of 6. 9 cents, and it shows in the expenditures as if the Cit y of Winnipeg itself is paying for schools some $74, 000, 000. 36. It was apparent to me as soon as I saw it, that the City of Winnipeg was playing a - what did the Le ader of the Opposit ion Liberal for Sturgeon Creek call it ? That game they're so familiar wi th ? A MEMBER: The shell game. MR. CHERNI ACK: The shell game, that's the game that they'r e familiar with and which the City of Winnipeg was us ing, because I saw that what they said, 36 cents on the dollar in ex penditures.

The Cit y of Winnipeg isn't, isn' t, isn' t paying the school board for education for schools; it is collecting taxes for schools . And if the truth were told as it should be, then the money p aid to schools out of the tax dollar are only a part of the total burden of education costs in the Cit y of Winnipeg. The City didn1t tell us that, they took the one sided figure of the pro perty tax and presented it as if it's 100 percent.

So if we take that schools out of it, and we look at it, I find - and these are the figures provided to me, and they're rough, because they were only prepared within the last half hour - that the realty tax levy is some 54 percent, that is after taking out school grants and adding transit grants, because the transit utility is kept as a separate budgetary item apparently by the Cit y of Winnipeg; but since there is a contribution by the province, we have added it back. And as I say, these figures are rough and are subject to review and correCtion.

Realty tax some 54 percent; business tax some 10 percent; utility sales tax 1-1/2 percent; grants in lieu of taxes, close to 7 pet 'cent; provincial government grants something in excess of 10 per cent; provincial transit assista nce almost 4 percent, and then there is some mis cellaneous.

So breaking that down, esti mating provincial grants in lieu of taxes at about half of the total, we find the contri bution from the provin ce ; in grants, 4-1/2 million - in grants in lieu of taxes rather, 4-1/2 million; in grants themselves 13, 688 , 000; in Transit grants something over $5 million, a total of $23 million or about 17 -1 /2 percent, not the figure of 6. 9 as it appears in the tax enclosure of the City. And this, Mr. Speaker, does not include capital grants which are for regional streets, municipal loan fund, centennial grant, convention centre etc.

It does not include the transi tional tax base equalization payment, which this year is some 3/4 of a million, and it does not include any of the benefits under the Property Tax Credit Plan. If you look at the schools, Mr.

Speaker, we find the realty taxes at 49 .4 5 percent on school levy; we find the grants in lieu of school taxes of 8 million plus of which the province I assume contributes half; we find the net provincial contribution of some 42 . 33 percent of school costs; and I find here that the province contributes approxim ately 45 percent of sch ool costs before calculating the impact of the Property Tax Credit Plan. These are the things that the member should bear in mind.

So we find that the total contribution of municip al, some 23 million out of 132 million is 17. 5 percent; in schools of 59 million out of 129 million is 45 per cent; it averages out to 31 . 35 percent. And if you add the estima ted Property Tax Credit for the Winnipeg people - and that• s credit to people on the basis of their property taxes and their income - another 27 million, we find a provincial contribution of 109 .million out of a total muni cipal and school cost of $262 million, which is some 41 percent of the total cost. And that' s, Mr.

Speaker, the value of the cit y' s insert with their tax bill and that of the members opposite who commented. Now, Mr. Speaker, I' d like to deal somewhat with the tax rebate itself. I want to talk about the difference in people and I want to tell the Honourable Member for St. James that at $14, 000 a year income, he is probably in a group of 10 percent . MR. SPEA KER: The Honourable Member for St. James. MR. MINA KER: . . . personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, I didn' t say it was my in come. I was using it as an example of a person with a family of three.

I didn' t suggest that it was my income, just to make that point. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Fi nance.

3762 May 22, 1974 BILL 61 MR. CHERNIAC K: Mr. Speaker, I misu nderstood, but that doesn' t really matter. It' s none of my concern really how much he earns and I hope he earns more than I think he earns. Mr. Speaker, at $14, 000 a year income he is probably- that person, that mythical person - is probably in the 5 or 10 percent bracket of people who earn in excess of 14, 000 and over. The vast majority of our wage earners earn less, and substantially less than $14, 000 a year. So it is true, you talk about the middle income poor, and that' s why I asked the Member for Riel what is his definition.

