Manitoba Hansard — 27 March 1972 (Sitting 20, 29th Legislature, 4th Session)

29-4-20

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Monday, March 27, 1972 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS 421 MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed, I should like to direct the attention of the Honourable Members to the gallery where I am informed we have 55 Indian Chiefs of the Province of Manitoba and members of their bands as well. We also have a number of young ladies from the St. Norbert Celtic Girls Basketball team. They are under the direction of Mrs. Borowski. This team was involved in the basketball finals in Manitoba.

On behalf of all the honourable members of the Legislative Assembly I welcome you here today. STATEMENT MR. SPEAKER: I wish to make a statement before we proceed.

On Tuesday last on a matter of privilege made by the Attorney-General, the Honourable Member for Lakeside ques tioned the authenticity of Hansard as printed and by implication the integrity of the staff by stating: "I am afraid, Sir, that I would have to consider making a relativeiy serious charge in this Chamber that unless I heard the voice transcript of this particular passage of Hansard I suggest that Hansard has been doctored." The Chair and the Honourable Minister of Labour the House Leader, suggested the Honourable Member for Lakeside reconsider his words and take the opportunity to verify before placing these remarks for the record.

The Honourable Member did not opt for the suggestion. Subsequently the Chair requested the Honourable Member in concert with other witnesses to hear the recordings the following day. The printed Hansard was found to be a true reproduction of the oral representation made by the Attorney General. The Chair has deliberated and consulted various authorities for precedent and tradition in this matter. Although the cut, thrust and ... of debate may generate heat, nevertheless it must have a wide latitude for a free flow of opinion to occur.

Concurrent with that debate, just as great a degree of responsibility is incumbent upon all members for their actions and ex pressions if the august dignity of this Assembly shall prevail. The Parliamentary process should at all times, be imbued with thought, justice, tolerance, dignity, decorum and integrity. The privileges of Parliament are many and varied and their

definitions are very general. It is perhaps on purpose that a clear and logical definition has never been given on parliamentary privilege.

However, May's 17th edition on page 42 expresses the standard definition of privilege, and I quote: "The privileges of parliament are the rights which are absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers." This includes besides the freedom of speech, collective privileges of the House dealing with the control of its own proceedings and publications, reflections, and indignities affecting the House as a body or as an institution; the right to set up its own rules and tradition and privileges claimed by the Speaker on behalf of the House at the opening of Parliament.

Breach of parliamentary privilege is considered most serious, impugning staff has not been condoned unless corroborative evidence prevails, since they are the most vulnerable and least able to speak in their own defence. On opening day by resolution this Assembly decreed: "That the Votes and Proceedings of the House be printed, having first been perused by Mr. Speaker and that he do appoint the printing thereof and that no person but such as he shall appoint to -- do presume to print the same.

" In view of the foregoing, the Chair deems the procedure engaged in by the Honourable Member for Lake side in this instance as most irregular. Whether or not an affront has occurred which would indicate an unqualified apology and retraction I therefore entrust to the Assembly. In conclusion the Chair wishes to indicate the matter of Privilege which precipitates the fore going was only pre-empted, but does not preclude it from being proceeded with, should it so be desired. Thank you. MR .

SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees; Ministerial statements; Tabling of Reports. The Honourable First Minister. HON. EDWARD SCHREYER (Premier) (Rossmere): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw

422 March 27, 1972 (MR. SCHREYER cont'd) . . . . . the attention of the House to the fact that within the last few days, Manitoba has produced two champions - first of all I would like to offer congratulations and I am sure all members of this House would like to join in offering congratulations to the world champion curlers of Fort Rouge who won out in a very unusual spectacular final game on Saturday last to become World Champions. I think that all Manitobans are proud of the "Big 0" as he's come to be called.

I refer to skip, Orest Melaschuk and his rink consisting of Dave Romano, third, John Hanesiak as second and Pat Haley as lead. Mr. Speaker, I should like to note too In passing that Mr. Haley is an employee of the Province of Manitoba working in the Department of Mines and Resources. This is the third year in a row that Manitoba or Manitobans have won the silver broom, emblematic of world championship in curling and with many good, young rinks coming up in the province, one hopes, perhaps even assumes that this trend will continue for some time. I pause, Mr.

Speaker, and go on to refer to the second very important championship event which was last Friday when Mr. George Laudrum and his rink was successful in winning the National Legion Curling Championship. The final in this event was also a very close game as members will know and as a result of this win by Manitoba, Manitoba is the only province to have won four Legion titles out of the sixteen national competitions that have been held, and so on behalf of impressed fellow Manitobans we offer congratulations to the skip George Laudrum, and to third Max Scales, Lloyd Goodman and lead Tom Stevenson. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR . HARRY J. ENNS (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the good wishes just given by the First Minister to these worthy representatives of Manitoba in far away fields would want to be echoed on this side of the Chamber to the World Champion curlers. It was the most ex citing manner in the way which they brought the championship back to Manitoba again. I know that the Member for Fort Rouge delights in having that distinction, of having the World Champi onship Curlers in her constituency. A personal note if I may, the lead already referred to by the Premier, Mr.

Pat Haley, was a long time neighbour of mine and of course, I rejoice in a very personal way for his par ticular success, also his personal success having overcome a very serious illness in so doing. My congratulations also of course, accorded to the winners of the Legion Tournament. I also understand, Mr. Speaker, that we have a third championship team involved, I believe it comes from the constituency of Rossmere; I am referring to the High School Girl Curlers who in the last week also proved or in the last few weeks also proved their merit at the noble game of curling. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. TAB LING OF REPORTS HON. HOWARD R. PA WLEY (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Commissioner of Northern Affairs) (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the 13th annual report of the Municipal Board for the year ending December 31, 1971. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General. HON. A. MACKUNG, Q. C. (Attorney-General) (St. James): Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture I would like to table several reports - the Annual Report of the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation, the Annual Report of the Department of Agriculture, and the Annual Report of the Cooperative Promotion Board. STATEMENT MR. MACKLING: While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I would like on a Point of Order to indicate to the House that an

article which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune of March 25, 1972 attributes to me a state of affairs which in fact is nonexistent and which I did not indicate to exist. In the

article it says, referring to the remarks that I made in this House: "He said the hotel," and this is referring to the Tolstoi Hotel, "was more than sixty years old and couldn't meet basic sanitary requirements." I did not use those words, Mr. Speaker. I had indicated that the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission had removed from the hotel the requirement for upgrading and rehabilitation so long as they met basic sanitary requirements and fire and safety standards. I did not use those words. I trust they will be corrected by the media. MR . SPEAKER: Notices of Motion; Introduction of Bills. The Honourable Member for Souris Killarney.

March 27, 1972 423 INTRODUCTION OF BILLS MR. McKELLAR introduced Bill No. 7,

an Act to amend an .Act to provide for the Making of Grants to The Brandon General Hospital. MR . MACKLING introduced Bill No. 8,

an Act to amend the Judgments Act. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. GORDON, W. BEARD (Churchill): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege; it's one that I feel at this time I would like to make a statement in respect to the support of the Indian people in my constituency which forms a great deal of that part of my area. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the House Leader. HON.

RUSSELL PAULLEY (Minister of Labour) (Transcona): I don't want to interrupt my honourable friend and I am sure all of us are deeply concerned with the point that. he wishes to raise, but I question really whether it's a matter of privilege of the Honourable Member at this stage. Again, Mr. Speaker, I want it clearly understood that I can appreciate the point my honourable friend from Churchill wishes to raise.

It possibly could be raised on going into Committee of Supply, or if my honourable friend has the consent of the House to raise his point that may be a methodology, Sir, of dealing with the matter but I question as to whether or not it is a question of privilege of a member of the House precisely. . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lake side. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, speaking on a point of order, suppose I would be speaking, following the House Leader of the government.

There is I would suggest to you respectfully, Sir, a question of privilege insofar as a member of the Legislature, as such has conducted himself in such a fashion that all members of the Legislature, particularly those with a fair constituent numbers of Indians or those who have Indian Reserves within their Constituency, certainly could feel compelled upon to rise on a point of personal privilege. I leave that as some further advice for your deliberation, Mr. Speaker, while you are making your judgment as to the point of privilege that the Member for Churchill may or may not have. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR.WARNER H. JORGENSON: Mr. Speaker, before a decision can be made your Honour must hear the question of privilege, and I was anxiously listening for the Member for Churchill to state his question of privilege so that you would have the opportunity of making that decision and I don't think that it's possible until the member has been given the opportunity of stating what his question of privilege really is. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. PAULLEY: JVr.

Speaker, in all due deference to my honourable friend the Member for Morris, I was listening to my friend the Member for Churchill and I heard what he said was his question of privilege. It dealt with the delegation that we have present with us. I want it clearly understood once again, in all deference to members of the House, I am not raising objections to the subject matter of concern, Mr. Speaker, of all of us regardless of whether or not we may have Indian Bands within our constituencies, we are all interested in the well being of all of the citizens of the province of Manitoba.

The only question I raise and the only reason I rose, Mr. Chairman, as the House Leader I think that I have a responsibility to see if at all possible all of the rules of the House are adhered to and we proceed in an orderly fashion. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, I said that I had no objections whatsoever as one charged with the responsibility secondary to you, Sir, of the conduct of this House. That if my honour able friend the Member for Churchill had the agreement of the House to raise this matter then I think that that would be the proper procedure rather than on a point of personal privilege.

There is a difference in all due respect I suggest, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: I thank the Honourable Members for their contribution. I should suggest that procedurally I would have to really have permission of the House to proceed from our normal procedures at this time, by consent of all the members; and secondly, before I can accept the·matter of privilege I would have to determine whether it is a prima facie case. I can't do that until I have heard what the Honourable M ember for Churchill has to say. It is by leave, agreed that we hear the Honourable Member? (Agreed) The Honourable First Minister. MR.

SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I suppose, Sir, that it would really be helpful to.you, Sir, if there was perhaps some opportunity given to the Member for Churchill to state what he believes to be is his point of privilege in order for you to make the determination as to \\hether or not it is in fact a point of personal privilege. I would suggest, Sir, if that is what is being asked for in the way of leave then one hopes there would be leave given. However, if

424 March 27, 1972 (MIC SCHREYER cont'd) . . . . . . it's for a more widely ranging discussion than that, I suggest that there is a motion to go into Supply that will be moved later this day and that would offer a vehicle or a means by which the discussion could take place. MR . SPEAKER: It is therefore agreed that the Honourable Member will state his question of privilege? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR . BEARD: Well, Mr.

Speaker, at this time I had chosen to rise in respect to the statements that have been made dealing with the Indian people and forcing us individually to take a stand and this position in itself . . . MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, in all respects MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. I indicated to the honourable member I would listen and try to determine if there was a prima facie case of privilege. The honourable member is arguing an issue which to my recollection has not been before the House as yet and which is not necessarily a matter of privilege.

I wish he would state as clearly and as concisely the matter of privilege which affects this House. The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR . BEARD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe that I have a question of privilege which affects a great deal of the area which I represent and I do feel that I would like to state it at this time. MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. I regret to inform the honourable member that what ever may affect his area may not necessarily be pertinent to the operations of this House.

