Manitoba Hansard — 25 November 1977 (Sitting 2, 31st Legislature, 1st Session)

31-1-2

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 First Session - Thirty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Vol. XXV No. 2 26 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker 10:00 a.m.Friday, November 25, 1977 Printed by P. N. Crosbie - Queens Printer for the Province of Manitoba

Time : 10:00 a.m. THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY of MANITOBA Friday, No vember 25, 1977 MR. SPEAKER, Honourable Harry E. Graham (Birtle-Russell) : O Eternal God from Whom all power and wisdom come; we are assembled here before Thee to frame such laws as may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our Province; grant 0 Me rciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy Will; that we may seek it with wisdom and know it with certainty and accomplish it perfectly for the Glory and Ho nour of Thy name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen. Presenting Petitions ...

Reading and Receiving Petitions ... Present ing Reports by Standing and Sp ecial Comm ittees The Honourable Min ister of In dustry and Commerce. MIN ISTER IAL STA TEMEN TS AND TA BL ING OF REPOR TS HON. ROBERT (BOB)BA NMAN (LaVerendrye): Mr. Sp eaker, I would like to present a report to the return to the Order of the Ho use No. 45, issued on Ja nuary 7, 19 77 on the motion of Mr. Sherman. This return was compiled by the former Minister of In dustry and Commerce and was mailed to the mover and party whips. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HONOURABLE JAMES E.

DOWNEY (Arthur): Ho nourable members of the opposition, members of the government, I have a statement which I would like to make at this time to the Ho use. Cop ies are being provided to the honourable leader of the opposition and to the Liberal member. It is in respect of the National Chicken Broiler Marketing Plan. I wish to state, Mr. Sp eake r,8Man itoba will enter such an agreement only if two conditions are to be met. First, that Manitoba's share of the quota increase one-half of one percent per year for the first five years, and that there be a further consideration at the end of that period.

Secondly, that Man itoba can move live and processed products inter-provincially without restriction. Insofar as quotas are concerned, the proposed agreement established quotas for each province based on the average sales of respective c hicken b oards and agencies. During the 1971 -1975 period, the quota set for Manitoba was 3.92 percent of the national figure, but we want as a condition of our entry, the right to increase this by a half percent a year, to reach six percent of the national quota in five years, with further consideration beyond that.

Our insistence being able to move both live and processed produce inter-provincially without restriction, is to insure that we are not left in the situation whereby we supply live chicken for processing elsewhere. We want to ensure that our chicken broiler process ing industry will not suffer as a result of our entry into the national plan. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourab le Leader of the Opposition. MR. EDWARD SCHREYER (Rossmere) : Mr. Speaker, it is customary that comment be made by this side of the House with respect to Min isterial Statement of this nature.

The subject matter of this particular statement on motions is one which - no pun intended- is not small feathers. Really, what lies behind this, Mr.

Sp eaker, is a problem which perplexes agricultural policy formation in our country for many years, and it is further compounded by the fact that politically and among farmers themse lves there are two very different points of view as to what ultimately is in the better interests of long term productive agriculture - supply management with attempts to maintain optimum price that can provide a return that is necessary for healthy agriculture, and then those - need it even be said, it is so obvious - who feel that that approach is too fraught with bureaucracy, artificial regulations, and that it is better in the long run to simply let the free market make the determinations.

Ne edless to say, from time to time this fluctuates - this country, other countries in the free world, govern ments change, policies change, and the great white hope of the moment is replaced by its successor and it, too, ultimately runs into the prob lems that arise of taking any theory to extremes. So in one sense I look at this and say, "So, what else is new?", but more important, Sir, I express the hope once again that the ultimate realization of the negotiations taking place inter-provincially and federal-provincially will bear some productive results.

What I might say as a word of advice to my honourable friend, the new Min ister of Agriculture, that I can share in the sentiments that are expressed in these two conditions, but that there is some danger in negotiating anything inter-jurisdictionally if you place your conditions on the tab le publicly in advance - makes it rather difficult to arrive at a healthy atmosphere of negotiations. MR. SPEAKER: Are there any further ministerial statement s? The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. DONALD CRAIK, Minister of Finance (Riel): Mr .

Sp eaker, I beg to present return to Order of the Ho use (No. 46), issued on Ju ne lath, 1977, on motion of Mr. Sherman. This return was compi led by the former Minister of Finance and mailed to the mover and to party whips. Mr. Sp eaker, I'd also like at this time to table the report of the Provincial Auditor to the Legislative 13

Friday, No vember 25, 1977 Assembly for the fiscal year ended Ma rch 31st, 1977. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion ... Introduction of Bills . ORAL QUEST ION S MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SCHREYER: Mr . Speaker, Sir, I'd like to ask the First Minister if he can confirm or clarify, in whatever way he sees fit, that in fact no members of the Civil Service Commission have been removed by, or attempted to be removed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. STERLING R. LYON, Premier(Charles wood): Mr .

Sp eaker, the membership of the Civil Service Commission remains as it was when my honourable friend left office, with the addition of three new members to that commission. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Sp eaker, I obviously accept that as accurate and, therefore, I should like to ask the First Minister if he would assure this House that when meetings of the Civil Service Commission are held, that in fact all members of the commission receive notice of the meeting, as one would normally assume they would. MR. SPEAKER: The Memb er for lnkster. MR. SIDNEY GREEN: Mr .

Sp eaker, I would like to direct a question to the minister to whom the Manitoba Development Corporation reports. It has been variously reported recently in both dailies that Flyer Industries has lost $40 million. Since the total accumulated loss as at October llth was $16 million and since the company was on its way to making a profit this year, could the member advise how the Corporation has lost $24 million in one month of Conservative administration? MR. SPEAKER: The Me mber for lnkster with a suppl ementary. MR. GREEN: Mr . Spe aker.a supp lementary. If, Mr .

Sp eaker, the figures are as I stated them and if, in fact, the Conservative administration has not caused a loss of $24 million in the last month-w hich I can't subscribe to, I don't know - would it be advisable for the minister to indicate to the newspapers that stories of such losses affect the Corporation in its attempt to obtain new orders and that it's not conducive to the business climate in the province of Manitoba that such losses be suggested? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Me mber for St. Bo niface. MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS: Thank very much, Mr . Sp eaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. In view of the repeated statements by members of the present govern ment before and after October llth, that a Conservative gove rnment, unlike the former goVernm ent, would place people first and that their first priority would be to conform with the recommendation of the Fire Commissioner, could the honourable minister explain his public statement of November 9th, that in order to save appr oximately $10 million the minister would simply lower standards. Is that an opinion placing people first, Mr . Sp eaker? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Public Works. HON. HARRY ENNS(L akeside): I am happy to have the oppor tunity to indicate to the members opposite that just this week contracts were let, work has commenced on the recommendations of the Fire Commissioners in carrying out the necessary renovations to the Portage La Prairie School for Retardates.

Add itional contracts for project work is out for tender for an additional $300,000 of bringing up to date and to complete comp liance with the Fire Commissioners reports in that particular institution, and that while I have no further control over the media reporting of a minister's statements no more so than my honourable friend had when he sat on this side of the House, my concern has to be a concern that was somewhat taken out of context into what possible way we can work towards carrying out Fire Commissioner repo rts under the new Ma nitoba fire code as it is now in force as from the date Ap ril lst. MR.

DESJARDINS: Mr . Sp eaker, I have a supplem entary question. Actua lly my honourable friend did not really answer my question. Have the standards been lowered or is my honourable friend now saying he has been misquoted in the newspaper and that there will be no lowering of the standards? MR. ENNS: There will be no lowering of the standards. 14

Friday, No vember 25, 1977 MR. SPEAKER: The Me mber for St. Bon iface on a final supplem entary. MR. DESJARDINS: No it's not, it's to another minister and ... MR. SPEAKER: Then I recognize the Member for Selkir k. MR. PAWLEY(Selkirk): My question was directed to the Attorney-General but he's not in his seat at the moment, Mr . Sp eaker, thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for The Pas. MR. RON McBRYDE, (The Pas): Mr. Chairman, a further question to the Mi nister of Public Works.

Since the new court house and jail at th The Pas were necessary because of the Fire Commissioners report on the old court house and jail, I wonder when a decision will be made to proceed with the new court house and jail at The Pas. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Public Works. MR. ENNS: Decisions on that facility along with other facilities that have temporarily come under review will be made in due cour se. MR. SPEAKER: The Memb er for The Pas on a supplementary question. MR. McBRYDE: Mr .

Sp eaker, sort of a supplem entary but to the minister responsible for the Fire Commissioners office, I assume that would be the Min ister of Labour. I wonder if the Minister of Labour as the minister responsible for the Fire Commissioners office is concerned about the statement made by her colleague and whether in fact the Fire Commissioners office reports will be implemented. MR. SPEAKER: The Me mber for St. Boniface. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we determined that the press has been misquoting some of the ministers, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour.

Has the Minister been misquoted also when the minister made a statement that the laying off of people in Thompson by lnco was the fault of the former government; and if the minister was not misquoted could she explain how she reached th is conclusion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Labour. HON. NORMA PRICE(Ass iniboia): Mr . Sp eaker, I don't believe I said that the fault was wholly the fault of the former government, I did say that it was due to the very strict rulings that the former government laid down to the mining industry that necessitated this problem to a degree. MR.SPEAKER: The Me mber for St.

Bon iface on a supp lementary. MR. DESJARDINS: Is The minister then saying that the same restriction has been in order in Ontario with the Conservative government, is that the reason why they are laying off peop le in Sudbury? MR. SPEAKER: The Memb er for Fort Rouge. MR. LLOYD AXWORTHY(Fort Rouge): Mr . Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Dev elopment. He is reported as stating that he intends to review and re-examine the role of the youth centre and to indicate its primary function as a detention centre.

Does that mean that the youth centre will no longer provide any rehabilitative services for the young people placed in that centre? HON. L.R. (BUD) SHERMAN(Fort Garry): Mr . Sp eaker, it does not mean that at this juncture. I would say to the honourable member that the role and function of the youth centre req uires intensive evaluation. My colleagues and I haven't arrived at any conclusion as to what the fundame ntal ultimate role will be determ ined to be but it will necessarily involve roles and functions for other institutions. That's part of an ongoing review at the present time.

Rehab ilitative services obviously have to be provided for juve niles. Should the determ ination be made to make it primarily a detention centre, that decision would only be made provided there were facilities for rehabilitation for juven iles elsewher e. MR. SPEAKER: The Memb er for Fort Rouge on a supplem entary. MR. AXWORTHY: Sup plementary, Mr . Sp eaker. If the minister's statement indicates the fact that the review is a broader based one than simply the Youth Centre, can you indicate then that the total 15

Friday, No vember 25, 1977 area of rehabilitative services for young people or young offe nders is under review and could he tell us who is undertaking this review? Is it being done in consultation with the variety of agencies such as Children's Aid and others which are involved in the delivery of these services or is it purely an internal cabinet matter? MR. SHERMAN: Mr . Sp eaker, at the moment the review is being under-taken in a semi-offic ial and rather informal way by myself and members of my department.

