Manitoba Hansard — 7 May 1970 (Sitting 68, 29th Legislature, 2nd Session)

29-2-68

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable Ben Hanuschak Vol. XVII No. 68 8:00p.m., Thursday, May 7th, 1970. Second Session, 29th Legislature. Printed by R. S. Evans - Queen's Printer for Province of Manitoba

ELECTORAL DIVISION ARTHUR ASSINIBOIA BIRTLE-RUSSELL BRANDON EAST BRANDON WEST BURROWS CHARLESWOOD CHURCHILL CRESCENTWOOD DAUPHIN ELMWOOD EMERSON FUN FLON FORT GARRY FORT ROUGE GIMLI GLADSTONE INKSIER KILDONAN LAC DU BONNET LAKESIDE LA VERENDRYE LOGAN MINNEDOSA MORRIS OSBORNE PEMBINA POINT DOUGLAS PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE RADISSON RHINELAND RIEL RIVER HEIGHTS ROBLIN ROCK LAKE ROSSMERE RUPERTSLAND ST. BONIFACE ST. GEORGE ST. JAMES ST. JOHNS ST.MATIHEWS ST. VITAL STE. ROSE SELKIRK SEVEN OAKS SOURIS-KILLARNEY SPRINGFIELD STURGEON CREEK SWAN RIVER THE PAS THOMPSON TRANSCONA VIRDEN WELLINGTON WINNIPEG CENTRE WOLSELEY NAME J.

Douglas Watt Steve Patrick Harry E. Graham Hon. Leonard S. Evans Edward McGill Hon. Ben Hanuschak Arthur Moug Gordon Wilbert Beard Cy Gonick Hon. Peter Burtniak Russell J. Doern Gabriel Girard Thomas Barrow L R. (Bud) Sherman Mrs. Inez Trueman John C. Gottftied James Robert Ferguson Hon. Sidney Green, Q.C. Peter Fox Hon. Sam Uskiw Harry J. Enns Leonard A. Barkman William Jenkins Walter Weir Warner H. Jorgenson lan Turnbull George Henderson Donald Malinowski Gordon E. Johnston Harry Shafransky Jacob M. Froese Donald W. Craik Sidney Spivak, Q.C. J. Wally McKenzie Henry J. Einarson Hon. Ed.

Schreyer Jean Allard Laurent L Desjardins William Uruski Hon. A. H. Mackling, Q.C. Hon. Saul Cherniack, Q.C. Wally Johannson J. A. Hardy Gildas Molgat Hon. Howard Pawley Hon. Saul A. Miller Earl McKellar Hon. Rene E. Toupin Frank Johnston. James H. Bilton Ron McBryde Hon. Joseph P. Borowski Hon. Russell Paulley Morris McGrP-gor Hon. Philip Petursson J. R. (Bud) Boyce Leonard H.

Claydon ADDRESS Reston, Manitoba 10 Red Robin Place, Winnipeg 12 Binscarth, Manitoba Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 2228 Princess Ave., Brandon, Man. 11 Aster Ave., Winnipeg 17 29 Willow Ridge Rd., Winnipeg 20 103 Copper Rd., Thompson, Man. 115 Kingsway, Winnipeg 9 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 104 Roberta Ave., Winnipeg 15 25 Lomond Blvd., St. Boniface 6 Cranberry Portage, Manitoba 86 Niagara St., Winnipeg 9 179 Oxford St., Winnipeg 9 44- 3rd Ave., Gimli, Man.

Gladstone, Manitoba Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 627 Prince Rupert Ave., Winnipeg 15 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Woodlands, Manitoba Box 130, Steinbach, Man. 1287 Alexander Ave., Winnipeg 3 Room 250, Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Box 185, Morris, Man. 284 Wildwood Park, Winnipeg 19 Manitou, Manitoba 361 Burrows Ave., Winnipeg 4 Room 248, Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 4 Maplehurst Rd., St. Boniface 6 Box 40, Winkler, Manitoba 2 River Lane, Winnipeg 8 1516 Mathers Bay, West, Winnipeg 9 Inglis, Manitoba Glenboro, Manitoba Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 119 Provencher Ave., St. Boniface 6 357 Des Meurons St., St.

Boniface 6 Box 629, Arborg, Manitoba Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 15-500 Burnell St., Winnipeg 10 11 Glenlawn Ave., Winnipeg 8 463 Kingston Crescent, Winnipeg 8 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Nesbitt, Manitoba Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 310 Overdale St., Winnipeg 12 Swan River, Manitoba 56 Paul Ave., The Pas, Manitoba Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Kenton, Manitoba Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 177 Winnipeg Ave., Winnipeg 3 116% Sherbrook St., Winnipeg 1

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 o'clock, Thursday, May 7, 1970 INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS 1711 MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed this evening, I wish to direct the attention of the honour able members to my gallery where we have as my guests the Executive of the Citizenship CouncU of Manitoba. On behalf of the members of the Legislative Assembly, we welcome you this evening. We also have with us 33 members of the 107 Wood Bison Cub Pack of the Stlver Heights United Church in St. James. They're under the direction of Mrs. MacDowell, Mr. Hastings, Mr. Eisler ahd Mr. Bagnell.

This cub pack is from the constituency of the Honourable the · Attorney-General. On behalf of the members of the House, we welcome you this evening. BUDGET DEBATE MR. BEARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When we rose at 5:30 it appeared that this was the day of confession and so I join you. I don't agree with my honourable seatmate here but he doesn't happen to be around so I'll continue on without him here to listen to my advice. But some of what has been said in the budget speech I suppose brought the capitalist out in me and I would like to go on record and bring some of my ideas, and if the Member for St.

Boniface feels that it's too lonesome to be an independent, well that is up to him, but unlike him I feel there is a place for an independent and that is why I chose it. Secondly, I doubt whether any body else can get along with me for too long at one time, and I think my friends on my right will agree with that, so I sit as an independent.

I think that first of all, after listening to these speeches about Winnipeg and southern Manitoba, and particularly about the problems, I think that that in itself proves that there is a growing evidence of Manitoba's dependence on the north for their economic future; in fact for the survival of Manitoba. I think that has to be said over and over again, and until it sinks in. then Manitobans will not be reaping the benefits of the full development of the north.

I also take exception to the fact that continuously we hear about us being a poor province, that we do not have the resource, and I was particularly appalled the other day when the Min ister of Industry and Commerce started to apologize because we don't have the same resource that other provinces of this country have, and as I say, I take very great exception to that. I don't think you have to live in the north surely to realize just what is up there. We hear it al most every session now -a new mine is opened. We sat all morning on Tuesday listening to Mr.

Cass-Beggs tell us the value of Hydro power to the Province of Manitoba, and in fact to Canada as a whole, and unless a development of some sort is started in northern Manitoba then I don't think that you'll get a continental grid scheme for Canada. So I just can't believe people when they say that we're resource poor - not in Manitoba. So why apologize? I think we enjoy a position in resources that few other provinces can boast of. In fact, I think there are very few countries that can boast of the resources we have, but I think that there are many countries that would like to have the resources we have.

The only thing they can boast of is an exploding population in which they don't know what to do with them, and we in Canada grow too much food for ourselves. We have too many resources; we have too little money to develop and exploit the resources that we have. We're not resource poor, and partic ularly as far as the Province of Manitoba- I go back again- we're not resource poor, we're rich, and I think that we should maintain that position in this House and point out again and again to the financial world that we are ready and willing to share profits with them but we've got to get ours first.

This is only right. I think that the people of Manitoba have to look to their resources and have to make sure that they're getting a fair share of the returns, but we also have to go out and invite industry in to assist in developing the type of thing that we have. I might say at this time that there has been a fair amount of pressure put on my by the people in The Pas to make a statement in respect to the Churchill Forest Industries, and this I suppose is the first of my confessions.

I made my statement when it was introduced into the House in its first stages, and of course I got up and I agreed that this would be wonderful for northern Manitoba. I still believe it would be wonderful -it will be wonderful for northern Manitoba. But then I must also tell you that I heard it at the same time as most of this Legisla ture, because that was then it was first introduced to me, but I think if it had been introduced to me earlier then I would have still said the same thing. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask my honourable friend a question? I

l 1712 May 7, 1970 (MR. GREEN cont'd.). . wonder when he first heard about this development, when it was first introduced, which I think would be in 1966, if he had known then that the Province of Mani toba was required to advance roughly $90 million towards construction of the project, would he have thought then that it was a wonderful thing for northern Manitoba? MR. BEARD: First of all I should say that's a hypothetical question. because I'm more experienced now than I was then, but I don't hedge around on it too much.

It's a lot of money and I think that government would have been wiser to have let us in on this before it was brought into the House, but I think also the second step would of course have been the fact that we should have been assured not only a pre-payment but a fair portion of a return in respect to a 90 or 100 or 120 million dollar investment, but when we think of 4, 000 jobs available '""-(Interjection)- drop to half and make it a little smaller and say 2, 000, 2, 500, 1, 500. That's a lot of work and it's a lot of income. It's a good contribution to northern Manitoba.

We've been putting into the pot for a long time and really not getting a great deal out· of it, so as long as it continues to operate and as long as we don't get into the sawmill business, then I'm very happy. But if we are .forced into it, then I will gladly get up and state my feelings at that time, but of course that's hindsight. I'm optimistic, I hope that the people have the opportunity. I might add, as the Minister I think already knows, that Indian people probably are more easily associated with that type of a business than they are in the mining industry. I might point out to you; Mr.

Chairman, again in case you've forgotten, that Churchill constituency must be at least half of the Province of Manitoba and I believe that it should be recognized that much of the development in the future depends upon that area, and I would hope that it would grow where they could maybe have two or three or four members and then we would really start to feel the impact of the development of the resources in northern Manitoba. I think that in talking to the Minister of Finance I'd have to point out to him that I am again very unhappy that he has refused to acknowledge either the "have" or the "have not" people.