I may sympathize with him --all the members may --but a matter of privilege must be one which affects the operations and the rules and the procedures of this Assembly and which breaches upon the privileges of this Assembly. Oral questions. Before we proceed to oral questions may I also inform the Honourable Member for Churchill my statement does not preclude him from bringing this matter up under our normal pro cedural opportunities at any other time in this Legislature. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. Oral questions. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR . ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I direct a question to the Honourable the First Minister. I wonder if the First Minister could inform the House whether or not it is his intention to imme diately institute a full inquiry into the allegations and charges made by the Member for Thompson with respect to the Indian Brotherhood and its President? MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR . SCHREYER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, insofar as the allegations may have to do with the appropriation of provincial monies to the organization I've made it clear that we have received submitted budgets just as we have requested and it is not my impression'that there is any neces sity of having a further-- an inquiry into that matter. I can say that at the moment. Insofar as any allegations are concerned which relate to the allocation of federal funds to the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood that is a matter which is outside the purview of this government, I can say, Mr.

Speaker, that I should think that the federal Minister of Indian Affairs would have arranged for an inquiry just as he did in the case of the Alberta Indian Brotherhood if he had reason to believe there was something wrong. I am not aware that there has been any suggestion by the federal authorities that they would be asking for any inquiry. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR . ENNS: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, again directed to the First Minister. Is the Minister's intention then to leave the investigation in the hands of the Member for Thompson? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR . SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can only tell the Honourable Member for Lakeside that the analogy in this case is not much different from statements made in the federal House of Commons relative to the Alberta Indian Brotherhood, statements made by the Member of Parliament for Battle River-Camrose and two or three other members of Parliament. MR . ENNS. A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, directed to the First Minister.

Can the Minister then tell us that it is not his intention to officially institute an inquiry into the serious allegations and charges made by the Member for Thompson? MR . SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that insofar as provincial

March 27, 1972 . 425 (MR. SCHREYER cont'd) . . . . . monies are concerned I do not have the impression that there is any reason for an inquiry. Insofar as federal monies are concerned that is the res ponsibility of the Government of Canada to decide if an inquiry is warranted. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR . STEVE PATRICK (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the First Minister.

The First Minister stated that the Member from Thompson will have an opportunity to prove his allegations or apologize and I am concerned about the Member of the House, I think he should have an opportunity through some mechanism within this House to either prove . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member is making a speech not asking a question. Would he rephrase it? The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR . PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, I'm asking the First Minister will he have some way or how does he expect to have the Member from Thompson prove his allegations or retract his statements ? MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR . SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have not been formally requested to cause an inquiry to be initiated so up to the moment the matter remains a matter of disagreement as between two fellow Manitobans. MR.- SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. MR. EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, the other day the Honourable Member from Churchill in quired about the utilization of the Port ofChurchill in the next year by the federal government and I agreed that I would wire the Honourable Donald Jamieson, the federal Minister of Transport.

I can advise him that I've now --and members of this House --that I have now received a reply from the Honourable Don Jamieson stating that the rumour which was referred to is unsubstantiated and that no change is anticipated in the use of the Port of Churchill for the 1972 re supply operation. All bulk products for the Keewatin district and a few other northern sites will be shipped through the Port of Churchill in 1972 and as far as dry cargo is concerned Mr. Jamieson has advised that tenders have been invited for transportation of dry cargo from both the Port of Churchill and the Port of Montreal.

There is further detail in the teleg ram which I'll make available to the Honourable Member from Churchill and members of the press if they so wish. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR . L. R. (BUD) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Honour able the First Minister. I would ask the honourable gentleman if he has received from the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood any requests for a government inquiry into the allegations by the Member for Thompson. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, I do not have the communication before me, speaking from recollection the communication is in the nature of a protest rather than a request for an inquiry. However I'll have to check once more to be sure. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Transportation. HON. PETER BURTNIAK (Minister of Highways) (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the Honourable Member for La Verendrye asked a question in regards to some $80,000 taxi fare bill which was run up by the provincial government and I took that question as notice if you recall.

I have checked this out with the department and I am told that the honourable member had asked the wrong Minister for the information and furthermore I would like to point out that the matter could be brought up in Public Accounts Committee. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rupertsland. MR . JEAN ALLARD (Rupertsland): Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to either the Minister of Transportation or the First Minister, to know woother the Minister of Transportation was speaking for the government when he gave us an explanation on the Ilford situation on the program "Provincial Affairs" last night or the night before? --(Interjection) - I wanted to know whether the Minister was speaking for the government when he gave an explana tion on the Ilford situation on the program "Provincial Affairs" last night or the night--I think it was two nights ago. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Transportation. MR. BURTNIAK: Mr.

Speaker, I would --in answer to that question I would hope that I was speaking on behalf of the government. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health and Social Development.

426 March 27, 1972 HON. BENE E. TOUPIN (Minister of Health and Social Development) (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer a question directed to me by the Honourable Member for Thompson a few weeks ago pertaining to grants made by the Department of Health and Social Development to Mount Carmel Clinic. The grant made in 197 0-7 1 was $4 0, 000 plus a . . . of staff, 2 social workers for $1 2, 112; one play therapist $4, 753. 99; one dental hygienist $4, 575 . 99; for a grand total of $6 1,441. 98 for 197o-71 .

The grants made for 197 1-72: grant $5 8, 004; . . . . . of staff $1 9, 838 . 38, for a grand total of $ 77 , 842. 38 plus a departmental psychiatrist was provided approximately two and one half days per week for the first year and one- half days per week this year. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR . BEARD: Would the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce check with the Hudson Bay Company to ascertain whether they have been advised as much as a month ago that there would be no supply services out of Churchill and that they should ship via Montreal? MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. MR. EVANS: I wonder if the honourable member could give me a little more information on this. I gathered the name of the company but I'd like to know more precisely and he needn't do it here he can give it to me later -- exactly, you know, the basis of the information and, you know , the actual source of the information within the company because I think it would make it much easier for me to inquire and follow this up. But I can just repeat that we have had this reassurance from Ottawa and I hope that reassurance is adequate. MR .

BEARD� A subsequent question. Could the Minister of Industry and Commerce advise us what the Northwest Territorial Government meant when they said that no services - service ships -- would be stopping in Churchill? MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. I believe the question is out of order. How should the Minister know what another government decides or wants? The Honourable Member for Rhine land. MR . JACOB M. FROESE (Rhineland): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to raise a point of order in connection with the previous question put to the Minister of Industry and Commerce.

I do hope when the reply comes forward that the reply will be made to the House even though he is getting additional information from . . . MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR . ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Mines and Natural Resources. Has he received direct complaints and requests to reduce the outflow of water from Lake Manitoba at the Fairford Dam from the trappers' associations around St. Ambroise and Marsh Point? The muskrat trapping is in jeopardy this year as a result of the low level of water. MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. MR . EVANS: Mr. Speaker , I am not aware of having received any official request, however that doesn't mean to say that there may be a letter in my "in" basket. To my knowl edge no request has been received. MR . ENNS: A supplementary question to the Honourable the Acting Minister of Mines and Natural Resources. Is the-- can the Minister tell me, is the dam structure at Fairford - are the locks all out at this particular time? Is the water flowing free there? MR . EV ANS: Mr. Speaker, I must take that question as notice. MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rupertsland. MR . ALLAR D: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Could he inform the House who he was. referring to the other night on the program when he is imputing motives to some individuals on the program? MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. We are not here to discuss a program that takes place outside of this House. If the honourable member has a direct question it will be allowed. The Honourable Member for Rupertsland. MR . ALLARD: I'll ask the Minister whether speaking in this House who he would be referring to. MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR . SIDNEY GREEN , Q.C. (lnkster) : Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order and I would ask the Speaker to rule as to whether a member of the administration as attached - as legislative counsel to the Premier is entitled to ask a question of another member of the administration.

,----------------- ' March 27, 1972 427 MR. SPEAKER: I realize that the honourable member has a very valid question but I must treat all members equally in this Chamber. Consequently if they rise to ask a question I must give them the floor until I hear whether it's in order or out of order. The Honourable Member for R upertsland. MR. ALLARD: On the point of order , Mr. Speaker. Well I'm not sure exactly what the former Minister of Mines and Resources meant but it seems that as -- that I do not have the right to ask . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. I ruled on that particular matter.

I indicated all members had an opportunity to be equally recognized. The honourable member is debating, not indicating a point of order. Orders of the Day. The Honourable House Leader. The Honourable Member for Emerson, sorry. MR. GABRIEL GffiARD (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if -- I'd like to direct a question to the Honourable the First Minister. I wonder if he could advise the House approx,. imately what portion of the twelve to fourteen million dollar rebate on the $50. 00 plan will go to municipalities other than Winnipeg? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, our main preoccupation is with the aggregate effect of the program. We do not have as large a preoccupation to try to determine what the distribution is as between one area of the province and another insofar as this particular program is con cerned. MR. GIRARD: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Honourable the First Minister could advise me as to where I could get this kind of information then. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would think that if the question were submitted in written form or by way of Order for Return that it could be dealt with more expeditiously. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. INEZ TRUEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Honourable Minister of Health and Social Development. Would the Minister deem it advisable even though there appears to be a surplus of acute hospital beds at the present time to destroy or scrap any such beds regardless of future possible requirements? MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. PETER ADAM (Ste. Rose): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before the Orders of the Day I would like to direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Mines and Environmental Management.

Is it the intention, Sir, of the Department of Environmental Control to allow the polluted waters of the Assiniboine to go down the Portage by-pass into Lake Manitoba this spring? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. MR. EVANS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can only say that we are concerned to minimize pollution in the province and all actions of the government will be direct towards that end. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Mines and Environmental Management.

Is it the intention of the Minister to allow the flooding of thousands of acres of prime farm land between Portage and Winnipeg by not using the Portage diversion this year? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, both last questions have been based on assump tions that are certainly far from being accepted as fact. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell. MR. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a supplementary question to the Minister of Mines and Resources and Environment. Can the Minister inform me . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: May I, on a point of order. My honourable friend from Birtle-Russell says that he is rising with a supplemental question and I question a supplemental question to what, because the Honourable the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources has been asked a n umber of questions, and I think that my honourable friend should be specific if he's dealing with the questions that were raised in respect of the Fairford Dam, fine, but I think my honourable friend in order that the House may conduct itself in a proper order should refer to what he is t:Hking. MR.

SPEAKER: The point is well taken. The Member for Birtie-Russell.

428 March 27, 1972 MR. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will direct a new question to the Minister of Mines, Resources and Environmental Control. Has the Minister any information in his possession that the waters of the Assiniboine River are in fact polluted? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. MR. EVANS: Well, Mr.

Speaker, this is a technical question because the definition of "pollution" va ries, depending on what criteria you are using, whether you are talking about human health standards, whether you're talking about a hazard to fish life in rivers, whether you're talking about other types of damage to the environment. However , I'll take the question as notice and do my best to give you an answer, but I must say that you are posing a very general type of question. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell. MR. GRAHA:iVl: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Minister inform the people who live along the Assiniboine River of the results of the question that has been posed? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member knows very well, when a question is answered in the House it's available to all the people of Manitoba. My friends up in the gallery see to that. MR. SPEAKER: The HonourabJe Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. TRUEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Honourable Minister of University Affairs.