I would like to take the opportunity to assure the honourable member that it will be a much broader review than that, that will involve the members of the executive council, probab ly the Task Force under my colleague the Minister without Portfolio. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Elmwood. MR. RUSSELL DOERN: Thank you, Mr . Sp eaker. I want to direct a question to the Mi nister of Pub lic Works. Does he still intend to introduce legislation concerning Fire Commissioner's Reports and standards to make it legal for the government to delay most of the impleme ntation? (I nterjection)- MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Elmwood, with another question. MR. DOERN: Mr . Sp eaker, apparently the minister does not grasp the question so I will ask another question. Has he now found money,

whereas appar ently he could not find money a few weeks ago, of the order of $10 million to imp lement these reports? Has he now found funds and will he continue to uncover funds to be spent on the implementation of these recommendations? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Public Works. MR. ENNS: The possibility of finding any money after my honourable friends opp osite have been in office for the last eight years is highly unlikely. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for St. Vital. MR. JIM WALDING: Mr . Sp eaker, my question is to the minister reporting for the Man itoba Telephone System.

Can he inform the House whether he has met with the Board of Commissioners of the Man itoba Telephone System? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Consumer Affairs. MR. McGILL: Mr . Sp eaker, in reply to the question of the honourable member for St. Vital, the answer is no. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for St. Vital on a supple mentary. MR. WALDING: The supp lementary question, Mr . Speaker, is it the intention of the minister to meet with the Board of Commissioners? MR. McGILL: Mr.

Sp eaker, in reply to the supple mentary question, I would like to tel l the honourable member that I appre ciate his concern as to the affairs of the Manitoba Telephone System. I know his interest and I share them' and I certainly do plan to meet as time perm its with the Bo ard of Commissioners. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Vital on a final supplem entary. MR. WALDING: Yes, a final supple mentary, Mr . Sp eaker. Would it be the intention of the minister to develop new broad policy guidelines for the Ma nitoba Telephone System. is he working on these? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System. MR. McGILL: Mr. Sp eaker, matters of policy are indeed a great concern of this government and certa inly they will be undertaken in due course. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Selkir k. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed towards the Attorney-Genera!. Would the e.tto�eemay �e p:rn� etouse as to the commencement date for the launching of the St. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. 16

Friday, No vember 25, 1977 MR. MERCIER: I will accept that question as notice, Mr . Sp eaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Se lkirk with a supple mentary question. MR. PAWLEY: This is on a different subject matter. MR. SPEAKER: Then I will recognize the Honourable Memb er for Wellington. MR. CORRIN: My question, Mr . Speaker, is directed to the Honourable Attorney-Gener al. Mr . Sp eaker, on November 4th, it came to my attention through the media that the Honourable Attorney Ge neral had announced that an electronic sweep of all ministerial offices was to be performed by the RCMP.

Presumably the sweep was performed in order to dete rmine whether or not any surreptitious electronic surveillance had been taking place in those offices. Mr . Sp eaker, my que stion is, who did the Honourable Attorney-General suspect of having attempted to undertake that sort of surveillance? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: Mr . Sp eaker, Sir, the electr onic surveillance was carried out and the members of the RCMP have nothing untoward to report. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Wellington on a supple mentary. MR. CORRIN: The question, Mr.

Sp eaker, was, who the Honourable Attorney-General suspected of conducting such surveillance. One presumes that there was a rationale for asking the RCMP to make the surveillance. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-Gene ral. MR. MERCIER: Mr . Sp eaker, Sir, we suspected no one in particular. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Me mber for Wellington on a final supplementary. MR. CORRIN: Might I ask, Mr. Speaker, why those public costs were incurred by the Attorney Gen eral if no one was suspected? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Ste. Rose. MR. A.R. (Pete) ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker.

I have a question for the Minister responsible for the Man itoba Ho using. I would like to ask him if a resolution passed by the Ma nitoba Housing Bard to purchase the BPO Elks senior citizens' housing in Winnipegosis and for the addition of twelve units will proceed as planned. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for the Ma nitoba Housing and Renewal Corpor ation. HON. J. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): Thank you, Mr . Speaker, and I thank the honourable member for his question.

The project that he is speaking about is part of the program for 1977-78 which is presently being reviewed by Management Committee and I would probably be able to give you an answer right now if that program had been presented to Ma nagement Comm ittee before October 24th when we took office. It had not been presented. It is presently being reviewed and I will have an answer for you later. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for St. Bon iface. MR. DESJARDINS: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. Mr . Speaker, I have a question for the First Minister.

In fact it's more begging him to say, "Say it isn't so," and that he was misquoted also. Mr . Sp eaker, yesterday it was quoted that you had accepted the position of Sp eaker for this session and the next session, then you would dete rmine if you would go along with this non-partisanship approa ch. This seemed to indicate that you will be partisan for the next session and I would want the people of Ma nitoba and members of this House to know that this isn't so. So please, Mr . First Minister, say this isn't so and you were misquoted. MR.

SPEAKER: I don't know whether the Honourable First Min ister wants to answer that. HON. STERLING R. LYON, Premier (Charleswood): Mr . Spe aker, it should never be the position of the First Minister of this House to attempt to speak on your behalf, Sir. I think that you are quite capable of indicating by your deportment and by your conduct and chairmanship of this House, your absolute fitness for the position that you now hold and which we hope you will hold for many years. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Rupertsland. 17

Friday, No vember 25, 1977 MR. HARVEY BOSTROM: Mr . Sp eaker, in view of the fact that a promis was made during the election that there must be and there will be jobs, what is the First Minister intend ing to do about the anticipated appr oximately 10,000 people in the construction trades who will be out of work this winter? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR.

LYON: In answer to my honourable friend's question, I think that the people of Manitoba on the 11th of October did the best job that they could to ensure that there will be an economic climate in Manitoba which will be conducive to the production of jobs in this province. We are hoping that that will take place. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Rupertsland with a supple mentary. MR. BOSTROM: A suppl ementary, Mr . Speaker. How does this fit in with the promise of acute protracted restraint? MR, LYON: . .. very well ... MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Me mber for Bu rrows. MR.BEN HANUSCHAK: Yes, Mr .

Sp eaker, I have a question for the Honourable Minister of In dustry and Commerce. In view of the fact that on November 18 th in the Information Services release, he had endorsed govern ment interference in the private sector as long as it is not excessive. Would he be good enough to define the type and nature and the extent of government interference that he endorses? ORDE RS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. On a Point of Order the Govern ment House Leader. HON.

WARNER JORGENSON (Morris): I am sorry to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition, but I wonder if I may ask the Steering Committee to meet outside the House some time this morning. THRONE SPE ECH DEBA TE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SCHREYER: Mr . Sp eaker, I was pleased to accommodate my old friend, the Member for Mor ris, the Government House Leader. Well, Sir, I would begin in a way that I'm sure you can anticipate.

It is to my mind so completely appropr iate that I should take this earliest opportunity to comment on your personal elevation to the office of Sp eaker of this assembly. I have no way of knowing whether you were really wanting that position and responsibility or whether you are about as surprised at your new role as I am in mine. That is to say that your surprise - what I believe to be your surprise - and mine in finding ourselves at recent days and weeks in our new roles perhaps differs only by a small degree.

No doubt both you, Sir, and I share the feeling that were it not for the honour of the thing, we would just as soon that it were otherwise, and that the previous incumbents of these two positions had kept them. Be that as it may. I am sure that you would permit me on this day, at least today, to reflect on the fact that some have reflected on your previous role in this assembly and because of your desire, I suppose, to play a very active partisan role here, were rather skep tical about the likelihood of your futur e impartiality.

But may I say, Sir, that I choose to be optimistic about your future conduct as Speaker of this assembly. The only fair test is time itself and the opportunity of proceeding on a new chapter. So I wish you well, Sir, and trust and hope that you will settle into your new role in a way that in the course of only a few months - certainly a couple of years - that you will feel as though you were to the Chair, born.

I take this opportun ity as well, in a way that everyone can expect, to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in reply, and for that matter all new mem bers of the administration and all new members of this assembly on both sides of the House. For all new members of this assembly - and I would think, Sir, there are about a dozen new faces and persons here in this Legislative Assembly - I exp ress the hope that their experience here will be interesting and not disappointing.

On the other hand, since this assembly is a reflection, at least it is supposed to be a reflection of reality of the real world and life of our province, there will without doubt be some disappointment as well. In congratulating the First Minister and members of the Cabinet, I make the observation that I app reciate full well the obligations and pace that they are and must carry. That is why I do not find it 18

Friday, No vember 25, 1977 difficult, at least in that one respect, I do not find it difficult, Sir, to express, at least with respect to their physical well-being and health, to wish them wel l. Although it has often happe ned that the first session after an election - I guess it is normal - is one in which there is oftentimes continued hassling and reliving of the previous election. I shall try on my part to keep that to a minimum.

Refe rence has been made to the size of the government majority and the fact that the majority, and it is a fact, gives them a solid basis upon which to assume that they speak for a goodly number of itobans, and that is a fact.

On the other hand it certainly does bear telling and completing the circle, that insofar as the Official Opposition is concerned here that there is a perfect propor tionality in the sense that I do not believe that for a half century or more that an Official Opposition has been put into that role and position with as high a proportion of the public vote as was the case in this past election. In deed I should say the highest and by a good deal higher than any previous political party occupying the role and position of Official Oppo sition in Manitoba.

So there is nothing undue or disprop ortionate in what has happened with respect both to government and opposition. I suppo se there is no way I can avoid making reference to the fact that the party of the Honour able Memb er for Fort Rouge had some part to play in the way in which these numbers and totals and proportions all materialized on election day. We ll, I don't want to reflect unduly on the past, even as recent a past as the election itself.

I believe that the conclusions are self-evident enough, that there is proportionality as between government and oppo sition and, indeed, the higher level of suppor t, but equal ly true on both sides of the House. Now, may I add as an afterthought, Mr .

Sp eaker, to the mover and seconder of the Address and Reply to the Sp eech from the Throne - I have already congratulated them - say, in a slightly different context that I would suggest, if I can offer some fatherly advice, that they place their speeches of yesterday in a three-year chest and open it three years from now to read, not only for reasons of nostalgia - I dare say it is a nostalgic occasion, or will be so regarded in a few years- but also to compare for reasons of critical analysis and consistency, to compare their thoughts as exp ressed yesterday with their thoughts as they have them in the light of three years of experience in this Assembly and experience after three years of responsibility in grappling with the problems of the real world to see whether or not there has been any real learning experience, any real or significant change in view.

I'm not suggesting that that will necessarily be so, but I suggest that to them they will find that an indeed I fear that there may be a reversion to about the same pace of entry into agriculture by young people as was the case in the 1960's. Mr . Speaker, that wasn't good enough. It was admittedly a problem - a rate of entry into agriculture less than half of the rate of entry of new people into agriculture in the past five years. So, my honourable friendwill be hard pressed, but I urge him on and prosperity of ag riculture in our province. So, we shall be watching that with very, very close interest. Well, Mr .

