Manitoba Hansard — 18 May 1973 (Sitting 110, 29th Legislature, 5th Session)

29-5-110

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGI SLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 o'clock, Friday, May 18, 1973 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees; The Honourable Member for Logan. REPO RTS BY STANDING COMMITTE ES 3033 MR. WILLIAM JENKINS (Logan): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the First Report of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments. MR . SPEAKER: We•re just waiting one moment until the Clerk gets back. MR. CLERK: Your Committee met for organization and appointed Mr. Jenkins as Chair man.

Your Committee recommends that, for the remainder of this session, the quorum of the Committee shall consist of 16 members. Your Committee has considered Bills: No. 4 -

An Act to amend The Highway Traffic Act (1) . No. 15-

An Act to amend The Married Women's Property Act. No. 16 -

An Act to amend The Tortfeasors and Contributory Negligence Act. No. 25 -

An Act to amend The Mortgage Brokers and Mortgage Dealers Act. No. 30 -

An Act to repeal The Small Debts Recovery Act. And has agreed to report the same without amendment. Your Committee has also considered Bills: No. 2 -

An Act to amend The Garage Keepers Act. No. 20 -

An Act to amend The Queen's Bench Act. No. 26 -

An Act to amend The Real Estate Brokers Act. And has agreed to report the same with certain amendments. All of which is respectfully submitted. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR . JENKINS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Osborne, that the Report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MR . SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports; Notices of Motion; Introduction of Bills; Oral Questions. The Honourable Member for Thompson. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR . JOSEPH P. BOROWSKI (Thompson): Yes, I have a question for the Attorney-General.

I wonder if he could indicate whether he consulted with all the police throughout Manitoba before he decided to get rid of the slips that you have to sign at the various liquor outlets in Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. A. H. MACKLING, Q.C . (Attorney-General)(St. James): No, Mr. Speaker, I did not personally consult with them. I think that representations in all likelihood were considered by the Liquor Control Commission Board themselves. MR . BOROWS KI: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Attorney-General has had complaints from various police forces that there's going to cause a problem insofar as enforcement is concerned to those under age who purchase liquor. MR . MACKLING: No, Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable House Leader. ORDERS OF THE DAY - SECOND READING - GOVERNMENT BILLS HON. SIDNEY GREEN, Q. C. (Minister of Mines, Resources and Environmental Management)(Inkster): Mr.

Speaker, just before we get to the Order Paper I would like to obtain the consent of the House that all bills from now on, and indeed all bills that were not previously referred to Law Amendments Committee, be referred to Law Amendments Com mittee rather th.an the other Standing Committees so that --(Interjection)-- Well, of course, except the bills that do not go outside of the House. There have been several bills that have been referred to Municipal Affairs Committee; I think one or two to Agriculture.

We would prefer to have them dealt with by Law Amendments Committee and all future bills go to Law Amendments Committee

3034 GOVE RNMENT BILLS MR . SPE AKER: Is it agreed ? (Agreed) The Honourable House Leader. MR . GREEN: Would you then call Bill No. 52, Mr . Speak er? MR . SPEAKER: The proposed motion of the Ho nourable Minister . MR . GREEN: Oh , excuse me , Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry, No . 55 . BILL NO . 55 May 18, 1973 MR . SPEAKER: The proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Labour . The Hon ourable Minister of Labour . HON . RUSSE LL PAULLEY (Minister of Labour)(T ranscona) presented Bill No . 55,

an Act to amend The Civil Service Act, for second reading. MOTION presented. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister . MR . PAULLEY: Mr . Speak er, this bill contains a number of amendments to the Civil Service Act. Honourable members will recall that when the Speech from the Throne was read, there was an indication at that particular time that there may be a new Civil Service Act pro posed for the consideration of the Asse mbly. Following that, however, it has been deemed advisable by my colleagues that, rather then have a complete revamp of the Civil Service Act, that certain amendments should be made.

Honourable members have now received copies of the bill to amend The Civil Service Act, and I ask their ser ious consideration to the provisions contained in Bill No. 55. There are a number of provisions in the bill, which I now propose for the consideration of the Asse mbly, of a more or less technical and housekeeping character. It could well be , Mr.

Speak er, that members of the House have followed the one or two matters that have been under contention and within the Civil Service Act, and in particular a matter that was referred to the courts as to whether or not the Management Committee of Cabinet, which of cours e, Mr .

Speak er, was es tablished by the previous administration, had the right finally to decide whether or not that committee had the right to decide whether an appeal by our Civil Service should be referred and conclusively agreed to by Management Com mittee , or whether an individual asking for reclassification and making an appeal, should have that appeal for reclassification, should have it referred to the Civil Service Commission rather than Management Committee .

The matter was referred to the court and the court decided that the appeal should be made to the Civil Service Commission, and one of the provis ions , Mr . Speak er, in the act, which I now present for the consideration of the Asse mbly, es tablishes that point. There has been some doubt whether or not the present Civil Service Act makes provision for a clear definition of various categories of employees within the Civil Service , and it is hoped that the amendments that I now suggest for consideration will delineate those various categories of employees . Another

section that is proposed in the amendment, Mr . Chairman, or Mr . Speak er , excuse me , deals with the matter of the number of Civil Service commission ers . In the present act there is provision for three Civil Service commission ers . I•m sure that honourable mem bers will recognize that due to the increase in the number ofcivil servants , due to the increase in appeals for reclassification to the Civil Service Commission, that it may be advisable to in crease the number of Civil Service Commission ers . And in the bill that we have before us , Mr .