Can the Minister give us any information concerning the plans of the Manitoba Hospital Services Insurances Commission to convert a 32-bed ward worth about $1, 920,000 into a pedestrian corridor between the new Basic Sciences Building and the Winnipeg General Hospital? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Youth and Universities. HON, SAUL A. MILLER (Minister of Colleges and Universities) (Seven Oaks): I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. JOSEPH P. BOROWSKI (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Health.

Could he indicate when they will start an extension of the hospital at Thompson? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health and Social Development. J\lill. TOUPIN: Mr. Speaker, I should really take this question as notice but the last report that I got from the Health Services Commission is that the schematics are well under way and that the addition to the Thompson Hospital shall start well in 1972. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. BOROWSKI: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question or order, I think.

I was misquoted, I don't know deliberately or by accident, in last Friday's speech I made in this House. I had stated that I would recommend to the government that liquor prices be increased by 15 percent; I noticed the Free Press put the figure of 50 percent. I would like that corrected . And also they had quoted me as saying that I would consider running in the Churchill federal election after the House adjourns -- that is not true; I never said any such thing. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOUGLAS WATT (Arthur): Mr.

Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I wonder if the First Minister, or any acting Minister of Agriculture at the moment, could tell us, could tell the House if there has been any follow-up to my question of last week when I asked the question: Has there been any direct representation to the railways or to the harbo r people, or the grain handling facilities . . . the people in Vancouver, in regard to the loss of sales in Vancouver? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. 1\ffi. SCHREYER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, there has been representation directly to the Federal Minister of Transport for one. I believe additional representations were made. The Minister of Agriculture will be here tomorrow and will be able to deal with the question. 1\ill, SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. BORO\VSKI: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the House Leader. Could he indicate when it will be possible for any member in this House to speak on the question of the Indian protest. I was refused the opportunity by the Indian leaders to speak this afternoon on the steps.

I'm wondering will I have the opportunity to make a statement in the House in reply to their demands?

March 27, 1972 429 MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR . PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, it is one of the rules of this House --it's not a new rule, it's been in force for a considerable number of years, that if any member of this House, be he or she on government or opposition side, wishes to raise a matter, that matter can be raised on the motion of going into Committee to consider Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

There is no barrier and I anticipate, subject to the process of the House today, I anticipate that we. may possibly be getting into that motion if we cease oral questions, one or two other matters. I indicated to the House, Mr. Speaker, as you recall on Friday evening, what I anticipated the conduct of the procedure of the House would be for this week, and I can go no further in saying that was what my hope was on Friday.

It is still my hope and in direct answer to my honourable friend and colleague from Thompson, he can raise his point on going into Committee of Suppiy, hopefully, either this afternoon or this evening. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR . WATT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if it's a point of privilege or a point of order, but I'd like to, for the record, to state a correction on Page 199 of Hansard.

I'm quoted as saying, and I quote "I believe that I've fouled up the Honourable Member from Charleswood the other day" -- I did not say I fouled up the honourable member, I said I followed up the honourable member in the question period. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the Honourable Minister of Universities Affairs. Could the Honourable Minister inform us· as to how many students, foreign students, are presently enrolled in the University of Manitoba? MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Universities. MR . MILLER: Mr.

Speaker, I could take a fairly good stab at the figure but I'd rather be exact. I'll take the question as notice. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. Orders of the Day. ORDERS OF THE DAY - GOVERNMENT BILLS MR . PAULLEY: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether in order to proceed with the business of the House that you would now call second reading of Government Bills and number five, followed possibly by number six, standing in the name of the Honourable, the Minister of Finance. MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance. The Honourable Minister of Finance.

HON, SAUL CHERNIACK, Q.C. (Minister of Finance) (St. Johns) presented Bill No. 5, The Succession Duty Act- Manitoba, for second reading. MR . SPEAKER presented the motion, MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR . CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, the second reading stage in debate on any bill is significant because it affords members of this Assembly an opportunity to exchange views on the basic precepts underlying legislation which is before them.

In the case of the Succession Duty Act, however, the second reading stage is more than simply significant, it is the singu larly most important stage in the consideration of this bill. The reason is simple. Second reading is the time for debate in principle anci the Succession Duty Act is legislation which has principle at its foundation. The principle is equity, real equity for the citizens of this province. Now what is a succession duty? It is not a tax on persons with low income.

It is not tax on those who are classed as middle-income earners, and I can assure my fr !ends in the benches opposite, and their colleagues, in some of the investment houses and newspaper editorial offices in this city and across the province that it is not even a tax on the rich or on the wealth of the rich per se. A succession duty is essentially a tax when there is a transfer of wealth at death.

The distinction is basic for an understanding of the aprinciple of this bill, as well as for an appreciation of why its passage is vital to the maintenance of an equitable tax structure - and the equality of condition such a tax system was created to promote. Why is the distinction between wealth and wealth transfer so important? Again the answer is easily given.

In the first instance, the assumption is generally made rightly or wrongly that a person with wealth has earned it throughout his life, has paid some taxes for it, though may I comment probably less than an equitable proportion relative to many at lower income levels, and in effect is entitled to enjoy the benefits of that wealth throughout his life.

430 March 27, 1972 (MR. CHERNICAK cont'd) . . . . . But when that person dies and through his will transfers his accumul ated wealth to others, it becomes the responsibility of the government to ensure that this transfer, which really constitutes income for the recipients, does not place them in an unreasonably advantageous position relative to those members of society, and they are in the vast majority, who must work hard to earn a living and who must meet standard tax require ments to support the services which they receive from their government.

This does not mean, and I want to make this very clear, that every dollar of an estate should necessarily be treated as ordinary income and taxed at standard rates in the hands of the recipients. As long as the income tax system in this country is designed to favour those with high incomes at the expense of those in iow and middle income ranges, an equitable system of taxation on transfer of wealth a:t death must recognize this in an exemption and rate structure which provides satisfactory pro tection from further regressive tax pressure.

The Succession Duty legislation now before this Assembly will guarantee this kind of protection. The Succession Duty legislation now before this House will also ensure fair and ample protection for members of a deceased immediate family in acknowledgment of the direct and important contributions they may have made to the accumulation of the assets in the estate.

But what this Succession Duty legislation now before this House will not permit is a perpetuation of great wealth over time in the hands of a privileged few to a system which would enable that wealth to be transferred again and again with little or no tax liability regardless of the fact that the recipients may have played no part whatsoever in earning it. That kind of inequity charac terized a period of history which has long since disappeared and which must not be allowed to reappear through a failure by governments to safeguard the egalitarian values which took far too long to establish in our society.

So while society may accept an individual's rights to bene fit fro m a particular economic advantage, even when it manifests itself in a tangible form through the accumulation of wealth, at the same time it cannot accept that disadvantage should be transferred to others indiscriminately. It is here that an equitable system of wealth transfer taxation finds its purpose. Through such a system a portion of the wealth which was derived from society through economic advantage is rightfully returned to it to equalize opportunities' and thereby benefit all citizens.

This, then, is the basic principle on which wealth transfer taxation in general and the Manitoba Succession Duty Act in particular are based. It is a principle which has been recognized throughout history and which has been applied in various forms and with varying degrees of effectiveness in virtually every major nation. Apparently a form of inheritance tax, a 10 percent levy on the transfer of property at death was in effect as early as the 7th Century, B. C. in ancient Egypt. Later a somewhat more refined form was introduced by the Emperor, Augustus, at the height of the Roman Empire.

It is said that the Roman tax consisted of a flat five percent levy on all legacies and successions over various minimal amounts. Though historians argue about these minimum levels, figures of 50 to lOO gold pieces have been suggested, it is nevertheless probable that the Romans can be credited with the beginning of a basic exemption system. During the Middle Ages, inheritance taxation continued to play a large roll in the financing of the state.

In most areas of Europe, various kings and princes had recognized authority over titles to property, and in the event of a death all property was supposed to escheat or revert to the Crown. However, tax payments that generally were called "relief", which obviously would be considered a misnomer today, could be made to the Crown by relatives of the deceased in order that he would permit the transfer of property to them.

In certain cases, of course, pro perty was allowed to pass between generations entirely free of a tax, from father to son for example, and this lead directly to the build-up of a small and immensely powerful nobility. Great Britain's first general death tax was implemented around the end of the 18th Century and at almost the same time -the United States introduced a national death duty in the form of a stamp tax on receipt for legacies and probates for wills.

While the British system remained in effect from then on and was gradually strengthened the American estate tax was removed and reintroduced intermittently until 1916 when it was reapplied on a permanent basis. In Canada the first death tax legislation was passed in Ontario in 1892 but within two years similar Succession Duty legislation was in effect in all provinces then within Confederation, including Manitoba. The Federal Government did not enter the field until 1941 when it applied its estate tax primarily as a war-time revenue measure.

In 1947 after the war the first of a series of agreements between the Federal and Provincial Government was implemented under

March 27, 1972 431 (MRo CHERNIACK cont'

d) o which the provinces entering into the agreements withdrew their succession duties in return for a share of federal estate taxo These agreements were of course maintained until the end of last year 0 I give this little historical review, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that the principle has been accepted throughout the years, and has continued to be accepted, and is still being accepted. It is one which has withstood the test of many times, many governments in many nations.

I believe it is clear that our present proposals are based on concrete principles and on firmly established historical tradition with respect to equitable taxation. This is substantiated fully in the pronouncements of a well-known Canadian authority on the subject of estate tax. These are his words, and I quote: "There is widespread recognition that estate taxation makes an important contribution to bringing more equitable opportunity to all Canadians. An estate tax with a progressive rate structure can improve the fairness of the whole tax system by imposing a tax on wealth.

To be fair to lower income groups, government s must use the two progressive taxes, estate and income, when possibl e. " I quote further: "Surely it is contrary to the country's long-run interest to allow a sub stantial portion of the nation's wealth to accumulate in the hands of a few individuals or families.

Wealth generally brings greater economic power and this power in turn brings greater wealtho Unless this concentration were checked between generations, the benefits of the economic activities of the Canadian people would not be equitably distributed or efficiently absorbedo Some argue that this problem of concentration is not as great in Canada as it is in some other countries but it is probable that the existence of death duties since trn early stages of Canadian economic development has helped prevent the large concentrations which were characteristic of the United States at the turn of the century.

" My final quote from the same speaker: "Historically, opposition to inheritance taxes has come mainly from privileged classes trying to protect their wealth without regard to fairness or the common goo d. " That's the end of the quotation, Mro Speaker, and some members may enquire as to who said that. Well who said that, Mr. Speaker? Not a well-know tax commen tator for the Winnipeg Free Press, but someone who is held in at least as much esteem and is in the same political party. Well, Mr. Speaker, who said that?

It was the former Federal Minister of Finance, the present Minister of Defence, the Honourable Edgar J. Bensono And when did he say that? The speech in which these statements appeared was delivered to the London West Liberal Association in London, Ontario in January of 1969 federal and provincial government was implemented, under which the provinces entering into the agreement withdrew their succession duties. Mr. Speaker, the Government of Manitoba fully supports these principles enunciated by Mr.

Benson, on behalf of his government just three short years ago, and I refer specifically to a speech made by that gentleman because he is the one who is being credited with other kinds of statements by people in opposition to succession duties. And I quote this so that members will be aware of a very particular statement dealing with this particular subject made a bare three years ago. It was quite natural then, Mr.

