Manitoba Hansard — 22 May 1973 (Sitting 115, 29th Legislature, 5th Session)

29-5-115

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 o'clock, Tuesday, May 22, 1973 3149 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees. The Honourable Member for Logan. REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE MR. WILLIAM JENKINS (Logan): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments. MR. CLERK: Your Committee has considered Bills: (No. 6) -

An Act to amend The Sale of Goods Act. (No. 7) -

An Act to amend The Bills of Sale Act. (No. 8) -

An Act to amend The Assignments of Book Debts Act. (No. 9) -

An Act to amend and repeal The Lien Notes Act. (No. 13) -

An Act to amend The Local Authorities Elections Act. (No. 18) -

An Act to amend The Employment Safety Act. (No. 24) -

An Act to amend The Crop Insurance Act. (No. 39) -

An Act to amend The Manitoba Water Services Board Act. (No. 53) -

An Act to amend

An Act to amend The School Tax Reduction Act. And has agreed to report the same without amendment. Your Committee has also considered Bills: (No. 5) - The Personal Property Security Act. (No. 35) -

An Act to amend The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. (No. 36) -

An Act to incorporate the Certified General Accountants Association of Manitoba. (No. 44) - The Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Act. And has agreed to report the same with certain amendments. All of which is respectfully sub mitted. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Vital, that the report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements; Tabling of Reports; Notices of Motion; Introduction of Bills. The Honourable Minister of Labour. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON.

RUSSELL PAULLEY (Minister of Laboury (Transcona), on behalf of the Honourable First Minister, introduced Bill No. 67,

an Act to validate an Agreement dated the lOth day of May, A. D., 1973, and made between The Brandon Centennial Auditorium Corporation Incorporated and the Government of Manitoba, Brandon University and the City of Brandon. MATTER OF URGENCY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR . GORDON E. JOHNSTON (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye,

WHEREAS the Chairman of the Manitoba Farm Credit Corporation who is also the Chairman of the Manitoba Hog Marketing Board has actively campaigned for the government as guest speaker at an NDP nominating convention; and

WHEREAS the same person has seen fit to launch a political attack on members of the Legislature who sit on the opposite side; and

WHEREAS the remarks by the Chairman as reported in the Swan River Star and Times on May 17th, 1973 indicate that he has had access to information which could only be supplied by the Department of Health and Social Development, and he used such information which is normally considered confidential to try to denigrate certain members of the opposition in a political manner; THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the regular business of the House be now adjourned in order to debate a matter of urgent public importance, namely the matter of heads of Crown

3150 May 22, 1973 MATTER OF URGENCY (MR. G. JOHNSTON cont'd) ..... corporation actively campaigning for the NDP govern ment while still holding office. MR. SPEAKER: According to our procedure before I accept the motion we have the opportunity of each of the parties having five minutes in which to explain their matter of urgency. The honourable member will have first opportunity. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, during this past session which is rapidly drawing to a close there has not been one emergency debate allowed this year, and as my memory serves me I don't think there was one last year.

And I refer mainly to your rulings on the various questions which were raised, first and mainly on the grounds that the questions under considera tion could be discussed under some of the following terms: (

a) under the Estimates, which are now passed; (

b) under grievance which - and I question that, Mr. Speaker, because under grievance a member can only rise once and usually on matters to do with his constituency; (

c) under bills that may within some broad measure be able to bring in the subject matter. And when I examine the bills before us, Mr. Speaker, I see no way that this important subject can be debated. Then finally, it has been suggested by the Chair that a matter that has been raised can be discussed under Order for Return. So I say, Mr .. .. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister state his point of order. MR.

PAULLEY: May I have a copy of the motion proposed by my honourable friend the Member for Portage la Prairie so that I might assess, as the present Leader, Deputy Premier, the contents thereof. MR. SPEAKER: That point of order has been in order. Order please. Let me also caution the honourable member that I hope his debate on urgency will not impinge on past rulings of the Chair. The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR . G.

JOHNS TON: So finally, Sir, I say to you that it cannot possibly be discussed under an Order for Return because the government has control and by past practice, and I don't say this government but any government, gives government business precedence so it's no way this matter can be discussed. Finally I say again, when one peruses the bills that are before us there is

an Act how ever, Bill 55, to amend The Civil Service Act, and I submit to you this matter cannot be dis cussed under that item because we're speaking now about the head of a Crown corporation which is not in the Civil Service. So I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and I tried to stay away from the subject matter while I await your ruling, but I suggest to you that if the Chairman of the Manitoba Hydro or the Chairman of the Manitoba Telephone System campaigned against the government the followi. ng day his resignation would be asked for. I leave it at that. MR . SPEAKER: Any other further urgent debate?

Five minutes. MR . SIDNEY SPIVAK, Q. C. (Leader of the Opposition) (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, there have been several emergency debates that have been requested in this House, none of them more serious than the one that's been suggested now. Mr. Speaker, the reasons for the emergency debate relates to the fact that a person placed in responsibility in a sensitive area to serve all the people of Manitoba has seen fit to serve the political party that placed him in that position. Mr. Speaker, the question of the morality of the New Democratic Party is at stake. As well, Mr.

Speaker, it comes at a time when we are witnessing in the United States the agony which is taking place where political appointees in high places have exercised their loyalty to the party rather than their loyalty to the people of the United States. Mr.

Speaker, this emergency debate is warranted, because we have in the course of conduct that has taken place a severe breakdown in the proper and appropriate action by those who have been given responsibility by government to exercise it on behalf of all the people who now deem it more important to try and elect a party than to carry on with the independence that they must show in exhibiting and in carrying out their respon sibility, particularly one which deals with almost every farmer in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, this debate, this emergency debate is warranted. (Applause) MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman or Mr. Speaker, I apologize, Sir, the question before the House is one of urgency and within the rules of the House. I can well imagine that the

May 22, 1973 3151 MATTER OF UR GENCY (MR. PAULLEY cont'd) • . . • • sponsor of this resolution, the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie and the Honourable Member from River Heights would be most desirable of imputing motives and attempted . • . --(Interjection)- - Mr. Speaker, I hope you deduct from my time the interjections from either one of them. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. MR . PA UL LEY: I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that with this proposition the net effects would be to deny any member of any corporation to expressing an opinion. I draw to your at tention . . • --(Inter jection)-- MR .

SPEAKER: Order, please. MR . PAULLEY: Oh let the rabble from Swan River shut up. Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention that the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs is the Chairman of the Manitoba Housing Corporation.

He is also very much involved in the Autopac operation, Manitoba in surance , the Chairman of Autopac and if the proposition of an emergent debate as proposed by the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie was accepted by this House, my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, would be deprived of taking --(Interjection)-- Oh you wouldn't understand because you're so damned stupid -- my honourable friend the Minister of Municipal Affairs would be deprived . . . MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. MR . PAULLEY: Nobody can smear more than the Honourable Member from Swan River. But anyway, Mr.

Speaker, let us take a look at the resolution of the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie.

Whereas the Chairman of the Manitoba Farm Credit Corporation who is also Chairman of the Manitoba Hog Marketing Board has actively campaigned for the government as a guest speaker at an NDP nominating convention. Mr. Speaker, we live, I hope, despite the sugges tions of the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie and from Swan River, I hope that we live in a democracy when anybody can have the right of free expression. MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR . G.

JOHNSTON: I thought our rules called upon us to discuss in the five minutes allotted to us for each party the merits of the resolution, not the contents of the resolution. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Not the merits of the -- Order, please -- Not the merits of the resolution but the merits of urgency only. The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR . PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, you're so right, the matter of urgency. And I can under stand where my honourable friend . . A MEMBER: Your urgency. MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. Would everyone kindly keep quiet.

I think that it be hooves us all to act like ladies and gentlemen and to be courteous and to keep quiet when another member has the floor. The members that can't contain themselves there are places where we can wet our whistle or do something else but not shout in this Chamber. Now I have to add that time that I have taken up and that other members have taken up to the Honourable Minister of Labour's time. I think that we can get the five minutes over with. The Honourable Minister has two and a half minutes left. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR . WARNER H.

JORGENSON (Morris): On that particular point, I agree that other members should remain quiet while an honourable member has the floor. The Minister of Labour is one that could really follow that advice. But at the same time, Sir, our rules pro vide that the matter of urgency is the only thing that can be debated. The Minister was far astray from that particular point at the time that he was interrupted. I ask you, Sir, to deal in that particular point and that particular point only. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR . PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I do not fault the Honourable Member for Morris because of his unintelligibility to be able to consider the matter before us, If, Mr. Speaker, the matter of urgency was the prime motivation tonight - and I want to draw to the attention of this House, Mr.

Speaker, that there is a bill before this House dealing with the involvement of the Civil Service in matters political, and I also want to draw to the attention of this Assembly that in the resolution proposed by the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie, that he is referring to a report which was contained in the Swan River Star which is the organ of the Member for Swan River. A MEMBER: Point of order.

3152 May 22, 1973 MATTER OF URGENCY MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Portage state his point of order. MR . G. JOHNSTON: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is, and I thought I made it clear, but my honourable friend is still hard of hearing I see; that this matter cannot be discussed under Bill 55,

an Act to amend The Civil Service Act. We•re talking about the chairman of a Crown corporation, we're not talking about a civil servant. I hope my honourable member takes the correction in a kind manner. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR . PAULLEY: I also want to point out, Mr. Speaker, insofar as the matter of urgency is concerned that the remarks of the Chairman of the Hog Marketing Board were contained in an editorial of the Conservative organ of the Swan River Times or News on May 17th which was over a week ago; and insofar as urgency is concerned, Mr.

Speaker, the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie • . . MR . SPEAKER: Order, MR . PAULLEY: MR . SPEAKER: Order, of order. please. had ample time to introduce this at that time. please. The Honourable Member for Swan River state his point MR . JAMES H. BILTON (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. What a babe in the wilderness! I was being fair to the NDP Party by having the report of their meeting placed on the front page of this paper and it was • • • MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. Order, please. ORDER PLEASE . ORDER PLEASE. That is not a point of order.

Would everyone kindly contain themselves. And I mean everyone. The Honourable Minister of Labour has one minute left. MR . PAULLEY: Ah, but, Mr. Speaker, there' s been so many interjections I only want to -- (Interjection)--Mr. Speaker, I don't care a continental whether it was an editorial or not. --(Interjection)--I wonder if my honourable friend from Swan River who is the proprietor of this paper would only desist just for a moment in order for me to indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no urgency because the

article referred to by the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie was contained in the Swan River Times on May 17th, a week ago. If there was urgency, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest that there was not, that the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie, who apparently is a subscriber to that paper that comes out from Swan River, has had an opportunity on the basis of urgency to raise it before. And in addition to that . . . MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. Order, please. Order, please. The honourable gentleman' s time is up. The Honourable Member for Portage have a further point of order? MR . G.

JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, and I raise the question seriously, the newspaper is a weekly and it's the first time it' s been in our hands. There has been a long weekend and it's not a daily paper. MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. This is not a point of order. It' s a matter of opinion. Order, please. The Honourable Member for Swan River have another point of order? MR .

BILTON: On the point of order for the edification of the House, may I explain to you, Sir, and to the honourable members that the newspaper is published on Thursday and it takes the post office four days to get it to Winnipeg. MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. That too is not a point of order. Order, please. That includes the Member for Lakeside. He•s out of order too, I do hope I' ll get the co-operation of the honourable members tonight. Let .me indicate that in the opinion of -- first of all, let me thank the honourable members for their contributions to urgency.