The "haves" require assistance to be able to keep more of what they earn because the costs of living are higher; the "have nots" require more because it costs more to live in the north. So there has to be a subsidy, there has to be a subsidy for those who are not earning their own way, paying their own way, and there has to be a refund to the people who are up there earning a living.

And the reason they are going up there is because industry is offering them higher wages, higher incentives - sometimes it's through the urging of Unions, once in awhile or once · every two or three years - but there is a development going on in the north that inspires people to go up to northern Manitoba, but then the Minister of Finance comes along and takes a large portion away from them.

This is an across-the-province policy, and I don't think it's fair when governments say they can't do anything about the high cost of living, bringing it down, but I think on the other hand they could do something - and I said it last year and I 'li say it again - by refunding that portion of the provincial tax that the government collects, and I think it can go as far as refund ing to business that additional two percent that they collect, because, Mr. f1>eaker, it's just as expensive to operate a business in the north as it is to live in the north, and these two things go hand in hand.

Quite often business is chastised because the prices are higher -and there are cases admittedly where they are taking advantage of higher cost of operation in the north - but by and large there is that problem that does not exist in the competitive areas of this part of the province that we are sitting in now in southern Manitoba.

So unless they can do something rather than turning to the Federal Government and say you did it, then the province could say this is what we're ready to contribute towards the develop ment of the north, in fact towards developing a labour pool for the north, and then they could go, just as the Minister of Transportation went to them in respect to building roads and work ing instead of depending on welfare, we could say to them that we have done this, we have done this in respect to a refund on the tax we have collected from isolated communities and high cost of living areas and what are you going to do about it?

Then we are facing them with the prob lem and I think usually you find that the Federal Government will in many cases follow a program that has been instituted by a provincial government.

I think that in closing off that part t~at Manitobans generally must remember that there is room for everybody that feels that this deal is so hot, the north is a good place to go and get it, they tell me there are jobs available for those that want to go up on a permanent basis, or as permanent as they do go up to Thompson on, and while I wouldn't want to see a rush of students running up there as a call for summer job opportunities, but certainly I believe that it is always pointed out that there is opportunities for those that want to establish themselves on a

May 7, 1970 1713 (MR. BEARD cont'd.) ...•. more or less permanent basis. Certainly it has assisted the farmer from many parts of Manitoba and many parts of Saskatchewan and Alberta where they have come up during the winter time to supplement their farm income. I have some figures and facts -and usually I don't like to quote too much now on Thompson because it's not in my constituency and my people always make sure they point out that when I talk about Thompson I'm not talking about the Churchill constituency. But you ask why should we be asking for some of this assistance in respect to higher costs of living.

What do you con tribute? As I understand it, from 1968 to this year, the work force itself in Thompson has increased by 1,000 employees. This is greater I would imagine than any other industry in Manitoba. There's around 4,200 of a work force for the mining company itself. The total wages in Thompson for the company are around $33 million.

When you add to that the service indus tries that are in the community that have a population of between 22,000 to 25,000, and I suppose you would add at least 12 million, maybe 15 million, so you have approximately $45 million wage in one year in one mining community, and there are many more communities in the north. This is what some of your resources are worth. The product itself was purchased in Manitoba was worth approximately 50 million, and I would suppose that most of that was bought through Winnipeg.

The cost to the company of operation, their assistance with the ta.xldlon in the community and the town expansion, etc., was around 1, 200, 000. I'm told that the average 50 week a year wage in the mining industry today in the North is around $8, 265. And you may say, well now just a minute, why would you want a rebate? But then of course these people are going up with the idea of making additional money because they aren't, they're down here, if they come down here there's room for those that want to go up, but on top of this they have that additional high cost of living.

If they want to send their children to university it's going to cost them that much more; if they want to take a trip out it's going to cost them that much more; and by the time they're finished at the end of the year they do not have that much to boast about. And if you broke down a little further you'd find that this was a Tuesday payday, and in Thomp son it contributes about $479,000 every Tuesday into the community. It's good for the souvenir business. -- (Interjection) -- 4 79, 000 each Tuesday.

The employees paid an income tax of approximately $6,500,000 - that's just the company ones -and of course you have a large complex in the community itself other than the mining company. On the other hand, the flaw of course in the northern development resource which is open ing the North still leaves the Indian people on the outside looking in. Maybe the road to Nelson House will help them to get a little closer in, but the fact is that there are not enough Indian people working. They have not become a part of industry.

I don't knO\V whether that's the fault of the Indian people or the fault of industry, but it lies there and I think government and the people and the industry have to get together and iron this out and see what can be done. Cer tainly the Indians have been kept back for some 100 years in the north and they require under standing because of this.

They are saying quite plainly to us as we travelled through the north, and I know the Commissioner of Northern Affairs heard it over and over time and again, they don't want the crutch of welfare, but what they want is understanding instead and a place that they can fit into . Spectacular northern resource developments must include a stake of claim for Indian people in the future. The Indians I know of certainly do not want to live in cities. They are looking for something; they don't know what it is but what they have had haabeentakenawayso they'rea•kingwhatcanyoudofortheril.

We1rethewisepeople;we'rethe white people; we have the answers for everything, everything but the problem of people itself. They have established their home in the north in the past. They were given a choice of the area and I don't presume when their reserves were marked out that they were given much of a chance. I think that they were given about the same chance as the old settlers were when they first came to Canada where somebody said, well you can have either that or that place and it depended on your accent where you went or your background and such on.

We must remember that when they established themselves in the north they had a living. They had a living and they went on and everything was all right until the mining industry moved into the north, and from that day on they couldn't take advantage of that way of life that they'd become used to. The mining industry drove away the fur-bearing animals; it drove away their livelihood. Even if they are a couple of hundred miles away it brought a change to the Indian people and they suffered and nothing has been done . I suppose we must say that many of us who

1714 May 7, 1970 (MR. BEARD cont'd.) ..•.. have moved into the north have profited, but those who originally lived in the north have not, certainly not, not to the extent of those Johnny-come-latelys. And if we move away from the northern aspect of this province, as I'm sure that we're losing interest, Mr. Speaker, maybe we could move into car insurance, that seems to be a fairly interesting subject these days. --(Interjection) --I'm just wondering. I can't find in my mind where it is really an essential service.

I don't think it is an essential government service, I might say, and I think I'm going to be going back to ask my constituents some time this fall. But I think if government were looking at it they should say to themselves, what's it going to do for the province? Less jobs. There's going to be a relocation of people and a relocation of in dustry, and there's only one way to go and that's either east or west or north. There's going to be a great cost of retraining people.

The business will be redundant so of course it won't cost much to buy a few chairs and a few benches, and I've been waiting for a good buy because for about eleven months I've been looking around for a cheap desk in here and I can't find one other than this one and maybe I'll get a good one. . I think the loss of the value of the business in Manitoba is something that we've got to con sider. I think the loss of confidence in government by the financial world will be something that maybe the Minister of Finance will have to reassess.

I think there will be a loss of a large pool of money for Manitoba that was used to buy debentures, to buy government bonds, that will not be easily replaced. I think there's going to be a large loss of taxation on buildings. I think we must remember that we haven't got really head offices of banks located in Manitoba. The one real industry that we have got that had that pool of money was the insurance business itself, and I think this is of a great deal of value to us because they were using Manitoba as at least a central office for the western Canada.

They had at least decided that they should give us the right to have a sub-office for this great pool of money. And I think that we have got to decide that. So it would say to me two things. First of all, that we've got to realize that through the cost of living, the climate - adults when they get to retirement age usually take their money and go west -and you can't fight the climate, so you're losing your pension people or retired people to a great deal but now you're going to lose your young person.

You're going to lose your young er people that are getting into business because they're going to say, where are we going to go? A MEMBER: North. MR. BEARD: I hope they go north, but they're not going to go north to establish an in dustry or business if they're worried about the business climate in Manitoba; they're going to have to go someplace else. I would hope that if we're going to face socialism in the future in Canada, this is something of a different nature, but I wouldn't want to be a leader in it because I wouldn't want to find that we are losing the amount of population that we have here now.

Cer tainly a changing financial way of life is different to changing tradition and customs. I think this is very important and I think, as the member behind me - for St. George is it? - says, look us in the eye. I can look you in the eye when I say it. I think the changes must bring pro gress if they are going to be of any value. On the other hand, I think that the insurance program, about the cruelest thing I think is it's almost retrenchment.

The Premier and the Minister of Industry and Commerce must go out and sell this province, while others discourage back at home here and drain the province of this great viable industry that we have got. Insurance companies aren't bloodsuckers and capitalists. This is terrible to use this type of language. I don't think it's even parliamentary. --(Interjection) --But this is the day for confession, Mr. Speaker. A MEMBER: Nobody said that except you. MR. BEARD: I think one of the party followers of this government would suggest that they were.

I think insurance companies probably --well you can .say they pioneered the industry and they provided the industry, but I guess they're going into retirement in Manitoba and it's not a voluntary retirement I imagine. I think this government as lawmakers should have said we're going to change the name of the game; we're not going to take you over but these are the rules in which you have to fit your program into, and if you don't, then we will have .... ; MR. SCHREYER: Socialism. MR. BEARD: Not compulsory. If you don't like it then compete against it. We're going to do it.

That's not compulsory, that's giving them an option. They can either fit their pro gram in with yours, and maybe do a darned sight better job, or you can go out and buy it. And if you would do this --I'll go out, I've got a couple of cars, I'll buy your insurance. --(Inter jection) -- Yeh. And I can assure you that when you have two cars it will cost you tw.ice as

May 7, 1970 1715 (MR. BEARD cont'd.) •..•. mu9h, so if you haven't got two don't get sucked into buying two. A MEMBER: .... about a discount. MR. BEARD: No discount. I think there are a lot of laws that should be changed in the insurance game and I think that the insurance people themselves are to blame for this particular problem that we face today. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. May I remind the honourable member that he has five minutes remaining. MR. BEARD: Yes. I was only at page 6 but that's all right. I was going to get real mean.