Speaker, I should like now to come to the Throne Speech proper and govern ment actions and posturing to date. I would begin by indicating in the time that I have now which was not possible yesterday in proper proced ures to indicate that insofar as cooperation is concerned in this session, we shall, as I outlined in bare detail yesterday, we shall be accommodating up to a reasonable point. We feel that it is only logical that if leave is required to introduce bills so that they can be read, we have already demonstrated that we are prepared to grant leave.

We recognize full well that the government has the right to introduce motions on notice and these motions are debatable. It is to our view only logical that those who have views to present and to argue, hopefully cogently, will have an opportunity to do so. We do not intend to tahe time and delay proceed ings by way of introduction of resolutions or orders for return at this session, and we would not propose to introduce motions in order to give everyone an oppor tunity to speak a second and third time on what would essentially be the same subject matter.

So, having said that, I would hope and trust that there is no need to rush to the introduction of "speed-up" or closure really so very early in proceedings. And I hope and trust that the meetings which are held in the usual way- as the exp ression goes, "behind the curtain" I think the exp ression is - where the house leaders and whips will be successful. Now with respect to the government's actions to date. Und er normal circumstances, one would not be particularly critical unless, of course, there is specific cause.

I must say that before I deal with the subject matter, the specifically-mentioned subject matter of the Throne Speech, that underlying it and behind it there is something I must make reference to - part of it is not surprising, part of it is surprising and unfortunate - and that is the government's economic analysis and statements relative to economic analysis, economic policy! to date and their fiscal posturing.

Of course I must say I wish that every member of this assembly and every Ma nitoban for that matter had an opportu nity to receive and read a document which has been made available by the federal Department of Revenue, Government of Canada, which presents the April, the June and the October estimates and revisions and estimates of revenues for all provinces with respect to those sources of reve nues and tax fields that are collected by the National Department of Reve nue, and if one were to read the entire and analyze the entire document in total Canadawide persp ective, one would see that any attempt by my honourable friends opposite to suggest that there is something undue or disproportionate that is happening here in Ma nitoba, they would realize very quickly thatthat is false.

Because it is a matter of some significance I intend to take some time here today, Sir, to put on the record the fact that for example and to begin with, that the gross total province estimates of revenue that were prepared last March for the beginning of the new fiscal year starting in Apr il showed an amount of $12 billion, 658 million, which three months later, even with the benefit of three months of actual experience, the amount was not significantly revised, that of $12 billion, 600 million was revised 19

Friday, No vember 25, 1977 to $12 billion, 603 million, a difference of a few million but far less than a percentage point. But then, Sir, in the prepar ation of the estimates, the revision of the estimates for the third quarte8 and they keep this constantly upgraded and updated, s ignificant revisions were made by those who run book on behalf of all pr ovinces and the estimates then were revised from $12 billion, 600 million, 658 million, down to i 2 billion, 400 million, and that is after making adjustments in revenue guarantees, equa lization and the like.

But indeed, Sir, there was a change of in excessive of $700 million for all ten provinces in the personal and corporate income tax estimates for the provinces. Indeed , to be more precise a change of minus $688 million .

Then if one takes that and translates it to each of the ten provinces, one finds that in the case of Ne wfoundland, revision for Newfo undland by the federal Depar tment of Revenue people of $16 million downwards8 Prince Edward Is land $2.5 millio; a province of a 100 thousand people; Nova Scotia revisioned downward of $26 million8 New Brunswick revisioned ; downward of $21 million; Que bec, there is no collection for Que bec by Revenue Canada!

Ontari; a revision of $337 million in personal income tax collection alone downward8 Man itob8 personal and corporate, the revision of $43 million downward Saskatchewa; a revision of $40 million downward. In Alber ta, a revision of $78 million downward. In the case of British Columbia revision of a $12 0 million downward.

Now, while no one may have stated it in so many words, the implication that was left - I suppose one has to say by innuendo or insinuation was that this was somehow undue and disproportinate here in Ma nitoba alone of the ten provinces when in fact even qu ick analysis will show that that indeed is the very opp osite of the case. -(l nterjection)- Yes, a prob lem of course, but one that has to be viewed honestly, if honestly at all, in total national context and per spective and in that context and per spective the phenomenon is not in any way unusual, undue or disproportinate in Manitoba.

It is a problem admittedly but one that is of entire nation-wide significance and remarkab le consistency, and that perhaps should have surprised no one since the nature of the problem has to do with forces that go really on a national and8 indeed many of them, not all but so many of them, on an international scale. Indeed, my honourable friends8 in the short time that they have been in office already have reason to know that, if they didn't know it before, but I believe that they did know it before but chose to i nore it everyt hing they said publicly.

Be cause they, I am sure, are grappling whatever ways they feel they can with the problems that are caused as a result of the announcement by international,!indeed in the very name, the Internat ional Nickel Company, where they have indicated that notwithstanding a political climate - the words in brackets are mine, Sir - notwithstanding political climate, notwithstanding the election of a government that is dogmatically wed to the notion that they must do everyt hing to encourage, entice, cajole, not only private enterp rise but corpo rate enterp rise, notwithstanding all that, they have taken a decision that reality requires that they turn down their scale of operation, rate of production and also of employment.

I wouldn't suggest for a split second that my honourable friends opposite are to be blamed for what is presumably a fact that International Nickel finds that the international market demand for nickel is such that they wish to continue and undiminished levels of production and employment have to carry ever-increasing inventory .-at increasing cost to them. Ha rsh reality has required they take that decision. But it is interesting, Sir, that in terms of the election of a Conservative government in Ma nitoba that didn't seem to make the slightest differe nce.

I mention that because that certainly is important and significant background information. My honourable friends do not always have the luxury of pretending and posturing the notions that if corporations are having difficulty, that in every case all that need be done is to defeat a Social Democr atic government and elect one that is absolutely committed. I would say, dogmatically committed to unrevised, not only private but corporate private enterp rise. We ll, we can see how much difference that is making. In deed, Mr.

Sp eaker, there are forces it so happens of an international economic order of magnitude that will cause governments to have governments to have great difficulty in grappling effectively with quite irrespect of whether they are pro corporate or not so completely pro corporate enterp rise in their philosophy. In case it need be said to remind, I take the opportunity to say now once again, that I would have thought that most people would share the iew.

Frankly that is not yet the case, that most people could share the view, that experience of the past thirty, forty years has to a time when we can accept the notion of a mixed economy, and a jud icious admixture of private and corpo rate-private and pub lic enter prises being the ones most likely to do as good a job for the wel l being and prosperity of the greatest number of people as any conceivable alternative arrangement.

Well, we shall watch with interest to the extent to which honourable friends opp osite rely less and less on pub I ic instrumentalities and more and more on that of reliance on corporate enterpr ise to take us into a better and more highly employed economy. , They will forgive us, I'm sure, for being pretty sceptical as to the efficacy of tax changes in bringing about - particularly if the tax changes are in so large part relevant to such a small percentage of the popu lation - they will forgive us for being sceptical as to the efficacy or effectiveness of that kind of appr oach in reducing unemployment and bringing about more eq uality of the human condition, more access of eq uality of oppor tunity.

Having said that, Mr . Speaker, I want to return now to look further with you, Sir, at the document which deals with the ten provinces and the revenue circumstances of each. I have already indicated that there is a significant diminution in the estimate with respect to every province, no exceptio ns. Now, on the expenditure side, which is something that we do not receive by way of estimates from anyone other than ourselves. We do not receive these estimates obviously from Revenue Canada, but rather from each provincial Department of Finance.

In that regard, in case there has been exaggeration and a loss of perspective already, I point out that the extent to which estimates in the 20

Friday, No vember 25, 1977 first two quar_ ters were deviating from the initial estimate, I believe, was in the $20 million range, and th�t has t�. Sir, b_e viewed in perspective because there is need every year, I should think, at about the mid-term in the fiscal year - four, five, six months into the fiscal year -t o run an exercise of looking at actual performance and levels of expenditure in relation to initial estimate projections and to engage in some p�r.ing and cutting from time to time. It is not at all inconceivable that something in the order of $20 million, more or less, could and should be pruned.

My honourable friends, of course, promise to go much beyond th at, and it'll be interesting to see the full extent to which that materializes. I noticed in one of the newspapers of recent date the headline "Lyon Ready to Cut Costs in Two Mo re Areas". So I looked closely to see what was being referred to, and I saw that it was with respect to contracts for consultant services - I don't deny that there may be some room there - and for activities regarding television, film, and video-tape productions. Well, Mr .

Spe aker , video-tape, cassettes, films - I can honestly say that there is always a propen sity for some to advocate more and more of video-tape cassettes and exte nsion, audio-visual aids, and the like, and I believe that we were, for our part, quite stringent in terms of watching that there was no undue increase in appropr iations for those kinds of goods and services.

This is not to say that there isn't scope for some cutting, but I would wonder, Sir, whether - after all, if it merits a headline one assumes that it must if �ot millions, at least amount to so.me te ns of thousands, and I'm going to ask for an Order for Retu'rn in a few months to see whether video-tape cassettes, the extent to which they were dec reased and purchased will amount to a row of beans or not. Again, not because there isn't some scope, but because it is necessary to maintain things in persp ective, and that is what is always so difficult.

My honourable friends are finding that sometimes and it just so happens that forces at work in the world and our country are such that they can wrestle and grapple all they like, they will have precious litle impact. I suspect that many of them knew that, but I don't know to what extent they would have admitted it.

Well, today is not the day, Sir, to go at length into some of these predominant economic forces at work having to do with the very kinds of goods and commodities and suppli es that are regarded as essential to the stability of our industrial free world and to the related way of life and standard of living. Certain of these basic requirements are escalating rather sharply in price, some of it due to the fall-out, the cause and effect of inflation, but some of them really being the motivating force behind inflation, the principal motivating force - commodity price, energy costs, and so on.

Having said that, my honourable friends do not need unnecessary criticism. We'll leave it there for the moment and now turn to the six items which are the spe cifics of the Throne Spee ch. They are significant not only in and of themselves, but particularly because they give a pretty obvious and clear indication as to what the really top priorities of this Conservative administration really are.

As a matter of first and high priority, they are going to repeal the Mi neral AcreageTax of ten cents an acre paid by those who own land which includes mineral rights to it and land which is however also not farmed by the owners. So that means, in effect, those who are corpo rate owners, corporately held land with mineral rights, and those who are holding land in speculation, not actively farming it, and those who are no longer farming.

In case there is any confusion about it, it is very simple and very clear that whoever owns land with mineral rights - and there are many who farm land and own it and do not have the mineral rights - that's another consideration. But the overriding factor, Sir, is to make clear that farmers owning and operating their land who happen to have mineral rights with that land do not pay this tax. So, it is therefore very valid to ask who is the principal beneficiary of this repeal in the ten pen nies an acre Mi neral Acreage Tax. And furthermore, Mr .