In my. opinion, I can only say that in respect to urgency it must relate to something that is so pressing that the public l.s demanding it according to Beauchesne citation 100 subsection (2). I have no evidence of that either in the resolution or in the speeches that were made by the honourable members. Secondly, it's got to fall within the ambit of administrative responsibility. The marketing board is an autonomous body, it•s members are an autonomous group of people, therefore it does not fall within the ambit of administrative responsibility. I must rule the question out of order. Oral questions.

The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR . G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, with regret I challenge your ruling. MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. Call in the members. Call in the mem bers. The Minister of Labour.

May 22, 1973 3153 MATTER OF URGENCY MR . PAULLEY: That•s right, because I know the rules of the House. I want to know whether, Mr. Speaker, the vote has been called. Somebody over there said ayes and nays, Mr. Speaker. You did not present the motion. MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. The Minister is on a point of order. He is entitled to be heard. I would like to hear him. MR . PAULLEY: Okay, Mr, Speaker, I accept --(Interjection) -- you know Jim you had one too many tonight. MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. Motion before the House is shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained.

A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Messrs: Adam Barrow Boyce Burtniak Desjardins Doern Evans Gottfried Green Hanuschak Jenkins Messrs. Allard Barkman Bilton Blake Borowski Einarson Enns Ferguson Froese Girard Henderson MR . CLER K: Yeas 23; Nays 22. YEAS NAYS Johannson McBryde Mackling Malinowski Paulley (Trans) Pawley (Selkirk) Petursson Shafransky Toupin Turnbull Uskiw Walding Johnston (P. la P .) Jorgenson McGill McKellar McKenzie Moug Patrick Sherman Spivak Watt Mrs. Trueman MR . SPEAKER: In my opinion the Ayes have it, declare the motion carried. Order, please. Order, please.

We are still under the Oral Questions. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR . HARRY J. ENNS (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, 11d like to ask a question of the Honour able the House Leader. Will it be the policy of this government to allow the chairmen of the various boards such as the Manitoba Hydro, Manitoba Agricultural • . • MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. Order , please. Order, please. Order! I should like to indicate that Beauchesne citation 171 says questions of policy shall not be asked. The Honourable Member for Lakeside, rephrase the question. MR .

ENNS: I have no intention of asking a policy question. I' m asking whether or not the Chairman of the Manitoba Agricultural Corporation will be actively campaigning in this election for the NDP Party? MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR . PA UL LEY: Mr. Speaker, the answer for that is, under certain rules of procedure, if the particular individual wants to, under certain circumstances, we believe in a free society. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR . ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I direct a question to the honourable deputy premier of this province and ask the question of whether or not the chairman of the Manitoba Telephone System

3154 May 22, 1973 ORAL QUESTIONS (MR. ENNS cont'

d) this election? will be actively campaigning for the New Democratic Party in MR. PAULLEY: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, but if that is his inclination, then I too believe in a free democracy apparently that the Honourable Member for Lakeside does not agree with. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. Let me indicate again Beauchesne citation in respect to oral questions. I wish to have no debate started during the question period. Order, please. I haven•t suggested that anyone has debated, l'm just indicating that we will not have it during the question period.

Let us carry on, citation 171, I'll read it first so we will all be aware of it: 11In putting a question a member must confine himself to the narrowest limit. In making a question, observations which might lead to debate cannot be regarded as coming within the proper limits of a question, The purpose of a question is to obtain inform ation and not to supply it to the House." And there are about 40 other additional sub rules to that citation; so therefore I wish the honourable members would take their time, make their questions brief, to the point and terse. And the same thing applies to the answers.

Thank you very much. The Honourable Member for Lakeside, MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with your rulings I think that I have been making my questions abundantly brief and not argumentative, But I ask only for a yes or no, or in fact no answer. MR . SPEAKER: The honourable member is discussing the point now, will he come to the question. Question please. MR . ENNS: My next question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Deputy Premier of this province. Will the Chairman of Manitoba Hydro be actively campaigning for the New Democratic Party during the course of the forthcoming election? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR . PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as the Deputy Premier of the Province of Manitoba, if it is the inclination of the Chairman of Hydro, the Telephones or any other corpo ration, that they want to campaign actively on behalf of the New Democratic Party, the Con servative Party, the Liberal Party or the Social Credit Party, we believe in democracy to the extent that they have that right. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. The honourable member has had three questions on the same subject.

The Honourable Member for Roblin, The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Can he tell me whether or not his Deputy Minister will be actively campaigning on behalf of the New Democratic Party in the forthcoming provincial election? MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Minister of Tourism and Recreation. HON. LAURENT L 0 DESJARDINS (Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Cultural Affairs) (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I' m standing up on a point of order, not to answer that frivolous question from him.

Point of order, Mr. Speaker, MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister state his point of order. MR. DESJARDINS: My point of order is this, that there are about 38 other boards to go. My honourable friend can start --(Interjection)-- on a point of order, Mr, Speaker. On a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. I shall name the Honourable Member for Lakeside. Would the Honourable Minister please sit down, Would the Honourable Minister please sit down. --(Interjection)-- Order, please, and that includes the gallery behind me. I am going to ask the honourable members again for their co-operation.

I have no inten tion to preside over a House that will not abide by its own rules. If the house does not wish to proceed, all they have to do is suggest and we can adjourn. I do wish to have the co-operation of the members, I'm willing to co-operate with them, but I•m suggesting that when I ask for order that the members do adhere to their rules. I shall suggest again that if any member in the future insists on remaining on the floor when I have asked for the order three times I shall name him, I won•t even give him a warning.

This is the only way this House will proceed in an orderly manner, That•s fair warning, I am stating it once more. If a member does not come to order when I ask him three times out loud, I shall name him,

May 22, 1973 3155 ORAL QUESTIONS (MR. SPEAKER cont1d) Now may we proceed with the question period. The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. JOSEPH P. BOROWSKI (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of House Privi lege regarding the question raised of Mr. Hofford campaigning on behalf of the government. There is a bill before the Legislature which will allow civil servants to be involved in elections if it's passed, and I'm asking you to consider and perhaps rule now whether it•s proper for the government to allow civil servants or other appointed people, while the bill is • • • MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The honourable member does not have a matter of privilege. The question in respect to the urgency of debate was already adjudicated by this House, therefore. there can be no further discussion on that particular matter. The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE (Roblin): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Honourable House Leader. I wonder can the Honourable House Leader advise the house if he •s going to permit the Chairman of the Hog Marketing Commission to take my letters out of the Department of Health and read them into the record at political meetings such as he did in Swan River ? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines and Resources. HON. SIDNEY GREEN, Q. C . (Minister of Mines, Resources and Environmental Manage ment)(Inkster): Mr. Speaker, that is not a question that really relates to my obligations or duties as House Leader. I can advise the honourable member that if what he thinks has occurred is so outrageous he will have an opportunity of going to the people with what he considers to be an outrageous position. And I assume, Mr.

Speaker, that that•s what will happen, and if the position is as outrageous as the honourable member suggests it is -- apparently it wasn•t out rageous in 1969 when the President of the Conservative Party, Mr. Cam McLean was the Chair man of the Fair Wage Board and actively participated in politics on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party -- but if that now is an outrageous position, then I suggest that the outrage can be clearly and thoroughly canvassed in due course. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to restate the question to the Honourable House Leader because, Mr. Speaker . . • MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. ORDER, PLEASE . One of the cardinal rules of Beauchesne•s Citation 171 is that a question whether reworded or otherwise if it•s re petitive must be ruled out of order. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I rise on a point of order because I believe that the Honourable House Leader in his intention to answer the question, intention to answer the question answered only part . • . MR.

SPEAKER: Would the honourable member state his point of order not debate. MR. SPIVAK: I am going to, if I may, direct a question to the House Leader. Is it to be the government's intention to allow members of the commission or chairmen of the various boards and commisions to have access to government files which they can use during the elec tion campaign? A MEMBER: Good point. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines and Resources. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to answer a question which is based on a hypo thetical proposition.

Certain allegations have been made, and my understanding relative to those allegations is that the thing complained of is a letter that had been made public and pre viously quoted that a member -- the chairman of a board used a letter which was quoted. The honourable member says that something improper was done vis-a-vis a confidential letter being obtained by a chairman of a corporation; I assumed that he would have his remedy for that. I couldn•t answer a policy question on a basis of hypothesis except that confidential in formation remains confidential as far as the government is concerned. MR. SPIVAK: Yes.

To the House Leader. I wonder if he can give an undertaking to the House that no documents or confidential letters in the possession of government will be handed over to any member or chairman of any board or commission to be used for political purposes? MR. GREEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's so very difficult to give that type of undertaking because members of the Opposition have produced here confidential documents which came from government files, which got to them in a way which I have no knowledge of. So I couldn•t possibly give that kind of undertaking. I mean where did the document that Mr. Craik, the

3156 May 22, 1973 ORAL QUESTIONS (MR. GREEN cont'd) • • • • • Member for Riel, get; where did the other documents that have been revealed from the Department of Health, where were they obtained? MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR . G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the Honourable the Minister of Health and Social Development. Could he inform the House as to how Mr. Hofford, when he made reference to the 28 references, which were made by the Member for Roblin, asking for welfare, can he inform the House as to how Mr. Hofford got this information? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health and Social Development. HON. RENE E. TOU PIN (Minister of Health and Social Development)(Springfield): Mr. Speaker, I believe the House Leader answered that question very thoroughly. There is no way that I could inform the House where Mr. Hofford, or anybody else, got copies of letter. Where did Mrs. Trueman or the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge, get copies of confidential letters from my office to my Assistant Deputy Minister? I have no knowledge of that, and the honour able member well knows it. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, I have another question unrelated, and I address it to the Acting Premier of the Province of Manitoba. It refers to the letter by the Premier of this province with respect to the non-payment of medicare premiums for the future, and my ques tion is, in view of the fact that this is a political document with an election coming up, is it the intention of members opposite to reimburse the taxpayers for the $70, OOO cost of this propa ganda? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. l\IB. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion it is not a political document.

It is inform ational, it is information that is relayed to the people of Manitoba to indicate to them what we are doing as the Government of Manitoba on their behalf. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. BILTON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the House Leader, or at least the Deputy Premier. Has the Chairman of the Hog Marketing Board authority to come to my office and state that he is prepared to bring files from Winnipeg to substantiate a letter to the editor explaining himself, to vi.ndicate the problem that's before the House?

Has he the authority to bring those files to vindicate himself, private files of the government? MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: As Acting Premier, Mr. Speaker, I say to my honourable friend the Member for Swan River, we don 1t accept, we do not accept the propriety of any chairman of any commission to give to the honourable member factual information. I think, Sir, the con trary would be the result, and the Member for Swan River would declaim the Government of Manitoba if one of its agents did not give him information as to what we were doing on behalf of the people of Manitoba.

MR. BILTON: A supplementary question. I wonder if the government had given authority to the Chairman of the Hog Marketing Board, the authority to use material to destroy me in the oncoming election? MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I may say to the Honourable Member for Swan River, he is destroying himself. All that the Chairman of the Hog Marketing Board is empowered to do is to give information as to the directives of the Province of Manitoba in that particular degree. And if in the process it defeats the involvement of the Honourable Member for Swan River let him take his choice, not us. MR. BILTON: Mr.