I think that we've got to change the attitude in government; I think that we've got to stop hating the Chamber of Commerce because they're Liberals and Conservatives. There's a lot of other good people in them and I think the Chamber of Commerce does a lot of good in a lot of small communities. I think the Chamber of Commerce in Cormorant used to have about 20 or 25 people and there weren't 20 or 25 businesses in ... --(Interjection)-- We had them well organized ..... in Cormorant. So the Chamber of Commerce, small, large, middle-sized, have a lot to contribute.

I don't think that this government was voted in by this type of hate literature, if you want to call it that, I think the Premier won success through the people's con fidence in his open-mindedness, in the image and the policies that he spoke of at that time. But I don't think it was compulsory government insurance. -- (Interjection) -- Well you didn't speak loud enough because I don't think there are enough people that will recognize .... MR. SCHREYER: I repeated it two days after the election loud and clear. A MEMBER: Tell me, why was Borowski elected? MR. BEARD: That's another subject.

Maybe I'd better close at this time, Mr. Speaker, while we're still in good spirits. But I think that if I had one or two minutes left I would tell you what I was going to do about my vote for the budget, but since I haven't got that much time I guess I can't tell you how I'm going to vote. So now it's too late. But I would say maybe, Mr. Speaker, in case you are worried about that vote that you have, that's an important vote, I will be supporting the government on this budget, not because it was a particularly good budget - and it wasn't particularly bad.

It didn't do anything for the north, but I would hope that out of this that the Northern Commissioner can twist the arm and get a better budget next time. If they don't come in with something in respect to a kickback for people that are working in the north then I'm not going to support it next time, if there is another session. But I won't be supporting compulsory government insurance. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Order, please . Before we proceed, I would like to introduce to the members of the House the Honourable Mr. Thatcher, Premier of the Province of Saskatchewan.

On behalf of the members of the House, we welcome you this evening. BUDGET DEBATE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, as I left the farm this morning and kissed my wife good-bye, I said tonight's the night, tonight's the night that I'm going to speak about Socialism and decep tion, because really the two are synonymous. --(Interjection) --Well, read it in Hansard. Because about now there's the time that we ..... MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: I'd like to ask the Member for Lakeside if his wife upon hearing those words was as unbelieving as I was.

MR. ENNS: No, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, in reply to the First Minister's query, she struggled with me all through last night as I was preparing this speech mentally and any bruises are the result thereof. But, Mr. Speaker, before I launch into a speech that I have been wanting to make for some time - and I'm really looking for the Honourable the House Leader - ah there he is, because I wouldn't want to make this particular speech without him being in his place. I did send a note, Mr. Speaker, to my honourable friend the Member for St. Boniface, not that I have a great deal to say to him tonight, but, Mr.

Speaker, in view of the extra ordinary performance this afternoon, I can only regret, and I repeat regret, with the Honour able House Leader that we have not come to the stage of having television within the Chambers. Mr. Speaker, there would have been no difficulty in getting some prominent soap company to

1716 May 7, 1970 (MR: ENNS cont'd.). . • sponsor the afternoon's session, with the due interjection here and there of the sponsor's product, because it was really quite an unbelievable performance. And I want to hasten to add, Mr. Speaker, that I'm not taking advantage of the Member for St. Boniface's absence in speaking about him, in fact I sent him a note at 5:25 to indicate to him that I was going to have a few kind things to say about him. So his lack of presence is uncontrol lable of course for my part, but I just wanted to make it clear to you, Mr.

Speaker, that I certainly am not taking advantage of the opportunity of speaking while he's not in his seat. MR. SCHREYER: Oh, you wouldn't do that. MR. ENNS: No, far better, but I have a compassion for my fellow men, and to see a robust grown-up man, who regaled in referring to me as a poor chap that had to grow up, I would far sooner come back to the speech that he made a few days ago and, you know, whammed at me or anybody of us here. There's an uncomfortablene ss in those of us who have some manly or masculine virility when we see a grown man self-confess in public as the Honourable Mem ber for St.

Boniface did today. And this of course is the man that on February 14, 1966, Page 193 of the Hansard, said, ''I think it is safe to say that most of the people believe in the two older parties, one in power and the other in opposition." Now this is no criticism of the socialist, this is only my own personal opinion. But I think in this rich country, a large· country like we have, and we haven't even scratched the sur face yet, I think there's no room for Socialism. And this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we had to see this big man, this proud man go through an exercise of justifying his presence on the other side.

And, Mr. Speaker, after having done it, it of course was absolutely false, because, Mr. Speaker - maybe nobody else in this room will believe me but you surely will - you and I know why the Member for St. Boniface arrived at the decision that he did on June 25th. We knew then and it was spelled out for us on the front pages of the Free Press today - ''Insurance Bill May Hang on Desjardins. " Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for St.

Boniface, having spent his years of public service in frustratiOI'l in the opposition benches of the Liberal Party, finally saw the occasion and seized it as the good political opportunist that he is.

On June 25th, or the morning there after, that sooner or later - and I couldn't tell which issue it was, this or another issue - but he knew, he knew when he made the decision that sooner or later this kind of a headline, on this decision or another issue, would appear and that finally he would be in a position to threaten the very life of a government - one man - to have in his hands the jobs of thousands of individual Manitobans. ·'Mr. Speaker, he is still playing as a front because he says the Liberal Democrat says he is undecided. Now, Mr.

Speaker, we all know that he's had his chat with the Honourable First Minister. He's made up his mind and he's going to vote in favour of the government automobile insurance scheme. We know that, and they know that, as witnessed by the applause, but, Mr. Speaker, that's really not fulfilling his role because three days from now he wants another head line -"Desjardins Still Thinking," (if he can). And then following a long tortuous debate on the subject, about two or three weeks hence from now, in two inch block letters - "Desjardins Has Made up His Mind." Well now, Mr.

Speaker, I can •t really blame him because it is -- in fact my friend the Member from Rhineland, who I have the greatest amount of respect, a kinship for, MR. SCHREYER: Are you looking for a sponsor? MR. ENNS: I think, Mr. Speaker, if I spoke to you quietly and cautiously, even the Mem ber for Rhineland would have to admit that that very situation kind of tempted him a little bit on about June 25th or June 26th, to be in that position of wielding power, of having a whole govern ment in his hands anxiously awaiting as to what the Liberal Democrat will do. Well now, Mr.

Speaker, this is not the subject that I want to talk about today but I couldn't help but introduce it after having watched that performance, and I do want to indicate to the mem ber and he can read it in Hansard tomorrow, far better that he return in his fighting style, his free independent style and take a few pounds of flesh off the members of the Opposition, includ ing myself, from time to time, but surely not expose us or not make us feel as sorry as we had to feel for a fellow human being as we did this afternoon. Now, Mr. Speaker, and what was the Member of St. Boniface's effort this afternoon?

What was his effort this afternoon? He attempted to color these boys all as just a nice bunch of nice guys, that all the differences -they have problems, you know, the Honourable the House Leader doesn't think the same as the Honourable Member for Rupertsland or the Honourable

May 7, 1970 1717 (MR. ENNS cont'd.). • • Member from Thompson doesn't think quite the same as the Hon ourable Member from Crescentwood or what have you -they were just a nice collection of nice guys. A MEMBER: None of us think like you, Harry. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, this is the second portion of the topic that I wanted to speak about when I started off with Socialism and deception, because it is -- (Interjection) --not at the moment, Mr. First Minister. Mr.

Speaker, it is the deception that's involved in this whole process that concerns me most, and despite the absence of the Minister of Finance, I do intend to come to the budget at the end or somewhere in. these next few minutes.

But I want to examine for a minute, when I say deception -let's remember now -when the personable, charming First Minister woke up after June 25th to find out that he was in fact the First Minister of this province he immediately began the tremendous exercise in convincing everybody that he was not a Socialist, and he immediately saw that that was going to be his biggest job as leader of that group, to convince the population of Manitoba that there was no taint of Socialism in his government or the group that he was going to surround himself with as government. And they went through the whole gambit.

They tried Social Democrat, or just a bunch of pragmatic fellows, good government -you know, on the TV the Honourable Member of the House says label me whatever you want, red, blue or white, but I'm just interested in good government- small "1" liberal, centre left, anything as long as the word Socialism wasn't in volved. Deception, Mr. Speaker, deception of the first order. Mr.

Speaker, the Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs responsible for piloting through this House very shortly the important automobile insurance plan, the other night on the Provincial Affairs program -and it really was an unbelievable performance -the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs was being interviewed by Mr. Marsh, the chap that does the inter viewing for the NDP Party on the Provincial Affairs program 1a nice ::hap, and he asked - and again I'm just trying to bring this point, this avoidance, this cringing from the word Socialism on the members opposite- he asked Mr. Pawley, the Honourable Mr.

Pawley, the direct simple question: Do you, Mr. Minister, consider government automobile insurance a social isticprogram? No, no. lt'sjustagood, it'sjustagoodprogram. Well, Mr. Speaker, what is it? Is it an imperialistic, American capitalistic program? Of course it's a socialist pro gram. It may be a good program if I knew more about it. MR. SCHREYER: What's Medicare? MR. ENNS: A Socialist program. MR. SCHREYER: All right. MR. ENNS: The Telephone System is a Socialist program. The Hydro system is a Socialist program. All I am saying, what goes on, why are you fellows so afraid?