Spea ker , there is the provision that there should be not less than three Civil Service commis sioners . And I want to indicate , Mr. Speak er , that it is not the intent of the present adminis tration to have as many Civil Service commission ers as we may have Civil Service employees, but to have a provision whereby we can go beyond the three , because at the present time , Mr . Speak er, the Civil Service Commission is overburdened with work. A few other provisions in the bill before us , Mr .

Speak er, are aimed at the clarification of the administrative procedures following reclassification of an employee's position and his subsequent promotion to a new level of position. Another provision goes forth to clarify former wording regarding a demotion for other than disciplinary reason s , with regard to the rates at which the employee is to be p·aid, In the present act it seems , Mr. Speak er , that there is no clear-cut definition as to what rate of pay an employee who may be demoted should be paid, and it is our purpose in this act to clarify that situatio n.

And as I indicated in my opening remarks , Mr. Speak er, one of the

May 18, 1973 3035 BILL 55 (MR . PAULLEY cont'd) . suggested amendments in the act is to provide a mechanism for the investigation and the hearing of appeals on selection, apart , separate from the normal appeal procedure. The present system allows the Civil Service Commission to hear appeals on matters which originate from its own decisions on selection. Then there 's another

section in the amendments that I now propose , Mr . Speak er, to allow the probationary period to be extended in favour of an individual employee rather than an entire class of positions . I don.•t know if my honourable friends are interested in the Civil Service Act or not, Mr. Speak er, but I do want to point out that there is confusion in the present act as to whether or not the probation period, which is six months at the present time , can be extended or whether or not it should be extended. Pardon? Yeah, that 's right, and I hope my honourable friend from Rock Lake will have some quest ions . Then, as I indicated previously too , Mr . Sp eaker , a

section is amended to clarify that the right of appeal exte nds only to those matters which are appealable under the act and the regulations . This wasn't clearly delineated before . Amendments are proposed to provide for the appointment of temporary employees con. sistent with the unique defined categories of employment. Under the present act it is not clearly delineated what really is the position of term employees and it is hopeful that under the pro posed amendments that this will be more clearly put forth. I1m sure , Mr.

Speake r, that one of the major changes in the amendments that I now pro pose deals with the rights of the civil servants to participate in political affairs , and we are proposing in these amendments to update current government policy regarding the rights of Civil Service personnel respect ing elections. There are a number of other references in the act , Mr. Speak er, of a purely technical nature , in order to more clearly indicate the status of our Civil Service apart from the rights of participation in political elections and involvement. I realize , Mr.

Speak er, that in proposing the amendments that are contained within Bill 55, that there may be some individuals that may question the advisability of allowing civil servants to participate in the democratic process of government. It is our opinion, Mr. Speak er, that our Civil Service should not be classified as second-class citizens in Manitoba . I realize as the Minister responsible for the Civil Serv ice , that this is a matter that has had a conside rable amount of consideration over a number of years. I am firmly convinced, Mr.

Spea ker , that the time has long gone by when we should deprive our Civil Service from the opportunity of exercising their democratic rights as participants in political matters . I recall , Mr . Speak er, that when I was a member in opposition that the nephew of a former Premier of Manitoba was threatened with dismissal because he dared to become a nominee of a political party. Surely to goodness, Mr . Speak er, we have advanced beyond that stage . Having said that , Mr .

Speak er, I realize quite fully that there may be certain classi fications of individuals within the Civil Service that should not be included in categories that have the right of participation, due to the area of confidentiality. They are not deprived from their rights of participation, Mr . Speak er, by this act precisel y . Hitherto any civil servant of Manitoba has had the right to participate in political affairs providing he or she withdrew their services within the Civil Service . The purport of a

section dealing with political involve ment makes it possi ble for all of our employees , Mr. Speak er , to become involved, with the exception of Deputy Ministers and those designated by the regulatio ns --(Interjection)-- I didn•t hear my honourable friend. Pardon? --(Interjection)-- I didn't hear my honourable friend. --(Interjection)-- Yes , I' m glad that my honourable friend will participate , and I trust and hope, Mr .

Speak er, that he will agree with me that we have made advances, that all Manitobans should have the opportunity of free participation in political affairs , and that of course is a basic principle of this bill. Mr . Speak er , I realize , I realize that there has been a controversy in this area. I real ize , Mr . Speak er, that some of the members of the Manitoba Government Employees Associ ation have raised objections to suggestions that I have made in the past of Civil Service per sonnel being allowed to participate in political affairs . I realize , Mr .

Spea ker, that certain members of the executive of the Manitoba Government Employees Association are on record as opposing the extension of the democratic process to allow participation in political affairs by civil servants , but I do want to point out, Mr. Speak er, that at a number of conventions of the Manitoba Government Employees Assoc iation, a majority of the membership have agreed

3036 May 18, 1973 BILL 55 (MR. PAULLEY cont'd) . • • • • that they should have the right of political involvement. think the majority is right, even though it may be a relatively small majority. But, Mr. Speak er, to deprive any individual who happens to be engaged in the Civil Service of Manitoba his or her rights of participation, I think is wrong in the face of the advancement of our parliamentary system and our freedom of participation in political affairs. I can appreciate , Mr.

Spea ker, that there may be certain individuals within the Civil Service that may not desire to become involved in political participation for the fear that they may be prejudiced against by any politi cal party that may form a government of the Province of Manitoba, but I do suggest, Mr. Speak er, that we should have every respect for the intelligence of the Civil Service person nel in Manitoba, that before they make their decision as to whether or not they may become partici pants in a political campaign or an election, that they should -- and I'm sure that they will, Mr.