Speaker, my final supplementary. I take it from the Minister's remarks that the honourable -- at least the --(Interjection)-- MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. MR. BILTON: • • • has carte blanche authority to use records against me in this elec tion, and I am prepared to fight him all the way, and your government. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to my honourable friend the Member for Swan River, that if in the process of the activities of the Government of Manitoba my honourable friend from Swan River is defeated, then he will have to allow the chips to fall where they are. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON (Rock Lake): Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the Min ister of Agriculture. Can the Minister indicate whether any loans have been made through the MACC to farmers without any security in the Province of Manitoba?

May 22, 1973 3157 ORAL QUESTIONS MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON . SAMUEL USKIW (Minister of Agriculture)(Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, I think the best way to handle that kind of a thing is in the normal way. I have no knowledge as to the pertinent facts of all loans that are made by the MACC. They do not appear on my desk for approval. The management makes the decision in most of the cases; where they have no au thority the board makes a decision. MR . EINARSON: Mr. Speaker, I direct another question to the Minister of Agriculture.

Has any directive from his office gone out to any officials of his department stating that they're prepared to buy up lands from farmers who are ready to retire in the Province of Manitoba? MR . USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, I think the honourable member should recall that during the introduction of my Estimates in the House some time ago we indicated that the MACC will be involved in assisting those people that wish to retire as well as assisting those young people who wish to enter the industry, and that we would opt for, or provide a new option, and that is the land-lease option for those that don•t have a basis on which to borrow. MR . EINARSON: Mr.

Speaker, I-thank the Minister for his answer and having given this information, If a young person who is engaged in renting property, will he have the option to . • • My question is, Mr. Speaker, will the then young farmer who has been renting will have the option to buy that same piece of property? MR . USKIW: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR . McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture dealing with the Farm Machinery Act.

I wonder can the Minister explain to the House, is a country blacksmith in the same slot as a farm machinery dealer? MR . USKIW: I really don •t know what the honourable member is trying to suggest. MR . McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, for clarification. Does the local blacksmith in the Village of Inglis have to pay the same bond fees as the implement dealer? MR. USKIW: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that my honourable friend look at the act and define for himself whether a blacksmith is a farm implement dealer or not? MR . McKENZIE: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Minister advise the House if the blacksmiths of this province have got letters advising them that they must buy this liability bond? MR . USKIW: No, Mr. Speaker, the Farm Machinery Board is charged with the responsi bility of licensing and all of the matters pertaining to the new act. I would suggest that he should consult the Board. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin has had two questions on the same subject. MR . J. DOUGLAS WATT (Arthur): Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture relating to the question just asked by the Member for Rock Lake.

Have any farm lands reverting to the Crown through lack of payment, or default of payment, and reverting to the Crown to the Province of Manitoba, been offered for sale? MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. MR . USKIW: To my knowledge, no, but I •m not sure as of this date. MR . WATT: A supplementary question then. His answer was then correct to the member for Lakeside that land was being offered or would be offered for sale? MR . USKIW � Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Arthur has the whole thing confused, The question asked of me earlier was whether or not there would be an option to buy for young people who would now enter into a lease program with MACC, and I said yes to that question, MR . WATT: There has been no land offered for sale, land reverting to the Crown? MR . USKIW: Again I said a moment ago I am not sure as of this date. To my knowledge there hasn't been any sold, MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Gladstone. MR . JAMES R. FERGUSON (Gladstone): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, My question would be to the Minister of Agriculture, Under the present setup, and I•m having quite a number of complaints, in that there are several dealerships • • • MR. SPEAKER: Question please. MR. FERGUSON: Very well. I'll come to the question, Mr. Speaker, thank you, All right. As it stands, a farm machine dealer is obligated to have a $5, OOO bond, under the farm - 11m coming to that, --(In terjection)--

3158 ORAL QUESTIONS MR, SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. May 22, 197 3 MR. FERGUSON: A farm machine dealer is obligated to have a $10, OOO bond. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honourable Member. MR, FERGUSON: My question is this, would one bond cover both the farm dealership, plus an automobile dealership, under the same name in the Province of Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: That's asking for a legal opinion, out of order. The Honourable Mem ber for Roblin, MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I regret to take issue with the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. Would the honourable member state his point. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table a letter addressed to my village black smith, which the Minister apparently doesn't understand, for the record, to prove that he doesn't know what's going on. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. It's not - order please. The letter is not necessary to proceedings under the Oral Questions. The honourable member wishes to confide something to the Honourable Minister, he can do it privately not during the Question period. Oral Ques tions. The Honourable Member for Souris-Killarney. MR.

EARL McKELLAR (Souris-Killarney): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Attorney-General. Is it necessary for all lawyers to take out $100, OOO bond from now on? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON, A, H, MACKLING, Q, C. (Attorney-General)(St. James): Mr.

Speaker, I am aware of the fact that the Law Society through discussions among its members has been concerned about implementing a plan for a compulsory insurance and I think, if my memory serves me right, at the last session we made amendments to the Law Society Act which will permit the Law Society to make this sort of plan possible, so that it will protect individual clients from the errors or omissions, or failures, of individual practitioners, and I think it's a very desirable thing.

I don't know whether you could call it a - I don't know whether the amount is as indirated by the honourable member, but there certainly is in the work a system to more effectively pro tect individual clients from the mistakes of their hired solicitor. MR, SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Souris-Killarney. MR. McKELLAR: Mr. Speaker, I'd direct a question to the Minister of Health. Could he announce the name of the corporation who has made an offer to purchase Ninette Sanatorium. MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. MR. TOUPIN: Well Mr.

Speaker, I did indicate to the House, I believe a few days ago, that I had made a commitment to both parties that I would not reveal the name in question and I still haven't directed that the deal has been completed. One of the parties have decided to make this public, but that doesn't oblige me to refer to it in this House, or publicly. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would please call Bill No. 42, stand ing in the name of the Honourable Member for Rhineland. GOVERNMENT BILLS - BILL NO. 42 MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland.

MR. JACOB M. FROESE (Rhineland): Mr. Speaker, Bill 42 is

an Act to amend the Child Welfare Act and I hadn't gone through it this morning when the bill was under discussion. I have since checked it, and checked the amendments with the original act, and I have a few ques tions and some comments. I notice that under the Bill we are providing for day care centers in which three or more children receive care and that there will be a time of 18 hours a day. Mr. Speaker, this seems rather a costly business if you're going to set up day care centres for three children and then have it run for 18 hours a day.

This means that you'll have to have three shifts, so that this can be a very expensive affair . I notice the Minister is not in his seat at the moment, but I certainly would like to get some answers to this. Mostly likely in many cases the centres will have more children than that but nevertheless when we legislate that the day care centres will be open with three or more children, and for that length of period of time a day, it seems a very long time in a given day that the centre will be open. Is it necessary to have day care centres open for 18 hours?

I am questioning this, and I certainly would like to have some explanation

May 22, 1973 3159 BILL NO, 42 (MR FROESE cont'd) . from the Minister when he closes debate on this particular bill, I know the day care centres have received discussion for many years. I can recall way back in '65 - '66 when we had discussions on this matter, and now we are having a bill before us to amend the Child Welfare Act to bring about this type of facility.

There are also numerous other amendments to the Act calling for a detention home and children's boarding home as they are defined, and I feel that we're really going all out on many of our social services, In fact I'm just wondering whether we're not going too fast at once and that we're spending too much money in this direction, I certainly feel that many of these services will not be provided to the rural area, that they will be mainly located in the large cities and that the services that we are providing through legislation of this type will not apply equally to all people.

We've been hearin� a lot about equal opportunity in our educational system. Well here again equal opportunity will not exist by bringing in legislation of this type. And again I would like to hear from the Minister how many of these day care centres do they envision? How much are provided for under the Estimates and how many are they prepared to staff in the coming year? Certainly I think these are questions that need answering and that we should have answers to.

There's also nursery schools, and here again I would also like the Minister to give us probably a little more detail than what is being proposed for the province as a whole. With those few words, Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to oppose it on second reading. I hope that we have some representation from outside the committee to hear from them. I would certainly like to see some of the associations that are involved in this type of work to appear before the committee so that we can question them and get firsthand information on the legis lation that we are proposing for this province. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister shall be closing debate. The Honourable Minist er. MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I'd like to reply to at least some of the ques tions posed of me by the Member for Fort Rouge and just now by the Member for Rhineland. The Member for Fort Rouge was asking the question pertaining to the responsibility of the City of Winnipeg or Unicity pertaining to their regulations in regard to day care centres versus the provincial standards and regulations. If the City of Winnipeg is financing day care centres they can set their own regulations and the province will not object.

If the province is financing day care centres or home care or family day care facilities, they will fall under the provincial regulations and standards. The honourable member was asking questions pertaining to the Review Board and felt sort of sorry that this was still a fact.

I would like to mention to the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge that the functions and the responsibility of the Child Review Board has been amend ed to some great extent, they are no longer capable within the provisions of the Act, to alter the decisions of the court, and that they are especially there to be an advisory body to the Minister made responsible by Order-in- Council for the administration of the Act in regards to the treatment to be given to the given child. This will not, Mr.

Speake:i; hinder the cost- s haring arrangements that may be had pertaining to day care facilities between the Provinc e of Manitoba and the Federal Government, but the function itself of the Review Board is a condition under CAP for cost-sharing of certain facilities with the Federal Government. So we do have to have the Review Board as set by the Act itself. The function as I mentioned a few minutes ago will be as an advisory committee to the Minister. And to specify the

section I know this is not the time to make reference to sections of the bill itself, but the honourable member could look at the section,

Section 22(5) of the bill and make reference to the Act itself, and will find that the function of the Review Board itself has been amended drastically. The bill before us, Mr. Speaker, will allow the Department of Health and Social Develop ment to license and regulate da�v care facility, and this is one of the main features of the bill. The honourable member made reference to one of my statements in Hansard that touches on different meetings that I' ve had with different groups in the Province of Mani toba to discuss to discuss the day care program that is envisaged by the government for 1973.

I've met with several groups, one of the groups that the honourable member herself has met with just prior to my meeting with them. I met with such a group again yesterday and one today. I meet with several groups that do deal with the provisions of child care, and we're trying to have a system of day care facilities that will answer the needs of all children in the

3160 May 22, 1973 BILL NO. 42 (MR. TOUPIN cont'd) . . Province of Manitoba. I did say within the Estimates itself that we had approximately half a million dollars over and above the amount that was spent in 1973- 74, which was approximately $900, OOO spent through my Estimates for those children consid ered to be in need, for those children falling under the category of either social allowance it self, on full social allowance, or those working who are being supplemented by the Department of Health and Social Development.

But over and beyond that amount there is an amount of $500, OOO within the Estimates, which is ten times more than the amount that was in the Estim ates for 1973-74. We don't foresee the possibility of meeting all the needs of child care in 1974, 1973-74 with that amount, but we'll make a good headway into meeting more of the needs of these children. And the program itself will be available to all, based on the ability to pay.

We're not anticipating covering all the cost of day care facility itself; it will be a meaningful partnership between hopefully many, those that are able to pay employers by different levels of government and by the Department of Health and Social Development. The Honourable Member for Rhineland asked the question, how many day care centres or family home care for children do we anticipate in the province? Being a service to all those children in need is very difficult to spell out how many we anticipate.

