Manitoba Hansard — 26 March 1974 (Sitting 68, 30th Legislature, 1st Session)

30-1-68

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable Peter Fox Vol. XXI No. 68 8:00p.m., Tuesday, March 26th, 1974. First Session, 30th Legislature. Printed by R. S. Evans-Queen's Printer for Province of Manitoba

Electoral Division Name Political Address Postal Affiliation Code ARTHUR J. Douglas Watt P.C. Reston, Man. ROM 1XO ASSINIBOIA Steve Patrick Lib. 10 Red Robin PI., Winnipeg R3J 3LB Bl RTLE-RUSSELL Harry E. Graham P.C. Binscarth, Man. ROJ OGO BRANDON EAST Hon. Leonard S. Evans NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova BRANDON WEST Edward McGill P.C. 222a Princess Ave., Bran don R7B OH9 BURROWS Hon.

Ben Hanuschak NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova CHARLESWOOD Arthur Moug P.C. 29 Willow Ridge Rd., Winnipeg R3R 1L5 CHURCHILL Les Osland NDP 66 Radisson Blvd., Churchill ROB OEO CRESCENTWOOD Harvey Patterson NDP 978 Garwood Ave., Winnipeg R3M 1N7 DAUPHIN Hon. Peter Burtniak NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova ELMWOOD Hon. Russell J. Doern NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova EMERSON Steve Derewianchuk NDP Vita, Manitoba ROA 2KO FUN FLON Thomas Barrow NDP Cranberry Portage, Man. ROB OHO FORT GARRY L.R. (Bud) Sherman P.C. 86 Niagara St., Winnipeg R3N OT9 FORT ROUGE Lloyd Axworthy Lib. 132 Osborne St.

S., Winnipeg R3L 1Y5 GIMLI John C. Gottfried NDP 44 -3rd Ave., Gimli, Man. ROC 1BO GLADSTONE James R. Ferguson P.C. Gladstone, Man. ROJ OTO INKSTER Hon. Sidney Green, O.C. NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 KILDONAN Hon. Peter Fox NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 LAC DU BONNET Hon. Sam Uskiw NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 LAKESIDE Harry J. Enns P.C. Woodlands, Man. ROC 3HO LA VERENDRYE Bob Banman P.C. Steinbach, Man. ROA 2AO LOGAN William Jenkins NDP 1294 Erin St., Winnipeg R3E 2S6 MINNEDOSA David Blake P.C. Minnedosa, Man. ROJ 1EO MORRIS Warner H. Jorgenson P.C. Morris, Man.

ROG 1KO OSBORNE Hon. I an Tu rnbull NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OVB PEMBINA George Henderson P.C. Manitou, Man. ROG 1GO POINT DOUGLAS Donald Malinowski NDP 23 Coral berry Ave., Winnipeg R2V 2P2 PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE Gordon E. Johnston Lib. 135- 16th St. S.W., Portage la Prairie, Man. R1N 2W5 RADISSON Harry Shafransky NDP 4 Maplehurst Rd., Winnipeg R2J 1WB RHINE LAND Arnold Brown P.C. Winkler, Man. ROG 2XO RI EL Donald W. Craik P.C. 3 River Lane, Winnipeg R2M 3YB RIVER HEIGHTS Sidney Spivak, O.C. P.C. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 ROBLIN J. Wally McKenzie P.C. I nglis, Man. ROJ OXO ROCK LAKE Henry J.

Einarson P.C. Glenboro, Man. ROK OXO ROSSMERE Hon. Ed. Schreyer NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 RUPERTSLAND Harvey Bostrom NDP Manigotagan, Manitoba ROE 1EO ST. BONIFACE J. Paul Marion Lib. 394 Gaboury Place, Winnipeg R2H OL4 ST. GEORGE Hon. Bill Uruski NDP 10th fir., 330 Portage Ave.,Wpg. R3C OC4 ST. JAMES George Minaker P.C. 31a Ronald St., Winnipeg R3J 3J8 ST. JOHNS Hon. Saul Cherniack, O.C. NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 ST. MATTHEWS Wally Johannson NDP 41a Home St., Winnipeg R3G 1X4 ST. VITAL D.J. Walding NDP 26 Hemlock Place, Winnipeg R2H 1L7 STE. ROSE A.R. (Pete) Adam NDP Ste.

Rose du Lac, Man. ROL 1SO SELKIRK Hon. Howard Pawley NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 SEVEN OAKS Hon. Saul A. Miller NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 SOURIS KILLARNEY Earl McKellar P.C. Nesbitt, Man. ROK 1PO SPRINGFIELD Hon. Rene E. Toupin NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 STURGEON CREEK J. Frank Johnston P.C. 310 Overdale St., Winnipeg R3J 2G3 SWAN RIVER James H. Bilton P.C. Swan River, Man. ROL 1ZO THE PAS Hon. Ran McBryde NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 THOMPSON Ken Dillen NDP 1171 Westwood Dr., Thompson R8N OG8 TRANSCONA Hon.

Russell Paulley NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 VIRDEN Morris McGregor P.C. Kenton, Man. ROM OZO WELLINGTON Phi lip M. Petursson NDP 681 Banning St., Winnipeg R3G 2G3 WINNIPEG CENTRE J.R. (Bud) Boyce NDP 777 Winnipeg Ave., Winnipeg R3E OR5 WOLSELEY I.H. Asper Lib. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 o'clock, Tuesday, March 26, 1974 BUDGET DEBATE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. MR. ASPER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. . . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. 1875 MR. ASPER: Yes, if I may, before the Honourable Minister for Northern Affairs con tinues. Immediately at the conclusion of my speech this afternoon the Honourable Minister of Finance asked me a question and I undertook to check the information and. respond to him. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. That is not a point of order.

The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. ASPER: Yes. I undertook to do what he asked me to do and to answer him.·. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. That is not a point of order to procedure. If I allowed that I would have to allow that 56 times for members to explain procedures they had made previously and I just can't entertain that. MR. ASPER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, then on a point of privilege .. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. MR. ASPER: •. a point of privilege then, Mr. Speaker. A MEMBER: It's the same thing. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader explain his matter of privilege? MR.

ASPER: Yes. Mr. Spealur, I believe it is a matt er of privilege that I am allowed to correct the record. MR. GREEN: No. No. MR. ASPER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am allowed to correct the record as a matter of privilege. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. ASPER: And, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement to correct the record so that there is no inaccurate information on the record. MR. SPEAKER: Order. The Honourable Minister of Mines. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, we don't want to be difficult to the honourable member. lt' s not a procedure of the House where a question is asked where then in the middle of the debate a member can get up and give the information. He can do it on his next occasion that he is making a speech. However, Mr. Speaker, it is a custom that if a member has inadver tently put on the record information which is incorrect on his own part and wishes to correct his own information of course he is entitled to say that he inadver tently made an incorrect statement or something and have that corrected. I think, Mr.

Speaker, that the House accepts that. A MEMBER: At the conclusion of his remarks. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. ASPER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the House Leader for his comments. In the speech I made this afternoonistated " and while Manitobans have had to accept one of the lower rates of increase in personal income they have not been spared from the ravages of inflation. In fact we here again have a dubious economic distinction of leading.

It is a fact and one of which this government cannot be proud but one for which it must share the blame, for the rate of inflation in Winnipeg between 1972 and 1973 far exceeded the national average rate of inflation, the cost of living in the consumer price index went up for Canada by 7. 6 per cent, but Winnipeg suffered a 15. 6 percent consumer price index rise." Mr. Speaker, in transposing the figures - and I thank the Honourable Minister for Finance for drawing it to my attention - there was a transfer .of one column to another and the figure for Winnipeg should have read "6. 4 percent", and Mr.

Speaker, the information I gave the House is amended by what I've just said and by substituting what I said - what I should have said is, that while Manitoba suffered a moderately lower rate of inflation than the rest of Canada as opposed to a greater rate we were below the national average in income and above the national average in taxation and this accounts for the squeeze that I made reference to. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity for correcting the error. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour.

1876 March 26, 1974 BUDGET DEBAT E HON. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Minister of Labour) (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. I trust that this will not be a precedence for such an occurrence because it comes in the middle of a speech that one of the other honourable members was giving. The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party in my opinion should have at least awaited until the conclusion of the remarks of the Honourable Minister for Northern Affairs. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. MR. McBRYDE: Mr.

Speaker, when we adjourned for supper I was addressing myself to the Budget and the amendments presented by the Leader of the Liberal Party and the opposi tion thereto. You will recall that I was commenting on the remarks of the Leade r of the Oppo sition. One of the main points of his contribution to the Budget debate was the fact that the present government is not assisting low income people and to prove his case he cited the example of Treaty Indian people in Manitoba. The Leader of the Opposition said at that time, and I quote, Mr. Speaker, "But in addition to that, Mr.

Speaker, we have one set of statistics which demon strates clearly that one major disadvantaged group is now worse off relative and absolutely than they were in 1969. Now, Mr. Speaker, according to the Guidelines for Manitoba on Page 60 of Volume 3 the average earned income in northern Manitoba by the Indian communities was $1 , 735 in 1969. According to the same survey by the Federal· Government and the most recent date, the average income has now dropDed to $1,245. 00." The Leader of the Opposition went on to say, "Mr.