As I recall it he said from 5, 000 to 15, 000, but generally a person with a family who earns $7, 000 is to him middle income poor. -- (Interjection) -- Well no, I wish the Member for Sturgeon Creek would tell the Member for Riel not to be ridi culous, because I'm quoting him . He said that, what I just said, which the Member for Sturgeon Creek said is ridiculous, but of course he doesn' t have to agree with the Member for Riel ; he can have his own opinions and I honour him for having them. -- (Interjection) -- I think he'd rather we didn't talk to him but unfortunately I don' t have a choice.

I have to talk to the Member for Riel because in this House I have to carry on a debate, so being given a choice, I really wouldn' t seek him out to talk to him but that's the way it is. Mr. Speaker, I' m glad the Member for Sturgeon Creek recognizes sarcasm, what is said by others; I don' t know if he re cognizes it when he uses it himself. Mr.

Speaker, I find a statement which I would like to quote to honourable members, it says: "T o the extent that regressive tendencies do exist in the property tax, their effects have been sharply curtailed by provincial legislation providing for property tax rebates, homeowner grants and credits and subsidies agai nst income tax.

" Honourable members would think that this was written in the New Democrat magazine or in some of the material that we distribute, but indeed it was part of a paper presented by the Federal Government at a federal Tri- Level Conference which was held last October, and it is a statement made by the federal people in recognition by them of something that the honourable members opposite seem to reject. May I also read another statement.

It' s a resolution, and I'll just read one of the pre amble portions which reads: "W hereas this conference commends governmental policies which have cushioned the effects of inflation, such as increases in the minimum wage, certain tax credit programs and certain income redistri bution policies, " and the conclusion is, "Th ere fore this conference recommends further provincial and federal governmental actions to cush ·· ion the effects of inflation and to combat it directl y. " And members opposite will think that this is a resolution of the last convention of the New Democratic Party but, Mr.

Speaker, it wasn' t. It happens to have been passed on May 17, 1974 - just a week ago - in Jasper, Alberta, at a conference of provincial Consumer Af fairs Ministers, at which this was accepted unan imously. And I questioned the Minister of Consumer Af fai rs, who was there, as to whether everyone was there at the time, and he said, "No, the Ontario delegation left before the final wording , " but I' m not going to worry about that because they brought in this form of credit plan before we did, although we both negotiated concurrently with the Federal Government.

But of course the Member for Sturgeon Creek, I think he said they were -- did he say "cr azy" ? He said something yes terday in describing the Ontario Conservatives for what they have done in their tax polici es. I also was told that the Minister from Newfoundland left before the con clusion of this so that we cannot say that he endorsed the exact wording. But this princip le was accepted by all the Ministers present at that meeting. Mr. Speaker, we do know that the Ontario Government has carried it forward.

It' s interesting to know that the Conservative Ontario has carried forward a tax credit program which is not as large in its contribution as that of the Province of Manito ba. They call it a fair share -- Well, let me show you what they call it. Yes, the Member for Sturgeon Creek wants to see the ad, he asked me to show it to him and here it is.

"G et your fair share of Ontari o's new tax credits ." The Member for Morris says it' s wasteful extravagance and, you know, this self-serving advertisement of the Ontario Government, it says, "T wo out of three people who filed income tax returns will share in the 300 million tax credit s, " and they enumer ate who they are, they tell them they should make sure to file their income tax return, and they even give examples with pictures, if you please. Pictures. Mrs. Gloria Prentice is a secretary supporting two children. She gets $1 58. 00 Ontario tax.

You know, if she lived in Winni peg, Manitoba she'd get more. Mr. Art Kuluchi, Assis tant Sales Manager, married with five children; he gets $1 21. 00; he'd get more if he lived in

May 22, 1974 3763 BILL 61 (MR. CHERNI ACK cont'd ) . Manitoba. Mr. Olgurts K . . a miner ; he's mar- ried with four children and he gets $1 23. 00. And Mrs. Mary Zuber, a pensioner, a widow living alone, her Ontario tax credit is $273. 00.