What was the nervousness about admitting to good social programs and hiding from the label of Socialism? Mr. Speaker, they're hiding from it. Nowhere, nowhere on that pamphlet that's being distrib uted, you know, is there any reference at all, any reference at all to the fact that it's a good Socialist program. It may well be if we knew a bit more about it. Now, Mr. Speaker, the whole -- and you know I feel for the Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I think those of us on this side we recognize his normal pale demean is considerably more haggard these days. Mr.

Speaker, I have some compassion for a Minister when he's under some pressure. MR. SCHREYER: Would the honourable member permit a question? MR. ENNS: But I'll tell you what, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a suggestion.

The pressure that the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs is under does not emanate from the fact that there have been crowds gathering or that the insurance lobby is working against him, the pressure is there because here is a newly sworn-in Socialist Cabinet Minister that, in his judgment certainly, is bringing in a very important socialistic measure that in his opinion is going to benefit the people of Manitoba and he has to disown it, and he has to disown it, he has to shy away from any word as it being a Socialist program. Now, Mr.

Speaker, one of the pleasures I have, I go to bed at night and I say I'm a Progressive Conservative, I love you dear, I go to bed. He goes to bed at night and says, you know, I love you deary- and quietly to myself, I'm a Socialist and don't let anybody know about it -and go to bed. And this surely has to be a strain eventually, this surely has to be a strain on somebody eventually and it's showing on the Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. SCHREYER: Who~s your sponsor? Who's your sponsor tonight?

1718 May 7, 1970 MR. ENNS: Now, Mr • Speaker, and I'll tell you this is not funny. You know llhe hierarchy of the NDP they have a penchant, they have a penchant for sending out letters, and of course they should know by now that somehow these letters fall into my hands. Now the last one is the letter that was sent out to this activist group, the Citizens for Public Automobole Insurance. This is a letter of instruction to those that are carrying out this citizens' campaign. We would like - and I'd like to read it into the record with your permission, Mr. Speaker. ''Instructions for Canvass.

We would like to urge you to canvass with the leaflet rather than distribute it. The canvassing method has several advantages.

(1) The public at large is impressed by the personal contact.

(2) By putting a leaflet into the person's hand rather than dropping it through the mail slot, arousing his interest or curiosity by pointing out one or two things in it, you can be sure that a great many more people will be reading the leaflet. And finally, you will perhaps be able to answer some of the questions asked and pass on the questions to us if you don't have the answers." Now here's the important part. Important. Now these are the instructions. It reads a little bit like out of the guide rule book of Mao's Red Book or something like that.

"You are canvassing for the citizens for public automobile insurance. This is a special committee." They have to tell this group that they are a special committee. I thought this was a volunteer citizens group. "This is a special committee set up to support the plan, because you believe in the principle of the plan, because you believe that it is more efficient, cheaper and a wiser approach. Do not introduce yourself as a New Democrat." - Do not introduce yourself as a New Democrat! - "The canvass will be more effective if you appear to be just a concerned citizen." And the word, Mr.

Speaker, the word deception, the word deception begins to ring a little clearer in somebody's mind, a little clearer. Now when I read this, of course I immediately went back to the top because at the top it says "Citizens for Public Automobile Insurance." Well now, Mr. Speaker, if they have to direct these people that they should act or appear to be just ordinary citizens then obviously they aren't ordinary: citizens. And then in that case, Mr. Speaker, the name of the committee is wrong. It should be the NDPPF, the New Democratic Party Popular Front-- No, that's not right either.

The NDPP -I know the Honourable Member from Crescentwood could probably help me out, he has the jargon at his finger tips, I'm sure. The NDPPLF -that's right- the New Democratic Party People's Liberation Front. This is I think the accurate description of this group, because, Mr. Speaker, they are of course dedicated to liberating several thousands of Manitobans from their jobs. So, Mr.

Speaker, I want to tell the members in all seriousness -and I think I can speak for the members on this side of the House at least, my Liberal colleagues, my Social Credit colleague; I don't know about those two renegades that share the benches of the opposition -but I want to tell them something. I've yet to canvass, I've yet to promote a cause that I have not been afraid or ashamed to come up to the front door and introduce myself, ''I'm Harry Enns. I'm a representative of the Progressive Conservative Party. Here is my cause that I am promoting." And I think I can say that about anybody here .

Nobody, nobody in my hierarchy has given me written instructions and told me, "Do not introduce yourself as a Conservative." ..... continued on next page.

May 7, 1970 MR. GREEN: Would the honourable member permit a question? Does the honourable member object to the committee - and I don't know the name; they use a jargon too - but this committee, I think, to maintain or keep our insurance agents -- (Interjection) -- Yes. I'd like to, if my honourable friend will permit me, ask the question.

Does he object to them ino troducing themselves, not as Conservatives or Liberals, but as members of a "Keep our Agents Committee" and did he object to the people in Saskatchewan who formed a "Keep Our Doctors Committee", saying, "Don't introduce yourself as a political man; don't introduce yourself as a Liberal or a Conservative; introduce yourself as a person of a "Keep Our Doctors Committee"? MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, where we live in a free society, we live in a free enterprise society.

If the Honourable Minister, if the Honourable Minister is prepared, is honestly pre pared - and I want him to think long and hard before he gets up and replies to it - that the of ficial organization of the New Democratic Party is totally divorced, is totally divorced from this, then I accept his statement. Then I accept his statement. MR. GREEN: Does the honoourable member -- yes, I'll ask the honourable member a question. Does the honourable member object to me, as a New Democratic Party member, disassociating -- well, would you let me finish the question?

Would you object to me disas~ sociating myself -- would you object to me, as a New Democratic member, associating my self with a committee which is devoted to the promotion of a public automobile insurance pro gram? Why should 1.? MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to get -- this is precisely the point I'm raising. I have no intention of debating my honourable friend's morality with respect to politics.

I have just stated a case, a simple matter of fact, that I know of no occasion that I, as a Progressive Conservative, have been asked, for instance, by my party to deny my party affiliation or I doubt whether that can be said of any other opposition group, and simply you're instructing -- (Interjection) -- Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of allowing the House Minister to inter rupt my speech.

I'm telling him that the guide- you know, the handbook- it really should have been printed in something a little bit more appropriate, but the handbook instructs; these are instructions to the canvass.· Of course it carries on to say, you know, to introduce how the approach actually should be made; you know, "Good evening," or "Good afternoon, I represent the Citizens' Public Automobile Insurance. I would like to leave this little leaflet with you, " and ta-da you know. Mr. Speaker. Deception, Mr. Speaker. Deception, Mr. Speaker, of the rankest order; of the rankest order. Now, Mr.

Speaker, tying that together with what I've already said, with the Honourable Minister• s performance on T. V. , taking such great pains that the program should not in any way be identified as a Socialist program, taking great pains that those people who are seeking the support or drumming the support of the program should not in any way be identified with what could seem to be a Socialist party or Socialist effort behind it. This is the kind of de ception, in that light alone, and I'm not speaking about the principles of the bill.

I'm only speaking about the way this matter has been handled, just as my Honourable the Leader has been complaining about the way the matter has been handled so far with us completely in the black; no information; a blank cheque bill p.1t before us; we have no idea of what we even should be debating intelligently on. So, Mr. Speaker, I won't even attempt to do it because it would be wasting the time of the House. But I can say this in passing. There must be, Mr.

Speaker, there must be mem bers somewhere in that group that must cringe, that must really cringe at this constant denial on the part of the front bench or of the hierarchy as such of the party, cringe away from ex pressing honestly, correctly, the position that that party really is presently in and that the party presently believes in . . . MR. BOROWSKI: We cringe away from phonies like you. MR. ENNS: ... namely in Socialism; namely in Socialism. Mr. Speaker, I will be ... MR. CY GONICK (Crescentwood): Could I ask the member a question? MR. ENNS: ... happy to accept questions at the end of my speech. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I've only got a few minutes left, or maybe I haven't. I'd like to refer a little further or get on, because I want to tie this aspect of deception with respect to the fiscal policy that is generally acceptable by not only my friends the Socialists opposite, but certainly by the Socialist world at large and, very unfortunately, by the federal Liberal Government at this moment with the introduction of their White Paper as it now stands - as it now stands.

' L 1720 May 7, 1970 (MR. ENNS cont'd.) Mr. Speaker, what have the honourable members opposite had to say about the White Paper? The Honourable the Minister of Finance, he calls it tokenism- not far enough. A national spokesman for the New Democratic Party, Mr. S. . . says precisely the same- not far enough, Of course, Mr.

Speaker, when that White Paper passes, or should it pass in its present form, the New Democratic Party wins its greatest battle without having lifted a hand, and they know it, and of course, so they're quietly standing in the wings edging the government on and not cheering, and realizing full well that theirs is the final victory. But let's look, let's look philosophically for a moment at what is really the fundamental issue involved in their whole approach towards taxation, an approach that• s envisaged at least to some extent in the White Paper, Mr.

Speaker, it can be summed up in simple layman terms, and I'm sure that members opposite, at least some of them, agree with it, this admit tedly simplification but nonetheless for easy understanding, what is inherent in the White Paper to some extent, and certainly what is inherent in the Socialist philosophy with respect to taxation policies. They believe the truism that the state can spend the surplus money of the individual, or indeed his earnings to a great extent, better in a planned programmed way than the many hundreds of thousands of individuals.

And I would like somebody to correct me, but I think really -- certainly this is the philosophy that's practiced in the totalitarian socialist states, and certainly, certainly -- certainly this is the philosophy that many of the western European countries, European countries including the . . . are approaching, including Great Britain, and we are approaching that, if we adopt the full impact of the White Paper.

What they are saying, incorrectly, they're saying that the state can, or the government can make better use, or spend the money in a more efficient, a better programmed way for the good of all if they take this money, as a result of progressive taxation and other tax measures, out of the hands of the individual. Mr. Speaker, that is, despite what the honourable members wish to say.