Sp2aker, after four years of NDP programs the per capita income has increased in this province by 42 percent and the Indian per capita income has declined by 30 percent." Now, Mr. Speaker, did the government know this statistic or did they ignore it?" The Leader of the Opposition - and I continue to quote, "Mr.

Speaker, while I say to the honour ab le members opposite with the money that was spent on winter roads, with the money that was spent by the government'inall programs, with the volume that was spent on Hydro, with the almost $500 million that was spent in the north, how can the statistical data now indicate that there has been a drop in the Indian income by $500. 00?

And how can the members ojposit� say that insofar as they are concerned in terms of the target groups which this party on the opposite side claims they are concerned about, they have really improved their condition?" As I pointed out I have some difficulty in obtaining statistics from the Federal Depart ment of Indian Affairs but I am informed from their Chief Statistician that the figure used by the Leader of the Opposition as the mainstay of his speech was a figure that is not comparable to the figure that he quoted from the Guidelines Report. The figure of $1, 245 was only a figure for on..:reserve income.

The off-reserve income and other income sources were not included in that figure and therefore according to the Chief of Statistics for the Federal Government the two figures are in no way comparable and therefore of course the whole argument of the Leade r of the Oppositim in this regard is certainly in question. The Leader of the Opposition did make some comments in terms of the situation of treaty Indian people and especially in that quotation referred to the winter road program.

I would like to add that, to contribute a short quotation from the Winnipeg Free Press of March 16th which is a statement by the Indian community in that part of the province served by winter roads which I quote: "The Provincial Government is to be commended for their winter truck road policy and for the interest they have shown in the Indians of Manitoba. The present Provincial Govern ment is the first Provincial Government that attempted to ease the povsrtyand deprived circum stances of the Indian people of Manitoba.

It is a shame that what positive steps are taken by the government the opposition cannot refrain from attempting to destroy a good policy. The present Provincial Government has shown that it cares." I think, Mr. Speaker, that very brief paragraph from a long paragraph which points out numerous errors and omissions in the repor ting of one Mr. Fred Cleverley in regard to winter road policy is a very brief and fair

summary of the present situation. Although I don't want to spend most of my debate dealing just with the subject in terms of treaty Indians in Manitoba I think it wo uld be fair to make some comments on the provision in the Budget and the representations made to that provision in the Budget by the Leader of the Liberal Party last evening. L1st evening, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party said that the move by the Province of Manitoba, the Minister of Finance in his Budget debate to remove the sales tax for treaty Indians for use of goods on reserve was in fact only one thing.

He claimed it was only a vote-getting mechanism and that since most of the northern constituency had a consider able number of treaty Indian people in it th at this was a discriminatory tax aimed at providing

March 26, 1974 1877 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. McBRYDE Cont'd) ... .. the NDP with northern seats in a provincial election and that was the only justification and the only reason he could see for this particular policy. It would be fair to point out that I am not one of those that was pushing or advocating such a policy as was announced in the Budget debate nor do I believe that my colleagues from northern Manitoba were amongst those pushing for the change in taxation policy.

As a matter of fact I always argued that the treaty Indian people would be better off to ask for increased services from the Province of Manitoba rather than a sales tax exemption.

However, when the people presented the statistics of across Canada in relation to the sales tax exemption for treaty Indians across the Dominion of Canada I think any fair and reasonable person would note that Manitoba's policy was different from that policy or other governments; and since it is noted that the majority of services provided to treaty Indians is in fact paid for by the Federal Government through the Department of Indian Affairs as per many obligations under the treaty and the responsibility to that department of the Federal Government, I suppose other provinces felt that it was fair and reasonable that the sales tax not apply to treaty Indians.

The facts in the matter are, Mr. Speaker, that in British Columbia there is no tax on sales to treaty Indians living on reservations; there is a tax involving deliveries to reservations and sales to Indians living off reservations. In Alberta of course they live off oil and not off sales taxes. In Saskatchewan there is no sales tax for treaty Indians living on reservations, no sales tax on delivery to reservations and no sales tax for treaty Indians living off reserva tions. In Manitoba all these categories in the past have been passed.

I might point out, in British Columbia where they have this policy of not having a sales tax to Indians living on reserves that policy was brought in and maintained by both a Social Credit government and a New Democratic Party government and I don't believe it was a method of them gathering votes. In Saskatchewan where the policy applies right across the board of sales tax exemption it was a policy that was maintained by both a Liberal, I note a Liberal, and a New Democratic Party government and not one I believe that was aimed at getting votes.

In Manitoba, the tax that was brought in of course under - well there was Conservative and New Democratic Party governments in power. In Ontario there is no sales tax to Indians living on reservations and no sales tax for deliveries to reservations. And that policy was brought in and maintained by a Conservative government. In Quebec, there is no sales tax for Indians living on reservations or deliveries to reservations and there is a rebate available to treaty Indians living off reservations. That policy I believe existed both during a Union Nationale and a Liberal government.

In New Brunswick there is no sales tax for treaty Indians living on reservations. Mr. Speaker, I think it would be fair to say that the policy of those cases was not aimed at a method of vote gathering and certainly the policy in Manitoba is only to bring us in line with the policy of other governments. We did not go as far as our sister province of Saskatchewan but took a middle course similar to the Conservative government in the proV'ince of Ontario. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, I don't believe that that change in policy will either gain or lose votes but seems a policy that is fair in terms of the policies of other provinces in our country. But, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be fair to note, it would be fair to note that it could be claimed that there was vote buying in the Province of Manitoba in the last provincial election; and I would like the members to pay some attention so they can understand better how this process is carried out and how you go about it so they might improve their fortunes in the future.

So if the members opposite have their pencils and papers ready I'll give them a lesson on vote buying in the Province of Manitoba. And here's how you do it, here's how it's done, Mr. Speaker. The elimination of health insurance premiums giving families a tax cut worth $200 a year. A property tax credit program with benefits of another $200 a year. A new $200 guaranteed minimum monthly income for those over 65, The provision of insured nursing home care. The pharmacare program for the elderly. The drug substitution program to hold down or reduce prescription drug ccsts.

Our massive efforts to provide low-cost housing for those who need it. The provincial employ ment program encompassing pensioners home repairs plus special community northern and native employment measures. A student temporary employment program. Special municipal loans. Accelerated capital works projects. Northern Manpower Corps. New Careers programs.

1878 March 26 , 1974 BUDGET DEBATE. (MR. McBRYDE Cont1d) ...• Var ious work activity programs. Mr. Speaker, this is the method by which the Minister of Finance used to buy votes in the Province of Manitoba in the last election. And, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to now explain to the members opposite the method used this year, even though there's not an election coming up, what we are going to use to buy votes in the Province of Manitoba. A new cost of living tax credit program made possible by fairer returns from mineral resources. A major new land servicing and home mortgage fund.

Important new economic and industrial expansion efforts throughout Manitoba, especially in rural areas in the north, under a general development agreement and sub-agreements with the Federal Government. Substantially increased conditional and unconditional assistance to municipalities including aid for streets and urban transport and access to additional growth revenues from amusement taxes. A guaranteed minimum income for the elderly. A broadly based day care program. A greatly expanded pharmacare program. A new ambulance service plan. A larger sales tax exemption for restaurant meals.

This is the method that we have been involved in the buying of votes for the people of Manitoba. Now I would like to point out to the members opposite thant appears to have been more effective than hot dogs which was the Conservative method used in the community of Cross Lake, Manitoba during the last provincial election, It has been more effective than the policy of booze used by the Liberal party in the last provincial election in my own constituency. And I would like to point out to the members opposite that these are the vote buying methods brought forward by the Minister of Finance.

These vote buying methods, Mr. Speaker, are programs and policies that benefit the majority of people in Manitoba. That's what the people will support. The people opposite can call it what they want. They are programs that benefit the majority of citizens in the Province of Manitoba.

It is the kind of program that the Minister of Finance has brought forward in his Budget, is the kind of program that we would support regardless of what the members opposite wish to call it, And I would like to say that this Minister of Finance and this government has represented the interests of the majority of people in the Province of Manitoba and I think that the people of Manitoba understand this. It1s not the Leader of the Liberal Party or the Leader of the Opposition with their mouth ing of the mining company executive statements in regard to the mineral taxation.

It's not the Liberal party policy or their continued support of the exploiters of the north like Mr. Sigfu::Bon and Mr. Brotherton. It is not the Conservative MP for Churchill, the biggest slum landlord in Lynn Lake, who has now taken a position with the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company as an Executive in Toronto. It is not the James Richardson ••. These people do not represent the majority of people of Manitoba nor do they bring in policies that are going to benefit the majority of people of Manitoba, Mr.

Speaker, it is this Minister of Finance and this govern ment that works for the middle and low income people of Manitoba and the people of Manitoba realize this and this is what upsets the members opposite. ROYAL ASSENT MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister of Finance wishes to bring in the Administrator for the purpose of confirming the Supply Bill. SERGEANT -AT-ARMS: His Honour the Administrator. (The Honourable A.S. Dewar, Chief Justice. ) MR.