Speaker, that when the former Minister of Finance brought down what pro ved to be his last real budget in Ju ne of 1971, and announced that a decision had been reached to terminate the Federal estate and gift taxes at the end of December that our government was first shocked and then outraged.

Along with several other provinces the Government of Manitoba expressed considerable concern about the implications of the Federal Government's decision, both from the standpoint of general equity and from the stand point of revenue maintenance, an important factor in itself, because the provinces had for many years received a share of federal estate tax collection s under at·rangements designed to a bring general uniformity to the wealth transfer tax system in Canada.

These arrangements had been implemented originally to eliminate the tax jungle effects of a multiplicity of pro vincial laws and administrative practices. Their termination promised a return to the Balkanization which had marked the fiscal system of the 1930's in this country.

In mid July at a Federal-Provincial Conference of Ministers of Finance the provinces had their first formal opportunity to present their views on Ottawa's planned withdrawal from the Estate Tax field, and not surprisingly-- as I believe I reported to this House on my return from the conference last summer -- strong reservations concerning the federal decision were voiced with virtual unanimity by all the provinces. Ottawa was asked to reconsider its decision and to delay the repeal of its estate and gift tax at least until such time as a thorough study of

43 2 March 27, 1972 (MR. CHERN IACK cont'd ) . . . . . all im plica tions of the repeal could be completed. Subsequent to this meeting , provincial First Ministers met in Victoria in early August and every Pre mier present at the time of the discussi on -- that is eight out of the ten -- en dorsed a formal join t request to the Pr ime Minister to defer the repeal of the legis lation.

During the late summer and ear ly fall, officials met frequently to discuss the options availa ble to the federal and provi ncial governments but no concrete action was pos sible until mid October when the Federal Mini ster of Finance indicated that the Government of Canada was prepared to enter into rela tively uniform succe ss ion duty and gift tax collect ion arra ngements with certain provinces on a conditiona l basis for a maximum of three years to take effect January 1, 1972.

And as is well known by now , Manitoba acc epted the Federal Government's offer in respect to both success ion duties and gift taxes, as did Saska tchewa n , as did the four Mar itime Province s. Bri tish Columbia, Ontar io, Quebec, which already had succe ssion duty legislation in force in dica ted they would be interested in taking advan tage of the gift tax co llection offer. Thus by January 1 of this year , nine out of ten provinces had acted to fill the void left by the Federal Government's termination of its taxes on estates and gifts.

Let us always speak of succes sion duties and gift taxation in the full knowledge that nine out of the ten provinces of Ca nada have clearly stated that they will continue successi on duty taxation , and all ten, or rather all nine, have agreed to participa te in the Gift Tax as well. Why in fact did the Federal Government withdra w from this field of taxat ion ? Some arguments have been put forward. One was the fact that Ottawa apparently felt that various rebate schemes had limited the degree of uniformity which its presence could promote. In our view, this argument is totally invalid.

In fact it is possibl e to cite many statements made by the former Federal Minister of Finance during the constitutional reform debate which em phasized the importance of a strong Federal role in this area of taxation. At several recent Federal Provincial Conferences I questioned Mr. Benson on this very subject -- the apparent contradiction in the Federal position -- and I am convinced by his responses that he , and I believe his government, still support the basic principles of wealth tr ansfer taxation as he outlined them in the statement which I quoted ea rlier .

The argument for a Federal withdrawal which had the least val idity and which has per haps caused the greatest misunderstanding and confusion, was the implication by Ottawa that it felt for itself that there was a recogniza ble and acce ptable trade-off in elimi nating estate and gift taxes at the sam e time as it im posed a tax on ca pital gains. There may be a trade-off in revenue terms for the Federal Government when the ca pital gains tax system has matured, and this will take time , but there will be no trade- off in re venue terms for the provinces in the foreseeabl e future.

More important, there ca n be no trade-off for anyone , government or citizen in equity terms. Under the revised income tax legislation one-half of gains on ca pital assets accrued only from December 1971 will bec ome taxable at death at standard income tax rates, but any wealth not in a form defined as capi tal assets for ca pital gains tax purposes, will be trans ferrable without any such tax liability. At the same time, most Ca nadians not fortunate enough to be reci pients of a major inheritance will have to continue to pay taxes on their wage and salary incomes at normal income tax rates.

Cl early, there is no equity trade- off here. Well as for the revenue side of the trade-off argument, the provinces previous ly re ce ived 75 percent of Federal Es tate Ta x col lected in respect of their jurisdictions , while the Government of Ca nada retained 25 percent. Under the revised system, the Federal Govern ment will receiv e al most 70 perc ent of basic ca pital gains tax re venue, while the provinces will receive around 30 percent, plus whatever supplementary amount might result from their havi ng income tax rates above the standard minimum.

The ar ithmetic is very simple: If 70 percent of the new capital gains tax will yield as much for Ottawa as 25 percent of the old estate tax did -- and even this is doubtful in the earl y years -- then there is little possibility that the provinces greatly reduced share of the new tax will provide them with the same revenues that their 75 percent share of the old estate tax yielded. This is just as simple as the simplest ar ithmetic problem that anyone deals with. Again here , there is clearl y no trade- off availa ble for the province s.

Ev en in Ontar io where the bulk of capital gains tax revenue is expected to be centered, there is considerable concern that it will be a very long time before the yield of the provinc ial capital gains tax along with its effectiveness as a control over the transfer of weal th may approach the yield and the equitability of the former estate tax system. In this connection

March 27, 1972 433 (MR . CHER NIACK cont'd) . . . . . there have been many ref erences made in recent months to statements attributed to members of the Ontario Government to the effect that the Ontar io Succession Duty will be phased out in five years' time. In fact, such statements were made at one time , but they are not made any longer. Mr. Speak er , if members in the opposition wish to quote the Ontario government as to its intentions, I hope that they will at least make sure that they are quoting up-to-date state ments in that regar d.

When he presented his 1971-72 supplementary estimates to the Legisla ture in December , the Ontario Pr ovincial Tre asurer indicated that the Federal Government's decision to vacate the estate tax field effective January lst, would mean a reduction of 56 million in wealth trans fer taxation in 1972 in Ontario alone , as well as a net revenue loss of 28 million to his govern ment. Admittedly Ontar io has indicated that it may -- and I stress the word "may" -- consider reducing its succession duty as the capital gains tax matures , but there has been no deadline set.

In the December statement to which I referred earli er , the Ontar io Treasurer used such phrases as , and I quote "in future years"; and again I quote "in the end ". The end could be an extremely long way off. For the present, Ontario has taken action to insure that its wealth transfer taxes will yield virtually the same amount of rev enue in the province as the province would have receiv ed had the Federal Government decision not been carried out.

As my counterpart in Ontario indicated, it is essential for re venue reasons alone there fore, to maintain some form of taxation of wealth upon death , be it at a gradually diminishing le vel. It is also essential for equity reasons because in the absence of such death taxation , ail wealth could be passed between generations without any meaningful tax consequences. And who said that ? The Pro vincial Treasurer of the Conser vative Government of Ontario. When did he say that ? He said that in his December 1971 budget speech.

Mani toba also expects to receiv e approximately equivalent re venue yields in 1972 under its proposed Succession Duty and Gift Tax as it would have received had it continued to share in Federal Estate Tax collections , but there is no certainty that this expectation will be realized. In fact, there is a possibility that revenues will be somewhat lower as a result in part of poten tial delays in recei ving collections from the Federal Government.

I should add , our revenues from this source will be afforded no protection through the somewhat tenuous guar antee system which the Federal Government will implement in an attempt to reduce the negative effects of its income tax changes on the provinces for a five year period.

I remind honourable members that the Federal Government in making the change in its tax legislation , what it calls "tax reform" , has indicated that since it may well be , and we in Manitoba expect, as does the Federal Government, that our share of rev enues out of the new formula of income tax will produce less than the former share under the old formula; that there would be a guar antee over five years that the amount received will not be less than in the former formula and therefore there will be payments made by the Federal Government to take ca re of such difference.

But wealth transfer taxation is not included in the guar antee and there is no such protection in the formula. This, too , is a misunderstanding that has been widely spread by many people . So there will clearly be no capital gains trade-off for Manitoba. Only by implementing a Succession Duty and Gift Tax system can we be certain that at least some of our potential re venue loss can be offset. And again, more important, that the stan dard of equity which we have strived to attain in this province's taxation structure can be preserved.

As I indicated earlier , nine of the ten provinces, provinces whose governments repre sent every major political party in this country, reached a conclusion similar to ours. The three provinces which alre ady had succession duties decided to retain them and to add gift taxes as well to protect their effectiveness. The other six, including Manitoba, agreed to accept the Federal Government's offer to collect these taxes on their behalf and in late December issued a detailed joint statement of their legislative intentions.

The contents of that statement, which I expect are quite familiar to members of this Assembly, were intended to provide citizens with specific information for planning purposes with respect to the provin cial wealth transfer tax systems which were to take effect on January 1, 1972. The statement indicated that Ne wfoundland , Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brun swick , Manitoba and Sask atchewan had agreed to present uniform, standa rdized succession duty and gift tax acts to their respective legislatures at their next sessions. These acts were to be based in

434 March 27, 1972 (MR . CHER NIACK cont'd) .. .. . large part on comparable federal legislation which had to defect prior to certain amendments in 1968 and would be administered by the Federal Government through the Departments of National Re venue and Finance for a period of three ye ars. Since the announcement of last December however, certain modifications have been made in the legislative intentions of the agreeing provinces. So I'll summar ize briefly exactly what the Act now before the House will mean for Manitobans.

Well, first I think I should probably explain why we are proposing to implement a succession duty rather than an estate tax. Explanation lies simply in the constitutional division of taxing powers between the federal and provincial governments. Under the British North America Act the Federal Government can apply both direct and indirect taxes. The provinces can only apply direct taxes. An estate tax is considered an indirect tax so it is beyond our power to implement such a levy. The province can only apply a success ion duty which is considered to be a direct tax.

Subject of the exemptions which I will outline shortly -- Manitoba succes sion duty will be levied first on the value of all property of the deceased at the date of his ooath which is situated in the province , whether the deceased dies domiciled in or outside the province and whether his beneficiaries are domiciled or res ident in or outside the province, except where both deceased and beneficiary are domiciled outside the province in which case the success ion duty will apply only to real estate including leaseholds.

Sec ondly, a succ ess ion duty will be levied on all beneficiarie s who are res ident in the province and who inherit property which is situated outside the province. Well in order to avoid double taxation where a beneficiary may res ide in a province different from the one in which the property is situated a credit will be allowed by the province on the residence of the beneficiary against inheritance tax paid in respect to property situated in a province other than a province cooperating in the federal-provincial collection system. Reci procal agree ments will be worked out with other provinces as well.

Under the proposed Manitoba Successi on Duty Act no duty is payable where the aggregate net value of the estate is $5 0,0 00 or le ss. According to Department of National Re venue Statistics the number of Manitoba estates has averaged between 4, 000 and 4, 500 annually in recent years but of this number only five percent had a value in excess of the $5 0, 000 basic minimum exemption under the proposed Manitoba Succession Duty Act. On this basis it is reasonable to conclude that only some five percent of Manitoba estates are likely to be taxable under the provincial Succession Duty Act.