We'll go as far as we can financially to meet all the needs of the children in the Province of Manitobe based on the ability to pay and based on the potential of manpower that we have in the field itself and those individual parents that have a desire to have their children cared for by others, but there's no way that we can anticipate the amount of applications that we'll have.

I know that we have a certain amount of applications now that we are considering and, once the guidelines have been determined, we'll start negotiating with these different groups, accepting and re fusing some, the funds that we have in our Estimates I've just related to being half a million dollars more than we had last year, more than the fifty thousand and more than the amount that was spent on the social allowance. S:J it is a step forward. Mr.

Speaker, I am quite sure that a lot of the questions that other members of the House may have here today could be answered in Law Amendments or in committee when this bill is considered

section by section, or on third reading in the House. Thank you. MR. FROESE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, would the Honourable Minister permit a question? I put the question to him earlier - he wasn't in the House at the time. For what period of time are these day care centres open in a day? There is provision for 18 hours. What length of time are they open generally? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. MR. TOUPIN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, we do hope to have the regulations quite flexible to allow for facilities that will care for children, say on an eight-hour basis, on a twelve-hour basis, during the lunch hour, after 4:00 and so on. We intend to have it quite flexible to meet the needs of the parents and the children concerned. So we haven't got a set amount of hours per day that we actually determine as being the maximum amount that we will allow under regulations. This will be quite flexible. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. BILL NO. 49 MR. GREEN: Would you call Bill No. 49, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Labour. The Honour able Member for Riel. The Honourable Member for Emerson. Order please. I'd like to ask direction from the House. Does that mean that the Honourable Member for Riel is for feiting his right to carry the bill? The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. GABRIEL GIRARD (Emerson): Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I have been in conversation with the Member for Riel and because of an accident he was unable to come here tonight, not that an accident happened to him but it had to take him away and therefore he asked me to take the responsibility of debating very briefly this bill. So we exchanged some views on it and he wished me good luck as he parted. MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. --(Interjection)-- MR. GIRARD: Yes, and I accept this with gratitude when it comes from the Minister of Labour. Bill 49 is

An Act to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act, and although I had a

May 22, 197 3 3161 BILL NO, 49 (MR. GIRARD cont'd) .• .•. very brief view of the bill, I don't wish at this time to raise any very controversial issues, but I would like to make a few observations. I would like to , first of all, say that I agree in principle with the bill wholeheartedly which permits earlier retirement for the civil servants of Manitoba. I think that it would be timely to chastise the Federal Government for not looking at possibilities of the same kind, in fact old age retirement, at this time as well. It seems rather ironical, Mr.

Speaker, that we have governments in the Province of Manitoba as well as at the federal scene, who are busy throughout the year, especially during the times of higher unemployment, thinking up make- w ork programs such as LIP and PEP, who advise their Civil Service that they must take on more employees than the Civil Service supervision in some cases suggest that they need. We relax on welfare payment and then we become concerned about the able-bodied welfare recip ients, and all this time while we are doing those things, Mr.

Speaker, we are compelling the 64-year-old man to carry his lunch kit to work, telling him that he's got one more year before retirement, but we are nevertheless willing to pay Unemployment Insurance to pay money to PEP and LIP, to pay money through added welfare or through in fact a boosted Civil Service. And, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it is timely for the government to introduce this kind of legislation. I'd like to make another comment as well, Mr. Speake:r; with regard to pensions as a whole .

It seems to me that if we look at the pension plans that have been instituted in the past, that because of inflationary pressures on our monetary system, that frequently we find our pension schemes becoming outdated, and I think that it will soon be that government will realize that what they ought to do is find an equitable k.ind of pension plan and then attach the amounts receivable to the cost of living or a cost of living figure, so that pension plans and pensions will by and large grow with the inflationary trends.

I think it is unsatisfactory for the people of Manitoba and in fact for the people of Canada to find that somewhere in the pension plans of someone there is the forgotten individual. There are people on pensions, for instance the Workmen's Compensation pensions, who recently last year got an increase--which I add is not all that significant--but there are people in that category and especially the widows in that particular case, which have been forgotten for many years, which suffered a tremendous increase in cost of living but enjoyed no increase in their pension plan.

And this to me is a lack of flexibility and foresight on behalf of the legislators in legislating pension plans. Mr. Speaker, we'll be very interested in hearing the presentations before the Law Amendments Committee--! understand this bill is going to Law Amendments--and I am sure that there will be very valuable suggestions made by representative of the Civil Service and maybe other people in regards to this bill .

However, there's one last point I would like to bring out before we let the bill through, and I think that this again reflects the kind of short sightedness that governments can be accused of, at least in the past and up to the present, and I refer to the fact that pension plans by and large lack portability.

And when I suggest they lack portability I mean that one who had paid into a pension plan in the Civil Service in Mani toba who happens to change his occupation, he becomes a school teacher in Manitoba instead of a civil servant, or he becomes a civil servant in Alberta instead of Manitoba or whatever, he is unable to take with him the benefit that he has accrued when paid for in his pension plan.

I know that this area presents some difficulty because it means a whole lot of negotiations by a lot of people involved, but certainly some efforts ought to be made by governments to ensure that there be portability in pension plans, and I would go as far as saying that option should be provided to include those who wish from the private sector to be participating in a pension plan that is basically public. With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest again that we have no opposition to the bill at this time and we'd be very happy to hear the debate that will occur in committee.

May I suggest to the Minister of Labour that it's a pleasure being able to speak on his bill without being critical. MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Assiniboia . MR. STEVE PATRICK (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill 49,

an Act to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act. I did speak on it at some length at the Estim� ates of the Minister of Labour when they were before the House, and I believe I did as well when we were on Estimates of the Civil Service on his department. So, many of the pro visions in the bill I can accept and agree. I know that, which I think is a good principle, the

3162 May 22, 197 3 BILL NO. 49 (MR, PATRICK cont'd) .. ... act allows for retirement at age 60 and removing the penalty, at least 3 percent per year penalty, for early retirement. Also the compulsory age of re tirement will stay at 65 and not 60, which I agree. I think it's a good principle because if people wish to stay in employment until 65, I think it should be their right and this is what one of the principles in this bill contains.

The bill will permit civil servants with ten years of service who die before retiring, will pass 60 percent of the normal pension benefits to their dependents, surviving spouses, and would receive lifetime benefits. And, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very important principle because most of the commercial pensions do not contain these provisions, which in my opinion are very inadequate, and I feel that this is a very good provision, Mr. Speaker. I know that dependents would only receive pensions for ten years, while the spouses would re ceive a lifetime pension.

The bill would also reduce the number of years for determination of income as a basis for pension to the best seven years instead of ten, which is reducing it and I agree with the principle. However, I wish to point out to the Minister that, and a couple of other provinces that I'm aware of, even as far back as in 1970 they would average it out over the best five years instead of the best seven years.

So I don't know the reason why the Minister used seven years, but perhaps he can give some indication why when he closes the bill, because in a couple of the other provinces as far back as three years ago, the five-year averaging was used. Mr. Speaker, the other point I wish to touch on is the portability.

This bill will allow portability of pensi ons within certain areas, that's within the government, different govern ments of the provinces of Canada, with the Government of Canada, any agency of the govern ment, municipalities, certain school divisions or educational insititutions, to me it shows that it's quite wide, and either hospital or health facilities in Canada, so these boards and governments, it would be portable within these boards or governments, provincial and federal. But, Mr. Speaker, I hope it would also be portable within the municipalities, and I'm not sure if it is or not.

Perhaps the Minister can give us some indication, because I think it should be portable within municipal agencies as well. But the thing that we haven't done anything about, Mr. Speaker, is what about fully portable pensions? In this province, in industry and in the private sector, I think this should be made available and we have not made a move in this area at all, and I feel if somebody leaves the government service and goes to private industry, I cannot see why his pension should not be portable, Now the other point I wish to touch on, I have, Mr.

Speaker--! wonder what is , how many years of service would a person have to have full disability pension under this scheme - and this is an area that the Minister has not touched on and I wish that he would. Is there a full disability pension after, say, 10 years or 15 years of service, or is he allowed 70 percent or any pension? My other concern, and I did have an opportunity to talk to the Minister privately, I did have comparisons at least with the western provinces, but it's out dated and I was trying to get comparisons as of this date and I was unable to.

It's coming to me but I haven't got it with me today and I did not want to adjourn the bill, I didn't want to hold it up, so I wish to proceed on it today. But the comparables that I had are several years old, 1970, and even at that time as comparing to the present amendments the�·e are some benefits that seemed to be better under the scheme or some of the other provinces had. One that I would like to bring to the Minister's attention, Refunds for Contribution. In Alberta they do pay 4 percent and ours are still 3 percent; Mr.

Speaker, so perhaps there's an area that the Minister may have overlooked but he probably had given it consideration. The other point that I wish to make, and again my comparison somewhat may be out of date, but the monthly average pension cheques were considerably, considerably lower than the other two provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta--(Inter jection)-- three years ago, that's correct. So there may be some explanation because there was an updating a couple of years ago, but again, it was a significant difference, Mr. Speaker.

So these are some of the points that I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister and perhaps he can give us some explanation and I do hope that he will really give full portability his real serious attention, that we will be getting to the area where we'll have really true

May 22, 1973 3163 BILL NO, 49 (MR. PATRICK cont'd) ..... pensions as far as the province is concerned. These are the poi nts that I wish to make at this time, I!Ir. Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 49. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. JACOB M, FROES E (Rhineland ): Mr. Speaker, I think most of the items have been covered by speakers who have already spoken to the bill, I don't intend to cover the same ground. I notice that we are taking out some of the language in the previous bill which refers to the German Reich, and we'r e replacing those words with new phrases.

Still, I want to come to one point and that is the matter of compulsory retirement. I'm not sure whether we're doing the right thing by having compuls ory retirement at 65. I think many people would like to carry on working and be employed, and I think that opportunity should be given to them. I don't think we aho uld make it mandatory that they retire at 65. We know of other experiences. Even our Senate in the federal House, they made it compulsory at 75 and that is 10 years older, ten years more than what they're asking for in this bill.

I wonder, has the government found out from the Civil Service and asked them personally through a questionnaire or some survey as to whether they want this and how many of them want it.? I certainly would be interested in knowing because I'm sure that many people, while they may not want to work as full a day, but why not have them work part-time if they so desire ? And I think this one option should remain open to them and I would like to hear the Minister's comments on that. Other than that, Mr.

Speaker, at this time I don't want to delay the bill any longer either, and I do hope that we have representation at the Law Amendments Committee from him. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR. ARTHUR MOUG (Charleswood ): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Member for Pembina, that the debate be adjourned. MOTION presented, and carried . MR, DEPUTY SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR, PAULLEY: I wonder, Mr.

Speaker, now whether we could call the other retire ment bill which the government objects to, namely the Retirement of the Teachers' Pension Act--1 mean the Opposition objects to, or they haven't any guts at all. MR. DE PUTY SPEAKER: Order please. On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Education. The Honourable Member for Riel. The Honourable Member for Emerson. BILL 50 MR. GABRIEL GIRA RD (Emerson): Well, Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to look at Bill 50 --(Jnterjections)-- MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. MR.