But of course, what they should also be saying at the same time, is they•re doing this because essentially they don•t trust the people, they don't trust the individual person to make the right decision, to make the right decision with his surplus earnings, with his sav ings, Mr. Speaker, they shake their heads. They may argue but that is, in a simplified lesson of economics of what in fact is the difference. They find it difficult to believe and it's a very difficult one to explain, because quite frankly on paper, on paper it is difficult to ex plain.

How can you explain an economy such as the North American economy, where hundreds of thousands, virtually millions of individual decisions are made? I make my deci sion of what I'm going to do with my surplus money and the other member makes his decision of what he does with his surplus money, and somehow in this -- and it cannot be argued very effectively that this is a sound way for long term, long range economic planning, and this is precisely the argument that my closest friends use.

They say that we will provide the citizen with the basic needs, whether health, welfare, work, shelter, but the citizen will work for the state and what the earnings are there, the profits are there, they of course accrue to the state, not to the individual citizen, and in that way we can make sounder judgments as to what to do with the national wealth, or the provincial wealth. MR. BOROWSKI: Put them on welfare, When you were in government you put them on welfare. MR. ENNS: And that• s what they -- that• s really essentially the philosophy that they work on , and, Mr. Speaker, on paper it should work.

On paper it should work. But the un fortunate thing, of course, is it hasn't. It hasn't, Mr.

Speaker, because despite the difficul ties that we have, despite the difficulties we have in this country, and it's to the constant em barrassment to those countries, particularly the totalitarian socialist countries who with every announcement of a new five-year plan announce the overtaking of the North American economy -- I'm referring to such countries as Russia -- still find themselves at the end of that five-year plan woefully lacking in production, woefully behind in achievements that come close to equalling the free economy here on the North American continent. Mr.

Speaker, I have a few comments here by the Premier Kosygin of the USSR, who recently in addressing the 24th Congress Party took great lergth, great length that the key problem was to achieve higher productivity, higher productivity. -- (Interjection) -- Par don? Higher productivity, Now we hear a great academic debate going on here about "pro duction for production's sake," Production for production's sake. And in this country of Socialist haven, 50 years of uninterrupted single government rule, no problems, no dislocations,

May 7, 1970 1721 (MR. ENNS cont•d.) .•... no interruptions of elections or what have you, and they are still attempting desperately, in fact if you read the back of the page here- and I'm quoting from the Canadian Tribune- the back of the page here: "millions in Sabutnitsch. A general appeal to the workers of Russia to work on their day off, Saturday, free of charge for the state." Now, Mr. Speaker, this is the ultimate. Can you imagine the Honourable Tommy Douglas, if he were for instance the First Minister of this land, asking the workers of Canada to work for the state on Saturday.

This is what we have arrived at in terms of this. Mr. Speaker, our problem of course is just the opposite. Our problem is that we have far from solved what to do with the five-day week, becoming four-day week; that we have to make a much more intelligent approach to how we spend our leisure time, how we equip our people to cope with these things; and they•ve brought on to our society tremendous problems - tremen dous problems.

But to suggest, as my honourable friends opposite suggest, that the way to solving these problems is to Crown corporations, Socialism, simply doesn't wash in light of the experience of those countries that have tried it for so many years. Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Minister of Finance, he made a point in his budget ad dress to say that this government - and he used the somewhat oft-used phrase - would not just be a government for the people and by the people, but indeed for the people. Now, Mr. Speaker, there's two

interpretations for the words "for the people. " And it's in that

interpretation that through experience- and I won't charge you fellows with this because we're just starting to experience you -- but through experience in looking at other Socialist countries, they inter pret that word "for the people" as meaning that they will set up that elite planning group, that elite power structure that would truly make the decisions for the people; that will make the decisions for the people. When was the last election in Cuba? When was the last free election in Russia, in the Ukraine? When was the last free election? MR. GREEN: When was the last election in Spain? MR. ENNS: Fine.

Don•t ask me to get up and defend Spain. Don't ask me to defend Spain. MR. GREEN: Well then don't ask me to defend Cuba, because it makes just as much sense. MR. ENNS: Oh yah. Mr. Speaker, I knew, I knew -- I knew that I hit the nerve. And all I want is honesty . . . . MR. GREEN: . . . is a good, free enterprise country. MR. ENNS: All I want is honesty from that man. I want to debate the matter of Soci alism with him but I can't do it. I can't do it as long as he hides behind some "good buY'' mask. Tell me. Get up and tell me that he's a Socialist. I know he's a Socialist and he keeps on de nying it. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. MR. GREEN: I've never denied it. MR. SPEAKER: Order. MR. GREEN: Never denied it. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Lakeside may continue. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the outburst but, Mr.

Speaker, it was par- ticularly germane to the point that I was trying to make and in fact I failed to make, I failed to make in this speech, up until I somehow managed to touch that nerve in the Honourable the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources that I was looking for, that I was very seriously looking for, because we could have, not some of the sham debates that are going on in this Legislature . . . I would like -- our difficulty is to smoke these deceiving fellows out into their true colours so that we can have an actual debate. Mr.

Speaker, I'm simply suggesting to you as when they were sitting on this side, there was no reluctance then. There was no reluctance then to hold high the banner of Socialism, to talk about Socialism, to use the word "Socialism", to talk about the benefits of Socialism. There was no reluctance then. Where is the reluctance all of a sudden coming from? I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. Political expedi ency. Political expediency and that's all. They are nervous.

They know that less than one out of four Manitobans have put them in power, and out of that less than one out of four, a great number of them voted because of the personal attraction and the glamour of the Honourable the First Minister, with little real understanding of the party that they were voting for, and they recogiznied full well that if they can continue on this bent and simply -- you know, their

1722 May 7, 1970 (MR. ENNS cont•d.) . . • . . password must be, it must be -- I haven't been in their caucus room lately, but I• m sure in their caucus room, if you walk in, there has to be a general, you know, instruction on the wall forbidding the members to use the word "Socialism" in any of their discussions, because that is, that is the -- you know, if they can be successful at it, if they can successfully convince the people of Manitoba that they are what the Honourable Member from St.

Boniface attempted to make them out to be today, just a nice bunch of fellows, no debt to any ideological feeling or approach to politics, no real serious commitment to any cause, no real -- (Interjection) -- Now listen, if I'm out of turn -- no misunderstanding MR. BOROWSKI: You're sick. MR. ENNS: Alll'm trying to make out of these fellows, Mr. Speaker, is reasonably honest men that will be able to stand up, accept the fact that they are in fact the Socialist party of Manitoba, they should and perhaps have every reason to be proud -- Mr.

Speaker, I can't understand the reluctance because, you know, they may be in somewhat a unique position in North America; grant you, there are not that many Socialist jurisdictions in North America, but, Mr. Speaker, let me remind them and let me encourage them- you are in the majority. We are in the minority in the sense if you want to add up those countries, you know, if you took a very generalized description and included the Socialist dictatorships and the quasi-Socialist dictatorships and the elected Socialist countries, then, Mr. Speaker, the free world is a shrinkingworlq.

It's shrunk pretty well to the North American continent. And because you find yourself in some extent in a minority position in this continent, take heart, my friends, take heart. The cause marches on throughout the world and you're leading it. But for good ness• sake, can't you come clean with the people of Manitoba and tell them that you're leading it, that you are the vanguard of that cause here in North America, and that you intend to lead it successfully? All I ask, Mr. Speaker, is a bit of honesty; a little less deception; a little less letters like this being sent around, denying their origin. MR.

SPEAKER: May I remind the honourable member he has -- The Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, I rise in the debate essentially because the former Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, who was part of a government that had 39 percent of the vote of the people of the Province of Manitoba, was elected by roughly one-quarter of the population of the Province of Manitoba, and at that time considered that this was the democratic process and gave him the opportunity to govern, has accused me personally and other members of the group of which I happen to be a party, members of this party, of being dishonest and he has further said, Mr.

Speaker, and I now speak for myself, that I denied being a Socialist; why do I deny it? I want to tell my honourable friend that I have never denied being a Socialist. I have never denied being a Socialist. And I have said, Mr. Speaker, from time to time that those people who hear me and who hear what I say, and I will talk in their language, and if they hear what I say and deduce from what I am saying that that is Socialism and they want to then identify me as a Socialist, that's their privilege and I won't deny it. And, Mr.

Speaker, that has been the record, because I sat in this House for three years during which my honourable friends were in power, and during those three years -- my honourable friend can look through Hansard, and not on any occasion, not once, did I advance a proposition on the basis of the fact that it was Socialism.

He said that I stood in the House and expounded Socialism, but not in three years in any of the programs that I have advanced, whether it had to do with labour legislation, whether it had to do with Medicare, whether it had to do with anything else, never did I identify these programs as being Socialist. And I didn't have to, Mr.

Speaker, because every time I had ad vanced a proposition, and every time that I could prove through reasonable argument, which is what my honourable friend wants to engage in, every time that I could prove that that particular program would result in more efficiency, would result in more equity to the people of the Province of Manitoba, and would result in less expense to the people of Manitoba, and when my honourable friends, including the Member for Lakeside, had no 3.11Swer to any of these argu ments on the basis of logic, I didn't have ti:J ca!l it Socialist.

Every single one of them said there's the doctrinaire Socialist. That was the answer to the argument. And, Mr. Speaker, that is the argument and I think it's well-known. The Member for Minnedosa refers to me as an unhealthy pinko. I want to assure him - again I'm not, I really have no objection to being called a pinko because that means different

May 7, 1970 1723 (MR. GREEN cont•d.) . . . . . things to different people, but, Mr. Speaker, I'm really sen sitive to the notion that I am unhealthy. I've been here every day during those three years. I haven't missed a day of work. I haven't been at any time -- I see. He thinks that I'm emo tionally unhealthy. Do you really think that that is the case? Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll take that with the humour with which it's been put. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, and to the Honourable Member for Lakeside, that that is the difficulty of his position.