The maximum allowable exemption will be $20 0,0 00 which will be applicable if at least $50, 000 passes to a spouse and any balance to other pre ferred beneficiaries. Over the last few years only some 25 to 35 estates in Manitoba have exceeded this $20 0, 000 value each year, considerably less than one percent of the total number of estates.

While this $200, 000 maximum exemption for spou ses is not as large as the complete exemption provided for under the federal estate taxation legislation as it was amended in 1968 it is considerably higher than the maximum available under the federai act before that time and we feel it has been established at an appropriate level to accomplish two basic objectives. First, to provide adequate protection for spouses as well as an acceptable recognition of their contributions to the accumulation of the estate; and second , to prevent the inequitable transfer of extremely large estates without any tax liability.

An assumption which is implicit in this argument of course is that both spouses together in the nature of a true partnership will have shared the full benefits of the accumulated wealth while both were living and that the maximum advantage of gift tax and other exe mptions would have been taken. I believe, Mr. Speaker , that any person who speaks up and says the wife had contributed to the accumulation of wealth of the husband and is entitled to be recognized as a partner that wife should be recognized as a partner at the time the wealth is accumulated, during the lifetime of the husband.

That is a partnership and that is the way it ought to be dealt with and is dealt with in many many of the families with which I am familiar. As I pointed out a moment ago probably only two or three dozen estates in Manitoba in a given year will exceed this $2 00, 000 level in aggregate net value and even for those that do the effective rate of tax on a full bequest to a spouse will be far from excessive.

For example if a man were to leave his wife an estate with a net value of $2 50, 000, a quarter of a million, the amount of tax payable would be $1 3, 780, an effective rate of about five and a half percent; or on an estate with an aggregate net value of $3 50, 000 left by a man to his wife the amount of

March 27, 1972 435 (MR. CHERNIACK cont'd) ..... tax would be $49, 885, an effective rate of just slightly more than fourteen percent. The maximum exemption for preferred successors in general is $1 50, 000. 00.

Besides the spouse who is co nsidered a preferred successor but who is also entitled to an additional $50 , 000 exemption to bring the total to 200, 000 as I'v e outlined earlier other preferred successors include children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents and sons and daughters-in-law of the deceased. \\'here bequests to preferred successors exceed the $1 50, 000 limit benefits of the $1 50, 000 exemption will be shared on a pro rata basis. In recent years only about one to one and a half percent of Manitoba estates have exceeded $1 50, 000 in value.

A special additional exemption will be granted for infirm children of the deceased in the amount of $1, 000 per year for each year that such a child is under the age of 21. This exemption will be applicable over and above $150, 000 maximum exemption available to the child as a preferred beneficiary.

Now the maximum exemption for collateral successors such as a brother -- and may I interrupt for a moment to stress that when I speak of the value of an estate, the net value of an estate, the examples I have given of $ 250, 00 0, $200, 000, these are the total value of all of the assets of the deceased less all his debts at time of death and debts v.ill include income tax pay able be it on income earned or on capital gains tax imputed at the time of death that reduces the value of all of the assets of the estate for tax purposes; so that when we speak of net taxable value we speak of the value of the estate on the assumption that all debts, all liabilities have been paid, the mortgage on the house, the mortgage on the farm, the lien on the car, all debts payable by the estate are in reduction from the total va lue in order to arrive at the net value.

The Honourable Member for Rhine land would appear not to know how estate taxes work throughout all the years of his life and especially that of his mature adult life as a member of this Legislature and presumably as a businessman. He asks questions which would seem to imply that he's not really aware of how evaluation of estates are arrived at. And I would as sume, l\'Ir.

Speaker, that he has the courtesy to ask the question but to wait for an answer and I assure him that if he continues to display the kind of ignorance that I'm assuming he seems to have he will display that when he speaks on this measure after which I will be glad to respond to him. Well now, Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with exemptions. I had dealt with the exemptions to preferred beneficiaries, I deal now with the maximum exemption for collateral successors such as a brother, sister, niece, nephew, cousin which will be $25, 000.

A pro rating system will be used to calculate exemption benefits where bequests exceed the $2 5, 000 limit. But of course it should be remembered that no tax will be payable on an estate of under $5 0, 000. It should also be added that collateral exemption will be available only to the extent that the pre ferred exemption has not been used up. Then the maximum exemption available to any other successor will be $1, 000 -- once again it must be remebered that no tax will be levied if the estate is under $5 0, 000.

Now the exemption for charitable bequests will be the greatest of (a) 20 percent of the value of the whole estate after deduction of all debts but before any exemptions are calculated or; (b) 50 percent of the value of such bequests or; (

c) the unused portion of the $1 50, 000 pre ferred successor exemption. In cases where options (

a) or (

c) is applied each charity would be entitled to a proportional share of the exemption unless the deceased's will establishes a different priority. Substantial exemption allowances for bequests to charitable organizations are considered to be justifiable on the grounds that the wealth transferred under these provisions will be directed towards a furthering of beneficial services to society in general and are thus fully consistent with the intent and the principle underlying the Succession Duty Act.

Furthermore, these provisions are consistent v.ith the proposed gift tax legislation which will permit full exemptions on gifts to charities in most cases. The rates in calculating suc cession duty are outlined in detail in the bill and will range from ten percent on the first $1 0, 000 of the aggregate net value of the succession to 50 percent on amounts in excess of $3 00, 000. But no tax will be payable on the exempt portion of the benefits. Though there are certain ex ceptions these rates generally parallel those formerly in effect under federal estate tax legis lation.

However because the exemption levels in respect of inter-family transfers under the Manitoba Succession Duty Act with the exception of the exemption in relation to spouses are larger than those previously in effect under federal legislation, the amount of tax on these transfers will be substantially lowered under the Manitoba tax act than under the old federal estate tax except in the case of some of the largest estates.

436 March 27 , 1972 (MR. CHERNIACK cont'd) .. ... Comparisons with the succession duty plans to be effected by the four Maritime provinces are similarly favourable. While the Maritimes will have a half a million dollar maximum ex emption for spouses our latest information is that they'll permit considerably smaller benefits for children. For example an estate with an aggregate net value of $1 00, 000 left to an adult son that is over 26 would not be taken in Manitoba -- would not be taxed in Manitoba but it would be taxed in the amount of $1 6, 000 in the Maritimes.

This is illustrated as a series of comparitive examples which I should like to table and ask to be distributed. I would also like that the House consent to the printing of this table and these comparisons in Hansard and I trust that would be acceptable to members of the House. Thank you. . . . . continued on next page

Ma rch 27, 1972 437 COMPARISON OF MANITOBA SUCCESS ION DUTIES AND FEDERAL ESTATE TAXES IN VARIOUS CATEGORIES ALL TO WIFE 2/ 3 TO WIFE , 1/3 TO SON

(1) ALL TO SON ( 1) 2/3 TO SON (1), 1/3 TO BROTHER ALL TO STR ANGER ALL TO WIFE 2/ 3 TO WIFE , 1/3 TO SON

(1) ALL TO SON (1) 2/ 3 TO SON (1), 1/3 TO BROTHER ALL TO STRANGER ALL TO WIFE 2/ 3 TO WIFE , 1/3 TO SON

(1) ALL TO SON (1) 2/ 3 TO SON (1), 1/3 TO BROTHER ALL TO STRANGER ALL TO WIFE 2/3 TO WIFE , 1/3 TO SON

(1) ALL TO SON ( 1) 2/ 3 TO SON (1), 1/3 TO BROTHER ALL TO STRANGER ALL TO V/IFE 2/3 TO WIFE , 1/3 to son

(1) ALL TO SON ( 1) 2/ 3 TO SON (1), 1/3 TO BROTHER ALL TO STR ANGER ALL TO WIFE 2/ 3 TO WIFE , 1/3 TO SON

(1) ALL TO SON (1) 2/3 TO SON (1), 1/3 TO BROTHER ALL TO STR ANGER ALL TO WIFE 2/3 TO WIFE , 1/3 TO SON

(1) ALL TO SON ( 1) 2/3 TO SON (1), 1/3 TO BROTHER ALL TO STR ANGER

(1) ADULT SON. ATLANTIC PROVINCES $ NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL 4, 153. 16, 020. 16, 020. 17, 800. -- ---- - --- NIL 8, 507. 29, 774. 29, 774. 31, 900. -- ------- - NIL 13, 855. 46, 455. 46, 455. 48, 900. - - ---- ---- NIL 20, 211. 66 , 144. 66, 144. 68, 900, NIL 35, 474. 113, 074. 113, 074. 116, 400. NIL 59, 972. 187, 572. 187' 572. 191, 400, MANITOBA FEDERAL ESTATE TAX NE T AGGREGATE VALUE $5 0, 000, ---- $ NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL $ NIL NIL NIL NIL NIL NET AGGREGATE VALUE $i OO , OOO. --- NIL NIL NIL 500. NIL 13, 200. 1, 483. 13, 200. 17,800. 15, 600. NET AGGRE GATE VALUE $1 50, 000. -- NIL NIL NIL 3, 000.

NIL 26, 700. 5, 317. 26, 700. 31, 900. 29, 700. NET AGGREGATE VALUE $200, 000. -- NIL NIL NIL 6, 000. 12, 225. 43, 200. 12, 225. 43, 200. 48, 900. 46, 700. NET AGGREGATE VALUE $250, 000. -- 13, 780. NIL 13, 780. 9, 400. 27, 560. 62, 700. 27 ' 560. 62, 700, 68 ' 900. 66, 700. NET AGGREGATE VALUE $3 50, 000. -- 49, 885. NIL 49, 885. 17, 400. 66, 514. 109, 200. 66, 514. 109,200. 116, 400. 114, 200. NET AGGREGATE VALUE $500, 000. -- 114, 840. 114, 840. 133, 980. 133, 980. 191, 400. NIL 31, 700. 184, 200. 184, 200. 189, 200,

438 March 27 , 1972 (MB . CHERN! .KCK cont'd) . . . . . Success ion duty will be payable six months following death but payments may be made in annual installm ents for a period of six years with int erest , and it may int erest members to know that I made inquiries of the experience of the federal tax collections in previous years as to the num bers or proportions of people who took advantage of the opportunity to pay estate taxes over a six-year period and I find that this has barely been taken adv antage of. Apparently -- (Inter je cti on) -- Interest rate ? I believe is 5 percent.

I am subject to correction, it could not be over six. But the point I make is that although we all fear the possibi lity that estate taxation might cri pple an estate in that it is not liquid I find on inve stigation at the federal office -- and other me mbers can make the same kind of invest igation -- that they've had very little problems re lating to payment of taxation and that very few executors have taken advantage of the opportunity to pay the tax over a six-year period obviously dealing with the que stion of liquidity.

There has been some concern expres sed that the imposition of a tax on accrued capital gains of death under the incom e tax system coupled with the introduction of a success ion duty could lead to burd ensome double taxation. I submit this concern is groundle ss.

Any income tax liabi lity in respect of an estate inc luding a capital gains tax liabili ty will be deductible in ca lculating the aggregate net value of the est ate for successi on duty purposes as I earlier in dicated and hence there is no doub le taxation and we mu st consider various kinds of ca ses: (1) a man dies in late Decem ber of a year; he has not filed his income tax return for that year; he may have earned $30, 000 , $40, 000 , $5 0, 000 in that year; he may have not prepaid sufficien t on his income tax in that year. On his death his incom e tax return mu st be filed.