GIRARD: . . . and I want to applaud Bill 50 in the hope that teachers will be given a chance to retire early before they--if I might be facetious for a moment-- show signs of deterioration before their responsibilities are terminated --( Jnterjections)-- MR. DEPU TY SPEAKER: Order please. MR. GIRARD: Mr. Speaker, I have much the same comments to make in regards to Bill 50 as I made on the previous bill. However, I would like to rai se one or two other points that might be a little different in this particular bill, and might yet no_t.

The way our retire ment schemes are now being proposed in this bill --a nd I accept that this is an improvement over the previous bills -- 1 find that a teacher may retire at 60 years old with full pension under this particular proposition. Such a teacher, however, will be in receipt of a full pen sio n for five years and at the end of five years, as things now stand, will get full pension that she has been receiving or he has been recei ving for those five years, plus an increase be cause of the old age pension at 65 . I think that it would serve us well, Mr.

Speaker, to have probably more communication with the Federal Government, if that is possib le, in order to achieve a pension plan SJ that a teacher retiring or a civil servant retiring at 60 obtains a · fixed kind of retirement plan or income so that he doesn't go five years and then enjoys an increase, but rather that he enjoys the value of that increase, amortized if necessary, right

3164 May 22, 197 3 BILL NO. 50 (MR. GIRARD cont'd) . ..•. from the time of retirement right at 60 years old. I would like to suggest that the disadvantage, Mr. Speaker, is that in my view people wish to enjoy themselves from the date of retirement, and if added finances will help at all they should have it at the time of retirement rather than go five years before the increase in that particular pension plan. I think again it's a matter of communication and negotiations between government. I would like to know, Mr.

Speaker, and I might ask this of the Minister, if he had had requests to have included in the Teachers Retirement Bill the years of service provided by some of the teachers who are seeking retirement that were wartime service, and that those people might suffer a handicap because of their absence during a particular period of time. I think there again, Mr. Speaker, that this points to the kind of portability, if they were not granted a pension plan at that time, that concession or consideration should be given to that kind of service which is beyond one's control. Again, Mr.

Speaker, I think that people very much more qualified than I, representing the teachers, will be able to make presentations at the committee hearings and I'll be very eager to hear them at that time. I would like to emphasize, however, that with this bill as well as with the Superannuation of the Civil Service, that some consideration be given, that some consideration be given, Mr. Speaker, to somehow relate cost of living to pension plans. I wish to differ with the Minister of Labour and suggest to him that I'm in favour of this bill, as I was in the previous one. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Assiniboia, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, =- -(Interjections)-- MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER : ORDER PLEASE! MR. GREEN: ... just to tell the honourable members that we'll call these bills again tomorrow and we urgently hope that the two members who hold the adjournment will speak on them. Bill No. 55, Mr. Speaker. BILL NO. 55 MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Labour. The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. BILTON: Mr. Speaker, in making my contribution to this bill, may I say that in my opinion, as a civil servant for a good many years, we were always content to stay outside of the orbit of politics, and, Mr. Speaker, I believe it's been the practice of the members of the Civil Service of the Province of Manitoba to stay aloof from the political are�'la. Mr.

Speaker, I would be the first, or at least one of the first, to suggest that I believe in human rights, the human rights approach; that everyone should have the equal opportunity in an endeavour to do what they can for the good of this nation, and Mr. Speaker, I hold high also at the same time the rights of the people in their business. And I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Civil Service as such hold that trust, hold the trust of the people of Manitoba within their grasp.

And I believe that she or he have access to material that is beyond the reaches of the average individual, even a member of this Legislature, Mr. gpeaker, and this is the way it should be, and all these things are beyond the reach of the average individual. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you this is a sacred trust, a very sacred trust, and it must not be aborted by that particular

section in this bill. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if this bill becomes law we are placing a tremendous onus on every civil servant in the employ of this province, which is uncalled for. We are asking him, Mr. gpeaker, if he runs for private office, to ignore his private knowledge of what he has of the economy and the ability and the future of this province over and above those people he may be opposing in that election. Here I say it's unfair. It has been suggested that a member of the Civil Service could take leave of absence and express his will insofar as the party that he favours.

There's nothing wrong with this, Mr. Speaker. But he must take the chances with the rest of us. All of us. Mr. Speaker, if this legislation or this particular secion of this bill goes through, in my humble opinion it will have the effect of breaking down the Civil Service and creating chaos

May 22 , 197 3 3165 BILL NO, 55 (MR. BILTON con t'd) .. ... amongst them, all of which has taken generations to develop, and this government must not be allowed in my humble opinion, to disturb that that• s gone before. It's very simple to say, Mr. Speaker, that every man has a right to do this or that or the other, but, you know, in life today a certain amount of disc ipline must prevail or otherwise we have chaos. And we must have disc ipline. We must have disc ipline in the Civil Service from the Minister right down to the lowest clerk of each department. You won't have it, you won't have it if this particular

section goes through. --(Interjection)-- The Minister of Labour is saying, "right", and yet he's been a party of placing it before the House. Have you changed your mind? -- (Interjection)-- Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the Honoura ble Minister of Labour has to say. I know he's ignoring the fact that I come from England, the great exponents of freedom that provided the democracy and the part of government that we're livi ng under today. But you're despoiling it by this bill. You're dispoiling it by this bill. My colleague from Emerson, Mr.

Speaker, covered a wide range of items, many of them of which I agree with in this bill. I believe the adoption of the bill in the part that I'm referring to, Mr. S peaker, will be a tragedy, and in time will develop into a si tuation where it could ruin our system of government. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine it ? It's conceivable that a junior clerk in a department of the government can throw his hat in the ring and run for office and be elected, Sir. And tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, he could be the Minis ter' Of that department. Can you imagine what a situation would develop ? A MEMBER: Democracy.

MR, BILTON: Democracy, my foot! Let's not carry this word "democracy" too far. Let's keep it on a level, let' s keep it on a level that we can all live with. --(Interjection)- You know, Mr. Speaker, these gentlemen don't realize what they've done to this province in the last four years. The chickens will come home to roost but please, please don't go for ward with this section. This is one thing that is wrong. I agree, Mr.

Speaker, that everything being fair, I agree with the Member for Emerson that the Civil Service should have a right by referendum to give their opinion as to whether or not they want this privilege, and I have no doubt, I have no doubt for one moment what their answer will be. On the other side of the coin, Mr . Speaker, we don't have to tell the civil servants. They know. They have the trust of the people of Manitoba in their hands.

And with the change of government from time to time they are the link with the past and the hope for the future, and they, by this sort of resolution or this sort of section, are destroying that matter which is so important to the province. I wonder, Sir, what the rank and file of the Civil Service feel about this. I wonder if they've asked for this privilege. Or is it the request of CUPE without any reference to the rank and file of the civil servants? Has the executive of the organization asked for this? And I want the Minister to tell us in his reply if that• s where he got the request? Mr.

Speaker, I have no knowledge as to whether or not the --(Interjection)-- you've got a lot to learn in this ad libbing. Just take your time and learn. You're using the wrong moments to bring it in. You'll learn them. I have no knowledge, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not this type of legislation is in effect in other jurisdictions, but I want the Minister when he's closing the debate to tell us as to whether or not there is such legislation in our si ster provinces.

And if there is such legislation, has he enquired as to the outcome of it or how it is working out in order to justify that such a recommendation should be in this bill? Or are they going to tell us, Mr. Speaker, that it's a first for Canada, as they've told us so many times on so many other subjects through out this session. You know, Mr. Speaker, I don't have to tell you. You went through the agony of it to night, of what can happen if this sort of legislation is adopted.

We had an exhibition tonight of a person in the employ of the government, the chairman of a very important Crown corp oration, and he was sitting in the gallery lis tening to what was being said. What a shady- what a shoddy and shady exhibition. Mr. Speaker, we had a forerunner tonight of what this legislation is going to produce in the future, and I predict· it will come about. And why should this Legislative Assembly be placed in that posi tion when. it's not called for ? --( Interjection)- The Minister of Labour asks me to give him an opportunity to reply, Mr. Speaker. You'll do that.

But in the meantime, he will use words and words and words to make me believe that black is white, to justify what he's going to say, but it doesn't take away anything from the truth, that if you take away the fact that the Civil Service must stay outside of this Legislative

3166 May 22, 1973 BILL NO, 55 (MR , BILTON cont'd) ....• Assembly and carry out the orders of this Legislature, and do what is right and proper in the name of the people of the Province of Manitoba, we will be making a grave mistake. The Minister of Labour tonight, Mr. Speaker, attempted to defend the action of a friend. Who is to say that future Ministers and future members, regardless of government, under circumstances similar as they were brought out tonight, will not do the same thing in Legislatures of the future. Mr. Speaker, is it worthwhile ? Is it necessary ? --(lnterjection)- YoU're nuts!

"Yes, " you say. You go and pin your diapers. This hasn't happened in a hundred years in this province and there's no reason for it to happen now. The civil servants of this province have carried on beautifully, honourably and sincerely. Don't disturb it. Let it stay that way for another hundred years to come and don't you be suggesting to me that I am defend ing something that's wrong. I'm defending something that's right; and I believe that the Civil Service in themselves would want to stay out of the orbit of this Legislative Assembly. --(Inter jection)-- This man, Mr.

Speaker, chose to stand before an NDP nominating meeting in Swan River and I have no, I have no regrets in mentioning it. I'm just taking the hide off him. But he's in the employ of this government and he's responsible for the spending of $4 million of the people's money. I say to you, Mr . Speaker, he has no right to condemn a member of this Legislature on the public platform at a public meeting and particularly a political meeting. This is wrong. But you're aiding and abetting it if you bring in this Act. Mr. Speaker, the quote from the Star and Times--a nd it's not an editorial, it's a news story, Mr.

Minister of Labour--it was Mr. Alford's opinion, it was Mr. Alford's opinion, an employee of this government, a public servant, there's no way out of it, in Mr. Alford s opinion the present day opposition to the government lacks all sense of honesty and integrity. Can you imagine that, Sir ? --(Interjection )-- He said that they accuse the NDP government of handing out easy money but welfare records show that no references were made, no re ferences for welfare were made by the NDP members--and Pete you'll love this--from Ste.

Rose or Dauphin, while 28 were made by the PC member representing Roblin, and many many cases in which the Member for Swan River put on pressure even if they were in�ligible. Mr. Speaker, that's the avenue we're going into if we adopt this

section in this, and I ask for serious thought being given to it. I'm not pleading my own case ; never mind me. I'l l live forever. --(Interjections)-- But, Mr. Speaker, in the interests of the people of Mani toba I ask you, Sir, and I ask the government in all sincerity, to please consider the impact of this section, and I ask them to call upon the Civil Service by way of referendum and let them say whether they want to become involved in politics or not. I have faith in them and I know what they will do. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR, ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, with some eager anticipation I have prepared some rather lengthy notes ... --(Interjection )-- I've prepared some rather lengthly notes . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please . ORDER! The Honourable Member for Lakeside spoke already on this question. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker ... deference to your ruling, the people of Manitoba will be ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Is it the pleasur e of the House to adopt the motion ? The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Lakeside, that the debate be adjourned.

MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GRE EN Mr. Speaker, I'd like to advise the honourable member that I'll be in tending to call this resolution again tomorrow and I hope that he'll be in a position to proceed at that time. --(Interjection)-- I didn't hear that. A MEMBER: ... have enough guts to go ahead with it? BILL NO. 59 MR. GREEN: Call Bill No. 59, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Health. The Honour able Member for Fort Rouge.