Speaker , - (I nterjectio n)- Yes, but the taxpayers I've already identified, Mr . Speaker -(I nterjection)- My honourable friend will be able to justif ... Wei, it is a principle which myhonourable friends obviously should know-it is a form of taxation that has been in place for many years in other sister Canadian jurisdictions, and I don't know that it has been regarded there as having something to do with whether Ma nitoba or Suk atchewan or Alberta is free or not free as the election ditty or slogan went.

So, it's not as though, Sir, there is not precedent for it or a basis for it of experience in other jurisdictions and in more recent years here in our own province of Ma nitoba. But it's obvious, Sir, that they have given this a high priority even though it is also obvious that the principal beneficiaries of it have nothing to do with a number, reat by far, by far the reater number of Mactobans. The other high priority is that they would also rush to abolish the Succession Duty and Gift Tax. Mr .

Speaker , I have acknowledged that ultimately and . eventually, if trends of recent years continue, that it might be necessary for us to discontinue that form of taxation here as well, but it is something which we would have rela ted to all of the other parts of our country and also the extent to which greater or lesser numbers of Canadiansqer e living with that tax or not.

My honourable friends should realize, as some do I am sure; some I am equally sure are not aware, that it was a form of taxation which a previous Conservative Mi nister of Finance expr essed regret at the prospect that it might have to be discontinued for reasons of inter-provincial comparability. The essence of that particular form of taxation was described I believe, by a former Conser vative Minister of Finance as being rather a more equitable form of taxation than so many other forms of taxation. My honourable friends have seen fit to give a first and top priority to the hasty abolition of that tax.

That action too, Sir, has no relevance to by far the greater number of citizens of Ma nitoba. I venture to say Sir, one does not have to be precise to within one percentage point, but I venture to say Sir, that with respect to ninety-five percent of Ma nitobans, that that abolition of that particular tax, which has been admitted by a previous Conservative Finance Mi nister as being relatively equitable, the repeal of it has no relevance 21

Friday, No vember 25, 1977 in any case to ninety-five percent and more of our fel low Ma nitobans. That they are giving first priority to. And they will presumably hope, and it will be quite some hope on their part that this action will somehow result in improvement in the economic performance and pace of economic activity in our province. Wel l, we shall see. There is no ... that this can have an early effect.

We shall see whether it has an effect even in the intermed iate term of any significance sufficient to be measured. they are giving a first and very high priority to the abolition of the time and three quarter with respect to overtime. There I simply wish to say Sir, that at a time of increasing unemployment one woul wonder why they have this haste to return to an arrangement which, if anything, provides in our viewtoo much of an incentive to work overtime to the detriment of those numbers who are unemployed and potentially emp loyable.

That is hard to measure and we suggest an analysis there will show that that particular action will do very little with respect to alleviating even by deg ree8 levels of unemployment in our province. Then too they will suspend the Family Maintenance Act and defer the coming into force of the Marital Property Act, two pieces of legislation which we know and are prepar ed to concede, were controversial enough, partly because of arguments of principle, partly because of arguments of complexity and great detail and uncertainty therefore! in the proposed reform legislation.

So if we are to understand their reasoning and intent, it is that they do not wish to completely void and nullify the intent of the legislation! but rather to postpone it for a period indefinite while they come up with some new approach, some possible further refinements. If that is the true purpose, the real purpose and intent, then of course, that is one thing and our appr ehension and criticism here will be quite restrained.

On the other hand, it will not take that long to ascertain whether the real purpose and intent is on the contrary, not to make refinements in detail, but to make basic changes in principle in the proposed reform of that law. I say furthermore, that one can argue with as much validity that uncertainty and complexity certainly surround the old law bearing on family maintenance and marital proper ty. In deed were it not so8 there would not have been as much surprise in recent years with respect to certain judg ments in one or another Superior Court in different parts of our country in this regard.

The reconciliation of common law and statute law with respect to this area of law has always been a cause of some doubt, confusion, uncertainty. Let there be no pretense that the old law is free of uncertainty, free of ambiguity and more important, that it is acceptably equitable, that it has a sufficient deg ree of equitability in it by present day standards. There is need to accept the fundame ntal premise that this law is in need of reform. The attempt to reform it is now going to be postponed.

Rather than take undue time to speculate negatively about it, I serve notice that we intend to wait a reasonable amount of time for the true intent and purpose of the government in this regard to be made manifest. Then obviously when they ask for concurrence with respect to validating an agreement which we on this side believed we had in any case and all along since the fourteenth of October, 19 75, I don't think it is any secret that we intend to sup port the obvious. One could make the argument that there could have been certain refinements brought into the legislation.

The reason we do not regard that as being of critical importance in that context, is because within a matter of a few months, not many months, it will be possible for those that are affected to whatever degree, to be in a collective bargaining process in which the admittedly great detail of historic8 relationships, , can be thrashed out, talked out, figured out with paper and pencil at the negotiating tables. So for those reasons we feel quite justified in supporting that one of the six measures that are before us. In deed it is unfortunate that there is a direct contradiction between these six measures.

In herent in this one page - it is difficult enough to justify restraint, sometimes it is necessary and unavoidable - but to do that in the same breath as to be reducing costs to society or taxation levels those who are most demonstrably and by definition in greater ability to pay circumstances is somehow really expecting too much of so many. That being the case, Mr . Sp eaker I believe that it is quite obvious and consistent on our part to serve notice as we have just done as to where we stand on these specific measures before us.

I would be remiss, Sir, if I did not take at least sometime this morning to indicate to my friends that we will during the regular session look .for ward to the calling of public accounts so that we can go into detail with respect to revenue and expenditure circumstances in our province and that I will do and my colleagues and I will do in a way that we believe to be most relevant and consistent, logically consistent, and that is in the full perspective of our whole country and not in isolated context We shal also deal with allegations that have been made with respect to the nature of the public debt.

I don't know if I should take time today to put on the record what the definition of "debt" was by a previous Conservative administration premier and what the definition of current and capital accounts were as given by a previous Conservative treasurer, finance minister and premier I leave that to my honourable colleagues. who will have easy access to the Jour nals and Hansards of those years when we last had a Conservative administration and I think for those who are somewhat younger in years it will be an interesting and I think relevant exercise.

But more important than that, Sir, is to point out to honourable members of this assembly who perhaps have had no particular reason or occasion or opportunity to look at public finance accounts that much in the past, that when there is reference to Manitoba's debt, net debt, direct, indirect, more important, Mr .

Speaker, and I find it quite ironic8 that I have not yet heard one Conservative spokesman indicate that whatever the extent of Ma nitoba's current debt and guaranteed liability that something in the order of a half a billion dollars and more of the amount that ex ists on the sheet today were committed, and for reasons by the way which I fully agree with, two of the three at least I agree with, but which all honesty requires be explained, got there by virtue of decisions made and 22

Fr iday, No vember 25, 1977 commitments made for the construction of a multi-hundred million dollar Kettle Rapids power plant, Atomic Energy Commission long distance transmission line, committments by the way which, in case there is even the slightest uncertainty, I make very clear were decisions that properly had to be made.

The important point is the decision having been made the actual creation of the indebtedness did not take place in the decade of the 60's but rather in the decade of the 70's but pursuant to decisions made in the 60's, the conseq uence of which without footnote or expl anation or elaboration one would normally assume that the simple increase in the amount of the guaranteed liability was as a result entirely of decisions made by this administration when if fact a very significant amount, running to hundreds of millions, in excess of half a billion, was brought about or came about as a result of that seq uence of events and that of course changes very much the percentage analysis that people like to make so often in time to time comparisons.

Mr .

Speaker, for reasons I have already indicated, it is certainly entirely logical on our part that I should move, seconded by the honourable the Me mber for lnkster, that the motion be amende d by adding to it the following words: But this House express its regrets that the govern ment has, with the one except ion that has time urgency, given a first priority to five measures that will: (1 ) Change the impact of taxa tion in Ma nitoba and increase the relative burden of taxation on lower income groups by providing tax relief to those who have greater ability to pay, thereby detracting from equ itability at a time of budget revenue difficulty;

(2) Dur ing a period of increasing unemployment, create undue into Manitoba employers to utilize overtime hours at the expense of numbers of unemployed persons potentially employable;

(3) Perpetuate a system of law relative to husband and wife which has proved to be compl icated, uncertain, demonstrably inequ itable, and in need of reform. MR. SPEAKER : You have heard the amendme nt, that this Ho use express its regrets that the government has, with the one except ion that has time urgency, given a first priority to five measures that will:

(1) Change the impact of taxat ion in Man itoba and increase the relative burden of taxation on lower income groups by providing tax relief to those who have greater ability to pay, thereby detracting from equ itability at a time of budget revenue difficulty;

(2) Dur ing a period of increasing unemployment , create undue incentive to Manitoba employers to utilize overtime hours at the expense of numbers of unemp loyed persons potentially employable;

(3) Perpetuate a system of law relative to husband and wife which has proved to be compl icated, uncertain, demonstrably inequ itable, and in need of reform. That is the motion. Is it the wish of the Ho use to adopt this motion? The Hon ourable Me mber for Fort Rouge. MR. AXWORTHY: Thank you Mr . Sp eaker. I would rise at this time to make a comment or two on the . Throne Sp eech .. I recognize that it is break ing with some tradition to follow immediately on the heels of the Leader of the Opp osition.

I find though that I have to make virtue of necessity in effect that the normal procedu res that I would normally be able to follow in asking for adjournment I haven't quite yet figured out how we are going to accomplish that. So I thought that we might as well follow in the spirit expressed by the government to expedite the business of the House and get on with what we're doing so I thought that it might be a chance to say a word or two. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr . Sp eaker, expresseq to you his welcome and congratulations and I too would like to endorse those.

When I think back to previous sessions I can think of no one in the House who has had more experience with the rules of the House and therefore should have a wide and deep breadth of knowledge about their intricacies and their various problems and foils that one can get into so I think that there is no one better suited.

I think in particular, Sir, of the fact that for the past two years in the past two sessions you were the critic on justice in- the rovince for the Con servative Opp osition and I am sure that that ability to understand the judicial temperament will stand you well in the month to come as we test that particular requirement for even handed fair equ itable discretion. I am glad, Sir, that you had a chance to have some preparathis Chamber some new ideas and some different perspectives.

I think after having four years of slug one another in continuous fashion that the addition of some new ideas and different ways of looking at things are certainly welcome, and I would only say that the odd moment, Mr . Sp eaker, as I closed my eyes yesterday and listened to the Member for Pembina recite his Throne Speec h, certain overtones and echoes of the previous Memb er for Pembina wafted through these Chambers, and it would say that if nothing else the peop le of Pem bina have a high commitment to consistency and continuity.

In fact, I was wondering if lago's ghost was also there, and I wondered if that's part of the agreement. I am certainly glad to see that the former Memb er for Pembina will continue in our proceed ings and provide that influence. -(I nterjection)- That's right. I will come to that in a minute, Mr. Speaker. I would also say to the Me mber for St. Matthews - he might read it in the record -t hat I was glad to see that he intends to continue in the undying commitment of his predecessor to the questions of housing. Like he, I very rarely ag reed with the former Memb er for St.