He wants to argue Socialism and we want to argue what is good for the people of Manitoba, and when we prove that something is good for the people of Manitoba and he is at a loss fpr words as to how to answer us, he says it's Socialism. And, Mr. Speaker, I can suggest to you with all the capability which the Member for Fort Garey apparently gives me, I have never been able to convert anybody to Socialism, but my honourable friends have convertedmanypeopleto Socialism because they've identified every reasonable and good pro gram which the people of Manitoba see as being a valid proposition, as being Socialist.

And the people of Manitoba have said, "Well, if that• s Socialism I'm a Socialist. " When we ad vanced the argument, which you now accept -- and my honourable friend can look through my speeches because I am quite particular about this, and I'll tell you the reason why. Because there• s a great deal of confusion as to what the word Socialism means. My honourable friend thinks that it means what they are doing in Russia. I don•t think so, but my honourable friend thinks so.

And therefore, even if I believed firmly that the best de scription of my particular political philosophy, which my honourable friend might be sur prised, but if I believed it firmly that it can be most identified with Socialism, then it woula be whose Socialism? Marxism or Fabianism, the Socialism of George Bernard Shaw, the Soci alism of Karl Marx, the Socialism of Mao Tse-tung, the Socialism of Theodore Roosevelt who was identified by a socialist by every reactionary in the United states.

Even if we knew which one it was, it wouldn't help because the person to whom I am talking is the one who I have to convince as to my ideas. And if I say to him - which my honourable friend wants me to say and I tried to communicate; I'm not tcying to deceive- if I say to him, "Don•t vote for me, I'm a Socialist, " I suggest to you that I am not being honest, as my honourable friend wants me to be. I have to tell that person not what I believe but what I'm going to do. There is no point in telling that pe•son that I believe in the coming of the Messiah.

He wants to know what I am going to do tomorrow; what am I going to do about the problems that the people of the Province of Manitoba face. And I will indicate to him what I am going to do. I just want to take a very personal position with my honourable friend. If a young man came up to me, said he wanted to have a discussion with me, and said that he wanted to convert me to Christianity, I would have a mental block immediately, as my honourable friend would if somebody was going to convert him to another religion. to saying that I don•t want to talk about that.

It• s not something which is germane to me or something which I will be converted to. And therefore, if someone wanted to talk to me about those things which Christianity means and said to me, "I'd like to talk to you about the brotherhood of man, about the doctrine that people should do unto others as they would have others do unto them, " I would sit and listen and we would dialogue, And we might be able to communicate with one another. Now· does my honourable friend really object to us communicating in this way?

Because this is all we are saying. stop saying that you are Socialist, and I've always argued with the members of my party that they should stop arguing about Socialism and start arguing about the problems that affect the people of the Province of Manitoba. But, Mr. Speaker, that hasn't resulted in anybody being fooled about my Socialism. I don •t have to remind them, because the Member for Lakeside will remind them.

The former Attorney-General, every time I got up and spoke, if I spoke on taxation, if I spoke on Mines and Natural Resources, if I spoke on Medicare, if I said that we should reduce the taxes that a person has to pay for Medicare from $120. 00 a year to $28.00 a year by putting it on the income tax rather than on the premium tax, he wouldn't say "That's not true." He would say, "Socialism.

Doctrinaire leveller." Well, that being the case, I didn't fool anybody, because my honourable friends had full knowledge .that I was what I said I was, and what I repeat today, and if we say to the people of Manitoba - and we'll have a real opportunity of getting into this debate as time goes on - that if we permit the present situation with the provision of automobile insurance to continue, we know that there are vecy great defects that have been found out, not by Bolsheviks, not by people from Cuba, but by, for instance, a high judge of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, that there are very bad defects with the present system.

And if we say that we will produce

1724 May 7, 1970 (MR. GREEN cont•d.) . . • . . by the public, in its collective wisdom and with its collective economic strength, producing a plan which will be more effective, more efficient and more equitable, and my honourable friend says that that's Socialism, then everybody who believes that this should be done, he is creating a Socialist out of him. And I don't have to -- (Inter jection) -- Well, Mr. Speaker, we intend to do that.

And the fact is that we feel that if the people will have confidence in this government, that they will have a plan of automobile insur ance through their collective strength, governed by themselves, which will give them better service than the existing situation you have -- (Interjection) -- Now you could argue . . . -- (Interjection) -- Now let's argue about that, Mr. Speaker, whether it is Socialism or not, whether it is Socialism or not- and I told you. Mr. Speaker, I told you that's the answer I'll get, I told you.

If we prove that it's better, if we prove that it's better, and when all else fails, and when every other argument breaks down, they will say that it's Socialism. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate how accurately . . . MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I'm at a loss to wonder why, if I call something Socialism, it could indicate failure. I just don't get the point. I just want- just in the same way as an operation in private hands is often referred to as free enterprise, and I see no objection to that, I'm simply . . . to things in public hands as Socialism of a form, as is . . . MR. GREEN: Well Mr.

Speaker, I•ve indicated, I've indicated- and so that there be no misunderstanding - that I have no objection to my honourable friends arguing that this is Socialism, because that may in their minds be their best argument. In their minds. And that is a judgment which they have to make, how to attack this proposition, And for the past three years that I have sat in this House, every proposition of that kind which they have had no other answer for, they have attacked as Socialism.

And I suppose they can look to the record, if they will, and I shouldn't even hint that they do this, but look to the record and see how much this has done for their position. And maybe then they'll change their position and start arguing about whether this amounts to a better provision of service or not. And I suggest to you that when we argue on those terms we will have disagreements.

I can•t ever think that I'm going to convince my honourable friend, and he knows pretty well that he's not going to convince me, but at least we can put before the public the benefits of the one system as against the benefits of the other system, and I will not, and I didn't until I was provoked or unless I was provoked, when I sat in the House -- (Interjection) -- just let me continue- when I sat in the House I never ever attacked a government program- and I•m talk ing about the previous government - and my honourable friends can go through Hansard and they'll see it.

And I ask them not to do it, I never said that that system that you are now advocating is wrong because it's free enterprise. I never ever said that. Not once, Not once. I said that it was wrong because it didn't provide the service well, that it was too expensive, that it was inequitable. But I never attacked it on ideological grounds. But that was my style, and my honourable friend doesn't have to undertake my style. He can play the game if he thinks that that's the best game for the Conservative Party, and mind you, I'm going to be happy if they continue to play it.

That every time something good comes up - because, you know, I have an affinity for Socialism. And I thi11k if my honourable friend wants to convert people to Socialism, I'm not going to stop him, and if he• s going to say that every body who believes in paying by the means of income tax rather than premiums is Socialism, I say Hallelujah.

If he• s going to say that everybody who believes in looking at the alternatives, as happened earlier in the year, that because we were looking at the alternatives of what to do with South Indian Lake we were Socialists and we got in a doctrinaire socialist to do it, and everybody who believes that you should look at alternatives were then identified as Socialists and they had to adopt that label because the Member for Lakeside forced it on them, That• s his business. Let him do it. Let him do it. I mean, if he won't take my guidance -- I guided him once before, I'll tell you, the Member for Lakeside, Mr.

Speaker, through you. I indi cated to you that the words, that I've looked through Das Kapital; I took it out of the provincial library- it's been there for years; it hasn't hurt anybody, I looked through the index- not a word about South Indian Lake. And there• s not a word about automobile insurance either. So if you want to identify those programs wit~ Socialism, that's your business and I'm not going to stop you. But my honourable friend said . • • MR. ENNS: You•ve given that speech before. MR. GREEN: Yes, that's right. And apparently you didn't get it the last time. Trying to help you again.

You know, it's contrary to the interests of my group; trying to help you, but

May 7, 1970 1725 (MR. GREEN cont•d) ..... you won't accept my help, But my honourable friend said that I was being dishonest. Now that• s the charge he made. Mr. Speaker, each of us, when we come to the House as a freshman, have to make a maiden speech, and I was like any other freshman and I made a maiden speech. And I want to rem~d my honourable friend as to what I said in that speech an.d I have it here before me. I said that when we are arguing about things in this House, let us not engage in philosophical discussions.

We advance a certain position and the opposition appears to agree with us, but then at a certain point, when it appears to have nothing else to say, they advance a philosophical barrier to proceeding. They don't use an argument; they advance a philosophical barrier. And I asked my honourable friend at that time - and I want to say this because he accused me of being dis honest - that that was what I intended to do as a member of this Legislature, that that is the intention that I had to proceed, and members in this House who have sat here with me know that I have proceeded that way.

I have never argued ideologically. That'snotto&llyidon'tbave any ideology, but I have never argued an ideology. I have asked each program to be considered on its merits to see whether it's good for the people of Manitoba or whether it's bad for the people of Manitoba, and I want my honourable friend to try to believe me, try to believe me. that if he could show me and the members of this group that what we are advocating in the way of a public automobile insurance program will be more expensive, less equitable and less efficient, Mr. Speaker, then I would vote against it. Then I would vote against it. But Mr.

Speaker, let's argue on those terms. Don't say to me, as the honourable mem ber said to me today, that I'm being dishonest and look what happens in Cuba and look what happens in Russia.

That's what the Member for Lakeside said, And I said to him that it makes just as much relevance for me to say to you, "Look what's happening in Spain and look what• s happening in the fascist countries in South America, that are free enterprise-oriented coun tries but are dictatorships, " and I say that I don't expect to defend those companies, and you said to me, "Don't ask me to answer for Spain." Well, don't ask me to answer for Cuba and don't ask me to answer for Russia.