SPEAKER: We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and faithful subjects, the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba in session assembled, approach the Honourable the Administrator with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty's person and Government, and beg for the Honourable the Administrator the acceptance of this Bill: (No. 28) -A n Act for Granting to Her Majesty certain further sums of money for the Public Service of the Province for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1974. MR.

CLERK: The Honourable the Administrator of the Government of the Province of Manitoba doth thank Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to this Bill in Her Majesty's name.

March 26, 1974 1879 BUDGET DEBATE Cont1d MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside, MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable members for their anticipation that they may be the recipients of some words of wisdom in the next few moments or so, Mr.

Speaker, allow me the privilege of commenting at this stage of the budget debate, I would like to deal with a particular challenge that was hurled towards members on this side of the House, particularly the members of my party, by the Honourable the House Leader during the course of his Throne Speech when he asked us in a very straightforward and pointed manner and frank manner-- I .accept that help fr.om the Leader of the Liberal Party - who speaks for Conservatism on this side of the House, Mr.

Speaker, I believe the remarks thaL I want to make in this regard are germane to the subject matter under discussion, namely the budget, that I do believe it may not be accorded that by all that speak, but I certainly see a continuing principle and motive in the budget that was brought down the other evening by the Minister of Finance, And Mr.

Speaker, without going into vast detail, certainly for me at least, the principle that I speak of, the motive that I speak of, is one of continuing what was started some four or five years ago, continuing and expanding and accelerating a degree of government involvement in our lives, government control if you would like, although I know the honourable members opposite don't particularly like that word, but I see in it many of the things that we would expect to see coming from a Socialist Government, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, one of the difficulties that we have of course on this side in clearly, in a simplistic way identifying those of us who speak for Conservatism, is because of the very nature of the beast. We are a group of individuals, Sir. I can•t recall, it•s difficult for me to put my finger on a particular event, a particular book, or indeed a particular person that set up the philosophy of Conservatism for me or for anybody else in my party, I certainly reject, Mr.

Speaker, any consideration that somebody may have, that we are today the Conservative Party of 300 years ago, of 200 years ago, of 100 years ago, may indeed of 10 years ago, because our party is not so rooted in doctrine that we find it impossible to evolve and to change and to accept new ideas constantly. So, Mr. Speaker, it's difficult for a Conservative spokesman to point to any particular date, 1933 or 1934 in Regina, or any particular book written by Marx or somebody else that somehow fathered the philosophy that I am proud to present in this House. What we did try to do, Mr.

Speaker, though, in this last election, and I would like to use that, Sir, as a bench mark for some of my arguments today, that we tried to define, at least some of us, and certainly I did, I refer to a specific piece of campaign literature which was among the only pieces of campaign literature that I used in the last election, put out by our youth

section of the party, which I thought was perhaps the best piece of literature that we had in this last election, Now, Mr. Speaker, before I go into that, if I say it•s difficult for us to clearly identify ourselves as to who and to what and in what terms and in what way we speak, or who speaks for Conservatism, part of the other reason in this on-going debate -- and I think this is the debate that we should be debating in this Chamber - is we find it of course so difficult to ascertain as to who speaks for my Socialist friends opposite. Because Mr. Speaker, you know, I believe in a lot of things.

I believe that spring will come in this country and we 1ll see green grass. And I believe in my church and I believe in my God, and I also believe the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, the House Leader, when he says, "Mr. Speaker, that while I'm in politics I will move every moment, every day, every year, to try to give the government of this province a bigger and bigger role in its social and economic decision making.

I move in that direction," The Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources who has a memory that few of us argue with, was quick to detect that I made but one change in this dissertation and I was to make that change known to him without his interjection, I would want the honourable members to understand. I did indeed, Mr. Speaker, change the word "people" to "government". Let me read that again in his words. " . , . Mr.

Speaker, that while I am in politics I will move every moment, every day, every year, to try to give the people of this province a bigger and bigger role in its social and economic decision making." (Applause) Now, Mr. Speaker, we of course have had another little lesson just now by our socialist friends opposite, that is, how cleverly they have mastered the art of semantics. Because, Mr, Speaker, in a democracy no person would really object to the sut.stitution of the

1880 Ma rch 26, 197 4 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. ENNS cont'd) ..... word "people" with "governinent"--(Interjection)--Well, Mr. Speaker, I object very much because ... MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. MR. ENNS: ... that is the proper way it should be stated, because of course it is the government that is going to assume this bigger and bigger role that the Minister the House Leader speaks of. --(Interjection)--So, Mr. Speaker, I believe, as I started out to say, the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resom:-ces, when he says that.

I also would like to believe the First Minister when he said just on, I think a week ago, on the Manito ba report, when asked the question of what he considered to be the optimum role or division between pri vate and public sector in our economy, and he stated and I think he stated that maybe he would concur with that if he were in the House - he has said this on several occasions - that in his opinion, that is the First Minister's opinion, the optimum degree would be a 50-50 situation. Fifty percent of government involvement or public involvement, fifty percent of private involve ment.

Well, that's of course a very safe political position to take from his point of view. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you it's not safe at all for anybody in the private sector, because the question of course is, who belongs to what part of what 50 percent? Who in the private sector is going to fall into that category that the Premier nonchalai:ltly suggests should be taken over and assumed by government? And Mr.

Speaker, am I to believe that at that particular point, when 49 percent was reached yesterday and today 50 percent was reached, that the Honourable House Leader would stand up in this Chamber and say, "I have stopped moving in that direction, Mr. Speaker. I have reached the optimum direction. I will no longer divert my every moment of every day, of every year, to try to move in that particular direction"? No, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that that's the case. So, Mr. Speaker, at least in this debate, grant us the recognition that we have difficulty Mr.

Speaker, in recognizing who speaks for whom and indeed for what on the other side of the House. Mr. Speaker, we attempted during the course of this last election to elucidate that - at least I did in my election. I can report to you, Sir, and my very presence here of course underlines the fact, that it was accepted with no difficulty by a majority of people in the great and good constituency of Lakeside - that it did boil down to some fairly basic and fundamental thing.

And I'd like to read into the record, because I do believe, Sir, that all too often our campaign material literature is such that it either consists of promises and promises and pro mises, or outright exaggerations of fact, I regretfully have to report. But I felt that this particular piece of literature, which as I indicated Mr. Speaker, I used extensively, had a great dea l of merit. And it's headed in this way: "Political parties are not all the same. They have basic differences in philosophy, ideas and policy.

It is only when you understand the views of all the parties and all candidates that you can make a valid judgment. And we have the two arguments put before them: Socialism--and Mr. Speaker, it's notable to pause for a moment when I utter the word "Socialism". You know, there was a time when that very word used to call for outrage on the pa rt of the members opposite. It used to call for points of privileges from honourable members opposite. Oh, yes.

Now, the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, he likes to indicate during the course of my--or in my reply to my leader's speech--how far things have moved forward when he could call--and he recited the achieve ments of this past government in the last four years as being innoxious, as being a tired and do-nothing government. And of course to some extent I believe the honourable minister was correct. I'm only pointing out now, that we now call my friends opposite socialists with regu larity, and they now accept that label. So we have moved a little step forward, too, Mr. Speaker.

We have moved a little step forward, too, because while individual members, par ticularly the House Leader, has indicated that it has never been of concern to him what we call him--a Marxist, a Communist, a Socialist, or an NDPer.--(Interjection)--Of course, to me they're all the same so I don't agree--you know, I don't have too much problem with that. But, Mr. Speaker, I do grant the Honourable House Leader that that has been his position that he tells throughout my experience of his being in the House. But I do also remember, Mr. Speaker, I do also remember the objections, and then why, Mr.

Speaker, why, if what they're suggesting to me is correct, now why carry on in the charade of the very carefully Social Democrats label rather than the Socialist label which some of them now would like to own up as being rather proud of. --(Interjection)--

March 26, 197 4 1881 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. ENNS cont'

d) However, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be detracted from the argument that I was making. Under Socialism, in this piece of literature, we stated a collectivist theory of society where government controls the economy and hence the life-style of its people. Under Conservatism, a decentralized period of government where people are free to compete for economic income and hence free to develop an individual and personal life-style. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that speaks for itself. A second paragraph, and it's only a very short bit of information here.

Under socialism we talk about state or government or, I suppose, to use the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources 1 terminology, people, state government ownership of the means of production and industry; state ownership or control of land as a natural development. Under Conservatism, private individual ownership of industry and land. Well now, Mr. Speaker, you know, we need not deal in fiction, we need not deal in fan tasy, we need not look to other countries. We have--the government has given us an indication and its move with respect to what it has to do in growing numbers of industries.

The Minister of Agriculture has embarked, and included in this budget are necessary moneys to purchase and to begin purchasing, up to now privately-owned farm lands. And I've asked repeatedly the ques tion, and I've never received the answer, what do they consider to be an optimum level of state ownership of private farm lands? A MEMBER: You'll find out. MR. ENNS: Is it too much or is it an exaggeration, Sir, if I refer--if I credit the Minister of Agriculture with the same feelings about moving day and year and hour to a bigger and bigger involvement?--(Interjection)--Well, I don't know, Mr.