Matthews; I am not so sure I will agree with the present Memb er for St. Matthews, but at least we can talk about the same subject because I think we will both have a continuing interest. Mr . Sp eaker, I have always been taught by my family that in times of trouble and travail one's best source of inspiration is to revert back to the scriptures. Subseq uent to the election I found that perhaps the best text for my comments would come from the scriptures of Job. Those of you who remember your Bible to some deg ree will realize that Jo b was singled out by God as being one of the 23

Friday, No vember 25, 1977 most upright and forthright of men, and having enjoyed all the riches of the world - thousands of sheep and healthy sons and daughters - and he was picked out by Satan to be sorely tempted of his faith in God, and after suffering a number of these abuses and watching his barns burn and his sheep being killed and all his servants massacred one gentleman managed to get to Job and said, "I alone have escaped to tell thee of the terrible news". Well, Mr.

Sp eaker, that would be the text of my presence here, that I alone have escaped to tell thee of the terrible news and it will not always be terrible, but there will be at times I am sure that members opp osite will find that what I have to say will not be totally pleasing to them. I only hope that they will end ure as well as Job has the various boils of office that they have inherited in their time to come.

I too may have the advantage, as the Memb er from I nkster has pointed out, that, if nothing else, I can claim in this House is to speak with a total unified voice - at least inside the Chamber I can speak with a total unified voice - and I would hope, Mr . Speaker, that that voice will have some usefulness in the proceed ings. The question of the Throne Sp eec h, I think, is a very interesting one. We all know that the reason for this session.

It would not have been called if there hadn't been a direct imperative from a court decision to rectify the standing of the law in relation to the .A,nti-lnflation Program. It was of some interest to all of us when the government decided to use that occasion of correcting that particular problem to introduce additional pieces of legislation. Wha t I think is interesting about that, Mr . Sp eaker, is that of all the multitude of commitments and promises and proposals that the Conservative party made in the election, why was it they chose the specific three or four pieces of legislation that they did.

I have had a chance - I certainly got enough of a chance during the election when things were usually delivered to my doorway about every second day outlining the Conservative programs to go through the kinds of things they indicated they might do. And it is interesting that of this range of 50 or 60 some odd commitments that they happened to choose Succession Duties, Overtime Bill, Family Law and the Mineral Acreage Tax as those of most importance to deal with at this additional or special session.

Why was it I ask myself that those particular measures, amongst all of them that they could have provided, they were going to abolish education proper ty taxes, they were going to have a royal commission into the Manitoba Hydr o - now there's a good idea, why didn't we have that going on? - we were going to rebuild highways to Thompson; there was going to be a homeowner's grant for repair and rehabilitation of older homes. There were all kinds of issues, Mr . Sp eaker, that I would say were of some merit, some importance, and yet they chose these particular five that we have before us. And, I can only say, Mr .

Sp eaker, that it was done with very clear and deliberate design.

Well, the fact of the matter is that these particular pieces of legislation, it seems to me, were designed to provide a signal, a very precise and clear signal, to certain groups of people in the community about what they intended to do, that they are all designed, I think, to fit into the economic strategy that has been enunciated so far of signalling the idea ' thatthe way to deal with the economic problems of unemp loyment in the province of Manitoba, which is in many ways our most serious problem, is, in fact, to eliminate some of those nuisance problems that they have, to eliminate those infuriating taxes that bothered the businessmanor that bothered the farmer, whomever it may be, bothered the person who had a degree of capital.

So, we should treat, Mr . Sp eaker, these particular measures really as a package, they really are an economic package, designed to signal out to the popu lation at large here is how we inte nd to solve the problems. And, I would suggest, Mr .

Speaker, that the new government with its newly found mandate is running a very risky game, not a game that many of us are necessarily unhappy with, but very risky nonetheless, because what they are suggesting that they can do is that they can use that signal to the private entrepr enaurial community that they are prepa red to encourage and induce and stimulate their activity as a means of solving our economic problems as opposed to trying to intervene through various measures of government to do so.

And, in company with that they have also undertaken a number of fairly severe freezes, reviews, hold-ups, reassessments, which all amount, in effect, to a holding action or placing a number of economic stimulants in limbo so that at the very time that they are putting out the signal that they want the private sector to take over as our economic stimulant, they are also cutting back on the public ones. And so the risk that they are really running is if the private economy doesn't produce then this province is going to be in one bad terrible shape in the months to come. That is the problem, Mr .

Sp eaker, that I say without any particular necessarily partisan or ideological problems, it is just that they are really running a risk. Mr .

Sp eaker, I think that they have obviously acquired the suppor t of a substantial number of voters in this province for many of the measures that they are now introducing and no one, as the Leader of the Opposition indicated, is against waste, but if the fact of the matter is that after this task force sets down its business and scrambles the var ious departments and comes up with the odd secretary here who may be redundant, and the odd program there that may not be as relevant as it might have been at one time, or that there have been additional employees or too many paper clips bought, when they accumulate all the numbers of dollars that are attached to those so-called fat programs if they don't come up with a substantial significant amount of dollars that they can save, then a lot of this present sound and fury will be for naught and we will have been left with a number of cutbacks without anything to fill the vacuum.

And, let's just indicate, Mr . Sp eaker ... MR. GREEN: Mr . Sp eaker, I'm sorry to interrupt my honourable friend, but I want to know whether I 24

Fr iday, No vember 25, 1977 heard him correctly because I wouldn't want him to be subjected to something in Ha nsard which I am sure he didn't mean. I believe he said, "No one was against ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. Did you have a question for clarification? MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr . Speaker, I will attempt to get the honourable member to correct himself so that he won't some day be quoted as saying no one is against waste. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Fort Rouge. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr . Sp eaker, I accept the intervention of the Me mber for lnkster and it's clarification.

As I said before in my new found exuberance and without the restraint of my former colleagues, I may be apt to strain at times so I thank the Memb er for lnkster. What I, of course, meant to say that no one is against sort of looking for problems of waste and deal ing with them, I think, that was the te nor of the remarks obviously. But what I also intend to say is that if you look at the forecast, not the long-term forecast, the immediate fo recast, three months, six months, twelve month forecast, there are sectors of this economy which are in real trouble.

It has been estimated that as a consequence of the numbers of "freezes" on capital spending programs that the unemployment rate in the construction industry could be i;iS high as 30 or 40 per cent, perhaps higher, who knows, who can take those multiplication facts.

But, certainly the fact of the matter is that when they start off with a base line of about 15 percent unemp loyment, or 20 percent unemployment, in those areas, that all the programs that are now being held back, if they are held back for another three months and then have to go back to the drawing boards, many of those works will not be on the ground until next summer or fall at which time we will have gone through a period of very severe hardship.

I hope that it is not another case of another minister being misquoted, but it seemed to me that one of the ministers of the new government indicated, "Oh, that's all right because unemployment insurance will pick up the slack". It may have been , in fact, the First Min ister. You know, for a government that has pledge d itself to restraint and sound principles to sort of say, "Well we're going to pass the buck to the other guy" - in fact, I have heard, Mr .

Sp eaker, members of the other side on previous occasions when they were in opposition be pretty critical about the abuses of the Unemployment In surance system. Now we have a minister of the Crown saying, "Well, we can get away with it because all those people who'll be out of work can be covered by Unemployment In surance anyway." And that's a federal matter and they're going to have to raise the tax dollars. Our friends in Ottawa in the opposition there can hang the federal guys because they're having to pay the bills for what we're not doing in Manitoba. And we're in that kind of problem, Mr . Sp eaker.

In the election campaign 81 think I and members of my party were certainly very much against several of the capital spend ing programs of the government. But what we said was that they were the wrong capital spen ding programs, they weren't going into the rig ht places, and that the capital spending should have been put into areas that would have had the same impact in terms of the creation of employment but would have been more productive and useful in their impact upon the community and upon the necessary items of the public households in this province, such as housing, for example.

So, it's not simply a matter, Mr . Speaker, of pulling back, it really is a matter of replacing. When I looked at the audit report that the Mi nister of Finance was good enough to send around about a week or ten days ago, and looked at the capital expenditur e areas, many of them that were being done were not in excess. The Manitoba Housing and Re newal Corporation in fact, if I look at those figures, Mr. Speaker, - even under, whatever, the old government, the new government - was spending less of its commitment this year than it had intended to. It wasn't overspending.

In fact, it wasn't spending what it should have been spending in terms of supplying housing needs. And now we're holding that back, creating a high degree of uncertainty in that sector, and as a report in the newspaper of Thursday, November 24th - that must have been yeste rday - said, "City Building Activity Lagging. Construction activity in Winnipeg during October was down sharply from the same month last year, the City Bu ilding Perm its De partment reported.

Perm its valued at $20.5 million were issued last month, compared to $24. 7 million in October 1976." In fact, as this newspaper account goes on, they said that for the last several months construction activity has been lagging. So at the very time when there's a serious downturn in that sector of the economy, the government is compounding the problem by holding back certain areas of public works - almost all of them -a nd are doing so on the basis, Mr . Speaker, of that risk factor, that somehow private investment will rush in to fill the hole.

Well, I sure hope they're right, because if they' re not, then there's going to be some serious economic problems in this province in the months ahead, some very serious problems. Those are the human problems, the peop le problems, that every party at one time or another says espouses. So, Mr . Sp eaker, that is something that I wanted to raise as a conce of mine. I would simply say to members opposite that reassessment is a useful function to perform for a new government. I just hope that that reassessment is not just another word for stoppage.

I hope that the so-called review that is going on is simply not a polite way of saying that we are not going to be doing anything in these fields or only the minimal amount, because if it is, then there is going to be a risk that I don't think we can afford to run at this present stage. And I think there is enough evidence, Mr . Spe aker, by a variety of ec onomic reports to bolster that contention about the need for provincial governments in their own levels to take a greater responsibility for areas of job creation and economic stimulus than they have in the past.

The Economic Council Report, in fact, indicates that the provincial governments have been getting off a little easy in terms of their respons ibilities in the economic field for providing 25

Friday, No vember 25, 1977 stimulus. And so, the strategy that has been adopted has been very clearly signaled in the Throne Sp eech, and I hope that the signal is very quickly picked up by those for whom it is intended. On other matters in the Throne Sp eech, Mr . Sp eaker, I would simply say that I also ex pressed a concern about the initiative taken in the Fam ily Law Bill and we will have opportunity to look at those measures in greater dept h.

But I feel that unlike the other measures that were part of the campaign platform put forward by the Conservative party in the recent election, on Succession duties and overtime and whatnot, there was nary a mention of what they intended to do about Family Law. They did not state during that election that they were going to withdraw - they did not say in the election campaign that they intended as a priority item that they would hold up or suspend the implementation of those bills. In fact, Mr . Sp eaker, and the Mi nister of Public Works would remember, certain members of his caucus voted for those bills.

One could only assume then that there should have been a responsibility to clarify their stance in the election, because it is obviously an issue of some importance to numbers of people in this province, and that a lot of plans or anticipations were based upon the fact, whoever happened to be elected, that those plans, those bills, that legislation, would continue, and that as a result the initiative taken by the Attorney-General to review those acts - and I certainly don't object to the review itself but I certainly think that the review could have been conducted in an enti rely different way.