Speaker -- realize pos sible consequences of them standing on their own two feet as New Democrats, as Conservatives, or as Liberals , or as Social Credits or Independents. --(Int erjection)-- I beg your pardon? That they should be allowed to make their decision as to whether or not they should designate themselves as supporters of any or no political party in Manitoba. I do not think, I do not think, Mr.

Speak er, that these people have that right under our present Civil Service Act, You know, in many jurisdictions we have had a situation whereby on a change of government there has been treme ndous change within our Civil Service. Mr. Speaker, over the years that I have been a member of this Ass embly under ·a Liberal, under a Conservative , and under a New Democratic Party government, there have been rela tively few changes within our Civil Service. But, Mr. Speaker, our civil ser vants have not had the opportunity of participation and I think that they should have.

A provision of the act that I present now for the consideration of the Assembly , says in effect that if a Manitoban, albeit he or she is a civil servant, will have the right to seek political office as a candidate. If success ful, in effect it would mean that they are qienibers of this ·Asse mbly; if they are not successful, then they have the opportunity, Mr. Speak er, of being reinstated, --(Interjection)-- and in deed protected, or I sa y, Mr.

Speaker , and I'm glad the Honourable Member for Lakeside raised that question, because I am convinced that any government would accept the right of an individual to run and to be reinstated. If we are going to prejudice against an individual, and I use as an example , Mr. Spea ker, if I as a Minister for the Civil Service Commission, would not allow a Conservative who ran in a political campaign to go back to his job, or to her job, I think I would be violating the general principle of democratic participation in an election and I should be faulted, And I trust, I trust, Mr.

Speaker, that if this act is accepted and we are not the government following a general election, that whoever may be our successor will take the same posi tion as I am taking now. I will not -- and I make this pledge -- prejudice against any individual who declares himself as a candidate in a political campaign, --(Interjection)- Yes , that's right, or anywhere else. I think, Mr. Speak er, this is something that we have got to come to realize , that the employees of this corporation, and indeed, Mr.

Speak er, it is only a corporatio n, should not be deprived of the rights that they may have if they were employees of any other corporation, and that is the situation that•s prevailing at the present time. Indeed, Mr. Speaker , I am of the perso nal conviction that we should introduce legislation in this House to prohibit any employer in private industry or private enterprise , we should prohibit any employer from prejudicing against an employee who is desirous of taking

part in a democratic process of government, But I do think, Mr. Speaker, that we have an opportunity, as a government and as an Asse mbly -- and I think more importantly, Mr. Speaker, as an Assembly -- to set a pattern for partici pation. Pardon? Appealing to the same Minister ? Of course.

It's through a board, it's through a board, the Civil Service Commission, whom we presume to be , and I trust that they are , an independent board, because the Appeal Board, Civil Service Commission, after having once been appointed is respo nsible to the Legislature of the province, so I think the point of my honourable friend is . • . Mr.

Speak er, I think, as I have indicated on a couple of occasions or points in my in troduction for the second reading of this bill, I have indicated that we, not as government precisely, but we as an Asse mbly and the employer of a group of men and women, that they should have and should not be denied the rights and privileges that each and every one of us in this Asse mbly has insofar as political involvement is concerned. I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that insofar as the Manitoba Government Employees Association is concerned, that

May 18, 1973 3037 BILL 55 (MR . PAULLEY cont•d) . . • . . by a majo.rity vote that associa tion desire to have the right of being free citizens in a free society in a free province of Manitoba. I think that we should give them the right of this participation. Mr. Speaker, I ask you, why should not the man or the woman who comes into our offices to clean them up, why should not the man or woman who comes around with a mop to clean the corridors of this Assembly after we get out of he re at 2:00 or 3:00 o' clock in the morning, have the right to participate in the political process ?

That is deprived to them at the present time. --(In terjection)-- Well, my honourable friend from Rhineland says , have I installed a shredder; my answer, of course, to my honourable friend, Mr. Speaker, is no, but we have prohibited, we have prohibited the person who may operate the shredder from being a participant in the parl iamentary process . That , Mr . Speaker, is one of the basic principles of the Act or the amendments that I now propose for the consideration of this Assembly. In all due respect, I think the main and major question for the consideration of the As sembly , Mr.

Speaker, is: Are all Manitobans Manitobans , or should those people who serve the people of Manitoba be deprived of the right of full participation ? That is the basic principle of Bill No . 55. I realize that there may be some questions in the minds of some. I can realize , Mr. Speaker, that in certain instances there may be some question of the employer being prejudiced against the employee .

I trust and hope that at least we have reached, as employers -- and that•s what we are, in this Assembly -- I �rust and hope that we have reached a plateau that we can give to others what we deem to be our privileges and our rights in a free society . That was the purpose , Mr . Speaker, of Bill No. 55. I ask all members of this House to give me, as the sponsor of this bill, their support and to remove for once and for all the prejudice s, the restrictions , that are placed on the Civil Service of the Province of Manitoba. And I say, Mr .

Speaker, in conclusion, that many other jurisdictions have removed, with limitations it is true , the restrictions of participation in a free society . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR . HARRY J. ENNS (Lakes ide): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr .

Speaker, I should state at the outset that, having just listened to the Honourable Minister of Labour 's explanation of Bill 55, · that to some extent I would make the remarks I would choose to make at this time as the private Member for Lakeside , not necessarily as the Deputy Lea der of the Progressive Conservative Party, not having had occasion to caucus the bill. Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that it is so easy, indeed Mr.