Speaker, and I don't want to take the honourable member's words out of context. But we do have a land purchasing program before us, moneys are being set aside for it in this budget, and if this government hopes that this program will be successful, as I'm sure they hope that all their programs will be success ful, then surely the question has to be asked, at what level or at what time does the govern ment consider it owns enough land, or have they considered it at all? And I've asked that ques tion repeatedly and they have never answered me.

Will this government change this program if, after five years, six years or three years or four years, they control 60, 70, 80 percent of the agricultural farm lands directly through ownership? Well, Mr. Speaker, these are questions that I really don't think too many honourable members opposite have asked themselves. I think a few members opposite know full well what the import of those questions are. Mr. Speaker, another point on this little brochure talks about state government directs and leads its people and determines the character of the nation,

whereas under our concept of government, government is a servant, not a master of people, that follows the demand and needs and wants of the citizens. Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been no clear indication, no clear indication in this House of just how these two manifest themselves under the administra tion of this government. We have, and it is forever on the public record, Mr.

Speaker, not once, but twice, but three times, four times, the statement by this government that they will, with complete utter contempt and disrespect for a group of its citizens, persist in pursuing their policy, and no matter if 99. 9 percent of the people don't want it, in fact vote against it by means of a democratic ballot. I'm referring to the Minister of Agriculture's just completely incomprehensible performance earlier on in this Chamber. You see, Mr. Speaker, there we have to begin to examine what this government means when they say, "people or government".

Now, the hog producers, for instance, they chose to elect a particular person to a board, but this government found that unacceptable. This government not only found that unacceptable, this government found it quite acceptable to threaten that entire commodity group by telling them that furthermore, if you persist on voting in the wrong people, we will do away with democratic representation entirely in this particular board. Mr.

Speaker, we have a little clearer understanding about the definition here of state government which believes in directing and leading its people and determines the character of the people of this nation, as compared to the other side, the Conservative side, which says government is a servant, not a master of people. It follows the demands and needs and wants of its citizens. Mr. Speaker, it's an open secret that many of us in the Conservative Party are not particularly in love with the concept of orderly marketing boards. But Mr. Speaker, under a

1882 March 26, 1974 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. ENNS cont'd) ..... Conservative government, legislation was provided that enabled producers, primary producers, to organize themselves into marketing boards, and marketing boards were established, because Mr. Speaker, we were not prepared, and I'm not today pre pared to lead the people in any other direction other than they want to be led. Unlike the Minister of Agriculture, who is prepared to spend my tax dollars in convincing me how to vote, as he did in the rapeseed question and as he's doing now with the coarse grains question. Mr.

Speaker, I think any Minister of Agriculture should be conimended at any time to allow the farmers, to allow the producers of this country and this province, to express themselves. But, Mr. Speaker, we have listened to this Minister of Agriculture stand up in this Chamber and justify his use of tax dollars to promote a concept that he believed in. Well, Mr. Speaker, that leads one to question, you know, just how far does a government, or how far can you entrust a particular government with that kind of dealing.

I mean if he feels that important about rapeseed, my God, I'd credit him with feeling twice that important about his own election, re-election, or any members opposite, and perhaps, Mr. Speaker, of course we have begun to realize in the course of some of the revelations in the past month or so, that that is of course precisely what has been gone on, at least in certain parts of the province. Mr.

Speaker, if that's not the fact, then I would think that only, only by acceding rapidly to the legitimate request by my leader for judicial inquiries into some of the subject matters raised in this regard, could that feeling or these allegations be either supported or put aside, as they should be if in fact they have been ill-founded. Mr. Speaker, I point out again just in factual terms, not as it is sometimes my style to refer to further lands and further countries, but simply what is happening right in this Chamber.

What is happening in this Chamber, what we've heard in this Chamber, or what has been record ed in this Chamber, what this government has said, that any number of producers or any num ber of persons can come to them with petitions, with votes, with ballots, but if it is opposed to what their concept of what is right and what is wrong, it will not get any further. I believe the actual words of the Minister in this case was that it still had to come across my desk and that's where it would be brought. Mr.

Speaker, we have the same situation in the AI industry with the same Minister adopt ing the same attitude again, where you have 580, 600 farmers gathered; they themselves organized an informal, admittedly, poll requesting the Minister to take a particular action, and again--and, I don't say this disrespectfully to the industry or to this particular aspect of the industry, but a relatively minor matter. But we find the Minister adamant in his opposition to listening to the people, because he believes, Mr.

Speaker, he believes sincerely that it is his role, the state's role, the government's role, to direct and lead its people and determine the character of those people. Mr. Speaker, the conclusion of the particular pamphlet that I was referring to concludes by saying that socialism is represented in Canada by many in the Liberal Party, but most explicitly by the New Democratic Party, and conservatism is represented in Canada by some in the Liberal Party, Social Credit and the Progressive Conservative Party. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I was searching for a particular piece of material that might be useful for me in trying to res pond to that specific challenge that was made to us during the course of the Throne Speech by the House Leader as to who speaks for conservatism on this side, and I say, Mr. Speaker . MR. GREEN: I wonder if the honourable member would pass the pamphlet. I know it will be interesting. I know that . . . wants me to see it. MR. ENNS: Certainly. I say, Mr.

Speaker, that there is, or there have been occasions when we ourselves have made our voice difficult to hear, and of course in the political arena that we work in, every time that we appear to have taken a particular move or maybe a move taken by a sister government in some other province, their favourite province being Ontario, that that somehow, you know, scores a point for them, I suppose just in the same way as we like to now chide the honourable members opposite who but a few short years ago were running around with bumper stickers, decrying any suggestion of continental energy policies and things like that, but now find themselves engaged with selling, exporting, the export of power to the United States, which is something which goes down pretty hard in the NDP rank-and-file council chambers.

But, Mr. Speaker, I suppose we could trade off punches like this from time to time but that really doesn't solve anything. I think, Mr. Speaker, the fact that should be kept in mind, and the difference between us and them, is that, Mr. Speaker, we attempt, we look

March 26, 1974 1883 BUDGET DEBATE (l\IIR. ENNS cont'd) ... .. for those areas where the private individual can have the maximum amount of freedom and liberty,

whereas my friends opposite are just that - they're opposite. Now, Mr. Speaker, when I have my breakfast in the morning and I'm eating corn flakes or crispies or something like that and I don't like them, you know, !tell my wife to try another brand next week. But my friends opposite, no. They get mad and they worry about how they're going to control that company, how they can, you know, they can control the packaging of it or do some thing to it or what have you, but that's their attitude when they approach the breakfast table in the morning.

There hasn't been a question asked to the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs having to do with sugar, anti-freeze, bread or something like that, that he hasn't in his response suggested that "as yet I do not control the company, but if I did I would do something about it. " And I don't think I'm being unfair to the Honourable Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs. We've asked him about the price of sugar, we've asked him about the price of bread, we've asked him about the price of anti-freeze. Well, Mr. Speaker, all I'm suggest ing, Mr.

Speaker, is that it would be easier for us to crystallize and clarify this debate if the honourable members opposite would not be so persistent in their efforts to hide their principles and to cover up their tracks. --(Interjection)-- Mr. Speaker, I'm on my best behavior tonight and I would want to continue in this way, Mr. Speaker. I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the honourable members opposite are taking the people of Manitoba down a path that they are not prepared to debate and discuss and talk openly about. They are taking them down piece by piece with a lot of candy and a lot of sugar on the pilL But, Mr.

Speaker, I am convinced - and that's the only thing that makes me a Conservative, it's the only thing that keeps me on this side of the House, because, you know, if I could honestly believe for a moment that what they have to offer would provide a better life style for me and my children and my children's children, well then I would like to think that there should be--you know, I am not that steeped in the political role and the political position that I'm in that I could not give that serious thought and consideration. Indeed, Mr.

Speaker, I know that you, Sir, will accept it from me even though honourable members opposite will not, because of my ability to abuse the situation from time to time. But I do decry the fact that we speak to each other too seldom in this House, we unfortunately belabour each other too much. Mr.

Speaker, I believe wholeheartedly that a rational objective view of what the two sys tems of government have to offer can convince me at least, and could convince the majority of Manitobans at any given time, that the fruits, the kind of life-style, the degree of unfettered freedom and individual liberty that is available under Conservatism is preferable, is preferable to that which we can expect as a final conclusion of the road that we travel on when we go to state ownership along with the Socialist Party. Mr.

Speaker, I recognize, you know, as they so often like to tell us, that nothing has happened in the last hundred years. Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't think it's wrong, Sir, for me to remind them that Lord help us, what will happen in a hundred years of their administration. Let's not talk about a hundred years, Sir, but let's talk at least about where they're moving towards. Iw ant toknow, Mr. Speaker, I want to know where the brakes come on, if ever. When does that movement to public ownership cease, or does it, Mr. Speaker? Or does it? Have we heard? All that we have heard, Mr.

Speaker, from them is a pretty astute, you know, demonstration of when to bend principle for political expediency as directed by their First Minister. We hear blase comments that a 50-50 split, private and public, is an optimum level to be shot at for attainment as far as public involvement in our economic enterprise is con cerned, But, Mr. Speaker, as the Honourable Member for Brandon says, all that proves is that they got halfway there, and how long will it take them to get the other half? It was a delight, Mr.