The acts themselves did not have to be suspended or withdrawn in order for the Attorney-General to have established a committee of the bar and other interested partiesto monitor the implementation and enforcement of the Act, to determine its problems, its intricacies, its diff iculties, and then, if necessary, bring forward any ' remedial legislation at the full winter-spring session. That, it seems to me, Mr . Sp eaker, would have been the way to conduct themselves .

If there was concern and worry about the way in which these bills might indicate problems for implementation on the part of the legal frate rnity or with the In come Tax Department, then I think that there were other ways of handling that, sounder, more rational ways of handling it, than simply putting the brakes on and tak ing what certainly appears to be a series of retrograde steps. Now, the First Minister, in an interview that l happened to catch a few weeks ago, said they are still committed to the principles of those bills. What he didn't say was which principles. All the principles?

Is he committed to equal sharing of both commercial and family assets? Is he committed to the question of equal management of family goods and the family proper ty? Those are the interesting answers that we hope to receive very soon, and perhaps during the course of the Throne Speec h, or maybe perhaps when he introduces the bi II, the Attorney-General would be good enough to indicate that, in fact, the new government is firmly commit ted to all those basic principles of those three pieces8 of legislation, and that what they're intending to do is simply to do a certain cle an-up or clarification.

But even if that was the case, Mr . Sp eaker, I would simply say to them and it may not be too late - that if that is their intent, simply to make the bills better, then I think that they are going about it in the wrong way and they are going to cause a great deal of anxiety, not only on the parts of the different groups that supp ort and promote this legislation, but on the parts of a number of indiViduals who, in fact, have been anticipating, in terms of their own personal relationships and lives, that these would be the law of the province and then therefore were guiding themselves accordingly.

We have now sort of thrown that kind of in abeyance. The Family Maintenance Act is going to be around for two weeks - I guess it's in force now, in effect. What happens there? Do we rescind it totally? Do we say, "For two weeks you're under the new act and then the old act"?

I don't quarrel at all with the concern that members opp osite might have had about implementation but I certainly think that that concern would have been properly exercised by a monitoring system conducted by members of the government and by members of the Bar , and that if there seemed to be major difficulties, then in two or three months' time, when the normal session appeared , then those could have been corrected . So, that would bethe concern that I would certainly raise and will have more to say about it at a later date. I would also say, Mr .

Sp eaker, in relation to the overtime bill, as quickly as I was able to read it last night, again I was somewhat perple xed by the fact that it really only took one side of the issue. It only dealt with the overtime pay rate as opposed to looking at some of the other problems with the bill that were there in the first place - the question of organized labour versus unorganized labour, and the fact that there really were two classes of people established under the overtime bill that we passed last year, which our caucus at that time objected to. So, I will be interested, Mr .

Sp eaker, again in learning from the Minister of Labour what the intentions of the government are in terms of the overall question of overtime and whether in fact it will be dealing with the problems that appeared last year in relation to the major strike that occurred as a consequence of the overtime issue. I would also just like to say, Mr .

Sp eaker, a final word about what I think should not only be the actual legislative activity of this session, that we might also use our short time together- and I hope it is a short time together, my wife informed me that I haven't done any Christmas shopping yet and she thinks I am going to stay in here morning, noon and night to do it, we just wouldn't get along very well - but I would think that going back to the original reason for this session, the need to ratify or bring in legislation to deal with the Anti-I nflation Board, w hat that really in my mind is that it should provide all of us in this House with a very clear recognition that the work dealing with the problems of inflation have really just begun, and that while we can pass a simple piece of legislation deal ing with the past the big question mark in many people 's minds in this province - what about the future - what happens when controls start coming off?

What happens to prices? Are we going to be faced with rent hikes of 20, 30, 40 percent? Are there going to be a massive number of labour management conflicts, disruptions, strikes, as workers attempt to regain all they have lost over the past two or 26

Friday, November 25, 1977 hree years? And so far there has not been a great deal said about what the program or position of the 1ew government might be in relation to how do they intend to cope with the turbulance and lisruption that is inevitable once the controls start coming off? Do we have plans for phasing? Not ust in relationship to the federal program but also within the province itself. We are going to be asked to pass a piece of legislation dealing with the public servants of 111 anitoba.

Those different public servants, associations and employees' groups have said time and :ime again that they have been restricted under this Act and they intend to redeem themselves once it �omes off. Weil l would hope, Mr. Spe aker, that as we deal with this issue that perhaps the Minister of =inance, other economic ministers in the front benches will begin to indicate to us what steps they 1ave taken or are going to take to begin the planning and development of a transition program to deal with the problem of prices in this province.

With a great deal of alacrity they have dealt with the problem of government reorganization and looking for, sort of, excess civil servants. I wo uld say that the same kind of mechanism, task force or whatever it may be, is also required to deal with the problem of transition and to deal with the problem of how we as a pr_ovince intend to move into a period where we can still guarantee to the people of this province that they will not be faced, come next spring or summer or fall, with exorbitant price increases in food and housing and hydro rates and wage rates in civil service. The point is, Mr.

Speaker, there are ways of dealing with it and no one is better placed to deal wit h it than the Minister of Finance who as spokesman in the oppositionS made many of the recommendations himself. So I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will get that kind of information. Finally, I wo uld simply say that one other issue that this House may use the next period to look at initiatives is in the question of our position and role in the debate over Confederation. There has been a number of nice speeches in this House over the past couple of years about the crisis of Confederation and what to do about Quebec.

Sin ce the election the First Minister made a statement in Quebec City which certainly caused me some concern, and I think others in this province some concern, if he is in fact representing the point of view of the government of this province, and I think that the time is getting short, time is beginning to run out.

We have waited, in a sense, our proper period of preparation and of silence on this issue of what does the province of Manitoba intend to do and say in relationship to the reorganizing of this country or the redefinition of its constitutions, and the re-establishment of relationships between the federal and provincial levels. What does it intend to do in relation to the question of language? We had a somewhat absurd situation just last week where one of the courts of our province had to run out on the street and sort of find any handy francophone that they could haul off who happened to be ...

Some woman said that she was delivering a letter in a mailbox and all of a sudden she found herself on jury duty and some poor fellow was trying to get home for dinner and he found himself on jury duty. Obviously, Mr. Sp eaker, that issue cannot be left unattended too much longer. It would seem to me that again a prime responsibility of this House in its new session, in its new life, is to address much more seriously than we have in the past that very critical issue.

I would simply raise as a matter of proposal perhaps for consideration that one of the items that the new government might consider is the establishment of a legislative coittee to examine and receive the concerns and representations of people in this province so that they also understand what the variety of opinions and attitudes are. It was not an item that was debated with a great deal of frequency during the election campaign but I know, Mr. Speaker, it is on a lot of people's minds. What are we going to do?

There's all kinds of private organizations and associations being set up to deal with it, and there are conferences and seminars. I think the new growth industry in Canada is conferences on national unity.

I would hope that we can maybe conduct it in a more legitimate fashion in terms of the elected representatives of this province also dealing with the issue, and dealing with it in a fair degree of non-partisanship through the avenue or vehicle of a legislative committee that might examine the constitutional requirements, the questions of language in this province, how it affects the courts and the Legislature pand come up with the kinds of recommendations that might be made. I think, Mr.

S peaker, we all know that those are notions tinged with a great deal of emotional ism, a great deal of concern, and it may be that the best way to conduct it is to do so in a way that all parties may be involved in those deliberations and examinations in order that it is not something that is seen �as partisan one way or the other. I would simply leave that suggestion - a recoendation if you like, Mr. Speaker - for some consideration. Perhaps the First Minister wou ld at least contemplate it in a minute or two amongst all the many other busy activities they have. So, Mr.

Sp eaker, there are some of the concerns that I on behalf of my party- the only one on behalf of my party that is here, intend to raise du ring this short session - and also some of the concerns that I hope the government wou ld think about in terms of preparation for the next winter spring session. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. 27 t n d j M t c F h w

Friday, No vember 25, 1977 MR. DOERN: Mr . Sp eaker, I move, seconded by the Me mber for St. Vital, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carri ed. GO VERNMENT BI LLS - SECOND READ INGS BILL NO. 2 - ANTI -I NFLA TION ACT (CANADA) AG REEMENT MR. LYON presented Bill No. 2,

an Act to ratify an Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of Man itoba under the Anti-Inflation Act (Canad a), tor second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. MR. LYON: Mr . Speaker, the consideration of the leg islation before us, Bill No. 2, to ratify the Canada-Manitoba Anti-Inflation Agreement is of course the prime purpose for our being here in session at the present time.

All of us on both sides of the Ho use agree, I believe, that it is unfortunate that we have to validate the action that was taken by our predecessor s by way of Order-in-Council. However, it was a close decision in the Supr eme Court, a five to four decision. The province of Ontario went through the same throes with respect to the question of how the agreement was to be brought into force in that province, so we make no attempt at this time to exact any sliver of partisan advantage in any way at all.

It is a necessary housecleaning measure that has to be done in order to preserve eq uity as between the public and the private sector in Man itoba and.to continue what was the intention of the previous administration, indeed I think reflecting the opinion of the people of Man itoba that Man itoba both in the public and private sector should be within the anti-inflation arrangements and the agreement that was signed by our predecessors with the then Min ister of Finance, be validated by this legislation.

I suppo se it is worth mentioning tor the record however, that the bill before us is one which legal counsel had drafted in 19 76. I know that there was some difference of legal opinion as to whether it should have been brought in at that time. Had the bill been dealt with in 19 76 we of course would not be here today, but that is academic. We are here today, the Supreme Court decision does exist and statutory authority must now be provided to ensu re comparability of treatment between the public and the private sectors in this province. I assume, Mr .

Speaker, that the Ho use will give unanimous support to this legislation since it does merely give formal authority to action which had already been taken by the previous government. The form of the legislation, I can point out, is based largely on the Ontario statute which was passed following the Supreme Court's ru ling in 19 76 with respect to Ontario's agreement with the Gove rnment of Canada, which also as I have mentioned did not have adeq uate authority. The legislation makes no changes in the Canada-Manitoba agreement so it will continue to stand as signed on February 25, 19 76.

There have, of course, been suggestions made that the legislation could be modified or might be modified to make provision tor spec ial excep tions or exemptions. However, it is our government's feeling that it would not be appr opriate to do so even if it were possible because a contract is a contract as between two contracting parties and the concurrence of the national government would be necessary if any excep tions were to be cont emplated. Of cour se the Anti-Inflation Program perm its some flexibility in the application of the guidelines by the AIB and the administrator.

Whether or not this flexibility is adequate and whether or not rulings have always been what various members of this House, including myself, might regard as fair or satisfactory, the fact remains that the rules for the pub I ic sector have been much the same as those for the private sector. To change the rules tor the public sector retroactively at this stage would be discriminatory I suggest.