May 22, 1973 3167 BILL N0 . 59 MRS . INEZ TRUEMAN (FORT RO UGE) : Mr , Speaker, may I have this bill stand please ? MR . SPEA KER: Agreed? (Agreed) . The Honourable House Leader. MR . GREEN: Mr . Speaker, I'd like to advise the honourable member that we •11 be calling this bill again tomorrow morning at which time I hope she' ll be prepared to proceed . Bill No . 61, Mr . Speaker. BILL 61 MR . SPEA KER: Proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance . The Honour able Member for Souri s-Kil larney . MR . McKELLAR: Mr .

Speaker, the Honourable the Minister of Labour I see is an xious today but I wished I heard -- I don't think I heard the Honourable Minister properly when the word he just used because it's very unparliamentary . MR . SPEA KER: Ord er , please . A MEMBER: Ord er. Order . MR . McKE LLAR: Mr . SpeaKer, I•m just going to say a few words on Bill 61. If the Honourable Minister would keep quiet for a few minutes I1d be glad to get on with the job , And looking over this Bill No . 61 I find . . . --(Interjection)-- MR . SPEAKER: Ord er , please . The Honourable Member for Souris -Kill arney. MR .

McKELLAR: I thought maybe the Minister of Labour was going to take the floor; he was making a speech from his seat. Mr . Speaker. I1d like to say a few words on Bill 61, changes in the tax credit, property tax credit, of change in polic y from a year ago, changing it -- doubling the limit, the minimum of $5 0.00 to $1 00. 00 and a maximum of $140 to $200, applying practica lly the same rules as before, I understand, with the exception of one major change .

The major change is , instead of having it deducted off our income tax we•re going to collect part of it from the municipal office and part of it through income tax. That's the major change . Mr. Speaker, there •s been three years we •ve had three different property tax credit plans . The first one was $50. 00 deducted from sourc e , off our municipal taxes . This past year we had the one the minimum of $5 0.00, maximum of $140.00 deducted from our income tax. Now, Mr .

Speaker, in the year 1974 -- 1973, 1973 municipal taxes, in the year 1974 we•ll have part of it taken off our municipal taxes and part off our income tax. So there's a complete change in policy again, Now I just wonder how long the people can -- if they'd only leave things for a year or two alone , just leave it alone , I think the public would appreciate it. But every year the gover nment comes along with a new idea of how they can serve the people , thinking that they're going to help the people . Mr .

Speaker, with all due respect to the government of the day, the only difference between a millionaire and the person on wel fare is the difference between $1 00. 00 and $200. 00, and the millionaires are going to get $1 00.00 and the people on welfare are going to get $200.00; that•s the only difference. That•s the only difference; they're sharing the wealth. Well if they're interested in the people who need help, then give the whole thing to the people that do need it, in my opinion, instead of helping the millionaires in the Provin ce of Manitoba. I•m not one of those that bel ieves in helping millionaire s.

They don't need any help . And I think the Member for Morris mentioned today, the millionaires are getting ric her in the Provin ce of Manitoba under the Socialist gover nment; but the people , the poor people who need help , are getting poorer because they can't keep up with inflation. It doesn't mat ter how you put it , the government are increa sing the cost of everyone 's living every day of the year through high taxes and through other costs of gove rnment operations . There 's no way you can keep up with the thing.

So what happens, as I mentioned, the millionaires get riche r, everybody else gets poor er , •cause the rich people look after themselves, they don't need governm ent to look after them; they can look after themselves . And this is not right. It•s not right in principle to gi ve $1 00.00 to million aires . It•s not right. If you got that much money, why not give everybody a little more , give them a little more if you got that much· money ?

That's not the way to divide it; all you're doing, as I mentioned before, is dividing people , dividing the public farther and farther away , and that's not the kind of society I want to live in in the Provin ce of Manitoba . Mr . Speaker, the one catch in this whole bill, the one catch that isn' t in the act, that's in this here paper that was brought out here, it's brought out, and it's kind of a catchy thing

3168 May 22, 1973 BILL 61 (MR . McKELLAR cont'd). • . . . too. It's the one little short paragraph at the bottom. And it says: 11All examples assume sufficient property taxes or rental equivalent to qualify for these benefit levels . That, in that short statement, it means the same that if you don't have the property taxes, the rental equivalent, you don•t get the money; you get only a portion of what you pay in, you can't get any more than the amount that you paid in property taxes, It's right in there; it's right printed on.

So the Minister of Finance gave it and he said it, So it means that an elderly person in the Province of Manitoba living in a town like I live in, who pays at least $50,00 to $60.00 taxes will only get $50.00 or $60.00 in rebate; they won't get the $200.00 so it's false advertising to go on radio and television and tell everybody that they qualify, if they're earning less than $3, OOO they qualify for the maximum.

It's not right; it's not right; they don't get that, because on every page it•s got that paragraph, every page in this piece of paper that the Minister of Finance handles, and it pretty well explains it. So, Mr. Speaker, the act doesn't come out clearly and state the facts . That paragraph should have been qualified right in the act here, in the bill which we are dealing with, in Bill 61. It should have been put in there for various reasons, to qualify the payment of the property tax credit plan. Mr.

Speaker, we•ve had debates on rebates, we•ve had lots of debates on rebates and they didn•t start yesterday either. The first tax on rebates that we had was in the year 1964, a year which I will never forget. 1964. The Honourable Minister of Labour was here and the Honourable Minister of Finance was here and the Premier was here, and that's all on that side of the House. Three members on that side of the House were here in 1964 --(Interjection)- They didn•t bring about my defeat because I'm still here .

I' m still here, and I' ll be here, and I' ll be here after the next election --(Interjection)--I•ll be here, I• ll be here . 1964, a rebate plan was brought in, was brought in by the Minister of Finance at that time. The Premier of the province, Mr. Roblin -- Mr. Roblin, the Minister of Finance in his budget.

He brought that plan in based on the commission report; not entirely on the commission report because the mill rates on schools financing are 13 mills across the province --( Interjection)--and that wasn't adopted by the government of the day; it was felt that there should be a larger amount with the tax rebate. And what happened that year, Mr. Speaker? I'll tell you what happened.

The opposition of the day practically laughed the government out of the province -- they tried to laugh the government out of the province, because they're bribing the people with their own money, bribing the people with their own money, and just to make matters worse the Minister of Finance that year sent cheques out under his own name. Now this government of the day, they tried the same too. They tried the same ; they tried it everywhere; they tried sending cheques out.

One way they tried to send them out from the Federal Government through the income tax; they tried it on the municipal tax; this year they're trying it on both, through income tax and property tax. This is the new plan coming up . And every year they change the plan. I guess if we lived long enough for the Socialists to be in power for ten years they'd come up with ten different plans. It1s pretty hard to criticize because every year they juggle it a bit, juggle it a bit just to confuse the man on the street.

But the one thing I must admire of this government, they're the best advertisers that we've ever saw ; they're the best advertisers. When it comes to Autopac they advertise; when it comes to property taxes or credit plans, migosh you can•t go to the television or radio without more about the property tax credit plan. You don•t have to advertise, Mr. Speaker, when you•re giving out money. As the Member for Portage la Prairie says, you don •t have to advertise when you got a weak case .

Well, I don't know whether it's a weak . . . maybe if you got any ideas to interpret; when you have a weak case you advertise it -- pardon me . But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you, I want to tell you, with all those ladies that were on -- those old ladies down there, they were practically in their graves, I don•t know where you got them from, but they were hobbling around trying to prove a point on tele vision. Well, I don•t know what that did for me.

It didn•t generate much enthusiasm in me . -- (Interjection)--I don•t know what it did to the government side, I don•t think it generated much enthusiasm for the people of the Province of Manitoba. But I tell you, I tell you, there 's a lot of my money gone down the drain. There was a lot of my money gone down the drain, and that's what counts. I don't mind if you give it to me, I•l l pay all the taxes, but when you put it on and advertise on radio and television and newspapers, every day and every hour of the week, there's something wrong with the government of the day as far as I'm concerned.

May 22, 1973 3169 BILL 61 (MR , McKELLAR cont1d) And they'l l likely come back and say, oh, when the Conservatives were the government, they did something too . The Minister of Mines and Natural Resourc es, he1s got a famous mind. The only trouble there is that when I•m talking about 1964 he was on Metro Council about that time; he was having all the troubles he had with Metro , trying to solve their problems, so I don't think he remembers too much, and I don't think the Minister of Labour remembers that much either. I know that he voted against the property tax credit plan in 1964 .

He voted against a plan -- sure it was maybe not that much, it wasn't that much. It permitted -- each parcel of land in the Province of Manitoba that was owned by an individual, and you got $50,00, a max� imum of $50,00 on each quarter sectio n. It didn1t look much, it didn't look much, it didn•t look much. I happened to get over $200. 00; it wasn't very much in those days, 1964, but I tell you it was appreciate d. But I tell you, I tell you what, we figured in the long run there must be a better way of distributing wealth, distributing wealth, and it lasted two years; that's as long as we kept that plan.

Because I tell you there wasn't one good comment that I had over that plan. So we all realized that as members of the government of the day, get rid of it. Distribute the wealth in other ways; by lowering the tax mill rate on education; lowering the mill rate ; trying to reduce the cost of educatio n to the man on the street. Now that didn't solve the problem either, because we got a problem worse than that now -- the division between the general mill rate on residential and farms, and the general mill rate on the businessman.

And it's becoming really apparent today, after listening to the Mayor of Brandon mention increase in the mill rate, it was going to happen in Brandon. I imagine they've over 120 mills on the mercantile in Brandon; over 90 on the residential and farms in the City of Brandon. And there are some farms in the City of Brandon, too . This is the kind of mill rate that they'r e talking about in Brandon, And 11d like to say to the people in Winnipeg , you•re not that bad yet that you have to pay that kind of taxes. Mr.

Speaker, I want to read a little bit, just a little bit here , I think because it states 1964, just what we offered the people of the Province of Manitoba that year; just one little short paragra ph , because I think it should be put on record again nine years later, August 17, 1964, a special session of the Legislature that year, and this is Mr. Roblin -- I•m quoting Mr. Roblin: 11The system we propose is a 50 percent rebate of school taxes paid to a maximum of $1 00 of tax, a maximum of $50 payment on each tax bill of any year .

Our estimate of this cost is be tween 8. 5 and 10 million dollars as against the $1 0. 2 million the Royal Commission propos ed. By this -- and Madam Speaker, this is a most interesting statistic -- by this something over 60 percent of all school taxpayers will have their taxes cut in half, while others will enjoy sub stantial benefits." That's Mr . Roblin in 1964. Well, nine years later we're still back in the rebate system back trying to share the wealth, as I call it, Trying to, I guess maybe we did the same thing, trying to help the millionaires out as well as the poor people who own a home .

I don •t know whether this is the right way to approach the problem or not. My way, Mr, Speaker, is to help those that need help , Everybody else doesn't need help , as far as I am concerned , in soci ety. If they got enough gumption and enough git in them, they'll go out and make a living . If the people are handicapped and the people are disable d, those are the people that need help in our society. And the elderly. They 're the ones that need help , I don't think our society can afford a cradle to the grave welfare program that we •re trying to provide for them.