Speaker, to listen from time to time to the former member who's no longer with us - that is no longer with us in this Chamber - the former Member from Crescentwood, I believe, because, Mr. Speaker, one always had the feeling one knew precisely where we stood and where he stood, and a fixed debate on a subject matter could be both illuminating as well as entertaining. I found, Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Finance showing a willingness to throw in at least subjects for debate along these lines, although couching them very carefully so as to not possibly pick up any of the political brick-bats or credits whichever way they amounted, when he suggested at one time that a subject for legitimate debate in this Chamber was the ownership of homes. Is it really something that we should be continuing to support, the concept of private ownership of homes? Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm suggesting,

1884 March 26, 1974 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. ENNS cont'd) .. .. . Mr. Speaker, that we have had far too little of that kind of debate, far too little of that kind of serious discussion on those matters of principle as to where the two opposing concepts, the two opposing beliefs that really manifest themselves in this Chamber, are taking us. Mr. Speaker, let me say this to you, that they are very real. I started out my speech by indicating to you a few things that I believe in, you know.

I believe in the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, I believe that spring will come, but I believe with a complete and utter conviction that these honourable gentlemen opposite will take away all of what I would consider to be vital and important freedoms. They will so destroy democracy that I won't recognize it as such. Mr. Speaker, we have seen just sufficient signs of it, particularly by the Minister of Agriculture, particularly by the Minister of Agriculture, that should cause a lot of us a great deal of concern. Mr.

Speaker, what causes me even greater concern is that members, his colleagues were prepared to sit in their seats while a government spokesman made these kind of statements on their behalf. Mr. Speaker, I see in this budget, you know, a continuing effort as I said at the outset, a plan, a motive, to rnrry on the big government role that big government knows best. I can recall, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure the Minister of Finance will recall, that in the course of the last budget I happened to receive a copy of the new tax forms which were just issued at that particular time.

It was a fairly complicated 14-page document, and while the Minister of Finance was explaining how simple this tax rebate, the school tax rebate system would work, it crossed my mind at least that, you know, in this complicated tax form it might not be that simple. Well the Minister of Finance quickly rose and indicated that on page 16 or 17 or 18, all the person had to do was fill in the last two lines, you know; whether or not he had to go through the whole form or not wasn't really too much difficulty. Well, Mr. Speaker, a year later what is the actual fact?

I will not even ask the Minister of Finance how much money, time, effort and personnel he has spent on that particular prog ram which he said was going to be so simple and so easily understood by all. Mr.

Speaker, I wouldn't want to count the newspaper ads, I wouldn't want to count the television commercials, I wouldn't want to count the radio ads, I wouldn't want to count the posters that are up in every senior citizens home throughout the length and breadth of this province, big, in three colours, stating that on March so-and-so a government person will be there to explain to the dear old ladies and dear old men how to get their school tax rebate program. Yes. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I said that, indicated just a little while ago, just a little while ago that we Conservatives fall off the path from time to time, as often perhaps as the socialists do. It's just that our path isn't that dogged and that determined and that we're not going in the same direction, Mr. Speaker. But of course the reason is this.

The reason is this, that they are not really con cerned, they're not really concerned about the amount of money or the inefficiency of this approach, is that they have that additional controls in terms of the financial affairs of our people, and of course they have the obvious political benefit of running around the province, giving back to the people some of what they gave to the government in the first instance. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this government will continue in this method. --(Interjection)--No, not for years and years.

It will continue for another two years probably, and then of course we'll witness the spectacle of who will take over the reigns of the government, whether it's the Honourable House Leader or whether it is none other than our friend, the Honourable Minister of Agriculture; or perhaps there will be a trade-off and they'll bring back the Federal Member from Selkirk and provide the access for the current First Minister to sojourn back to Ottawa. But whatever it will be, Mr. Speaker, whatever it will be, Mr.

Speaker, I will tell you this, it will signal, it will signal the end of this kind of big-brother government, this kind of paternalism, this kind of state and government intervention in our lives. (Applause) MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to thank the Honourable the Member for Lakeside, for without specifically doing it, sort of dedicating his remarks to a res ponse to what was said on the Budget Debate.

And I also would like therefore to, if I can do it, take some credit for what I consider has been an excellent address, and an excellent debate on the issues, which I do feel are the issues which divide not only the two parties in this House - and I only regard them as two parties - but effectively divide the thinking. in the west ern world as to what kind of society is being formulated by the people who live in it.

March 26, 1974 1885 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. GREEN cont'

d) I also think that I should indicate to the honourable member that his piece of campaign literature, I look upon it as being one of the most responsible pieces of campaign literature that I've seen in any campaign. I would think, Mr.

Speaker, that the Honourable the Member for Lakeside should pass that around to some of his colleagues, particularly the Member for Rock Lake, to show what campaign literature can be like and still be effective, because the Member for Lakeside is with us, and I understand that he had a handsome majority despite the fact that in the last two elections large guns were directed at his particular position. So it proves that one deesn't have to draw hammers and sickles surrounding little old churches representing the opposition party in order to get elected.

The honourable member he did some very small editing on remarks which he was attri buting to myself, and I know that he didn't do this deliberately, he was going to indicate the re marks. I didn't have to wait, Mr. Speaker. I could not have said what he attributed to me. It is just not within my nature to have made the remarks that I want the government to have a greater and greater power in the decision-making, of the social and economic decision-making of the society in which we live. Because, Mr.

Speaker, whether the honourable member accepts it or not I want him to know that to me that government is neither a good nor a bad, it can be very good or it can be very terrible. The government is an instrument of the people, and the people can use government, Mr. Speaker, to do great things. But they can also use government to do very horrendous things. And I would not describe government as a positive, I regard it as a neutral.

But when I'm talking about the people of the country in which we live, then Is ay there is within those people the power to do great things; and if they utilize their government in such a way as to accomplish those things, Mr, Speaker, then Heel that I am at one with them. And I know that the honourable m em ber has a different role for the government as utilized by his people and I respect it.

All I want him to know, and theMember for Wolseley, the Leader of the Liberal Party should know this as well as any body, that I have consistently been an opponent of government bureaucracy, I have consistently been an opponent of government seeking to infringe upon the freedoms of the people. The Honourable the Leader of the Liberal Party and I attended a Tax Foundation meeting for lawyers in Ottawa and one of the government people said that regardless of what the law is we know certain laywers are trying to work around it and we're going to get them. And I stood up, Mr.

Speaker - and there were lots of lawyers there - a nd I stood up and I said, I resent being told that you are going to get somebody because he happens to be smarter than you in dealing with taxation laws. Mr. Speaker, a lot of the lawyers said, "Gee, you know, these are the Internal Revenue Department, you better watch out how you talk to them. " But, Mr. Speaker, I did not watch out how I talked to them, and the Leader of the Liberal Party knows it because he was there. And I have never watched out how I talk to government, and I do not treasure the governments. But I note as of late, Mr.

Speaker, that there is a tendency for honourable mem bers opposite, and I noticed very recently in the newspapers that suddenly have caught on to it, that they hate like hell to hear us describing the measures that we are introducing as measures being introduced on behalf of the people of the Province of Manitoba. That if we are talking about mineral taxation and we say that the people deserve a greater share of their mineral wealth, the newspapers now put people read government. It's not really people that they are talking about, it is government. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to make certain things clear.

That I agree with the division that the honourable member has put. I would like to try to edit his language in the similar way that he edited mine. Where he says, "collectivist theory of society where the government con trols the economy", I would like to say, where the people are the effective decision makers in the style of economy that they would like to live in. And where he says, "state ownership of the means of production", I would say, Mr.

Speaker, public ownership of those means of pro duction which cannot be effectively dealt with and which cannot be used as an instrument for the betterment of society unless they are publicly owned. So if he will permit me to make those slight additions--and of course I would not expect him to describe it that way, and I was not reflecting any discredit to him. I believe that he is entitled to choose his description of what we are doing. I would then go to his system and he says, "Where people are free to compete for econo mic income.

" I would say: Is it going to be an attempt to embody on earch the concept at least of the brotherhood of man where each of us works together for the betterment of society as a whole and therefore the individual within society, or is it going to be conservatism, which means,

1886 (MR. GREEN cont'd) ... among the chickens. March 26, 197 4 BUDGET DEBATE "Every man for himself" as the elephant said while dancing Now, I'd like to use, Mr. Speaker, different

definitions, but the honourable member I know would permit me to do that without taking away, Mr. Speaker, taking away from the fact that I regard this as being the debate. I would like to articulate my position myself and I would like to have the luxury of doing what the honourable member does. I would like to articulate his position in terms in which I understand. A MEMBER: Would the honourable member permit a question? MR. GREEN: Certainly. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, he is asking in a questing way whether I would have any objections.

I want to assure him I have no objections, with the proviso that he recognize that we are the chickens. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member of Mines. MR. GREEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I knew that the honourable member would want to des cribe himself as the chickens - and by the way I believe he is, I believe that they are. They just don't realize it.

I think that really, that if they look around and see what is happening to them, and populace from time to time has said this, and much of the people in the conservative movement stem from the populace movement, they have gone in one direction or another to the progressive, to the populace, to the conservatives, to the liberals, but generally there are many, many people in the Conservative Party who believe, and they're entitled to that belief, that this is the party of the ordinary man, and that he is represented through the Conservative Party of course.