I want to make it clear, however, that by proposing this legislation our government, no more than our predecessors, is not evincing any particular wild enthusiasm for the anti-inflation program or for some of the findings that the administrator has made with respect to certain groups of public empl oyees in Ma nitoba. I single out, in particular, the Liquor Commission employees where I think there general agreement on all sides of the House that the ruling made in that case was not a substantially good one or necessarily an eq uitable one.

We also believe it is important for the provinces, having entered into the agreement, to co-operate with the federal government in such action. The federal government, of course, has now announced that the decontrol process will start on the 14 th of next year. It is our view that for the orderly and consistent treatment, both within our province and alongside most other provinces, we should follow Ottawa's lead in decontrol timing just as was done when the province entered the program some two years ago.

I may say that we have had submissions from a number of the public sector unions as recently as this week indicating that they would wish the government to give some consideration to utilization of 28

Friday, November 25, 1977 the three-month notice under the origi nal agreement as signed. In other words, that Manitoba migh t, as some other provinces have done, consider utilizing the three-month notice and thereby withdrawing Man itoba probably some six weeks or so from the agreement before the 14th of April. That submi ssion was made orally to us just this week confir med by a letter which we received, I believe, only yesterday and is receiving consid eration by the Executive Council but, at the present time we have no policy decision to announ ce in that regard. Mr.

Speaker, I expect that I will be meeting with the Prime Mi nister before too many more weeks elapse and I know that the Mi nister of Fi nance will be meeting with his federal and provincia l colleag ues to discuss the gener al economic situation in Canada. I can assure the House that we intend to do our

part in the decontrol period to make sure that in flation and in flationary pressures are kept under reasonable co ntrol consistent with the leg itimate demands and the legitima te collective barg aining processes that go on regula rly in the public service. And, on the occasions when we will be meeting with our federal cou nterparts we will be advising the federal government that we believe it is impe rative for all jurisdictions in Canada to exercise far greater restraint than has been the case in the past.

I assume there will also be some discussions of specific aspects of the decontrol process, not all of which at fir st blush appear to be totally equ itable to different groups having regard to When their collective agreements expire and we would want to have some discussions with the federal authorities in that connection as well. People of this province and of Canada as a whole, Mr . Speaker, have experienced a diffic ult period of double digit in fl ation. I believe that none of us in this House and certainly none of the people of Manitoba want any part of another such experience.

We want to keep in fl ation, so much as we have control over it within one province, as much under control as possible because it does wreak its vengeance on the weakest members of our society, that is those who are on fixed inc omes, our seni or citizens, those who are not organ ized to bargain collectively and so on. People are now realizing that expectations must be more reali stic and that the demands on the economy from all sectors must be more moderate.

The budgetary problems that we face in Ma nitoba are just one symptom of the kinds of excesses which must be prevented if confidence is again to be restored and the economy is to get moving agai n. So I lay this measure before the House, Mr . Speaker, for its favou rable consideration.

I am sure that all members of the House will agree that it is needed in the public in terest and we will welcome com ments from the memb ers of the opposition with respect to the bill and the ideas that they might have, but I suggest that it is im perative that this legislation go through at this session because this, of course, is why princi pally we are here to enforce this mandatory and retroactive piece of legi slation. I commend the bill to the House, Mr . Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Poin t Douglas. MR. DONALD MALINO WSKI: Mr .

Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honour able Member for Churchil l that the debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 3 - GIFT TAX AND SUCCESSION DUTY ACTS (MANITOBA) MR. SPEAKER: Bi ll No. 3,

An Act to Amend the Gift Tax Act (Man itoba) and the Succession Duty Act (Ma ni toba). The Honour able Min ister of Fi nance. MR. CRAIK presented Bill No. 3,

An Act to Amend the Gift Tax Act (Manitoba) and the Succession Duty Act (Manitoba) for second reading. MO TION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon our able Min ister of Fi nance. MR. CRAIK: Mr . Speaker, I suspected that some explanation would be requested on this bill and prepared a few notes. Mr. Speaker, this bill before us, Bi ll No. 3, upon its passage would have the effect that there will be no tax payable under the Succession Duty Act and Gift Tax Act in respect of deaths occurring on or after October 11th, 1977, or gif ts on or after the same date.

The legis lation will remain in effect for the period prior to that date, Mr . Speaker. Mr . Speaker, this is an undertaking that was given by the Progressive Cons ervative party during the recent elect ion campa ign, and having formed government felt obliged to move on it rapidly as was indicated during the ele ction campaign. There are a num ber of other measures that will come to the fore in the near future that will be commented as well on during this current session but do not requir e the legislation during this cu rrent session, in an attempt, of course, Mr.

Speaker, as has been indicated to deal with only those items that are cons idered to be a prio rity at this time and that do requir e actual legisla tion. Mr . Speaker , the Succession Duty Act, its removal in terms of the budget in the current year was approxima tely $5 million budgeted for. The repeal of it as of October 11th does not make any substantial difference to this year's budgeting. It does though, Mr . Speaker, have a substantial effect 29

Friday, No vember 25, 1977 in helping to create the mood or the environment in Manitoba which we want to create to try and spur the private sector into a more active participation in this province and its growth in the future. Mr. Sp eaker, it is diff icult to assess, in any formal way, the impact this legislation has had in the past on driving investment capital out of Man itoba. It is diff icult to say because there are no direct ways by which a government can get and develop actual figures.

But I think, we all know very well from comments from the private sector, from those who were involved in both the accounting and in the legal business, and from cases that can actually be verified, that the amounts of capital moving out were substantial and it was by those people who could afford the advice and the expensive advice I might add, Mr . Sp eaker, that would allow them to make the accommodation to move that capital into other provinces. Alberta never did have a succession duty tax in recent years since the federal government made its changes several years ago.

British Columbia and Saskatchewan and Manitoba did have, Br itish Columbia and Saskatchewan earlier this year both removed their Success ion Duty Acts. This made it more mandatory even mo1·e so than it was before, to have this particular tax removed, because the capital from Ma nitoba was not only moving out to Alberta it was then moving out to Br itish Columbia and to Saskatchewan as well. To go back into the history of this, Mr .

Sp eaker, the succession duties of some years ago were part and parcel of federal legislation that was enacted in conjunction with the provinces prior to the time when the capital gains tax existed in Canada. When the Federal Gove rnment imposed capital gains tax, it removed itself from the succession duty field and a number of provinces moved back in. There was some rationale for the federal government getting out because many estates that are taxed are still taxed through capital gains. The capital gains tax will still apply but goes to the federal government.

The existence of the succession duties caused a double taxation in many cases where you had small businesses and so on, where you may have had a one-owner type of proprietor ship that grew into a medium or even a significantly sized business and then upon the death of that one owner, the business or the enterprise or whatever it was, became vulnerable to actually having to fold up its operation in order to pay the taxes that occurred. In order to pay the succession duties, the business would have to be sold and when the business was sold8 it created a capital gains tax.

By the time the two were compounded, you had this problem occurring of really the entire enterprise and the jobs with it actually being in jeopa rdy. Well that is not the principal reason, Mr. Sp eaker. The principal reason, as I said, is that Manitoba must remain competitive in the total tax picture. This has been a self-defeating tax. The amounts that have come to the province have not increased concomitantly with the rate of increase that was appl ied by the former government. It simply meant that as the tax became more punitive there were more people making expensive arrangements to get out of the province.

As a result this tax has not brought in the revenue that was anticipated by the former gove rnment when it imposed the tax. It simply dr ove out those pocke ts of capital that should have been available for reinvestment in Manitoba. Pr obably the worst part of it is8 Mr .

Sp eaker, I did not realize it until finally I was able to get my hands on an order for return which I filed in this house a year and a half ago to get a breakdown of where this money was coming from money that we were comingfrom people who primarily could not afford, or who were not in a position to avail themselves of expensive advice and had to sell the family farm, or whatever it was, to get out of Man itoba. That was where it was coming from.

It was. not coming from the large pocke ts of capital who were in fact the expensive gett the million dollars of estates that were making the expensive arrangements to escape Man itoba. That order for return was never filed and that information was never availabl8 Mr . Speaker, until eighteen months after that order was actually filed. It is quite revealing if the members opposite want to go back and have a look at that. It would have been very helpful though, if we would have had the information available at the time.

We have no hesitancy on either a philosophical ground or the more practical pragmatic grounds of attempting to spur the private sector and provide a welcome atmosphere in Man itoba for the reinvestment of that capital in Man itoba to provide more jobs and more opportun ity in Manitoba, and we trust, Mr. Sp eaker, that that will be the result of taking the measure that we propose in Bill No. 3 in presenting it to you today. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Me mber for St. Jo hns. MR. SAUL M. CHERNIACK: (St. Jo hns): Mr . Speaker, I wonder ifthe honourable minister would permit a couple of questions? HON. DONALD W.

CRAIK: Mr . Speaker, if it is in accordance with your rules, it is fine with me. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Me mber for St. Jo hns. MR. CHERNIACK: Thank you Mr . Speaker. I would like to ask the Honourable Ministero f Finance if he would agree that the majority of Canadians todayare subject to estate and gift taxation. MR. CRAIK: Mr . Sp eaker, with the passage of this bill, there will be no one west of the Ontario border who will be subject to succession gift tax. MR. CHERNIACK: Will the honourable member ag ree that the vast majority of Canad ians are east of the border of Man itoba? 30

Friday, November 25, 1977 1on. WARNER JORGENSON (Mo rris): Mr . Speaker, on a point of order. I think the honour able 1ember kno ws very well that the que stions asked on this occasion are for clar ification. Obviously 1ose qu estions are not for any kind of cla rification, but to satisfy his own ego. -tON. CHERN lACK: I assume the honou rable, the house leader, rose on a point of order although I id not hear him state why he rose.

If the point of order is that the qu estion is not for information, then would li ke to know whether it is not a matter of information as to whether or not the vast majo rity of �anadians are today unsubject to estate taxation. That should be a matter which is within the 1formation of the mini ster of finance and which he should be able to share with us. MR. CRAIK: If it helps the Hon ourable Member for St. Jo hns to prepare his rebuttal to this 1roposal, the answer to his que stion is pr obably yes.

At the same time it should be poi nted out that he actual limi ts im posed in the provinces he is referring to east of Ma nitoba, that the limi ts that are 1laced are qui te different than those that were in Mani toba and that although they may be subject to hem, the li mi ts in practical fact probably suggest, if he wants to go into the arithmetic, that a small ninor ity of the people will in fact be exposed to this tax in Canada. �- SPEAKER: Have you another question for cla rification? MR. CHERN lACK: Yes, Mr . Speaker.

Is it not a fact that the similar percentage of people in Canada >ubject to taxation is today in Man itoba? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. I bel ieve that is an argumentative question. MR. CHERN lACK: Wou ld the Honour able Min ister of Finance, having explained to us the practical :ompetitive reason for this legislation, indi cate whether he or his party have a philosophic policy tttitude towards estate taxation? MR. CRAIK: Mr .