I will answer for the position that I take in this House and the position that the government takes in this House and what are the good things to do in the province of Manitoba. But I want to read to my honourable friend- I assume, Mr. Speaker, this is within the rules. But I want to read my own speech -- (Interjection) -- No, no. I can•t. I don't have the time. Mind you, the whole thing is very worthwhile but I just don't have the time. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I would venture to say that the members of this party have gone into politics and most people go into politics for the very same reason, and that is that the mem bers of this party, like the members of the other two parties, the three parties in the House, have accepted some sort of social call to try to do something towards bettering the conditions under which people live in the Province of Manitoba.

We don•t think that we•re different from the other parties in this respect and we accept the sincerity of the other members of this House in having just as noble and fine objectives as we do, but we suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when it comes to actual legislation and action, that the other parties in this House have sug gested that they are blocked from taking such action because of philosophical means, that that's the block to taking the action, not whether it's good or bad. but philosophical means.

I want my honourable friend to listen to me -- maybe the Member for Rhineland would leave him alone for a little while. We soo no block. We in this party, I suggest, are being perfectly pragmatic and perfectly realistic. Not idealistic- in other words, it's not ideology- but realistic.

We say, in the words of Dean Swift, that the person who does something for society is that person who can make two ears of corn grow where one once grew, and we feel that by accepting a greater and greater degree of social responsibility, we can make those two ears grow and we suggest that we won't be blocked, and that's the difference. We won't be blocked by some fictitious, philosophical barrier which the other members of this House apparently feel that they can't hurdle. It's you who are setting up a doctrinaire position.

I ask the honourable members to realize this, that they are referring to us as doctrinaire but it's they who are clinging to a doctrinaire position. Because, Mr. Speaker, there was a resolution that we put in this House which astonished me, the reaction of the opposition - and at that time it was the government and the Liberal Party by the way- which astonished me. We said that there was a difficulty in the development of our national resources, that provinces were bidding against each other

1726 May 7, 1970 (MR. GREEN cont'd) •.•.. and that, therefore there should be a study to see whether through various alternatives - and we listed them - through private enterprise, through cooperative enterprise, through joint private and cooperative enterprise, through joint private and public enterprise, or through public enterprise, the people of Manitoba could get a better return from their resources.

And the members on that side of the House got up and said because we included - not because the rest of it wasn•t good enough, because there weren't every single option available - and particularly the Liberal Party I criticize for this- but we named every single option, but because one of the options, Mr. Speaker, be cause one of the option involved the public in developing its natural resources, they said they wouldn't support that resolution. Now, Mr. Speaker, who is doctrinaire? Who is doctrinaire?

We have said, and we continue to say, that we will continue to look at all of the means of serving our society, but when one of those means involves the citizens of our community gathering together through their elected representatives and providing a service, and provided that we feel and we can demonstrate that that service is better provided in this system than as it has been provided before, we will not . . . MR. DONALD W, CRAIK (Riel): Mr. Speaker, would you permit a question? MR. GREEN: ... preclude ourselves from exercising that option. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I ask you who is doctrinaire, I say they are the doctrinaire people in this House, because they say that they will be prepared to consider anything provided it's not. Socialism, provided the people of this province don't take unto themselves the authority to change the status quo. Now, Mr. Speaker, what is one to do?

I remember as a youngster- and I want to get personal with the House- as a youngster, one could see various inequities around and one heard in those days about the theory of revolution and the theory of democracy, and I remem ber arguing about revolution and I remember being told by my very· good free enterprise friends, no; if you want to change society revolution is not the way.

The thing to do is get your ideas across, convince the people that you are right, seek to get greater electoral support, and when you have electoral support you are then entitled to change the economic status quo because you have gained the approval of the people. Now what the members of that side are really saying is that even if this were true, even if you do have electoral support, even if you have convinced the people of the rightness of your way, if that way is not the way that presently maintains the existing status quo, it's not democratic. Is that not, is that not. MR. ENNS: We're not saying that at all.

MR. GREEN: Is that not what the member of that side has been saying? Now just - (Interjections)-- Just let me-- Mr. Speaker, I ask you-- I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the honourable members to let me continue. Mr. Speaker ... MR. ENNS: Who is denying you the right to do what you want to do? All I'm trying to say is you•re a Socialist goverhment. Put in the Socialist programs you want to put in. MR. CRAIK: Before we get off the topic, Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Mines and Resources used as his prime example their proposals regarding mining, and the one he has used with regard to the-- (Interjection) -- right, but I'm-- if he had let me ask it at the time, I'm trying to get back to it. Is he not aware that the point that he made was answered at the time, to remind him when he was on this side that in the legislation that existed to do what he wanted to do was already provided, and is he not aware that what he was saying we wouldn't agree to had already been done and is in the legislation he is in charge of? MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, that's not what I was told, I was told that it was Socialism. I remember the Member for Rock Lake, We had moved a resolution, we had moved a resolu tion that the provinces get together to see whether there was any way of avoiding the competi tion as between one province and another. The Member for Rock Lake got up and made a speech about how I wanted to socialize everything in society, and a Member of the Liberal Party- it was the member Mr.

Dawson, the Member for Virden at that time- got up and said, "I can•t understand why the Member for Rock Lake is saying this about this resolution because the Member for Inkster (as I thee wae) never said anything of the kind." And the same thing was true of the resolution that we put with regard to mining, And if my honourable friend will look at it he will see that that was said. And I suggest to you that that is always the answer. But I note the Member for Fort Rouge and I can•t resist her asking me a question.

-__ -,- _; May 7, 1970 MRS, INEZ TRUEMAN (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Honourable Minister whether he feels that he has an open and flexible mind regarding auto insurance plans. 1727 MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, the openness and flexibility of people's minds are a relative thing. I would suggest, with the greatest of respect, that my mind is as open and flexible as is the honourable member's and is the Member for Souris-Lansdowne and is the Member for Lakeside and is the Member for River Heights.

I don't pretend-- and if we•re . talking about pretenses and dishonesty, I have never pretended not to have a bent towards the public gathering their strength together and doing things for themselves. I have never argued against that. But I know that I sat on a committee for automobile insurance for three years. That was the committee -- and the Conservative Government set up a committee, and I take it that that is an admission that they said that there was something wrong, and as a matter of fact as a

preamble to the committee they indicated that something was, and we sat for three years and nobody -- it did not cause any stir and I know that the Conservative members on that committee were inflexible as to one point. MRS. TRUEMAN: I would think that if they studied this matter for three years and decided against it they were not -- (Interjections) -- May I ask . • MR, GREEN: . . . I would ask you to have her sit down. MR. SPEAKER: Has the honourable member a question? _ MR. GREEN: No, I don't yield to a question. MRS; TRUEMAN: ..• open mind? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources.

MR. GREEN: But I sat on that committee for three years and I know that all of the members of that committee were inflexible as to one point. They were not -- (Interjection)-,... I heard what the committee -- I know we sat for three years and did nothing. I heard what the members of the committee said. I know that they said that they were prepared to make insurance compulsory. They were prepared to make it compulsory for me.

This, my honourable friend the Member for Roblin -- they were prepared to make it compulsory for me to buy the policy of a private insurance company, but they are not prepared to make is compulsory for me to buy my own insurance policy. And that• s the difference. But they would not glve up on that point. They were prepared to regulate rates and, Mr. Speaker, I know what regulation of rates means. It means that economic power stays in the same place and the people who are regulating rates are very much influenced by the people whose rates are being regulated. I've seen that happen for a hundred years.

You can look to the regulation of railroad rates in the United States. They were agreed to do anything to change the amount of accidents and, you know, that somebody mentioned that today. I would be very happy to do that, I would be very happy to eliminate the amount of accidents that occur but it still doesn't go to the basic question, and that is the cost of providing the coverage. Because in each case, if you pay less money out there will be less claims; it is not a cost of coverage; but they would not go to that vital point. Mr.

Speaker, I'll repeat the story that the Member for Lakeside liked so much, because this is the one point at which they don't get off, and I tell this and I hope, again. • I hope that it won't be considered an ideological story; it just happens to be a good story. And it'·s the story that Tolstoi wrote about the poor man going through life riding on the backs of the rich men -- the rich man going through life riding on the backs of the poor men - vice versa. . • • . . Continued on next page

1728 May 7, 1970 MR. SIDNEY SPIVAK, Q.C. (River Heights): It's all changed. Get it right. MR. GREEN: Some people have not heard the story. And the fact is that the rich man, while riding on the back of the poor man, is willing to do all kinds of things to make life a little bit more tolerable for the poor man.

He is willing, for instance, when he wants to get some place in a hurry he is willing to let the poor man trot rather than to gallop at full pace, and when the poor man is getting a little tired he will permit him to sit down for a little while, and when the poor man is getting so weak that he can't carry him he will feed the poor man through his mouth. The rich man is a very benevolent person and be will even go to the extent, when be sees the poor man perspiring, of taking out his white silk handkerchief and wiping the poor man's brow. The rich man will do anything for the poor man except get off his back.

And, Mr. Speaker, that was the position that the members that I sat with took on auto mobile insurance. They were prepared to do anything. They were prepared to consider any way of reducing the amount that had to be paid out, do anything that would make the insurance companies' costs lower, but they were not prepared to say that the people have the intelligence, the people of the Province of Manitoba have the intelligence to provide this insurance to them selves on better terms than are now being provided to them by private people. That's the one thing that they would not consider. Now, Mr.

Speaker, we're prepared -- I can tell the honourable member that we are pre pared to enter into that kind of consideration and if that, to the HonoUrable Member for Fort Rouge, makes me closed-minded, then I say to her that she doesn't know how closed-minded she is. I believe that through the years that I have spent in being educated by public money in Manitoba, which all of you people were educated by filthy Socialist money that was provided by the people, that in the education that I have had, that .... MR. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, you know I don't know, and I hate to interrupt the Honourable the House Leader, but I reject the implication of the description "filthy Socialist money". I'm proud of the Socialist programs the Conservative and Liberal governments have introduced to our people from time to time ..... MR. GREEN: Okay. Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the .... MR. ENNS: .•.. including our public school system, and he's imputing motives that aren't there and weren't there in my speech. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the phrase "filthy Socialist money" because I don't happen to like it either. So I'll withdraw it.