Taxes are cal culated and those taxes are payable. Now they happen to be payable after death just as do successi on duties but the fact is that the amount of tax payable is used in reduction of the value of the estate so there is no tax on tax , no double tax in that respect. Take the case of a man who in November of a year sells a property and makes a capital gain of $1 00, 000 and is taxed for that in the following year.

Should he die in Decem ber his estate will not have -- his est ate will already be liable for capital gains tax although he did not die in possession of that asset but has alre ady made the sale. We submit there should be no difference in ca lcula ting or charging him taxation based on a sale made pr ior to death or a presumed sale , a sale presumed to have been made on date of death if it hadn't been so.

So that I would like members who want to attack the principle of double taxation or of capital gains being an attack on the succession duty itself to consid er carefully just what it is that they are proposing is wrong or unfair in this respect because I submit that there is no double taxation in this area. Now there are other concerns , particularly those relate d in preser vation of family farms and small family-owned business a concern which this government has expressed tim e and time again .

I want to point out once again that the exemption levels provided for bequests to family members with the exception of the spouse are signific antly larger under the Manitoba Succes sion Duty Act than those provided under the former fed eral esta te tax law. And this is revealed clearly in the comparison which I have just tab led and which honourable members I believ e al ready have . Under the federal legislation for example the basic exemption in respect of a tax ab le estate for an adult son over 26 years of age who might inherit a farm from his father was $1 0, 000.

Under the Manitoba legislation that same son could receiv e a $1 50, 000 farm tax free. And again I stress the value of the far m would be the total asset less the liabi litie s. Any debts inc luding any capital tai ns tax liabili ty will be deducted from the value of the farm or a busin ess before the Manitoba tax is applied. Also any succes sion duty that may be payable can be rem itte d in insta llments for up to six years so this will minimize any liquidity problem. Besid es the problem itself is more theoretical than real in any case.

I ask members , especially rural members, to consider whether or not the information I'm about to give jibes with the ir infor- mation that they have about areas with which they're knowledgeable. · The late st avai lable agricultural statistics indicate that only about two percent of Manitob a's farms would have a total capital value without any deductions for outstanding debt , but inc luding land, buildin gs , machinery and livestock, in excess of the $1 50, 000 preferred succe ssor ex emption level.

The level that wou ld app ly if a man would leave his farm to his son, for example , only about one percent of the �arms would be valued above the $200, 000 exemption level provided for spouses. Of course some have argued that one cannot take only.the value of the farm into cons ideration in calcula ting the potential value of a farmer's estate and this has some validity. Insur ance , savings, other assets could well increase the size of the estate , but at the same time , any outstanding debt would be deductible from the total in calcula ting the aggregate net value for

March 27, 1972 439 (MR . CHER NIACK cont'd) . success ion duty purpo ses and it si well-known that there are very few farm operators in western Canada whose debt burden is not relatively heavy. Indeed this is precisel y why my collea gue , the Minister of Agricu lture, has argued for the im.m.ediate adoption by the Federal Government of a net farm income stabilization plan.

For this reaso n I' m satisfied with the accuracy of the figures I'v e cited as repre senting the approximate per centages of family farms in Manitoba which would be large enough to have any potential suc cession duty liability on the death of the owner. Of course the number of such farms which might be effective in any one year would be extremely small. However , my department will continue to study the situation carefully and if for any reason an undue burden of taxation be comes apparent I can assure this House that appropriate action will be taken to rectify it.

The same is true in re spect of small family businesses or in any other circumstance in which the Act may apply. I make this assurance now and I'l l stand by it. It is not the intent of this legis lation to do more than simply impose a duty in respect of the transfer of large amounts of wealth in this province. The very small percentage of estates which could be affected proves it. The figures I cited earlier show that of a population of about one million, perhaps two hundred to two hundred and twenty-five estates may be taxable each year.

Ev en if each estate provided for bequests to four or five individuals only about one in a thousand Manltobans would likely feel any effect in any given year, and then only because those people could stand to in herit inordinately large sums tax free in the absence of a provincial success ion duty. Rem ember again, Mr. Speaker , it is the beneficiary who pays the tax. Of course, it appears very clear that it is in the interests of this one in a thousand which most directly concerns many of those who've expressed the strongest opposition to this govern ment's taxation plans.

And various methods including the crudest sort of scare tactics have been employed by those who wish to promote the advantageous conditions for the priv ileged whose primary concern in this respect is not re ally for the people of this province as much as it is for themselv es and by those who share their concerns , inc luding I must say certain promi nent members of the parties represented on the other side of this Assembly and by certain of the news media.

Many of the arguments which have been offered by these groups against this government's proposals have been based on the assumption that taxation on the transfer of wealth in nine out of ten provinces and in all the major western countries, in some way drives entrepreneurs out of the se provinces and countries. This is not supported by statistics and should not be argued in a jur isdiction with a healthy economy and which is not and does not want to be a banana re public. This government rejec ts any suggestion that it should forsake its re sponsibilities to the citizens of this province in order to take

part in a futile tax giveaway contest with Alberta or with any other jurisdiction. Some have predicted that there will be a mass shift of assets out of Manitoba to Alberta or perhaps to other province s as individuals search for tax havens. Probably those who are suggesting this now are the same ones who predicted it several years ago, and when Alberta first began to rebate its share of federal estate taxes they said there will be a massive exodus to Alberta.

To this date, I have seen no evi dence of any such shift to Albe rta, but apparently the Member for Souris-Lansdowne knows of it and no doubt he will speak and give us statements, proof of the statements he makes. No doubt he will do that because he must , I am sure , hav e the integrity to wish to back up broad statements which are being made. And other members no doubt will want to do the same. Neverthele ss there is no ev idence that we have been able to find to indicate such a mass shift.

Nor did we find an indication of a mass shift ha ving taken place when Saskatchewan, which also instituted a rebate system soon after Albert a's , but which ended when federal estate was repealed on December 31 st of last year. If there's ev idence of such asset shifts we ought to know about it. The point is that relatively few sound long-term investment decisions are made on the basis of just one factor and particularly not on a potentially short-lived factor such as a tax advantage which can disappear at any time.

Major decisions are based on mark et , on avai la bi lity of skilled labour , on good transportation facilities, on low cost power and other basic considerations. All of which Manitoba can offer without comprising the equity principle in its taxation system, and all of which will continue to br ing us our share of investment in the future. At the same time, we will continue to receiv e significant rev enues from a progressive tax which will permit us to undertake necessary programs for the betterment of conditions for all the citizens of this province.

44 0 March 27 , 1972 (MR . CHERN IACK cont'd) ..... Let me now for a moment deal with the retroactivity feature of the proposed legislation. I' ve already explained why for re asons of equity the Government of Manitoba has re-entered the wealth transfer tax field; and it is for precisely this same reason that the legislation must be made retroactive to January 1st, 1972.

Any tax free gap between the termination of the federal estate tax on December 31 , 197 1 and the imposition of the provincial succession duty would en able certain weal th transfers to be made tax free and there is a good possibility that this could subvert and nullify the effectiveness of the legislation for many years to come.

We readily acknowledge that we would have preferred to have legislation in effect prior to the start of the curr ent year , but the sequence of events which I' ve outlined earlier , the general uncertainty and delays caused by the Federal Government's failure to respond to provincial requests for a deferral of this withdrawal decision, followed by hur ried consultation among the provinces to wards the end of the year after the federal collec tion offer had been made known, all precluded the presentation of legislation to this Assembly before now.

Inasmuch as the Federal Government agreed to collect succession duties for agreeing provinces the administra tive mechanisms of the Department of National Re venue were prepared on January 1st to deal with any immediate problems and I'm informed there have been no major probl ems in the interim period. Meanwhile , it was possible for all provinces to release a de tailed joint statement of intent outlining the specifics of the ir proposed succession duty acts and thus to pro vide considerable advance notice and thus assistance to estate planners.

In any ev ent, no tax will be payable under the Success ion Duty Act now before this House until July 1st of this year and all our proposed variations from the December announcements are to the benefit of the potential taxpayers so that no one, no one is adver sely affected by the retroactive features of this bill. Mr� Speaker, before concluding I'd like very much to express my personal gratitude and of cour se the apprec iation of my department for the invaluable assistance of our Legislative Counsel in the preparation of the legislation which is now before this House.

I'm sure it will interest members of the Assembly to know that Mr. Tal lin was requested by the Federal Govern ment, and specifically by the Federal Departments of F inance , National Revenue and Justice to do most of the basic technical work in the drafting of model legislation , not only for Manitoba but also for all prov inces which had agreed to enter into the succession duty and gift tax col lection arrangements with Ottawa starting January 1st, 1972.

I appreciate the fact that the honourable members have joined me in recognizing the quality of the service which is made by the Legislative Counsel and the rec ognition that he has receiv ed in this very area. I apprec iate the attention given to me by members present and I trust that we will continue this debate in a manner which will be productive of good thinking and good approach to this problem that is being pre sented to you. . .. .. continued on next page

March 27, 1972 441 MR, SPEAK ER: The Honourable Member for Minnedo sa. MR. DAVID Ro BLAKE (Minnedo sa): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconrled by the Honoura ble Member for Fort Ro uge that the debate be adjourned on this bi ll, 1m . SP EAKER prese nterl the motion and after a vo ice vo te declaren the motion carried. MF o SPEAKER : On the proposecl motion of the Honourabl e Minister of Finance. The Honourable. Minister of Finance. MRO CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honoura ble the Attorney- General that Bill No . 6, the Gift Tax (Man itoba) be now read a second time.

MR 0 SPEAK ER prese nted the motion. MR. SPE AKER: The Hon ourable Minister of Finance. MRO CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, the gift tax legisla tion which I now prese nt to this Asse mbly for second reading will be minima l in its direct revenue impact and marginal at most in its impact on individuals, But at the same time it will be extremely significant in its main roll which is to sa feguard the equity of the over-all wealth transfer tax system in this province anrl espec ially the effectiveness of the succe ssi on duty.

All nine of the ten provinces which are in the succes sion duty fieln have agr eerl on the importance of this kind of protective legislation, I mention the fact that Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia have been in the succes sion duty field for a number of years but they relied on the federal gift tax legislation fo r that kind of protection, With the withdrawal of the Federal Governme nt from that field these three provinces that I mention are now jo ining with the other six provinces in enacting legislation in order to protect this area.

In my remarks on the introduction of the succes sion duty legislation for second read ing, I outlined in consi derable detail the bas ic principle behind wealth transfer taxation. The same principle is applic able in respect to this bill. Without a gift tax to accomp any a succes sion nuty, inrleed without an integrated system involving both types of taxation, a major loophole would be available in the tax structure to which tax liability inequity could be effectively skirted.

The gift tax which this government pro poses is very si milar to the level formerly applied by the Government of Ca nada with the exception that the ma ximum rate of tax will be 50 per cent unrler the provincial legislation instead of 75 perce nt which was the top rate under the old ferleral law. We anticipate that Gift Tax Acts will be pres ented in the eight other provinces during legislative sessi ons this spr ing. These Acts will be administered on behalf of these provinces, except in the case of Quebec, by the Departme nt of Na tional Revenue for a three year period.