Speaker, I suspect that the answer with regards to recogni tion of the com petitive >art of it, that the response that we would have is probably that it has the same roots that caused his >wn leader, now the Leader of the Opposition, to state during the election campaign that his own >arty was either, as I recall, going to chan �e the limi ts or get out of it comple tely. Perhaps he would ike to answer that and that will answer h1s own question. MR. SPEAKER: We have a motion on the floor by the Mi nister of Finance. MR. WALDING: Would the Honour able Mi nister ju st answer one further question, Mr . Speaker? MR.

SPEAKER: The Mem ber for St. Vital with a que stion. MR. WALDING: Mr . Speaker, the Mi nister of Fi nance referred to some statistical information thatl 1as recently come to his attention. Would he be prepared to share this information with the )pposition so that we may see the nu mber of farms that had to be sold to pay these duties? MR. CRAIK: By all means, Mr . Speaker. The information is prepa red by way of an Order fo r Return :Rat was filed some eighteen months ago and if it isn't filed I will make sure it is filed within a day. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Point Douglas. MR.

MALINO WSKI: Thank you , Mr . Speaker, I beg to move and seconded by the Honour able lll ember for St. Johns that debate be adjourned. MO TION presented and carried. BILL NO. 4 -AN ACT TO AMENiJAlttE MINERAL ACREAGE TAX ACT iliA. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi ni ster of Finance. MR. CRAIK presented Bill (No. 4),

An Act to Amend The Mi neral Acreage Tax Act, for second ·eading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi nister of Fin ance. 31 r M M M H h M t O h l p o p a c s m t p t p in C I d th m

Friday, No vember 25, 1977 MR. CRAIK: Mr . Sp eaker, this particular o bill is one that also represents the response to an undertaking that was given during the course of the last few months by the Progressive Conservative party which is now in the position of being government and fulfilling that obligation that it had and gave to the people at that time, and that is to remove, by way of Bill (No. 4), the Mineral Acreage Tax Act that has been in appl ication in Manitoba in the last few years.

This will have the effect of changing the revenues of the province of Man itoba to the extent of appr oximately $400 thousand. The receipts for this last year that we have available are that the amount was $398,959.70. Mr . Sp eaker, there has been some issue in the pastas to what the cost of administration was of this Act, apart from whether the Act was an eq uitable imposition of taxa tion, and ther e never was a comp lete and full answer to the costs of administering the Act.

But it's fair to say - and it still is difficult to put an exact figure on that - but it's fair to say that a very significant part of the revenues collected are actually used up in the simple administration of the act. In other words, it has been again much more so than the succession duty act a very real question mark as to whether it even justified, even under the costs of the administration, the imposition of the act. Now, that's not the reason for its repeal. The reason for its repeal is that it is not a fair taxation and, just to give you some idea of what was happen ing, Mr .

Sp eaker, on this act, there was an Order for Return again filed by the current government when it was in opposition to get the information on this, on where the money was coming from. That order, Sir, was never filed, and the information was never available to us until we formed government, but we now have it and I'd like to share it with you.

Of the total amount that I indicated in taxation collected: from corporations came $117 thousand, two hundred and fifty-seven corporations were involved - produced $117 thousand - 7,8 70 individuals were taxed for a total of $268 thousand, and the rest of the categories are quite minor- rural municipalities, trust compan ies, other financial organizations - numbers are very small. That's almost the total of the amount collected. So, Mr . Sp eaker, there were 7,870 individuals who were taxed at the rate of ten cents an acre to produce this $268 thousand.

But now let me give you the really bad part of this particular act and the way it operated. There were 13 ,392 individuals who did not pay the tax, and if they had paid the tax, it would have prod uced $61 0,237.00. Mr. Speaker, on a two to one basis, the people were giving up their mineral rights - or were prepared to - didn't give them up, but were prepa red to give up their mineral rights and were forced into giving their mineral rights up by a coercion of the threat of taxation by the government.

So, in actual fact, what was happening was that two out of three were allowing this to lapse, one out of three only were paying the tax, and, of course, you can imagine the administrative costs of dealing with those numbers of people and also the costs of dealing with the others. In total, Mr . Sp eaker, then of the 21 ,000 sources - almost all of them were indiViduals. It wasn't corporations, and it wasn't trust companies, and it wasn't other financial organizations that this was coming from .

It has been referred to as being a nuisance tax and you can see why it was a nuisance tax, because we were going after people who are either farmers or formerly were farmers or were retired, who were being faced with yet another tax form, and as a result of that, we've ended up with a high administrative cost, a nuisance to the people, a very low reve nue return to the province. This bill effect ively-what it does, Mr . Speaker, is it says that there'll be no more of this particular tax act. It will not apply during 19 77.

It will cease to be effective December31s t of last year, so no bills will be sent out to the people again this year. There is a provision in the act, also, to allow some time for those people who have allowed their payments to lapse to regain their position by paying the back tax beyond that date with interest to clear up their position. There is a time period allowed for that, and it will take us still some time to straighten it out - some time period will be required to straighten it all out and get it back to square one where it should always have been, Mr . Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Point Douglas. MR. MALINOWSKI: Mr . Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Memb er for I nkster that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Govern ment House Leader. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Speaker, before we go on to the next bill, I think there is a general disposition to complete the second readings of all the bills that are on the Order Paper, and then the House will adjourn for the day, rather than adjourning at 12 :30 and coming back at 2:3 0.

If that meets with the agreement of the House, then we will just continue right on until they're all read a second time. BIL L NO. 6 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE EMPL OYMENT STAND ARDS ACT (OVER TIME RATE OF WAGES) 32

Friday, Noveamer 25,, 19n MRS. PRICE: presented Bill (No. 6),

An Act to amend The Employment Standar ds Act (Overtime Rate of Wages), for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MRS. PRICE: Mr. Sp eaker, I wo uld now like to introduce a bill to amend The Empl oyment Stan�ards Act. As you know, at the last session of the Legislature this Act was amended to make overttme work �oluntary and to increase the minimum overtime rate from one and a half to one and )�re� quarters ttmes the regular rate of pay. The concept of fringe benefits was also introduced and tted mto the overtime rate.

This provision relating to the minimum overtime rate was to take effect on December.1 st of this year. T�e .bill that is �ow before us pr�p<?ses to revert back to the trad itionally accepted ttme and one half mtntmum overttme rate and to eltmtnate the concept of fringe benefits as it was to be related to the overtime rate. Higher overtime rates can be negotiated through collective bargaining or through individual agreement between employers and emp loyees. This we believe to be a more appr opriate forum for his matter.

The overtime rate provided for in the Act is a labour standard and as such is a minimum rate which should follow and not lead developments in collective bargaining. We are proposing these changes because it was and is evident that at no time prior to its introduction in the House was the question of an increased premium for overtime a major issue of concern to employers or organized labour generally. It is a provision that we believe is contrary to the best interests of the people of Manitoba. Mr.

Sp eaker, in my opinion, one of the best app roaches to developing public policy is to invite proposals and solicit opinions from the parties directly involved with the possible consequences of that policy. With respect to the time and three quarters provision this was never done. It was not asked for by emp loyees; it was not asked for by organized labour; and it certainly was not asked for by employers. The fact that it is not a major concern of employees or employers is evident in view of the fact that not one jurisdiction in Canada or the United States has enacted legislation of this kind.

In fact, the closest that any jur isdiction comes to this kind of legislation is in Br itish Columbia where there is double time for hours after 11 hours a day or a 48 hour work week. Certainly at the committee stage of the legislation process, some very convincing arguments . were presented as to why the one and three quarters provision should not be adopted. Also, in the Legislature itself at the last session, the opposition party of the day raised some very real and legitimate concerns and made a very convincing case against adopting the overtime provision.

These concerns and arguments, however, were simply ignored and not acted upon by the government in power at that time. The present government, however, is not ignoring these concerns as is evidenced by the bill before you. As 1 mentioned earlier, we believe that the time and th ree quarters provision wo uld not have been in the best interests of the people of this province. First, it could have meant less total income for employees. It is not unusual for employees to want to work overtime occasionally to earn a little extra money. Many now do so quite happily.

But if the time and th ree quarters is allowed to become law, emp loyers might be more reluctant to request their employees to work overtime. Secondly, it could have meant higher prices for consumers and taxpayers. Employers who were faced with the need to work their emplo yees overtime occasionally because of the nature of their operations, or uncontrollable events, wo uld face higher costs which wou ld be passed on to the consumer or the taxpayer. The City of Winnipeg snow removal operations are an example that would fall into this category.

Third, it could result in putting some Manitoba emp loyers in an uncompetitive or less competitive position by increasing their costs and forcing them to increase their prices. These consequences are, in our view, undesirable and it is for this reason that we are proposing to eliminate the source of these possible consequences, the time and three quarters provision. Some people contend that there wo uld be no adverse effects if employers simp ly chose not to work their employees overtime. This implies that employers deliberately choose to have their employees work overtime.

Evidence suggests however that this is not the case. Overti me is usually worked out of necessity in certain industries and operations to cope with unexpected needs and uncontrollable events. The proposition that a higher overtime rate will create additional employment cannot be sustained. Most stat istics and experience have shown that overtime even at a rate of time and one half is still more expensive than the hiring of additional employees. Overtime is necessary in our current industrial climate. Any attempt to eliminate it wou ld have an adverse effect on our productivity.

If overtime was eliminated, the only employment created wo uld be of a part time and unstable nature which wo uld be unacceptable to employers and wou ld also be unacceptable to employees because of the psychological effects it would have one them. In these situations I can see no justification for imposing higher costs on employers through a higher minimum overtime rate. They are costs that may simply be passed on to consumers and taxpayers and at the same time they are costs that could adversely affect the competitive position of some employers. Mr.

Sp eaker, I wou ld therefore recommend that the House support the 33

Friday, No vember 25, 1977 amend ments in this bill. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Mr . Speaker, I wonder if the Minister or the House Leader could advise at this time as to which committee it is intended that this bill will be referred to. MR. JORGENSON: Mr . Sp eaker, I believe it is the intention of the government to refer all of these bills to Law Amendme nts. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Me mber for lnkster. MR. GREEN: A further question for clarification, Mr . Speaker.

I wonder if the Minister can advise me for all of the cogent reasons that she presented in her address, why she is not reducing overtime to time and one quarter. -(I nterjection)- Mr . Sp eaker, I heard the Min ister's reasons for reducing it to time and a half and it seems to me that all of those reasons would impel her to reduce it to time ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. If the Minister chooses to reply I will recognize the Minister of Labour. The Honourable Minister of Labour. MRS. PRICE: Mr .

Sp eaker, I believe that across the country time and one half is acceptable to all the other provinces and across the line too, so I think it should be acceptable here. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Yes, another question to the honourable member. In dicating that it is one and a half in all the other provinces, wouldn't it be a boost to Manitoba and create a tremendous climate for industry, if we reduced it in Manitoba to time and a quarter and led the way? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Point Doug las. MR. MALINOWSKI: Mr .

Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Memb er for Kildonan, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carr ied. MR. SPEAKER: The hour of adjournment having arrived, the Ho use is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 2:30 p.m. Mo nday afte rnoon. 34

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-1-2
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 1st hansardpdf 2.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	64fe2adefd9f75f9b370906fdf524839591d4f70

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