Speaker, so very easy to concur and agree with the Honourable Minister of Labour's final remarks that he wishes that all members in this Chamber concur with the bill that he is now sponsoring; becau se, Mr. Speaker, when you accept it at its surface level, then surely the Minister of Labour has a very legitimate point. Why, Mr. Speake r, should a person's employment or station of employment, with whom he is employed, be a factor as to is participation in the political affairs of this pro vince ?

And one is just about rushed into supporting without further comment, without further dissent, the bill now being proposed by the Honourable Minister of Labour . However, Mr . Speaker, it is not that simple and I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that unaware to most Mani tobans , to those Manitobans now sea ted in the public galleries in this Chamber, much less the millions that are -- the less than million, pardon me -- that are out of this Chamber , that it is a pretty significant and a pretty important bill . It hasn•t escaped my attention, Mr.

Speaker, that it is -- this compulsion to pass this kind of legislation is concurrent with the kind of totalitarian regimes that have been under some dis cussion in the last few days in this Legisla tive Assembly . It was very important to a Mr. Adolf Hitler that all those who worked for him should be in a position to politically support the party. It is very important, Mr. Speaker, in most totalitarian social regimes, that you are a prominent person politically, and I suppose , Mr.

Speaker, that we should not be all that surprised that it is a Socialist regime in this prov ince that now chooses to bring forward this particular piece of legislation. Well, Mr. Chairman, let•s exam ine the legislation, let's examine the words that the Honourable Minister of Labour has just told us about how wonderful it is that the Civil Service should fully participate in the political affairs of this province. And, Mr .

Speaker, like so many, like so many other Socialist pipe dreams, it sounds so beautiful and it sounds so nice , but now let•s give you a practical example of a director of the Minister of Labour out on the hustings saying that the Minister of Labour "is a no good gook; has never done an honest day's

3038 May 18 , 1973 BILL 55 (MR. ENNS cont'd) • • • • • work in his life; every Policy that he stands for I deny. He is deliberately mislea ding the people ," And the Honourable Member from Flin Flon tells me, the Honourable Member from Flin Flon tells me that after he has run that kind of a campaign for ninety days, that the Honourable Minister of Labour is going to take this member back into the Civil Service, welcome him with open arms, and say, "My friend - let bygones be bygones. You 're a trusted member of the Civil Service. Your full rights are restored. Your se niority is restored .

Here is your Position, here is your pension plan; and in fact, when next your name comes up for promotion, I will have and bear no prejudice against you. I will bear no prejudice against you." Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the reality of what the bill that we are dealing with talks about. And, Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to take it both ways. I'm not prepared to indicate whether I want to support it or not. --(Interjection)-- No, no, Mr. Spe aker.

On my job, my official job as a representative of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, is to tell some of you fellows what the implications of tha.t bill is, and I• ll tell you what some of the implications of that bill is.

The implications of that bill is essen tially that you want to duplicate, or you want to move towards the American type of Politics where, when a Republican President walks into the Capitol, into the White House, 7, OOO Democratic employees leave and he 1s followed with 7, OOO Republican employees , Do you really want to, or have we arrived at that stage in our Politics in Manitoba ? --(Interjection)-- Well now, Mr. Speaker, let's get something esta blished very clearly.

The Honourable First Minister has on several occasions, on numerous cases, indicated that this government, his government's record is as good as any other government•s record, and he has referred to a particular government in this Dominion as having kind of stood out for the kind of action that I deplore, and the main one, the one most often referred to, or the action taken by the then Premier-elect, Premier Thatcher of Saskatchewan, and his particular actions and his treatment of the Civil Service of Saskatchewan when he took power. Mr.

Speaker, there is no question about the veracity of the statements made or the reference made by the First Minister when he refers to that situation, Mr. Speaker, although not involved in this policy at all, but I recall, it seems to me, a picture in the newspaper of the Premier-elect kicking in the door of the out going Premier Douglas which certainly set the state of the kind of hostility, the kind of hostility that existed under those circumstances. But, Mr.

Speaker, when the First Minister attempts to equate that situation with for instance the change of government from the Liberal adminis tration in this province in 1958 to the Conservative administration in 1959 , that is not a fair, that is not a fair anomaly at all, Mr. Speaker. Well okay. The lawyer of the House has cor rected me - it's not a fair analogy - analogy - not a fair analogy at all, because, Mr.

Speaker, the fact of the matter is and the truth of the matter is, and I'm sure not too many people in this House will deny, it was since 1959 , 160, 161, 162 that the Civil Service of this government and this province was born, in its stature that you now have, in its stature that you now have it, and that there was not a question of firing people or moving people out because of their past political assoc iation, indeed it was an honest and a hard search for capable men and women of this pro vince to serve the kind of expanded programs and Policies that a progressive government was prepared to bring to Manitoba at that time.

Now 'that•s a good statement and I even got a smile out of the Minister of Finance for . . . , Well now, Mr. Speaker, okay. --(Interjechon)-- Well now, Mr. Speaker, I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, that if those employees want years, and, Mr. Speaker, there is no ques tion that they, as other citizens of Manitoba, desi:irve the kind of consideration that is contem plated in this bill . --(Interjection)-- No, Mr. Speaker, he does not have my automatic supPort. Because, Mr.

Speaker, in his explanation of the bill the Minister of Labour, you know, came through with those operative phrases that those non-socialists in this province have become, you know, wary of, that they the government will decide which classifi cations of civil ser vants are going to enjoy the benefits of Bill 55, --(Interjection)-- Mr. Speaker, no, no. Let's not confuse the issue.