My position has been and still is, that the basis upon which the honourable members opposite would want society to be run is on the assumption that there are certain people endowed with divine talents, that if only we left things to these people of great talent and of greater status than the rest of us, that they will go out and work very hard, create a million for themselves, and in creating it a lot of wealth would accrue to the people who are thus being involved in their own initiative. I think that that is not even putting it critically, but that is the suggestion that is made by honourable members opposite.

Now, I want to make a couple of things clear. First of all, Mr. Speaker, if I am wrong I take the position that the people of the province, that the only way of effectively getting them together is through the democratic process. That this Assembly is the implementation of that democratic process. That the only effective way in which we can determine what is the will of the people with respect to both its social and economic process is through that democratic process, and that the people of Manitoba find a way of doing things through their governments in this room.

If I am wrong about that, I am wrong about everything. If government is not a means of reflecting the will of the people to do things for themselves, then I am wrong about everything and there is no other position that I take that can be accurate. The other point that I make, Mr.

Speaker, is that the essential argument is as follows: The one is whether the elected representatives of the people have the responsibility of so organizing society as has enabled the people within the province to realize the greatest levels of their productive capaaity; and further that it is also the responsibility of the elected repre sentatives of the people to see to it that that productive capacity is distributed equitably amongst the people of the province.

That if that is not our responsibility, both of those things, (1) for maximum production and (2) for equitable distribution, if that is not a function for the people through their elected represesentatives to perform, if I am wrong about that, then I am wrong about everything, and I concede the argument to my honourable friend. Now, in that respect, Mr. Speaker, there is one part of the Leader of the Opposition's remarks which deserves a great deal of consideration.

And that is that the Leader of the Opposition said quite bluntly that we have not proven, that through the programs that we have instituted, that we have effectively been able to redistribute income. That we still have the problem of the chronic poor, and he said in the same percentages. And that we still have the problem of the other end of the scale having an abundance which is much greater in proportion to their percentage of the population. In other words, we have not seen the scale of the income distribution in our province. Well Mr. Speaker, that may or may not be the case.

I rather suspect that what he says is largely true. That we have not succeeded to the extent that I would have hoped that we would succeed, and that I still have high hopes for achieving. But I say in

March 26, 1974 1887 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. GREEN cont'd) .. ... advance, Mr. Speaker, I say it here and now, if that is not accomplished by this government, then all of the years that I spent in political life are a failure. I say that now, that I am a failure. Because it wasn't worth it if we do not do those things. And the real difference between the Leader of the Opposition and myself is that he says, not only that it wasn't done, but he says that it can't be done. If you will talk to him you will find out that he will say that that's the kind of thing that we are going to live with forever.

And you people are not going to change that nor are we going to change it. So he says, not only was it not done but it will not be done. And I say, perhaps we haven't done it, but we are determined that it can be done. And that is what we are working for on this side of the House. (Applause) And I repeat, Mr. Speaker, and it can be written down, if I'm a failure I will not be the first failure that ever lived in the world. I will have tried. I will have done certain things.

I will have worked to try to accomplish them, and like many others who've entered the planet and left without having made a mark, that will be my lot. But I will try and if that is not what we accomplish--I wish that the Leader of the Opposition were here - then I say that this party and our program have not been successful and we have not achieved what we set out to achieve. I rather hope that the figures are not as dismal as he makes them, but if they are, then if the shoe fits wear it. That's something that I will have to live with. I will regret it very much, but I will have to live with it.

The Honourable Member for Lakeside has pointed out that certain features about the government which he attributes to socialism, that these things are identifiable with socialism- an attempt to lead the people. An attempt to be totalitarian. I'm not accepting what he says about the Minister of Agriculture, but he indicates these things, the advertising, lead the people through advertising. Now, the Honourable Member for Lakeside knows that each of the things that he says is attributable to free enterprise. That there are free enterprise govern ments in the world that are totalitarian and arbitrary.

That there are socialist governments in the world that are totalitarian and arbitrary. And that the characteristics that he describes are not germane to what he would call socialism or to what I would call capitalism. That really what we are indicating is that you can have a democratic socialist society and you can have a democratic capitalist society. But there are members on that side of the House who will not believe it. They identify democracy with capitalism, or democracy with free enterprise, if you like an easier word, and I say that democracy can be identified with any economic system.

And that all that the people on this side are saying is that it was within the power, and within the ambit, and I would have to go further being biased, that the most freedom sustaining and democratic system is one where you have the people of society actively involved, not only in their political decisions but in their economic decisions as well. And the honourable member says, "How far?" I don't know. I would not identify as he does the private sector and the pub lic sector 50-50 as representing the difference between socialism and capitalism. I would think, Mr.

Speaker, that the type or proposal that I am talking about does not necessarily involve public ownership, or as he would put it, a hundred percent public ownership. I would think that public ownership should be looked at on as whether or not it's effective. And if it is effective in producing more goods for the people in society, and if it is effective in more fairly distributing these goods, Mr. Speaker, well, I think that that's what the argument is all about. I think that on every issue, Mr.

Speaker, on every issue, and I wish honourable members would do this, on every issue we should decide, if we do it one way will it be more productive, if we do it the other way will it be more productive; and secondly, if we do it one way will it spread itself more equitably to all of the people in the province of if we do it the other way will it spread itself more equitably. And if we discuss it in those terms, Mr.

Speaker, on every issue, then I am satisfied that honourable members opposite will believe that they are right and would be willing to accept the public judgment, and I would believe that I am right and would be willing to accept a public judgment, at least for one campaign; and then I would try the next one and I would think that the honourable members would do exactly the same as I. MR. JORGENSON: I wonder if the Honourable Minister would permit a question at this stage ? He was talking about, he raised two points about . . . is done in one certain way or another.

Would he not also consider that a valid consideration in how a certain thing should be done would be how much individual liberties is retained in the process ? MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, the other two assumptions in my opinion are based on the attainment of individual liberty because without that none of the other things are of any

1888 March 26, 1974 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. GREEN cont'd) ..... importance. And I say, Mr.

Speaker, I say that there is no individual liberty lost to me, as a matter of fact it is a gain in individual liberty, when instead of education being something which is something that everybody fends for himself that the pub lic decides, the people decide, read government,you know, so that the press will be happy, that the people decide that instead of everybody fending for himself in order to get an education, that we gather together our resources and make it available to all of the people in society, that is not an encroachment of my freedom.

It is not an encroachment of my freedom that we have a workmen's compensation scheme which was described as an encroachment of individual liber ties by people in the Conservative Party. And so was medicare, and so was hospitalization. A MEMBER: What about Autopac? MR. GREEN: So was autopac and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is not an infringement of my individual liberty that I am not--(Interjection)--well, and that is where we have to make a choice.

You want to put it that unless a hundred percent of the people agree with a certain thing that it cannot be done that way, and I say that if I disagree with having ten insurance com panies, all privately owned or even one government owned providing insurance coverage, and I disagree with that because I feel that I am not getting the best insurance, then that is an infringe ment of my individual liberty. And I say that we have to argue those things out and the people will come to a decision as to how it will operate, because, Mr.

Speaker, there has been just as much, and I can document it, I mean I do not consider that the people of Chile have more individual liberty now than they had eight months ago. You know a group of people came in and they shot the guy in the head 18 times and said that he committed suicide. It's a good trick if you can do it. I do not believe that now as a result of the change in system that they have more individual liberty.

The Honourable Member for Lakeside is correct, let's not move from coun try to country, let us accept the fact that there are totalitarian states which are based on the free enterprise system, that there are totalitarian states which are based on socialism as an economic theory. I am merely trying to convey to honourable members opposite that it is pos sible for a democratic state to be based on a system of free enterprise and it is possible for a socialist state to be democratic. Now some people just won't accept that.

They say that if it is socialist, no matter if a hundred percent of the people vote for it, is contrary to democracy. I mean I've heard that expression used in this House, that it cannot be democratic if the public does it, even if the public in overwhelming numbers wishes to do it. And that really I believe is - well I guess I'm being a bit pompous saying that I'm able to discern this, why aren't you. But, Mr. Speaker, I really have to say that. That I ask honourable members to believe that it's possible for there to be public ownership and democracy consisting at the same time.

In my view it makes for more democracy because not only you have democratic decision-making as to who your repre sentative will be but you have democratic decision-making on the manner of your economic development. And here, Mr. Speaker, I am going to get back to what I wanted to say and now will not have time for, because it has become rather a favourite indoor sport and outdoor sport I guess to make fun of the Manitoba Development Corporation and losses that have been experienced by that corporation. A MEMBER: That's not funny. MR.

GREEN: You say that that's not correct? --(Interjection)--Well I don't think that it's funny, Mr. Speaker, and I don't think that the manner in which it has been dealt with from time to time is funny either.

I ask honourable members to recall that the Manitoba Development Corporation came in because of a problem in the Member for Lakeside's philosophy, that although the government was wedded to the free enterprise system it was not producing wealth in the amounts that the people thought were able to accrue to them and it was not resulting in the kind of economic distribution that the government of the day thought was possible.