My honest opinion is, I don't think we _can afford it, and if we could afford it I•m all in favour of it, but I don't think we can afford it in the Province of Man itoba. We haven't got that kind of wealth. Sweden tried it; Sweden tried it. It hasn't been a really success in Sweden; they've had such success they' re paying about 52 percent tax on every dollar that they earn. That•s not the kind of society I want.

I want a society that when I finish a day's work I got something left; and I don•t want every government coming to me saying they'll help me out with the LIP program or with this two-price wheat system that we're getting from the Federal Government, or the $5 8,00 I got this year, $58 ,00 that I got from the Provincial Government this year. I don•t think that's necessary. I think we got to provide a clima te, a climate that will meet -- to try to encourage people to do something for themselves, to provide for their familie s, to provide for all their necessities of life .

And everybody doesn't have to live up to the highest standards. I think that's one of the mistakes we got, that we think that every body should have a bull, that everybody should have a trail er, that everybody should have a cottage at the lake . I don 1t. think that •s necessary . If we •re working in a -- migosh we appreciate

3170 May 22, 1973 BILL 61 (MR . McKELLAR cont'd) • • • . • our own family on the weekend at home rather than try to have to go to the lake every -weekend to enjoy the fresh air there. I think that we gotta look after the elderly, the handicapped, and the other people who might need help in our society, who through some unfortunate instance cannot provide for themselves. But let•s try to avoid looking after them, as I mentioned before, from the cradle to the grave. Mr. Speaker, there •s nothing much more I have to say.

I found out through government that governments don't get any pats on the back for paying out to people a little donation. They don •t get it • • • The public won•t -- in fact if you want help won't thank you one little bit. They'll take the money, sure. I'm sure that you won•t get one cheque returned to you as a government . But I tell you in the long run it just won•t make any difference to the people, to the average man on the street. They'll say, "Thanks again, " but it just won•t help. Mr.

Speaker, for those of us who are farming, for those of us who are farming, if you look at the $5 8.0 0 that I got, it's $5 8.0 0 that I would -- actually I end up with about $30.00 net return because I would have been paying, I would have used that $5 8.0 0 as an expense through property taxes, through reduction of property tax. So I end up with about $3 0.00 net by the time I pay my accountant another $5.0 0 or $1 0.00 for making out my income tax. So this is the amount I get left over, $30.00. That won•t really make that much difference to me. I suppose to some people it will. This is, Mr.

Speaker, this is my feelings on the subject matter. It•s not that great if we •re going to help anybody, and to the millionaires I suppose they'll enjoy it for a half an hour -- that•s about as long as it•ll last them. And actually my feelings on it, I feel that the govern ment could use that $40 million, $40 million to build more roads or do something else -- maybe encourage them, I don't know, Something that would generate more economy, or generate the economy in the Province of Manitoba some way -- yeah, more jobs, that's what we•re asking for, not just part-time jobs during the winter.

I think this is what we need, is something that would accomplish that. But seeing that•s the government policy, I guess we can't do anything about it , It's a kind of a piecemeal deal, and I always considered our deal as a piecemeal deal. It wasn't going anywhere -- all we were doing was pouring 10 million out. Mr. Speaker, in those days our budget was less than 200 million, so we poured 10 million out of 200 million; 5 percent of our budget went to rebate. --(Interjection)-- I told my leader - we caucused in those days and we still caucus.

But that•s one of the difference I find is that I don•t think the backbenchers on the government side really hit their government hard enough. I tell you, my Leader here and the Member for Lakeside, and the Member for Riel, the cabinet ministers, they knew that they were in a caucus meeting after the backbenchers got finished with them. I'll tell you that right now. 1111 tell you that right now. This is the way you should operate as a government. This is the way it should -- it's got to be that way; it's got to be that way, but I don•t think the backbenchers do their job; I don•t honestly think.

I never saw a bill come into the Legislature, it was the wrong bill before us, That's an experience. It took me 15 years in this place before I saw a bill get first reading, three weeks later it was pulled out. That would never have happened if that bill was in caucus; it never would have happened, I can tell you that now, Mr. Minister. It•s not the way to do it, So, Mr. Speaker, I'll just sit down. I know there •s other speeches to be made here and I• ll just say once again, in my opinion I don•t think that the rebate system is the right way of sharing the wealth of our province.

And if you•re going to share it, look after those that need it, look after them in such a way that they won't be embarrassed to live in the Province of Manitoba . They'll be proud to be Manitobans, proud to be Canadians, and that•s all I think they're asking for. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. BEN HANUSCHAK (Minister of Education)(Burrows): Yes, Mr. Speaker, would the honourable member permit a question?

I believe on two or three occasions the honourable member did hint that he favoured a more equitable form of distribution of wealth, but he never did get around to describing a method that he thinks would work. He described one that in his opinion failed. Would the honourable member take a couple of minutes or so to describe a method that he thinks may work. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Souris-Killarney. MR . McKELLAR: Yes, I'd be glad to answer that. In 1961 we brought in a Social Allowance Act, 1960-61. That was one of the first things that we did as the government, to equal oppor tunities.

And if you read the Act, the Social Allowance Act in those days, it provided for

May 22, 1973 3171 BILL 61 (MR . McKELLAR cont'd) . • . • . necessities of those people that were unfortunate enough to make a living on their own . It provided for private Medicare cards , it looked after drugs, hospital, Medicare and everything else , and also made it possibl e that they could go to a nurs ing home if they needed that kind of care . This is one of the things that we did , Now I' m not saying that -- maybe that isn•t enough but it was a start, a start in those days, because we only had a $1 00 million budget. We didn•t have that much money.

Now I think there's 50, OOO or 60, OOO people who have a free Medicare card , and I tell you they appreciate that free Medicare card , You can talk about the Pharmacare bill we got in right now. The Pharmacare bill does a lot of things but it isn•t as good as the one that they paid fifty or sixty thousand people that over the age of 65 have , because they get everything paid , and this government still adopts that policy, Now that•s a start. You•ve got $700 million, $700 million that you're spending in the current Estimates this year . We had $342 million the last year we left office .

You are spend ing over twice as much. Now I don•t know whether you're spending it wisely or not. I can have that argument, I•ll likely say at election time whether I think you are or whether you aren't . But you have $360 million that you could help those people that need help, and that•s all our so ciety is as king for. But they don 't want you to help the millionai res. I don't think . . . MR. SPEAKER: Ord er, please . Order, please . The Honourable Leader of the Oppositio n. MR. SPIVAK: Mr . Speaker, I move . . . --(Interjection)- MR . SPEA KER: The Honourable Minister of Labour . MR.

PAULLEY: Well let him adjou rn. I never saw such an outfit in all of my political career who were so wont to adjourn when we're in the middle of a very important discussion, and I can understand and I' ve seen two or three instances of that this evening , and now I can understand why it is that the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition is running out, because I want to criticize him, I want to criticize his party and their approach to the whole question of income tax in the Provi nce of Manitoba .

I realize that the Honourable Member for Souris Kil larney raved this afternoon or this evening on the matter of income tax. I can well imagine , Mr . Speaker, why the Member for River Heights wants to get out of this Chamber because he has an aversion from hearing the facts of life , politically, he has an aversion of hearing what really are the considerations of the people of Manitoba in the field of income tax. He did have the opportunity, Mr . Speaker, at one stage in the game , of being the Minister of Industry and Commerc e .

I heard him this afternoon raise questions as to the cost factor involved in in dustry and commerce . And I think, Mr . Speaker, all members of the House would agree with me that when there is a cost factor involved in the operation of government, that somebody has to pay for it, and insofar as the Provi nce of Manitoba invariably it is the taxpayer of the Pro vince of Manitoba has to pay for it, albeit that some contribution may come from federal sources as well as internally here in the Provi nce of Manitoba. But how typical, Mr .

Speaker, is it of the Leader of the Opposition Party to run out of the Assembly when some member of this side of the House is in a position to criticize . I have noted today, Mr . Speaker , the total absence of the Leader of the Liberal Party . I hope my honourable friend the Member for Wolseley is not ill --( Int·erjection)-- Oh, I•m sorry to hear that he is ill and I'm suggesting -- no I won•t suggest, I trust then, Mr . Speaker , that he will so recover that he can take

part in the deliberations in this House , in .this Chamber , so that he is better educated and, in being better educated, better enabled to carry through his functions as the Leader of the third party in this House . So me people , Mr .

Speaker , suggest that it may not be too long before the people of Man itoba will have an opportunity of assessing the capabilities of the three major parties in the Provin ce of Manitoba , namely the New Democratic Party who happens to be the government of today, the Conservative Party who, for the time being, happens to be in Opposi tion, and the Li beral Party who are aspirin g to come back into the political spectrum of the Provi nce of . Manitoba . -- (Interjection)-- pardon ? When will the election be ? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, the election will be when it is call ed .

But after having listened to the tirade and the utter nonsense of the Honourable Member for So uris-Killarn ey, who attempted to go over the past few years dealing with the matter of income tax and its application to the citizens of Manitoba , I wonder really, Mr . Speaker , whether my honourable friend for Souris-Ki llarney -- and I guess this is the reason that the

3172 May 22 , 1973 BILL 61 (MR. PAULL EY cont'd) . . . • • Leader of the Opposition slunked out of this Chamber -- I wonder if my honourable friend from Souris-Killarney really and seriously has considered the past performance and policies of the Conservative Party in Manitoba. I recall, Mr.

Speaker, not so many years ago, before I would suggest that half of the members in the present House had the opportunity of taking parts in the debates in this House, that the Conservative Party of Manitoba, in order to raise revenues for the policies and the programs that they thought were necessary, imposed a 5 percent sales tax upon the citizens of Manitoba. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for Souris-Killarney and his absent leader at the present time are objecting to an income tax proposal that will place upon Man itobans a policy of the extraction of their wealth based on the ability to pay.

The Conservative Party and at that particular time, or just prior to that, the Leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker, in Manitoba, the Honourable Duff Roblin -- and I can say Honourable Duff Roblin because of the fact that in 1967 by edict of Her Majesty the Queen , Duff Roblin as a Premier of Manitoba was given the honour of being a Privy Councillor -- at that particular time, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Duff Roblin just before that said that the sales tax was as dead as a dodo.

Having said that, about two years ago -- two years after , the Conservative Party of Manitoba brought before this Assembly a proposition to impose a sales tax on the people of Manitoba. The Honourable the Leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker, during this session condemned the New Democratic Party, of which I have the honour to be a Cabinet Minister, condemned this party, condemned this government, because we imposed an income tax based on the ability to pay. And, Mr. Speaker, what did in effect • • . A MEMBER: What did he do with the sales tax? MR . PAULLEY: What? He didn't do a damn thing. But, Mr.

Speaker, what did the Leader of the Conservative Party in his comments on the income tax in our budget, what did he say? What we should do in this province of Manitoba is to reduce the personal income tax of the citizens of Manitoba and the taxpayers of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, what would have been the net result of that? Would it have been the matter of alleviating on the lower income group their requirements of payment under the income tax? I suggest , Mr. Speaker, the answer to that would be, no. Who would have been the big benefactors?

I say that the big benefactors would have been the people like the Leader of the Opposition Party, who doesn•t have to worry about where his nickels are coming from. The Leader of the Liberal Party who doesn't have to worry about it either. -- (Interjection)-- Well, maybe the Minister of Finance, maybe the Minister of Labour, but Mr.