But let me tell my honourable friend some thing, that when they talked about public education, when they said that they were going to stop people, that anybody is going to be able to go to school and it's going to be paid for by the state and that they're not going to have people who have money go to private tutors and get educated, do you know what people like you said? They said, "Socialism." That's exactly what they said about the public school system. Exactly what they said about -- (Interjection) --Well, it's true.

But that is true, so when we are talking about these programs I want my honourable friend to know, I want my honourable friend to know that the very objections that he is now raising with regard to public automobile insurance --and let me go back a step; if be doesn't want that one, take Workmen's Compensation. It used to be the situation, it used to be the situation that if two employees were working ..•.. MR. ENNS: Who introduced it? MR. GREEN:.

It was introduced, and to this I give credit to those people who from time to time have been torn away from their doctrinaire position and have been required to move, the same as Medicare it was not produced by a Socialist government. The Workmen's Com pensation was produced in England after the labour people elected a lot of people to the Legislature, and the Conservatives and Liberals saw the writing on the wall and they said we better do something in this society. Again .... MR. ENNS: Say it. Who introduced it in Manitoba? MR.

GREEN: The fact is --the fact is, the fact is that when they were arguing about Worklnen's Compensation, and it used to be the case that two workers working side by side, if one happened to do the wrong thing and the other one lost an arm he couldn't sue, couldn't do anything, and they said we're going to :::-em~ve the tort system; we're going to create a system of Workmen's Compensation where every employer will contribute, and the result of that contribution is that everybody will be compensated at the cost of the state. And what did the people who took a doctrinaire, philosophical position say?

You know what they said- you can guess by now. They said, ''It's Socialism." They said, ''It's Socialism." And, Mr.

May 7, 1970 1729 (MR. GREEN cont'd.) ..••• Speaker, that didn't stop these measures which, in the eyes of the people, and whether they were Socialist or not Socialist, saw them as being sensible ways of dealing with particular problems; 1t didn't stop them from adopting those sensible ways. And I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and I say to the members opposite, that the cry and scream of Socialism, and as I saw -- you.know, I think, we talk about people getting emotional; I saw signs which called the First Minister a Communist, which said "Better Dead than Red." I've never seen anybody live up to that proposition.

I know that in Vietnam the Americans have said that it's better for the Vietnamese to be dead than red, but they never said it to themselves. When ever a measure of this kind has come along, despite the screams of anguish from Barry Goldwater or other people who choose to adhere to doctrinaire positions, despite that .... MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt the Honourable Minister and correct him. There's a whole class of some billions of. ... MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend is not speaking on a point of order and he's not even asking a question.

He merely wants some more time, and he'shad his time and I'm not prepared to give him more. MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the Honourable Minister he has five minutes remaining. MR. GREEN: All right, Mr. Speaker. We're speaking on the budget and I -- you know, when I was in the House, Mr.

Speaker, and not only in the House but in election campaigns, I contended, despite the views to the contrary and through the popular wisdom to the contrary, that the New Democratic Party program was a program that did not involve the additional ex penditure of public money, that we could govern on the basis of changing things without spending more money, and we had a difficult time getting this across.

I remember during the by-election we had a press conference and we gave them our program, and the reporter, without looking at one thing in the program said, "Where will you find the money?" Because that's the cry that used to come up from the other side. And I said to him, "What are you talking about? You look at that program and see what in it involves the additional expenditure of money." And the fact is that there was nothing, Mr. Speaker. Not a thing.

And the fact is that we have gone through two sessions of the Legislature, and despite the fact that my honourable friend says that we have charged additional costs for services, which he chooses to call taxation and I'lllet him make that call, the fact is that we reduced, we shifted taxation from an inequitable base to an equitable base and we didn't charge an increase in taxation. What the opposition is really angry about is that we've come into this Legislature in this i!le ssion and we've done what we said we could do. And we've thrown the lie to all of their accusations.

We've come in and we are going to do sub stantial good for the people of the province of Manitoba and we're not going to increase their taxes -and that's what annoys them. They know that we can do it, Mr. Speaker. We're proving that we can do it. And if one can see them as being annoyed and being exasperated and being frustrated and being in a fit of exasperation, one can understand it, because any opposition ..•• MR. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): What about the municipal taxes? The taxes are up; the municipal taxes are up. The municipal taxes are up. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, I think that if I get interrupted that way, I should be given more time. But the fact is that the appeal that those people have always had to the electorate is that if the New Democrats get in, it's going to cost you more money. And what they see hap pening and what they know will happen in the future, and that's what bothers them, that's what bothers them, is that we will improve the condition of the people of the province of Manitoba ... MR. SPIVAK: ..... doing something. MR.

GREEN: We will improve the condition of the people of the province of Manitoba and it won't cost them more money, that there are many other ways. And Mr. Speaker, if any thing will make a political party angry and frustrated, it's the fact that their best arguments have been taken away. A paper as friendly as the Winnipeg Tribune came out and said -- a paper as friendly to my honourable friend as the Winnipeg Tribune -- (Interjection) --that's right - has come out and has said, "My God, these New Democrats, they haven't spent any money at all." But we still want to do something, Mr. Speaker.

And what we are doing is that we are demonstrating that the people of the province of Manitoba will say -- you know, we can't save as much as my honourable friends say we're going to save them. My honourable friend the Member for Souris-Lansdowne, he said something which in my wildest dreams we couldn't fulfill that kind of a suggestion. He says we're going to put 4, 000 people out of work. Mr. Speaker, if that were true, you wouldn!t be able -- no political party would be able to stem the tide of the public telling them to do it. Because 4, 000 people --(Interjection) -- Just let me -- Mr.

SpeaKer, in all fairness, I should be permitted to continue.

1730 May 7, 1970 MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, 4, 000 people and let us assume that the insurance companies pay a fairly decent wage. Let's take a low wage. Let's take $4,000 a year. They are suggest ing that we're going to save $16 million on premiums alone, on wages alone. The total premiums are only $30 million but they say that we're going to save $16 million on wages alone. Mr. Speaker, we can't do it. We can't do it. We have only indicated, Mr. Speaker ... MR. JAMES H. BILTON (Swan River): That's not right. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, that'swhattheyhave saidandthey've saidalotmore.

If you take up the total of what they have said that we are going to cost people, we could wipe out the entire Insurance premium. Mr. Speaker, we can't do it. All we can do is make a fairly moderate saving on automobile insurance and see to it that the service is provided in a more equitable and efficient manner. That's all we have ever laid claim for. And Mr. Speaker, -- (Interjection) -- pardon me? Mr. Speaker, I assure the honourable member that whatever is charged for automobile insurance, if you took a combination --and let me tell my honourable frie)lds something. This is not going to happen.

What I'm now going to say won't happen. But we could, if we could find a way of doing it, we could finance the entire automobile insurance program, and I hasten to add, Mr. Speaker, and I don't want to be misunderstood and don't jump out of your seats, the whole program could be financed without premiums, without ad ministrative costs, for 14 cents a gallon. Now everybody will say that's an enormous price. But Mr. Speaker, for the person who drives a thousand miles a month, which is a fair amount of driving, it works out to about $90.00 a year.

Now we could do it if we could figure out a way of saying that you can't go out of Manitoba to buy your gasoline, and we can't at this point do that. But the fact is that I assure my honourable friends that the amount that the people of Manitoba will pay for automobile insurance will be reduced because the public will be operating the system rather than the way it's operating now. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. FROESE: .•.•. a question? MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker --well yes. If I have the floor, I'm quite happy, Mr. Speaker, to yield the floor to a question •.

MR. FROESE: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister if'he would answer this. Does he not believe that cooperatives are operating at cost and that this plan could be handled by them at cost without going ..... MR. GREEN: I do. And I've indicated that the Portage Mutual is a good example of a publicly-operated automobile insurance. I have nothing against that. But when I was on the Aatomobile Commission, I asked every insurer that appeared before us: could you reduce your administrative costs if you have 23 percent of the business?

If you had 50 percent of the business, would you reduce your administrative costs? And every single insurer said yes, and he appeared delighted; and I said, ''If you had 75 percent of the business would you reduce your costs still further?" And they said, "Yes; yes. Oh, if we could get 75 percent of the business we would reduce our costs still further." And I said, ''If you had 90 percent of the business you would reduce your costs still further?" And they said, "Yes." And I said, "If you had 100 percent of the business ... -- (Interjections) --At that point, Mr.

Speaker, they saw that they were moving in a very dangerous direction and the Member for Portage la · Prairie Mutual, Mr. Brown, at that time said "Yes, but there is a danger that we would be come so autocratic that we wouldn't provide a good service." Now, Mr. Speaker, I have no danger that the members in this room, who are elected representatives of the people and whose constituents will tell them what to do, and who've got three people standing behind them waiting to take their job ....

We're not going to be autocratic; we're going to be able to provide the best, the most responsive and the least expensive system. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. McKENZIE: I've got a question, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: I'm wondering if the honourable member could find some other time to ... MR. McKENZIE: It's just a very bdef question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Speaker one question. Has the medical and hospital cost increased or decreased in the past 10 months? MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, the fact is that the medical costs have gone up but the drug costs, in which the public has not been involved, have gone up even more. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. Order, please, order.

"- May 7, 1970 MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for River Heights, that debate be adjourned. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: It is 10:00 o'clock and the House is adjourned and will stand adjourned until 10:00 tomorrow (Friday) morning.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-2-68
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 2nd hansardpdf 68.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	656fc7e879d251d01fbf5137602328ed62caf8d4

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