So a Conservative Government came and enacted a bill calling it the Manitoba Development Corporation, saying that the government could loan out money, number one; and secondly, saying that the government could direct the Manitoba Development Corporation to start a com pany based on one hundred percent public ownership. That was done by the Conservative administration, it was done in order to buttress and to prop up the failings of the free enter prise system so far as the economy were concerned, because there were many many failures. You know you talk about failure of a company like St. Jean Sportswear. Mr.

Speaker, based

March 26, 1974 1889 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. GREEN cont'd) . . . . . on the system that you are defending and you are proposing, not a company failed but a whole economic system failed in 1929 based on exactly the theses that are being argued by members opposite, because Mr.

Hoover said, "He who governs least governs best, we will not have the government involved in the economy" and in 1933 the economy of the United States failed, went bankrupt, all of it, people were jumping out of windows and it did not only - 1929, excuse me, it lasted for some time - and it only really came back after the Second World War, during and after the Second World War. And the comeback of the econo my was not based on the free enterprise system. Know what it was based on?

It was based on mass consumption, which was then destroyed and we found out that we can be richer by des troying what we produce than producing it for using it for the people. A very peculiar thing. The Honourable, the Leader of the Liberal Party was talking about the banks. He said, why are you going to so something which in Alberta they didina depressionsituation. Well, Mr. Speaker, I was in North Dakota two weeks ago; they presented me with a statement of the Bank of North Dakota. Seven million dollars a year is taken from the Bank of North Dakota and put into the Treasury. Somebody said, Mr.

Speaker, that they wanted Manitoba to join North Dakota and I said, well we'd like to, but I looked at this statement and you are far too social istic for us, the people of Manitoba would not accept that type of thing, I mean it's rabid bol shevism. But the member made an interesting statement. He said during the depression, during the depression we were able to do these things. Mr. Speaker, during the dP.pression certain other things happened in Winnipeg. Do you know what happened in Winnipeg during the depression? They built the Salter Bridge. They built the treatment plant. They built the auditorium.

You know why they built those things ? Because we were poor. When we're rich we can't afford to do those things. But somehow when we are poor is the only time that we can afford these things. And that's what happened during the depression. And that's, Mr. Speaker, what happened with the Manitoba Development Corporation. It was started up as a funding organization to loan money as a borrower of last resort, Mr.

Speaker, and there were people in this House on both sides - let's put it into perspective - who said that this is going to be involved in terrible risks, this is going to lose money, we are going to show losses but we are interested in development. Now, Mr. Speaker, any loss comes up and it's looked upon as a matter of incompetence on the part of the people who are involved and the member yesterday sort of referred to the forty million dollars in losses. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to do something interesting for the honourable member because we never expected this kind of thing.

We thought that all members in the House were aware that this is the kind of thing that the Development Corporation could get involved in. And by the way, during the first seven or eight years the reason that there were no losses, the reason that there was no fund is that the government of the day took the position, which they now acknowledge to be wrong, that not only were you not permitted to ask what the Development Corporation was doing but that government was prohibited by law from asking what the Development Corporation was doing. Mr.

Speaker, I suggest to you that that resulted in several things which members of the Conservative Party would never have permitted to happen if it weren't for that particular ... The Member for St. James-- well I'm going to first of all detail what these losses are, these $40 million, to show how uncontrollable they are and to show what damage it will be in the long run to any government to try to regard the losses in which certain members are now looking at them. Mr.

Speaker, of the $40 million, $21 million is specifically related to The Pas Complex - 21 out of 40; 4 million, that makes a total of 25, and I'm rounding some figures here - three million, seven hundred if you're going to hold me to it - is Columbia Forest Products; 400, 000 - Prairie Foundry: 1, 800, 000 - and this includes a mixture but I know that it includes roughly $600, 000 of Selkirk Navigation. Now I've just totalled up, Mr. Speaker, at least $25 million and there is more, all of which is attributable to uncontrollable losses on the part of the Manitoba Development Corporation.

There is no way they can control them. The Honourable Member for St. James will take the position that we are responsible for the $21 million because we advanced Churchill Forest Industries money after we came into office and there was a $14 million loan. Well you know the commission is going to report on this. I ask the honourable member to really appreciate what he was saying. You know this thing broke in May, or in April, in the House, April of 1970. At that time I think that there was about $60 million advanced and at that time we said that we are going to keep our contract

1890 March 26, 1974 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. GREEN cont'd) . . . . . with them as long as they do not default. But do you really believe that honourable members then said, no break the contract, stop it. Members of the Conservative Party at that time took the position that we were trying to derive--(Jnterjection)- Yes, trying to break up this project. They didn't take the position, stop advancing money. And, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that he is referring to a

section in the Manitoba Development Corporation Act, you know, not a single lawyer, not Walter Newman, not anybody who acted for us would rely on that

section for saying that you could stop sending money. We did stop sending money, and all of this is public, it went before the commission. We stopped sending money to River Sawmills. They sent us a letter we are going to sue you. And I suppose that everybody in the House would have said, well let them sue you. You had in progress when we came into office $14 million spent and $40 million committed. And by the way, we were building a pulp mill. We had Arthur D. Lit tle telling us that every payment made is for work done on the site in accordance with the payout procedures.

And yes, there was a change, there was a change. Rex Grose, although he told us one thing and gave us a memo, which is before the commission, telling us how strict they were on payout, was doing something else. Now I will admit that I cannot hide behind Rex Grose, that I have to accept responsibility for what Rex Grose did. That he paid out in certain ways, which by the way we then made agreements which got much of it back, on invoices rather than installations at the site.

But when Rex Grose was fired - or excuse me, when Rex Grose resigned - did honourable members on that side say, you did a good thing, you got this guy whose doing it ? Do you know what the Member for Riel did ?- -(Interjection)--No, not Fort Garry, Riel. Do you know what he did? He got up, Mr. Speaker, as if he was at a funeral - the Member for Lakeside is laughing -h e said, "today Gordie Howe has quit the Detroit Red Wings. " And he said, just think, Mr. Speaker, of what consternation there would be if this type of thing was said.

That is what has happened in the Province of Manitoba, this man who changed the payout procedure. Mr. Speaker, there was going to be a pulp mill there. There was going to be--(Jnterjec tion)--Oh, yes it was our administration, and I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that the honourable member is saying that the Conservative Government would have stopped that pulp mill. I doubt it. Make sense! The Conservative Government started the pulp mill.

They would have con tinued the pulp mill, they would have spent roughly - if it wouldn't have been 139, it would have been 130 or 125 - the pulp mill would have operated, it would not have made the interest enough to make payments under this, and there would be $21 million loss on the Manitoba Development Corporation statement. No matter how you cut it there would have been $21 million loss.

So when honourable members take this $40 million statement and try to indicate that this represents an incompetence on the part of the present government and on the part of the direc tors of the present fund, let them know that they do not know what they are saying and that a reasonable person would not make that type of argument. Because over $25 million deals with companies that you started and we never complained, never said you showed a loss that shows you're incompetent. Who are we talking about when the Leader of the Liberal Party says that these people are the pawns of the Minister of Mines.

Who are we talking about? The Member for Sturgeon Creek here, I mean Jim Hanson is one of these men, he was Assistant Manager of the Royal Bank of Commerce. Is A. J. Thiessen, is he a pawn, I ask the Member for Rhineland. I think he was a Conservative candidate. Allie Shnier of General Distributors. By the way these are new directors. Charlie Hunt, he's a New Democrat, he won't listen to me, he won't listen to anybody, the Member for Lakeside knows that. And not only that, Mr. Speaker, but what more do you want.

We were the first government, I mean since I assumed this portfolio, and I'm not making complaints because I think what was done was done properly. What happened? At Rivers air base the Federal Government stopped spreading money and we started to spend money. What did they do better than what we were doing? They had a couple of thousand people on Armed Forces payroll spending millions of dollars a year, if you will pardon my expression, producing nothing, producing nothing, the defense forces of Ca nada. Millions of dollars a year and everybody was happy. They were singing.

They weren't talking about incompetence. They undid that project and we said--the Development Corporation said there is an aircraft company, the projections are right, they put in an aircraft factory, they put in a housing factory. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, we could make a profit. I'll show you how we could make a profit. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West.

March 26, 1974 1891 BUDGET DEBATE MR. EDWARD McGILL (Brandon West): Mr. Speaker, just on a point, I think the Minister would want to correct himself. He said Rivers air base. I think he meant Gimli air base. MR. GREEN: Gimli, Gimli. Correct. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I'll show you how you can make a profit on the airplane company. --(Interj ection)--Yes. You could fly them up, shoot them down. (Applause). You think that's funny ? You think that's funny ? That's how this society made a profit for five years between 1939 and 1945. (Applause) .

And it's the only way to make a profit. (Applause). It has always been a problem, it has always been a problem to create consumption in a free enterprise society. It's never been done, and so means are sought of creating consumption and I'm not going to follow the doctrinaire position that the war came as a result of the free enterprise system and imperia lism. But the fact is that that is the way society operated. As .a matter of fact, $30 million a year of the Am erican economy was directly based on the war in Vietnam, and many, many millions, billions, are based on the space program.