Speaker, the difference is , the difference is that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour because of their peculiar income , or the amount of their income , are prepared to pay, that the crocodile tears that emanate from the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party insofar as the collection of the required finances to operate this government is a horse of a different colour.

Yes, my honourable friend the Member for Portage la Prairie says it's a lot of nickels, and I agree with my honourable friend, and I would suggest to my friend from Portage la Prairie that if he's got the nickels, then let him pay. And this is the whole basis of the philosophy of Bill 61 that we have before us. And what does it do? It is an endeavour to re-distribute, Mr. Speaker, the wealth of this province so that those who have not do not have to make the same contribution as those who have insofar as the operation of the functions of government at the school board level and other areas.

The Honourable Member for Souris-Lansdowne admitted apparently that in ten years there were ten different plans insofar as the re-distribution of wealth is concerned. I suggest to him, Mr. Speaker, that this is quite within the realm of possibility. It may be, Mr. Speaker, that the propositions that this government are putting forward in this Assembly will have to be changed from time to time. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I suggest --(Inter jection)--yes from election to election and in-between elections as well, the Honourable Member for Arthur has suggested.

Again I want to go back to what his former leader said --(Interjection)-- as soon as I'm finished. I want to go back, Mr. Speaker, to the point that my honourable friend the Member for Arthur has raised, election from election, that the Honourable Dufferin Roblin, who just prior to an election, Mr. Speaker, said that the sales tax was as dead as a dodo --(Int erjection)--yes you heard me, but I want to re-emphasize, my honourable friend, that just shortly after that election he introduced a measure into this House imposing a sales tax on the people of Manitoba.

So I can say to my honourable friend --(Interjection)--Well, I don't give a continental what you call it, it was still a five percent tax on the people of Manitoba on their

May 22, 1973 3173 BILL 61 (MR . PA ULLEY cont •d) . . . . . sales purchases that was as dead as a dodo prior to an elec tion that the Conservative Party of Manitoba imposed shortly after receiving the support of the people , Mr . Speaker, I would suggest to you that we are being a little more honest in our ap proachment, We are not bringing these measures in because there may be an el ection. We have fought for the principle of the ability to pay ever since there was an involvement of the old CCF and the New Democratic Party in this government.

And if the Member for Souris Killarney wants to take exception to this, I give him that right. All I want to say, Mr . Speaker, --( Interjection) -- no it's not a God-given right but it•s a God-given directive to all of us that we should look after those who haven't the ability to pay as much as the Leader of the Conservative Party or the Leader of the Liberal Par ty. This is our approach and this is the direction that we are travelling in. Mr . Speaker, it's perfectly true that not before too long the politi cians in this province may be facing the elec torate face to face . A MEMBER: How so on? MR .

PAUL LEY: So oner than you will want because then your stipend, your emolument will finish. Because I am sure , Mr . Speaker, that insofar as the Member for Swan River is conc erred, he is goi ng to have the opportunity of getting his pensio n that was enacted by the Conservative Party on his withdrawal from the Legislature of Manitoba, and I predict, I pre dict that that will happen. My honourable friend, who is not even in his own seat, Mr .

Speaker, won the last election by 52 votes and I suggest and I predict that my honourable friend the Mem ber for Swan River will lose his deposit at the next election, but I'm not a prophet . --( Inter jection)-- There 's no deposit, that•s right. I• m sor ry. We abolished the deposit to save the Honourable Member for Swan River his hard-earned money as the operator of the Swan River Ti mes , and we will allow him, for a little while at least, to continue with the profits he gets from the workers that are invol ved in his printing plant at Swan Rive r, who are just about, as I understand, Mr .

Speaker, just barely above the minimum wage in Manitoba . On my return I want to say as Minister of Labour , and I•m sure that I will be , I want to say to the Honourable Member for Swan Rive r that while he won1t be a member of this Assembly, I am going to make sure that there is different treatment insofar as his employees are concerned . But apart from all of this, Mr . Speaker, --( Interjection)-- rats ? I don't know whether I1m a rat or not but I•m a real ist and I don't fault my honourable friend if he did call me a rat. --(I nterjection)-- threat? Oh . Of course not. You're too much of a gentleman.

Yes, with all your dignity and all this that and the other, Mr . Speaker, I can imagine that my honourable friend would n't say that I1m a rat because he knows that I may have some rebuttal. But, Mr . Speaker, I want to say just one or two other little words to the Honourable the Minister of So uris -Killarn ey, and I don't know whether he , like his leader, has folded his tent and left the Assembly . I do want to make reference to the attitude of the Conservative Party to these little old ladies who appeared on TV.

The Member for So uris-Killarney made reference to these little old ladies who appeared on TV, and he was very disparaging in his remarks to these little old ladies and what they had to say, because of the fact that this government, unlike the previous government, took into consideration the matter of abolition of Medicare and hospi tal premiums , which as of June lst, I think everyone know�, will be abolishe d. But, Mr . Speaker, it was that government --(Interjection)-- right.

That government who refused to allow these little old ladies who appeared on TV to use their prepaid funeral benefits of $150. 00 as a deduction from their welfare benefits. The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge who stands up here and gives vent to her concern for the old aged, those who are on welfare . I wonder, Mr . Speaker, whether she has ever taken into consideration the callous attitude of the Conservative Party of Manitoba , when they refused, when they refused to allow persons who prepaid a funeral plan from having that as a deduction from their income . What's happened recently?

Even the Ci ty of Winnipeg , even the City of Wi nnipeg , Mr . Speaker, have agreed that the amount of re fund that the welfare recipie nts are going to receive as a result of the activities of this govern ment will not be conside red as income . We have done that insofar as the recipie nts of pro vincial welfare recipien ts. But that government, that government who are now endeavouring to be re-el ected, refused to allow as a deduction, Mr . Speaker, a prepaid funeral contract to bury a widow or a widower who may be a recipien t of welfare . And this, Mr . Speaker, is the government, this, Mr .

Speaker, is the Oppositi on, who today is saying to the ele ctorate of

31 74 May 22, 1973 BILL 61 MR . PAULLEY cont'd) . . . . • Manitoba, 11Give us a chance to turn the clock back to where it was before this damn New Demo cratic gove rnment with this humanitarian approach ," This Conservative Opposition, Mr . Speaker, oh they're fine fellows with a heart of stone, fine fellows with a heart of stone and a mentality that would go back to the Spartan age when they threw people over the abyss. But this, Mr , Speaker, is a type of appro ach . --(Interjection)-- Yes , that•s right.

I say to the Honourable Member for Minnedosa, the bank manager, and he ought to know, he ought to know because of his asso ciation with the poor people in Minnedosa - he says , "Over the hills and into the vall ey. " And 1111 bet you, I'l l bet you a dollar , Mr , Speaker, that he , like so many other Conservatives, have that in their mind today . MR , DAVID R . BLAKE (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker , it's probably a point of privilege rather than a point of order. The Honourable Minister is ranting on about prepaid funeral plans that the Conservative Party would not all ow .

I happen to know some thing of prepaid funeral plans , and it•s a blessing that the Conservative government had some investigation into prepaid funeral plans because many of them were discontinued after the government investigated them. And they became known as some . . . of racka teer programs rather than prepaid plans, and I would like him to clarify just what he was referring to when he referred to what our govern ment had . . .

MR , PAULLEY: • . • my honourable friend that after a few years of Conservative gove rnment in Manitoba in respect of prepaid funeral plans , people were afraid to die lest they had their prepaid funds confiscated by the Conservative government of Manitoba. This is a fact Mr. Chairman, and if my honourable friend and his former leader, who had an association possibly up in Minnedos a, carried themselves on this way then I can understand it . But, Mr.

Speaker, my whole point is , my whole point is that here is this ineffective opposition, the Con servative Party of Manitoba, trying by buffoonery to make an appeal to the people of Manitoba to return them to office . Bill No . 61, Mr . Speaker, I suggest to you is an approach to a real ization by this gover nment that the operations of the government of Manitoba should be based on the ability to pay principle , a principle that is absolutely foreign to the Conservative Party as evidenced by the statements of their leader, the Member for River Heights, in this House . But how phoney, Mr.

Speaker, are they really ? The Member for Souris-Killarney objects to Bill 61 . The Honourable Leader of the Conservative Party, in his Budget address in this Hou se, condemned the approach of this government --(Interjection)-- A fine fellow yes, but how incapable and how incompe tent.

A fine fellow is right, Mr , Speaker, but the Honourable Member for River Heights, after condemning this government, after condemning our budgetary approach to the financial consideration for the well-being of the citizens of Manitoba, didn1t have tl:i.e in testinal fortitude to carry through their criticisms but the House for the first time, as I under stand it, Mr . Speaker, in the history of the Province of Manitoba, voted in favour of the budg etary propositions of this government, I say to you, Mr . Speaker --(I nterjection)-- It•s not true? The record shows it, Mr. Speaker .

The record shows that the Conservative Party - (Interjection)-- MR , DEPUTY SPEA KE R: Ord er, plea se . I am trying to intently listen to what the Min ister is saying. If the honourable member, the Member for Lakeside wishes to take

part in the debate, I •m sure that he 1ll have ample opportunity. The Honourable Minister of Labour . MR . PAUL LEY: Mr. Speaker, the fact is , on the day of the taking of the vote insofar as the budget motion was concerned, there was a mumble from the Conservati ve Party when Mr . Speaker presented the motion: those in favour say aye : we say "aye", those opp osed , there was a rumble of nay on the Opposition side of the House, Mr .

Speaker, but when my friend and colleague the Honourable the Leader of the House called for a recorded vote, every single man and woman of the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the Independents and the Social Credit member stood up, if they were in their seats, and said, Mr . Speaker, we are in favour, we are in favour of the prog ram. My honourable friend from Lakeside is now saying, "Get back to the stealing of the insurance policies of the little old widow who had a prepaid funeral plan '.' I think possibly that would be more important to my honourable friend from Lakeside .

He would like to focus the activities of his party on that rather than to agree with the proposition that this gove rnment has taken, to take from those that have and to provide for those who have not, and I •m sure, Mr . Speaker, that the Honourable Member for Lakeside is among that very very few who have so damn much that they don•t want to give it to those who have so damn little, MR . ENNS : Mr . Speaker, .o n . • • not on a point of privileg e; let me, Mr. Speaker,

May 22, 1973 3175 BILL 61 (MR . ENNS cont•d) • • • • • accept the challenge of the last few remarks of the Honourable Minister of Labour in dealing with the bill , Mr. Speaker, precisely in dealing with the bill on the basis of which he spoke on the bill. --(Interjection)-- Well, Mr . Speaker, I will • • • of course , through a scrutiny by the Clerk and yourself, Si r, whether or not I-have spoken on the bill . It seems to roe that I have already been in this difficulty earlier this session, but in advertently, in my eager desire -- that I may • • • MR. SPEAKER: Ord er, plea se .

I can assure the honourable member that on Bi ll 61 he has spoken. Order, please . Friday the 18th. A MEMBER : Was that Good Friday ? MR . SPEAKER : In the evening. It'll be in Votes and Proc eedings No . 60. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? The Honourable Member for Fort R

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-5-115
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 5th hansardpdf 115.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	638ba0a30502b8227bffe3e538d2da9f16e660e6

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