Let me talk for a minute about the Member for Sturgeon Creek who said, "T his ad is an indication of what is advisa ble to do to make sure that people who have a benefit are able to get the full share of their benefit ." The nature of the wording is one that I don't have to subscribe to, but I want to talk about the Member for Sturgeon Creek who looked up at the Golden Age Club and he said, "We in the Conservative Party have concern about pensione rs. We said, eliminate education tax. " Mr. Speaker, does not the -- (Interjec tion) -- for old age, for senior citizens.

Does not the Member for Sturgeon Creek realize that in this program, against which he voted before and is going to vote again, does more than eliminate the education tax of the senior citizens of this provinc e? Doesn' t he know that? -- (Interjection) -- No, it doesn' t for everybody. It doesn' t for the Minister . of Lab our. He' s the one who said, "At my income I don't get it , because I'm a senior citize n. " However he does get $150. 00. That's the minimum and that comes very close to paying, I dOn't know, a very subs tantial part of his education property tax. But that's true.

The Member for Sturgeon Creek apparently wished to eliminate education property tax from all senior citizens regardless of income, and we differed from him on that. But we have done fairly good, we have done fairly good, and maybe I should refer to that right now. Maybe I should ask the Member for Sturgeon Creek to keep quite for awhile because I don't think he can hear me while he listens to him self, and if he wants to listen to me he should stop making his own obstruction. Mr. Speaker, here is an interes ting statistic that appears attached to the Budget Address 1974, Manitoba.

I'd like him to take his pencil - he knows how to write - and with his pencil if he will note this : that the claimants, the number of individuals receiving maximum benefits under the 1972 Manitoba Edu cation Property Tax Credit Plan, 47 percent of all claimants re ceived the maximum benefit. Let the Member for St. James consider for a minute who are in the middle income poor, if he knows that 47 percent of all claimants received the maximum be benefit, maximum benefit. Let him think about middle income poor when he knows that 84 per cent of all pensioners received not partial, but maximum benefits, 84 percent.

Let him know that 62 percent of farmers received the maximum benefit, not the partial benefit, and let him realize when we talk about middle income poor we are talking here in our tax about the large majority of people who are in that income group which is in the greatest need . And these are figu res about which I am proud and I know my colleagues share that, and which mus t make members of the Conservative Party feel pretty cheap in voting agai nst. Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Riel spoke about a $7, 000 income person, $7, 000 gross income person, and I am reading now again from Page 87 of the Budget document, that is after the addition of the $50. 00 that is covered in this bill: "Th e total benefits payable to a married taxpayer with two dependants under age 16 with $7, 000 income is $268. 52. " It does not cut out, Mr.

Speaker, for a married person with two dependants untilyou reach $15, 000, at which time it levels at $150. 00 minimum payable, but up to $15, 000 income there is a reducing bene fit which started at $326. 76, and that' s for a married taxpayer with two dependants under 16. For a married taxpayer over 65, the benefits start at $335. 28; they reduce as income increases and at $15, 000 they level off at $150. 00. Does that cover your middle income poor ? No. Well I don' t know; the Member for St. James is shaking his head.

I don' t want to attribute to him the thought that middle income poor are in a higher bracket than 15, 000 a year. No, of course, I'd be wrong in that, but there is a reducing amount to that extent. So I don' t weep, I don' t weep for the people he represents, for the concept he represents in terms of income as being the people entitled to greater benefit at those high inco mes. May I tell you, though, Mr.