The Manitoba Gift Tax Act provides fo r a maxi mum yearly exemption of $2, 000 per gift to any one person, except a spouse who is entitled to $5 , 000 per year. The aggregate annual exemption limit is $1 5,000 with the exception of gifts to charity which will be exempt from taxes in almo st all cases. Gift tax rates will range from a minim um of 15 per cent on amo unts of $25, 000 and under to a maximum of 50 per cent on gifts in excess of $200, 000.

Any taxes payable will be calculated by the Department of National Revenue at the same time as income tax liabilities are determined in the spri ng of the year following the year in which the gift was made, As I indicated earlier, the number of Manitobans likely to be affected by the gift tax legislation will be very small in any given year, For example, during a re cent 16 month period the Departme nt of National Revenue reports that only 86 gifts in Manitoba were taxable, an average of half a do zen each month.

Since the old federal tax and the new provincial tax are very similar in form, it is anticipated that almost no Manitobans will feel any direct effects as a resu lt of the impo sition of this tax effective January 1st , 19 72. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. EDWARD McGILL (Brandon West) : Mr. Spea ker, I would move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Swan River, that debate be adjourned. MR. DEPUTY SP EAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Spea ker, on a po int of order.

I wonder if the Minister could pro vide us with copies of his st atements that he made. - (Interj ections) -- Yeah, but Hans ard won't be out for several days. MR. DEPUTY SP EAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHE RNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I would expect that it might take me as long to prepa re copies as Hansard will and there's no doubt that I did lea ve my prepa red text on oc casion, so I would suggest to the hon ourable member that he will get it in Hans ard fairly soon.

442 March 27, 1972 1\ffi, DEPUTY SPEAKER pres ented the motion and after a voice vote decla red the motion carried, 1\ffi, DEPUTY SP EAKER: The Honourahle Member for Inkster. 1\ffi, GREE N: Mr. Spe aker, I move, seco nded by the Honourahle the Member for Wellington, that Mr.

Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider the report of the Special Committee of the Legislatur e ap po inted to exam ine and revie w the application, effect and enforc ement of the amendments to the rules and standing orders of the Ass embly adopted on Thursda y, June lOth, 1971, 1\ffi, DEP UTY SPEAKER pres ented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House reso lved itself into a Commi ttee of the Who le House with the Honoura ble Member for Logan in the Chair, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE 1\ffi, CHAIRMAN: When the Commi ttee rose the last time we had dea lt with all the reso lutions up to

Section (

t) on page 4, (

t) passe d • , • The Honourahle Member for Rhineland. 1\ffi, FROESE: I don't go along with the sec tion that is before us -- this

section sa ys that where reports of Crown corpor ations are under cons ideration -- this does not mean that all the reports will be brought forward for dis cussion purpo ses. We know that Telephone and Hydro is brought before the Comm ittee of the House where we can discuss it but not so with other Crown corpor ations and I feel that this provisi on is inadequate and that we will only be allowed to dis cuss those reports which will be bro ught forward· by the government and I do n't feel that this is sufficient.

Had we had prope r reporting and prope r dis cussions I don't think the prese nt sc anda l in CFI would have come ahout. I think this would have been caught by the Commi ttee by giving it proper sc rutiny and by questioning them on the va rious aspec ts and I feel that the government in the past certai nly hasn't been thorough enough in looking after things.

This has been brou ght out because of the Commissi on of Inquiry that is pres ently sitting and the va rious matters that have come into public kno wledge as a result; and certainly I for o ne feel very strongly that with the advent of so many more Crown cor por ations that we should have provis ion in the Act - - in the rules - - whereby these matters wo uld com e forward as a matter of course.

And that we would be assured that we would have proper oppo rtunity of discussi ng these reports, I certainly take issue with the pres ent paragr aph.. 1\ffi, CHAIRMAN: The Honourahle Member for Inkster. 1\ffi, GREEN : Mr.

Speaker, I understand the hono urahle member's con cern and I merel y wish to say to him that I don't believe that there is anything in the rules which requires the calling of the Commi ttee; and yet traditionally parli aments beca use they wish to stay in existence, call the Committee, I would like the honour ahle member to note that in the Speec h from the Throne it was indica ted that the Crown corpor ations that this government has set up, the additional two Crown corporations -- I believe one is :the Mineral Explora tion Comp any and the Moo se Lake Loggers Limited -- that they would report to a legislative commi ttee and wo uld be repor ting at this Sessi on, It is also the case that in the pa rticula r sta tute setting up of a Crown corpora tion it may be called for the corpora tion to report to commi ttee, I believe that that is the case under Bill 17 wher e it sa ys that a report will be submitted to the Legislature - and I'm just trying tO reca ll the exact wording, but I know that it does call for reports to the Legislatur e of the corp ora tions con cerned.

I merely must insist that the Item (

t) doesn't deal with a rule change, Item (

t) merely indi cates what happens when we get before commi ttee. I think that the hono ura ble member should be aware that many o f the things that governments do -- as a matter of fact I would sa y most of them -- they do beca use they are com pe lled by things that are stronger than parlia mentar) rules. They are oom pelled by a respons ibility to account to the people ta doing certain things and if a government set up Crown corpora tions and did not have tho se accounting to the people I would think that the poli tica l pro cess wo uld take its effect.

So in view of the fact that the rules doe snlt ch�ge anything I would ask that the Hous e continue on the basis that reports from Crown corpora tions can well be demanded by members of the House, 1\ffi, CHAIRMAN: The Honourahle Member for Rhineland, 1\ffi. FROES E: Further to what ha s already been sa id we have no definition in our rules as to what const itutes a Crown corp ora tion. I feel that we should as members be ahle to

March 27, 1972 (MR.

FROESE Cont'd) ..•. .• .. < dis cuss under the approp riate item com panies in which the province will get a majori ty share of the investment and which will be contro lled by this government and for all purpo ses might not be defined as a Crown corpora tion, and I feel that this should also be provided fo r under the rules, The Minister sa ys that dis cuss ions can take place and the-governme nt will do it -- on many oc casi ons on 443 its own -- bring mat ters forward but I don't think that we should have to rely on the government bringing matt ers forward when we feel that there are issues that should be dis cussed and should be disc ussed very thoroughly in my op inion, that we should just have to dep end on the government to br ing matters forward, I think it should be in the rules whereby this would be as a matter of course, MR.

CHAffiMAN: (

t) passe d ... MR. GREEN : No, Could yo u read par agraph -- the last two par agraphs. MR. CH AffiMAN: The last two pa ragra phs ? -- passed. The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR, GREEN : Mr. Chairman, the passi ng of the last few para graphs merely passes the report. It will be neces sa ry fo r the House to adopt the report so that will be argua ble in debate.

The House is merely being asked at this sta ge - the Com mittee is being asked to pass the report and my previous experience is that once the report is passed we ask the Legisla tive Clerks to go through the rule changes to see which ones have to be put into the form of a forma l rule.

I refer specifically to the paragra ph on page 2 that was passe d, The Commi ttee agreed that con curr ence motions woul d be put on a departmental basis, that the staff would prepare these in rule forms and then that the rules as prepared by the staff in compliance with the report wo uld be moved in the House as constituting the new rules. I take it that that procedure is sa tisfacto ry, MR. CHAffiMAN: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR.

FROESE: Well I'm not quite sure at this po int whether by accepting the report we are already approving in pr inciple the vari ous changes that are incorpora ted in the other rules - beca use I take exception to some of them very strongly espe cially in connec tion with Rule 68 and the Rule 34 (b). I do n't know how the - well I guess he's the Deputy Hous e Leader, is that right ? - how do you refer to the former Minister of Mines and Natur al Resources who is acting as leader in this ca se? Beca use I wo uld like to speak on certain rules -- changes that are being pro posed in the balance of the report, MR.

CHAffiMAN: The Honourable Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not certain that I understood the honourable member, The four pages of the report have been passe d and have already been spoken to , all of tho se rules have been spoken to . The balance of the report as I understand it is the existing rules as changed and where clerical changes have been made necessa ry, tho se clerical changes, So the only part of the report which changes rules, and I'm looking at the Clerk to see whether I'm right, is the first four pages.

The other changes that have been made are merely changes which resu lt fro m the rules changes which have been made, If my honour able frie nd wants to now talk about the existing rules and changes that should be made to them, such as Rule No. 68 which was changed last year, I presume that he could do so under the general motion in which it will be propo sed that the rule changes be passed, If he wishes to do that let him go ahead and do so but I am merely indica ting that the only changes that are being ma de to the rules have already been passe d on - each of the items have been passed on and theref ore the debate should be limited to matters which my honour able friend wants to raise, MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member fo r Rhineland, MR. FROESE : Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure what the Minister sa ys because certainly rule changes are being ma de to which reference is not being ma de in the report that we've just passed. MR. GREEN: Well then he should dea l with those , I'm not awar e of those - unless those are the changes which I referred to where changes have been ma de merely to bring the other changes that we have made in compliance with our new rules .

But if he wishes to go ahead and deal with those questions and bring to our att ention rules that are being changed that we ha ven't already dis cussed where the change is in substance I imagine that he could do so. There is no -- there wo uld be no limit in that regard, MR. CHAffiMAN : The Honour able Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: If it's preferable I'll speak on it on the motion that will come forward later.

444 March 27, 1972 MR. GREEN: Move then, Mr. Chairman, that the Committee rise and report. MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee rise and report. Call in the Speaker. IN SESSION MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. JE NKINS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seoonded by the Honourable Member for Os bOrne, that the report of the Commi ttee be received, MR, SPEAKER presented the motion, MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside, MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, we're trying to sort out the new rules -- I don't know what they're working on, but I would like to speak briefly before we move ooncurrence of the rules. MR.

SPEAKER: • • • ooncurrence of the rules) we are moving a motion that the report of the Commi ttee be received. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, on the po int of order, perhaps it would be helpful if I ex pla ined again what I had in mind, if I may, What I had in mind was now to get the new rules as drafted by the Cle rk distri buted to the House.

There are some matters in the four pages which hav e to be formalized into a working rule; to hav e those distri buted and then move that the report of the Comm ittee be ooncurred with and at that point the members will have before them the rules which we have adopted in principle and will be able to raise the points that the Member for Rhineland wants to make and the points that anybody else wants to make. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris, MR. JORGENSON: • • • intention of the honourable member to move ooncurrence later this day ? MR.

GREEN : I intended to move ooncurrence when the actual changes in principles have been drafted into rule form so that would be I would think tomorrow or the next day. They would take the report to legisla tive oounsel and have him put those in the rules and they'd be on our desks before the motion is ooncurred with, bef ore the . . • MR. SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, I move, seoonded by the Honourable Minister of He alth and Social Development, that the Speaker do now lea ve the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Commi ttee to oonsider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MR. SPEAK ER presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill. MATTER OF GRIEVANCE MR. BE ARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise at this time on a personal grievance with respect to the position that the MLA for Thompson has taken in respect to -- ag ain the Grand Chief, Manitoba Indians and the reflection on the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood.