Let's not confuse the issue , It is in the hands of -- with all this window dressing that the Minister of Labour is bringing forward, the fact of the matter remains that it is in the hands of the politicians opPosite that will decide which particular classification of civil servants have the privilege of running for public office. Now despite all that little sentimental garbage and tripe that the Honourable Minister of Labour just gave us about the person sweeping the floors or cleaning out our caucus rooms just

May 18, 1973 3039 BILL 55 (MR. ENNS cont•d) • . . • . a few moments before , indicated that it was obvious that there would have to be some regulation, some control. Exercised by whom? Exercised by the gov ernment of the day. Now, Mr . Speak er, I ask honourable members to examine their conscience on that particular question. I susp ect, Mr . Speak er , that before I can support that bill, Mr . Speak er, before I can support that bill and before my party can support the bill , then I would want that spelled out in the Act and not left to regulations .

And that if the government is not prepared to spell it out in the Act, then that they would have to be prepared to consider some amendments that we might want to bring forward to that Act, to spell it out in the Act bef ore we leave it to regulations . Well, Mr . Speak er , the Honourable Minister of Labour says it is okay. It is the principle, Mr . Speak er, that does give me my serious reser vations . Mr.

Speak er, I would like to think and I would like to suggest in the vein that the Honourable Minister of Finance not so long ago sugge sted a topic that he was , in my judgment unfairly, unfairly taken up on by members oppo site and misco nstrued, in fact it may be misconstrued by members opposite or indeed members of my own party if I now offer a similar kind of suggestion. I suggest, Mr.

Speak er , that rather than concerning ourselves with the denial of certain privileges to a certain group of people, namely the Civil Service in this respe ct, why can•t we divorce ourselves as legislat ors , as government , and as opposition from taking on that degree of -- and I•m trying to choose my words carefully -- total responsi bility for the actions of the Civil Service ? Why can't the gov ernment be just as exorcised when there is a transgression of resp onsibility or a wilful abuse of authority on the part of the Civil Service as we in the oppositio n? Mr. Speak er , I answer my own question.

As the matter stands right now, unfortunately we in the opposition are all too prepared and all too ready that the minute that a civil servant, a bureaucrat , somebody within the realm of human error makes a bad judgment, makes a mista ke , that we hold the Minister responsible and we ask him to answer for it in this House .

And certainly he is resp onsible and he does act, but my further question is -- and I'm not necess arily doing a good job in putting forward my idea -- but my further question is: why is there that necessity that I felt when I was a Minister, and I suspect that most present Ministers feel, that we automatically have to defend the actions of our Civil Service . I don't think we have to , I don•t think we have to and I don't think we should. I don't think we should .

I think they should be protected; they should be respected with all the tenure and se curity of office insofar as that they're performing their responsibilities properly , but an extension of that they do not deser ve , and that they should not be expected to receive from either members of the govern ment, their Minister , or members generally of the Asse mbly who are elected esse ntially to try to formulate policy and not accept the resp onsibility of the administration of that policy. None of us , Mr .

Speak er , in my judgment, in the argument that I1m advancing, including the Ministe rs , in the growing complexity of government can really expect an individual, a Minister, or 57 members of us to answer for every dotted "i" or crossed 11t11 as to how that policy is being carried out. And if it is being abus ed, authority is being overstepp ed, then the government should as willingly as we in the Opposition bring that to the public attention. Now, Mr . Speak er , under the present system, I susp ect, of course this is taking place.

If a Minister and if the government recognizes or sees this , I •m satisfied that within the realm of human possi bility action is taken. But all too often, Mr . Speak er, because of the kind of

interpretation, the kind of position that we have placed the Civil Ser vice in publicly and in this Chamber, they're accorded a special status that in my judgment bears further examination in this day and age . That all too often --(Interjection)-- True . The Honourable Minister of Universities and Colleges made a remark that I may not have understood or heard, but we feel that compulsion, that honour, that responsibility for persons who cannot answer for themselves in this Chamber, in this debate, that they must automatically be defended in this way. Well, Mr .

Speak er, I do not pretend to be a student of how other jurisdictions operate; I do try to read certain things , and I find for instance that in certain Scandinavian countries there is a greater degree of separation between the process of the legislative and the policy-setting act as compared to the es tablished Civil Service . Mr.

Speak er, I quite frankly hold out to you and through you to the honourable members of the government, that what I have reser vations about in this bill, that before we rush to -- in a very legitimate and understandable, you know, feeling about recognizing the rights of our fellow Manitobans, those employed in the Civil Service , recognizing their political rights , and

3040 May 18 , 1973 BILL 55 (MR . ENNS cont•d) ••.•. in my judgment we•re rushing into a situatio n, we•re rushing into a situation that wishes to recognize these rights , and they are commendable. There's no problem about that. But are we really prepared to give up a system that has served so well over the many years , and bas in my judgment prevented the kind of situations developing that we see in some jurisdictions where the Civil Service does become indelibly imbued with a political hue and the inevitable coming and going of Civil Service when governments change? That really worried me , Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Spea ker, it •s not the individual person that finds himself incompatible with the present government; it•s not the individual Minister that finds himself incompatible with the Civil Service. But these are questions that I think that we want to examine. I•m only suggesting, Mr.

Speak er, that I for one would be prepared to acknowledge that there have been instances where the mem bers of the Opposition -- I would be more specific if my colleague the Member for Riel were here -- where we have felt compelled, you know, to defend a particular civil ser vant or bis release or his firing, simply by the very nature of the kind of position that we're bound into, the kind of position that we •re bound into.