Speaker, compared with crazy Ontario - and I use the word "crazy" only in the term that I be lieved was used by the Member for Sturgeon Creek - we are giving more to people of a $15, 000 income than is Ontario. We find here that the difference between what we are giving on our tax credit benefit is some $82. 00 higher than Ontario at a $1 5, 000 income,

whereas it' s only $59 . 00 higher at lower incomes. And that is a quirk of the changes in taxation effect between us. I have here a copy of the Ontario budget, 1974, where they talk about enriched tax credits being involved including doubling of the property credit, where they talk about substan tial improvement and enrichment of Ontari o's tax credits, doubling the credit from $90. 00 to 180. 00, pensioner credit from 100. 00 to 110. 00 and tax credit entitlement from 400. 00 to

3764 May 22, 1974 BILL 61 (MR. CHE RNIA CK cont'd) . . • • • 500. 00. And, Mr. Speaker, we've already given figures to indicate that the tax credit benefits given by the Province of Manitoba are in excess of those given by Ontario but along the same lin es . But of course the Member for Sturgeon Creek is not alone. He has the company of every member on his side who votes against this bill and who therefore, by voting, supports his statement in attacking the Ontario government and is ac tually dis agreeing with the Ontario government's attitude on taxation in this respect.

They are voting against, and yet they use the same name, we are Progressive Conservativ es ; I suppose when Stanfield comes here they will greet him the same as the people of Ontario will greet him. But if we talk philoso phy - and we did Mr. Speaker, if we talk philosophy and we did except for the Leader of the Opposi tion, then what is the philoso phy of a Conservative of Ontario compared wi th the philoso phy of a Conservative of Manitoba ?

And I want to conclude with that question, because since I don' t have the ability to recognize the dif ference between Conservatives of Ontario and of Manitoba, and probably of Alberta which also has a tax credit scheme, I come back to a statement made by the Member for Lake side. The Member for Lak eside, who was comparing our phil osophies, said that the NDP believes in the greater management of the affairs of Manitoba, and that to him is the big difference, the big difference as he sees it - and I agree with him ; he' s right. Mr.

Speaker, I say that the reason that members opposite are voting against this is that they were caught in a trap. Was it last year or two years ago they voted agains t this because they did not want to give credit to the government for bringing in a worthwhile plan that is help ful to people of Manito ba? This year they are voting against it because if they vote for it it will be a further indication that they accept the fact that this is a worthwhile program ; and they don't, and they've made all their speeches.

And the main difference - and that's a practical, that's not a philosophic difference - the philosophic difference raised by the Member for Lake si de with which I agree, is that we in the NDP believe in a greater management of the affairs of Manitoba, because, Mr. Speaker, in 100 years we have found that the way the affairs of Manitoba and of this country were managed by those in control was such that kept the poor poor and kept the rich rich, only made the difference even greater. Mr.

Speaker, the New Democratic Party lost complete faith in the free enterprise system, in the laissez faire approach which some of the die-hard Conservatives still have, and I don't say that that approach, that free enterprise, laissez-f aire approach is one that their leadership or their brains really endorses. It' s the people who lack them, who work by tradi tion, who are still hung-up on that.

And I don' t say the Liberals are really for free enterprise, for laissez-f aire, because every government in this country other than a New Democratic government has brought in all kinds of measures to try and patch up the capitalist sys tem, the laissez-f aire system, which has acted to destroy lives of people, honour and integrity amongst people, and therefore there isn' t the slightest doubt in my mind that there is that difference and we do believe that it is high time that government became involved in something si mple like in this bill, a redis tribution of income and a reduction of taxation for those for whom the burden is greatest, for an effort to make sure that when tax credits are given, when there is a reduc tion, it is given to those who are most hurt by taxation and the cost of living.

And that's basi cally the difference between us. Across- the-board on that side, preferential and selective on our side. And if you call that management, we accept that, we agree, and that' s really why we are here on this side and why the opposition is there. Because the people of Manitoba are re alizing where their interests rea lly lie . QUESTION on second reading of Bill No. 61 put, MOTION carried. (On Division) MR. SPEA KER: The hour being almost the time of adjournment, I am now adjourning the House and we shall reconvene at 2: 30 this afternoon.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-1-135
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 1st hansardpdf 135.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5014ecce9cc8256e6ed0e5cdb8eaf9f82ace5459

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