All right, we started an aircraft factory. You have the proj ections on it. It may succeed. It may fail. We started a bus factory. We produced high level employment for people in society, 500 of them in Gimli. Mr. Speaker, we have shown it as it should be by an account .. we have shown it as an investment with the possibility of profit and a possibility of loss. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister has five minu tes. MR. GREEN: The honourable member sa ys he doesn't have the statement. The state ment has been pres ented. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to be distracted by the honourable mem ber. MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please. MR. GREEN: Please, leave me alone. Mr. Speaker, it could be done. If we take the 25 million which I have indicated is uncontrollable, pure uncontrollable loss, and leave it at 15 million which is the period of 4-1/2 years that we have been involved, that is a loss of $3 million a year. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is an attempt to create sophisticated type of employ ment in the Province of Ma nitoba. We spend $14 million a year on make-work programs. And Mr.

Speaker, the Federal Government who shows no loss at all - you know, I would like them to show losses the way we show losses - they spend $92 million a year. They do not have to presen t red figures. It is a DREE grant. It is money which is given outright, as a gift from the people of this country to private enterprise. And they give it to them. They don't say it's a loan which bears interest and if your firm doesn't make money it's going to be shown up in a statement as a company which the government has equity and which has lost money ha-ha-ha. But that's what they do.

They spend $92 million a year on that type of grant, direct grants, which they do not show as a loss, and it is a loss. And our loss is not only shown this year but then itbears interest when it doesn't make money the next year. Mr. Speaker, this is done with all kinds of programs across the country. And the honourable members have seized on the bookkeeping which I think is the most honest thing that we have done with the Manitoba Development Co rporation - and by the way, Mr. Speaker, the thing that we have done is that we have opened up that fund.

We have opened up that fund whereby every loan is known, the amounts are known, the interest rate is known, and you are entitled to ask the Chairman of the Development Corporation right up to the date that he is there as to activity. Now, where else is this done ? There's an industrial Development Bank run by Ottawa. Is it done there ? There is the treasury branches in Alberta which lend money on the same . . . but is that done, is that done anywhere but in this country--in this province? And Mr. Speaker, the indication is that the board--in the last year, there are almost no loans of consequence to speak of.

They have been told to concentrate on improving their existing portfolio. They have been told that that should be their effort. And the record shows that that's what they have done. And if you talk about not pouring bad money after good, or bad money after bad--well, this year Powell Equipment went down. Prairie Foundry went down, Galpern went down. Unicity Steel went down--that's the one that I don't remember the name of. But the fact is, Mr.

Speaker, under the old system where you did not have to report to the Legislature I submit that they would be shown as loans, they would be shown as interest pay able to the fund receivable, and there would be no losses. And would that be a better situation ?

1892 March 26, 197 4 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. GREEN cont'd) ..... But, Mr. Speaker, what is the result of this change which has occurred, and it can't be denied that it has occurred. And the fund has been told in specifics and we gathered together and discussed it, that it is not their concern as to how this will politically affect the government. You are to make the decision, and if you're making advance on a second loan, you can recommend it and if the government doesn't want it to go, it will stop it. What, Mr. Speaker, has been sort of the response?

The response is that you are not open that you are secret, that you are pouring money after bad, that these people are your pawns, and the shock of all shocks the Leader of the Liberal Party says, "I demand his resignation. " When I came home my son said, "Daddy, they're demanding your resignation. " I said, "God, what will I do ? " MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member has run out of time, that's what he's done. MR. GREEN: I still have two minutes, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member have leave? MR. GREEN: I said, Mr.

Speaker, what would I do, and he said, well, the Leader of the Liberal Party he alleges that there are allegations that there has been corruption in the north There are allegations that the fund is not operating properly, there are allegations of this kind or another. And I was getting lower and lower and lower, Mr. Speaker, I said, "What will I do?" And then finally it came to me. I know what I'll do. Mr. Speaker, I'm a constituent of the honourable members. I'll ask him to resign. Mr. Speaker, it is alleged that he doesn't know what he's talking about. It is alleged that he is not properly elected.

It is alleged that he has given legal advice that hasn't worked out right. It is alleged, Mr. Speaker, that he has created all these problems, Mr. Speaker. And Mr. Speaker, he has demonstrated mismanage ment of funds and he hasn't been in government like the Member for Lakes ide or myself. So where do we look to mismanagement of the fund? Well, he is the Leader of the Liberal Party. Stop, Look and Listen was the least productive election campaign, Mr. Speaker, that was ever conducted. (Applause). So, Mr.

Speaker, I, together with a large part of my family which is here tonight, constituents of the honourable member, demand his resignation on the same basis that he demanded mine. (Applause). MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell. MR. HARRY E. GRAHAM (Birtle-Russell): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (Applause). Mr. Speaker, having listened to the Honourable Mines Minister, it is exceedingly difficult to follow

an act of that nature. But there are some things that he brought out, particularly in the early part of his discourse tonight, in reply to some of the proposals put forward by the Member for Lakeside which I think bear looking at very closely. They bear looking at very closely because they do as he said, strike at the very heart of the dialogue that goes on in this Chamber and reflects the interests of the people of the Province of Manitoba.

And one of the points that he brought out was that he was acting for people and he was interested in people and not govern ment, and that the programs that they brought forward in this Chamber were programs for people. But, Mr. Speaker, I find some interesting things happened. That when government act for people, and he also indicated that he was not in favour of growing bureaucracy, but we find here in the Province of Manitoba that the bureaucracy is growing five times as fast as the population. We find that government is getting involved more and more in the affairs of people.

And if they are interested in serving the people, then I would certainly be concerned, Mr. Speaker, but I find that in the process of serving them that the administration is growing five times as fast as the population. Because pretty soon we'll end up with no population and all servants, if we give them enough time. If this continues and in their process of serving the people of Manitoba, we'd find out that pretty soon there are no people left to serve, and all we have are servants. And this, Mr.

Speaker, to me is one of the greatest concerns that faces members on this side, I'm sure that it concerns the Mines Minister because already he has expressed that type of concern about the growing bureaucracy, and how many people it takes to serve in the interests of the people. One of the other things he told us was that he is going to work towards a very effective means of incom-equalization and redistribution, he says he still hopes to achieve this, and if he doesn't he will be a failure. Mr.

Speaker, I think there are still many in the Province of Manitoba who are not fully aware of the real intent of this government in income redistribution. I would think that if the people were aware then there would have been a more significant change

March 26, 197 4 1893 BUDGET DEBATE (MR. GRAHAM cont'd) ... .. in the last election. The change would not have been to the benefit of the honourable members opposite. Because when the Minister of Mines talks about income redistribution really what he's talking about is the redistribution of the rewards of individual initiative. There are many people in this province, Mr. Speaker, who still have a sense of pride in individual accomplishment and individual achievement, and when you take away that initiative, then you reduce people to the role of serf or slave.

In the argument put forward, the Minister has indicated that they are still determined to carry on in every way possible to achieve that end. And I suggest to you, Sir, that if they do carry on in that way, then it will effectively result that the will of the people will be broken, the desire to personally achieve a place in society will effectively be thwarted, that there will be a dramatic increase in the role of those on socialist systems because the desire to personally achieve something in this world to improve your own lot in society will have been effectively stifled, in fact, will be eliminated.

These are some of the possibilities that will exist if the government persists as the Minister of Mines has indicated that they are fully determined to carry on in that direction. I think it's a pretty sad commentary on our times, Mr. Speaker, if such a thing is allowed to happen. It was only a very short time ago, Mr. Speaker, that this province celebrated its hundredth birthday.

A hundred years of achievement, achievement that was built up by the hopes and promises of individuals fostered at their mother's knee and encouraged by an educational system to the point where we turned out many fine students who were full of vim and vigor and anxious to carve a place for themselves in our society. And if you look around, Mr. Speaker, at what was achieved under a system of that nature in a hundred short years, and then take a look across at the programs that are announced by the honourable members opposite in which they want to destroy what people took a hundred years to build, Mr.

Speaker, it saddens me a lot to contemplate the possibilities that exist if government persists in that direction. The Minister of Mines fails to understand that an individual has the right to think for himself and he also has the right to dream for himself, and in those dreams to foster his own initiative, to try to improve his own lot. I don't believe that society has the right to sit on its fanny and wait for government to provide them with many of the things that governments at the present time are attempting to provide for them.

I think it is the right of the individual, in fact the duty of the individual and his responsibility in society is to provide those things for himself. I feel sorry that we hear members opposite proposing that that is not the case. Mr. Speaker, if we continue in a direction as outlined by the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, if we continue in a direction that stifles the initiative of the individual, and if we continue in programs that do little to encourage individual achievement, then what is left?

You leave the only alternative that government then - as the Minister of Mines says, not govern ment but people, people acting on behalf of people. But really, Sir, when you talk about that you're only talking about a Cabinet, 12, 14, 16, 18 and as the programs multiply so will the Cabinet Ministers multiply. These are the instruments of government, the bureaucracy will grow and the achievement will become less and less; as more and more fingers get into the pie what you have left at the end to distribute becomes smaller and smaller. Mr.

Speaker, these are my concerns on that aspect of the direction this government is taking. Now I have some other things I would like to say ... MR . SPEAKER: Order please. The hour being 10:00 o' clock, the House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 2:3 0 tomorrow afternoon.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-1-68
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 1st hansardpdf 68.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6c61d191e939da53ec7b3308c45d948235cdffe0

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