But I' m suggesting, I' m prepared to suggest in all seri ousness to the members opposite , that I would far sooner put my energies into developing and into sustaining a first class profession al Civil Service devoid of politics , devoid of politics and a Civil Service that would have to stand on its merits of performance and its administrative capability and be under the threat of constant attack from either side of this House. --(Inter jection)-- We ll, Mr. Spea ker , I recognize that, I recognize , Mr.

Speak er, that No. 1, I don•t speak from the best of pos itions because members opposite would be the first ones to say, "W ell now, that is fine for a Conservative spokesm an to put forward that idea." You know, having bad past occasions of government, many years of historical government where, if they should elect to choose or would like to allege that we have shown a degree of political favour itism with respect to the Civil Service , it is now fine for me to proffer this position because we are now out of office. But, Mr.

Speak er , just as the other night -- and I don't want to raise necess arily the debate of the other night -- this government now is choosing to formalize a situation . If, Mr. Speaker , members opposite feel that there was a degree of abuse or indeed a denial of privilege in previous years under previous administratio ns , just as they felt that perhaps up to now or in previous years there was not a formalized degree of political instruction to our high school stude nts which they now wish to change, well, Mr. Speak er, I make one simple plea, that we acknowledge what we•re doing.

I suggest to you the impracticabilityoftheir plea, oftheir program.

I suggest to you that of the four or five senior civil servants prese ntly working for the New Democratic Party, Assist ant Deputy Ministers and the like , who are going to be running in this election and who are going to be calling Harry Enns every name under this world; who are going to be calling Sidney Spivak that scoundrel, that thief, that man that absconded with 90 millions of dollars ; that are going to be calling the Member for Arthur that no good former Minister of Agriculture ; that are going to refer to the Member for Roblin that -- well, that fellow that writes letters to the Welfare Department, who are going to refer to the Minister of Education that digs up garbage -- (Interjection)-- Right.

And, Mr. Speak er , you •re telling me , you •re telling me that when we form the next government they are all going to be back in their Ass istant Deputy Minister jobs ? Well I want to tell you something right now. That •s utter garbage. Tbat•s garbage. And tbat•s the kind of system and tbat•s the kind of program you•re going to put the Civil Service into. And I only want to say one thing, Mr . Speaker. Let it be known that it is a socialist New Democratic. Party Government that is prepared to abuse the Civil Service that it took so long to build up in this province and bring it to that state. MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson . MR , GABRIEL GIRARD (Emerson): Mr. Speak er, I beg to move , seconded by the Member for Roblin, that the debate be adjourned, Oh, by all means , Mr. Speak er, if there are other spe akers I•d be glad to yield. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland, MR . JACOB M. FROESE (Rhineland): Yes , Mr. Spea ker. I would just like to make a few comments at this time after bearing the Member for Lakeside.

I was rather interest ed in bear ing the comments from the Minister of Labour when be introduced the bill in connection with the matter that was raised by the Member for Lakeside. I really don•t want to dwell in that aspect as much because I think, since be debated that, I will dwell on one other aspect.

May 18 , 1973 3041 BILL 55 (MR. FROESE cont•d) . . . . • I am rather interested in the matter of appeal that is set out in the Act. Under the selec tion appeal, if a certain employee does not get a job or does not get the job and another employee is hired, who does not have the merits in fact as is pointed out here in this provision , that the applicant can then go and appeal to the Minister and he can appoint an investigating person, investigator, to bring in a report to him and he then decides on the appeal. Mr.

Speaker, that type of appeal is similar to the one that was embodied at one time in the Fish Corporation Bill when it was first presented to this House some years ago, where the Minister was also set up as an appeal board. And tonight I heard Mr. Doug Rowland, the MP for Selkirk, on T.V. and he deplored the activities of the Fish Marketing Corporation, to which this government is party to, when the legislation was brought in. I remember, I recall that the bill was first introduced by the Conservatives early in 1969 and the matter wasn•t completed.

Later on the New Demo cratic Party brought in another bill, there were changes made and it was passed, so that we are party and parcel to the legislation that was set up at the time and enabled the federal corpo ration to function. An d tonight we hear by the MP for Sel kirk, that there is mishandling and shortages of stock and inventory and huge deficits. The Corporation is plagued by huge deficits and --(Interjection)-- Yes . The Freshwater Fish Corporation which has a plant here in Manitoba . • • MR . SPE AKER: The Honourable Minister state his point of order. MR . GREEN: Mr .

Speaker, I trust the honourable member is going to show relevance soon. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. The point is well taken. MR . FROESE : The Minister of Mines and Resources is very anxious that the story be short . I will come to the point that is . • . MR . SPEAKER: Order, please . MR . GREEN: Mr . Speaker, I would ask that the honourable member withdraw that remark . I have a point of order relative to his relevance in debate .