I voice my dis approval of this unfair criticism and I feel that I must take these steps to make it abundantly clear of what my position is. Unfortunately I find it's no longer possi ble to place the solida rity of MLA's of the north above the personal differences -- of our personal differences. Certainly in my mind the criticism of the MLA for Thompson has threatened the years of hard work and the uphill battle of the MIB to win the oonfidence and reoognition of the governments of both Mani toba and of Canada.

And this attack on the administra tion of the MIB oould well jeopardize the northern Manitoba oommunities' struggle to win self-government and .oontrol over their own financing. The work of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood is one of uniting the 54 reservations of Mani toba for the first time in our Cana dian histo ry, This organiza tion reoognized the need for strong lea dership and the unity of purpose. It is my understanding that together the Chief and Councillors representing all Manitoba Indians have managed to maintain this unity and iron out their own differences.

The Manitoba Indian Brotherhood became their voice when deali ng with both the Province of Manitoba and the Go-eernment of Canada. Grand Chief Dave Courchene has received· the unanim ous vote of oonfidence of all the chiefs in Thompson and through them the Indian people of Manitoba. The Manitoba Indian Brotherhood administra tion is reoognized by both senior governments and what further oonfirmation or show of oonfidence is required of

March 27, 1972 445 (MR. BEARD cont'd) •... that administration fo r Manitoba Indians. All monies received by the Manit oba Indian Brotherhood are accounted for through the usual business practices. I am assured that a private firm of auditors are hired to audit the books. Financial statements are submitted to the MIB directors fo ur times a year and then mailed to all chiefs and councils. Mo.st important though, Mr. Speaker, the various departments of government, both provincial and federal all demand audits of the money they transfer to the MIB fo r finan cing of their program.

This means that all money handled by the MIB is audited and accounted for to the taxpayer, the government and the Indian people. Mr. Speaker, selected representatives to this Legislature, is it our right to harr ass, offend and torment others in public life ? Is it our right and is it proper to use our office in such a manner that we become a one man gang bringing fear into the lives of other Manitobans ? Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the MLA fo r Thompson has used the same tactics that he employed to attack the United Way campaign and the work of the Mount Carmel Clinic.

He has condemned a man and the administration of an organization without any show of concern over what may be the effect. At no time has the MLA for Thompson given any concrete evidence to back up his statement. He does not give evidence of having a petition from chiefs and councils and Indian people of the reservation. Surely the Indian people would have made known their compl aint if there was general dissatisfaction with the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood administration.

I believe criticism is un foun ded, as what has been presented will be bound to increase the prejudice and dis crimination shown towards the Indian people; their struggle to achieve equality will once again be set back. And what is this type of attack supposed to achieve fo r the Indian people ? There is no doubt that since Indians are human there will be some that will be unhappy with their administration. To this extent, they will be no different than the rest of us.

There will be those who will feel that things are not happening fast enough and then there will be those who will not agree with the policies and programs of the administration ; but we hear of that every day in our life and particularly in this House. Then also, there will be the mistakes, since Indians are the same as the rest of us . I cannot really see how a public apology can undo all the harm this has caused through this type of out burst. Some of the mud that has been thrown is bound to stick and some facts will become distorted, no matter how clearly they are stated, and this, Mr.

Speaker, is the unfair part of it all. Mr. Speaker, I do not feel we need to become over-concerned about the leadership of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood, particularly under the administration as it now stands. I am convinced in my own mind that when the Indian people feel that it is time for a change they will make their feelings known and take the same action as anyone else does at election time. They don't need a kangaroo court tactic any more than anyone else in this province. I believe I am as acquainted as anyone else in this Hous e in the overall feelings of the Indian people of Northern Manitoba.

I find no evidence of any upr ising against the Indian Brotherhood. I personally believe in their programming, and in fact, look fo rward to the day when their achievements will be appreciated by all Manitobans. I close, Mr. Speaker, by appealing to all fair-minded Manitobans to close the gap and get behind the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood and give them the support that they need at this time. I think the time has passed when we can call people names, suggest allegations and then sit back and say, "now you prove it, you open the books and prove it". Because, Mr.

Speal.. 3r, as far as I am concerned, the books are open and have been open and I am assured they have remained open through the years that the MIB has been in operation. Going back in history, both of us, and all of us here will recall that the real problem of the Indians has been in the past that they have suff ered through lack of a unified group, that they have lacked one solid strong leadership. And in lacking unity, they have been split into reservations throughout the whole of Canada.

They have been split into reservations in each province and they have been rHvided against themselves and they have at last chosen the Indian Brotherhood organization to try and overcome this problem that they have been faced with ever since the white people joined them on this Continent. They are accomplish ing this and they are havillg their problems by people who are prejudiced in their own mind against such organizations, but they have risen, and they have these organizations in each province and they have one organization over the whole. I say to you, Mr.

Speaker, that they are on their way and they are not going to be stopped by eith er the MLA for Thompson or anyone else, and I woulri hope that he would take another look and join with us in wish ing them well and hoping that they can continue to carry on their deliberations with government and that the reservations

446 March 27, 1972 (MR. BEARD cont'd) . . • . will be able to become communities the same as other small towns in the rest of Canada: They will be able to be financed, they will be able to control the policies and programming for the people that live in those communities, and they will be able to branch out and enter into the education programming which is so important to them, so that they, too, may introduce an educational program which will help those children of theirs bridge the gap between the res ervation and the Indian culture and the Canadian way of life as we know it in white communities.

So it is I would call on this Hous e for unity and to overlook the prejudice of people out side of this House and assist the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood to get along with the job of repre- senting those people which they know best how to deal with. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson . MR. BOROWSKI : Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to speak on a grievance dealing with the same matter.

I am not going to rebut anything the Member for Chur chill said because I think his record since he has quit the Conservative party has been that he has indeed concerned himself with the problems with Indians, so I am not going to question his motives. The state ments he has made, I am sure most of us, or all of us can accept here. I think it's incumbent upon me to say a few words in view of the fact that! am one of the fig ures in the controversy, I had hoped that I could speak on the steps today.

I was invited and for the first time in my life I am ashamed to say that a handful of leaders of the Brotherhood - and I am sure that it's not the Indians but a handful of the leaders -- took the mike away and ref used to allow me to speak, to address the chiefs that were here. And may I make it clear off the start, 54 chiefs were not here and the Brotherhood that spoke there was not sp eaking for the 54 chiefs.

Some have come to my house and have expressed their views and they are certainly not in accord with the expressi ons made today on those steps, It was my intention to welcome the Indians fro m the various rese rves on the steps and I had hoped that they would remain in the House, they could hear the debate and welcome them here. For some of them it's the first time to come into the Legislature and see bow democracy really works and it's unfo rtunate but they have departed, My only hope is that the press will report suff icie ntly what we have said here that they may know the background to the argument.

It's fine fo r the people living in Winnipeg or the chiefs living close by - they are quite well inf ormed due to the press, but people living in remote communities si mply have no idea of what is going on. Mr. Courchene went on television last Friday and stated that he would produce the books after some prodding from John Harvard the host - he would produce the books in ten days so everyone could see where the money was spent.

And this was satisfactory, I am sure, to all of us, but lo and -�hold the neiXt thing we know, a request - a telegram is sent to the Premier, with copies I think to all the members of this Legislature, demanding that I Vil apDIDgize and; (

b) that I resi gn fro m the NDP caucus. Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't have to tell you what a clever and white man's ploy this is. It's like the Member for Inkster sa id, "verdict now, trial later. " What is the point of showing the book ten days from now if I am fo rced to say that ever� thing is hunky dory today? You know, that's a very clever ploy and one that I'm not going to fall into and I don't think anybody is going to fall for it. Mr. Courchene promised to show the books and I think he should show those books.

I am going to call his friends and his relatives bluffs by stating here and now that I will resi gn - I make that commitment to this House - I will resi gn, on condition that Mr. Courchene and those that control the books, the very few that control the books, will open the books to a public inquiry so people that are dealing at arm's length can examine it from both si des of the House and if necess ary, to set up an official inquiry; and also that he will make a commitment that if any of my allegations are proven correct, that he will resi gn as Grand Chief of the Brotherhood.

I think that that is a fair enough bargain. I am prepared to put my mouth where my money is and I hope that Mr. Courchene can do the same thing, I have preached, Mr. Speaker, equality among Indians and whites for a lot longer than some of these. pale-faced, two faced politicians that have been making statements in the last few days and I ask any reasonable minded person to look at the record. I know that Mr. Cour chene has made certain allegations against myself and the Minister of Highways and I intend to deal with them.

I think it should be also on our record, when it comes to fighting fo r the rights of Indians , that in 1962 it was Mr. Courchene' s father and himself who quit the council because Mr. Diefe nbaker, I believe, was going to give the Indians the right to vote, He didn't want the Indians to have the right to vote because they would lose their rights under the Treaty. The Chief from his rese rve tells me this. If this is incorrect, then I am sure it is very easy

March 27, 1972 447 (MR. BOROWSKI: cont'd) . . . . . to as certain whether this is true, But Mr. Courchene had fought against the right of Indians to have the right to vote because he was afraid that the Indians would lose their Treaty rights. So I think when it comes to our record of fighting for the rights of Indians, that I can place mine along with most of the members of this party and the Steelworkers Union in the North alongside anybody, whether it' s Indian, white or Metis.

I have also, and I really shouldn't even mention it, when I was pa id an extra $1500 two years ago - the first place I gave that money is to the Indian and Metis, There are a lot of good causes in this province but because I felt strongly about their plight, I donated that money. I don't expect any bouquets but I simply bring it to the attention so those that may have forgotten that they will be reminded again that it's not mere words that I give, but that I've proved my concern for the Indians by my actions.

At the same time while preaching equality, I have also stated to the Indians on many occasions that if you want to have true equality in this country, that you are going to have to give up the notion that you can hunt out of season, kill 2, 3, 5, 10 moose or deer and sell them to someone else. You are going to have to give up your privilege of hunting or fishing out of sea son and getting limits that we white people cannot get, and you are going to hav e to pay taxes like any other man. Now maybe there are some members in this House that disagree with that philosophy. I don't know.

But I believe and I have said it to Mr. Courchene, and I have sa id it to Mr. McLeod and other Indians and Metis, that they must take the position publicly if they want equality, that they are going to become taxpayers like anybody else in this country which they are not now. The road projects we had in the north, I think that most of us agree were good but the fact of the matter is that no taxes were paid be cause of the Treaty that they have with the Queen, with Her Maj esty.

I think this is one of the things that we are going to have to resolve when we talk about equality; you cannot have that kind of equality when some people have more privileges than others. I would like to briefly go ba ck, Mr.

Speaker, now to the bush clearing when we stated this government and myself as Minister - that we are going to initiate a program in this province that is going to truly put the Indians and Metis on an equal footing, We negotiated the first agreement with the Indian band, chief and council, at Nelson House -- may I point out that the chief could not speak English, could not write, he signed an agreement with an ''X". That' s no fault of his.

I simply bring this up because it has a bea ring on some of the statements that were made by the Brotherhood today, We told them that you can hire and fire and supervise and do as you like on this job and I believe that that was true equality. It worked well. We ventured into several such agreements and they have worked out very well. The chief

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-4-20
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 4th hansardpdf 20.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7f2851ee9e5ba73543a833d3e1243dff47b22feb

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