I am fully prepared to debate the Fish Marketing Corporation with him on a bill or res olution dealing with the Fish Marke ting Corporation, and he will come out second best, Mr. Speaker, in such a debate. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR . FROE SE : The relevance, Mr . Minister, is that the first bill had a similar clause of appeal, a

section in there as this one has, where the appeal was to be made to the Minister concerned. And we know the experiences that were experienced by the fishermen and the fish processors in connection with the redundancy clause . No payments were made to my knowledge. MR . S PEAKER : Order, please . MR . PAULLEY: There is no provision in The Civil Service Act for an appeal to the Min ister. It is to the Civil Service Commis sion. So when my honourable friend from Rhineland refers to an appeal to the Minister --(Interjection)-- Have you got the Civil Service Act amend ments ? MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR . FRO ESE : Well, with the Ministe r's permission, I will continue my comments . I•m speaking to . . . MR . SPEAKER: We are on Bill 55. MR . FROESE: • . • Bill 55,

an Act to amend The Civil Service Act, and under one of the provision s -- and I'd better read a portion of that into the record so that the Minister is assured that I•m referring to this particular bill: 11 Where an unsucces sful candidate for a position is an employee who is of the opinion that the appointment of another person to the position was based on matters other than merit, that employee may, in writing, appeal to the Minister who shall appoint a person to inquire into and investigate the matter and submit a report thereon to the Minister who, after receiving the report, shall decide the appeal, and the Ministe r•s decision thereon is final. 11 So the Minister concerned who introduced the bill will be the appeal -- the one to whom the appeal is made, and he will make the decision; and I was referring to another Act which had more or less a similar provision where the Minister too was the party to whom an appeal was to be made.

The original - 11m talking of the original bill that was introduced early in 1966 And there is still one appeal

section in the Fisheries Act and this has to do with inspection, but the earlier one had to do with other matters as well. But I think that when you make such

30 42 May 18 , 1 97 3 BILL 55 (MR . FROESE cont'd) . • . . . provisions , where the appeal is directly to the Minister, I don•t think that this is good legislatio n. So --(Interjection)-- We ll, I at least can state my opinion because the experie nces that we 've had in other legislation where we have had similar provisions for appeal, in my opinion they did not work out satisfactorily, people weren't dealt with satisfactor ily, we •ve heard from these people that they weren •t dealt with satisfactorily , so this is where I base my . . . MR. SPEAKER: Ord er, please . The Honourable Minister on a point of order.

MR . GREEN: On a point of order. The honourable member has referred to an appeal to the Minister in the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation Act. I sent him the statute . There is no such appeal. --(Interjection)-- But there is none in the Act that he is saying that there is an appeal to the Minister on. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR . FROE SE: Well, I have it right here , This particular one deals with fish inspection and the former one, the original bill the original bill dealt with redundancies as well. --(Int erje ction)-- I stated that the original bill . . . MR .

SPEAKER: Ord er, please . Let us stick to the bill we have before us and forget the Fish Marketing Corporatio n. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR . FROE SE : Mr . Speake r, there was one other matter that I wanted to comment on and that has to do with the retirement of commission ers, where we•re making it compulsory that he will have to retire at 65. I think that in this type of organization, if we can call it that, or at least commission ers who have had years of experience dealing with this matter, I don•t think we should have a fast rule that at 65 he would have to resign.

And we are now putting in such things into the bill, except if the Lieutenant-Governor in power sees otherwise . Well I think we as members on this side should have some say, too, and why not leave it open, why not leave it open so that we don •t have a fast rule in this matter. On the matter dealt with by the Member for Lakeside , I still have my reser vations , too, and I do hope that when we deal with this bill in committee that the spokesmen for the committee appear before the committee so that we can ask them questions and get some answers from them direct. in order to satisfy oursel ve s. MR .

SPE AKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR . STEVE PATRICK (Assiniboia) : Mr . Speake r, I wish to make a few brief obse rvations on this bill. I believe it is a very important principle involved in Bill 55,

an Act to amend the Civil Service . Aside from being a very simple housekeeping bill I do believe there's a very important principle and that•s involving the rights of the public civil ser vants respe cting elec tions . I see three very important items in it , that an employee would have the right to stand for public office, to run for public office , which in my opinion is one of the highest calling that any individual could have a right. I do believe that. There 's another principle involved.

There's nothing that would prohibit this same em ployee from supporting another candidate or supporting his fiscal policies and working for him. And also , the Act does not prohibit any employee in the Civil Service from getting involved to the extent except that he would not reveal certain departmental matters in a campaign, con fidential matters .

I do have some concern -- the Minister stated that this would not allow the Deputy Min isters -- I haven•t had the time to give real due consideration to this bill, but one can easily say that if you give this right to civil servants why not to a Deputy Minister, because he al ready is prohibited from revealing anything of confidential nature in respect of the department or very important figures. So, I see some difficulty in there because it does discriminate as far as certain civil servants are concerned.

On the other hand, we have almost 10 , OOO civil servants and to me I think it•s a basic right that they should have to stand for public office or have a right to endorse certain fiscal policies or endorse certain candidates. That•s my opinion. But while I say these things, Mr . Speak er, I am somewhat concerned that it is open to abuse and time will only tell, and this is the concern that I have at the present time . In my opinion it is a serious concern. Because, Mr .

Speake r, what happens , and I believe that I trust the Minister of Labour enough and perhaps he would have to send a memo to all his Min isters instructing them what should take place when this legislation passes this House, because in my time that I•ve been a member of the Legislatu re , I have never had any occasion before or

May 18 , 1973 3043 BILL 55 (MR. PATRICK cont•d) . prior, except this year, to have had several civil servants come to me and were quite concerned about the matter that I•ve brought to this House before.

And that was the occasion when the Minister of Agriculture had an opportunity to talk to his staff in the Fort Garry Hotel, and perhaps it was misinterpreted but the several ones that I talked to they came to me and they said, look, the Minister stated that we want you to get in volved in the next election, and their concern was -- and they were very sincere and quite con cerned and they were serious -- they said the concern is if we don•t get involved what is our position as far as maintaining a job, and if we get involved and say the government is not re elected, where do we stand then?

And this must be the problem of every civil servant. It must be, and I•m sure that many of them are concerned in this area. So I feel that there are dangers of abuse and we hope that this would not happen, not take place, and I would hope that there would be no pressure on any civil servants to get involved in any electioneering, it should be left to themselves if they wish to get involved. But as far as the right of civil servants stand ing for office or endorsing policies of a certain party or candidate I think it should be their basic right, and there's many of these people involved.

I do have some concern, Mr. Speaker, and I do not know if this is a standard clause in legislation, but I do have some concern in respect to the

section concerning appeals, and that is -- I•m sure that the Minister, I hope will give it some consideration because it states that where the candidate was not successful for a position as an employee and another person was appointed who perhaps did not have that same qualifications or merit and in case of an appeal --(Interjection)-- that•s right.

Yes, the Minister can appoint an independent, one individual to do the investigation and the report will go directly to that same MinistE:r to make the decision or not, so --(Interjection)-- that•s true, I know it doesn•t, but I think it•s a new clause in the Act, and I wonder should it not go back to the Civil Service Commission to do the report and then let the Civil Service Commission give that report to the Minister, instead of one individual who the Minister at his discretion may appoint.

It may not happen that the Minister would ever abuse his powers but there is that option to the Minister to appoint anyone he wishes; it could be a friend of a certain individual who feels that he, you know, didn•t get a proper treatment, or it could be the other way around. I feel maybe that report should be reviewed by the Civil Service Commission and then go back to the Minister again and let him make that decision; but I feel there may be abuse when the Minister himself will appoint any individual he wishes and that report will be turned back to him and he•ll make the decision.

So I hope that that will be reviewed or the Minister can give it some conside ration, because I feel it's - not that any Minister would abuse but that it's there, that it could be open for abuse. So, Mr. Speaker, these are a few of the points that I want to make on this bill.

I would hope that - would there be anybody from the Civil Service appear before Law Amendments or not, I hope that there would be some so that the members in the House could get some indica tion -- you know, what kind of support it has from the Civil Service; and it may not be 100 per cent support, might not be 75 percent, I don•t know, but I think that we should be able to ask then what support it has. But in my own personal opinion, and I'm not speaking for the Party, my feeling is that it is --(Interjection)-- well okay, I am.

But I think it's a basic right, you know, when you have that many people to seek office, but I do have some reservations in re spect to abuse. MR . PAUL LEY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my honourable friend would permit a question? He raised the question as to the exemptions contained within the Act, and if I may, Sir, refer to 44, subsection 2 which dealt with the question of the Deputy Ministers. Would he be amenable to the deletion of that particular

section so that each and every individual knew where they stood and that there were no exceptions for them, and that the judgment as to whether or not they would be participants . MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. MR. PAULLEY: I•m asking a question, Mr. Speaker, of the honourable member who spoke because he made this observation. I•m asking him whether or not the point that he was raising was that there should be no exemptions at all, Deputy Ministers or otherwise, and the onus was placed on the individual rather than on the position? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR .

PATRICK: .. . that was the observation I made, Mr. Speaker, because on one hand we're saying that we allow now any civil servant to support any political Party, to endorse

3044 May 18 , 19 73 BILL 55 (MR . PATRICK cont'd) ....• any political candidate , to endorse his fiscal policies, we•re saying that to civil servan ts, the majority of them; on the other hand we•ll say but still it shouldn•t apply to some Deputy Minister, or there may be two or three Deputy Ministers , and I think that we'r e showing discri mination in the legisla tion. For that reason I raise this matter. I know I'm finished speaking, I did have some other points that I' ve forgotten, that just came to my attention. --(Interjection)-- Yes . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompso n.

MR, BOROWSKI: Thank you, Mr . Speak er. As a former union man and a vice-president of a steel local in Thompson, I think that I have some opinions on this bill that should go on record. I haven't read the bill completely, Mr .

Speaker, and I don•t have to knowing the Min ister of Labour and his almost schizophrenic obsession of Swedish equalization for everyone, I know without reading what.is precisely in his mind, just as I know what they have in The Human Rights Act where they want to have ever ybody equal, even though we know that there•s some difference between men and women, the government is determined to make them all equal.

The Minister is determined to impose his idea of equality, whether it means the right to strike for a fireman when a house is burning or for the midwife or for anyone else , he is deter mined that everyone is going to be equal, Mr . Chairman. And I'm suggesting to him we live in a society where that is impossi ble , it has never been possi ble , it cannot be pos sible . We have , for example, in the trade union movement, which this government accepts , that you cannot belong to a union if you are a foreman, a shift boss or superintendent.

No one in the position of authority of demoting or firing or recommending disciplinary action or firing is allowed to join a trade union in this province. And we all accept that, Mr . Speak er . No union man wants to sit shoulder to shoulder with a company 11flunkey11 as we call him who tomorrow can walk in and discipline him and recommend his firing. We all accept that, Mr . Speak er . The Minister of Labour accepts it. It's impossible to have equality.

Even though in thfs case that foreman does not have the privilege accorded the union man, he does not have the right to grievance, the companycanfireh im without any reason. He can•t go to the union and say , I want a griev ance. He does not have any of the protection that union members enjoy. And we accept that. And I•m sure this government perhaps more than any other government accepts that, and I haven't heard of anybody attempting to change that . Mr .

Speaker, the bill that •s being presented to us is presented on a basis of freedom of participation for ever yone, that is whether you want to run for office or if you want to partici pate in the campaign; and I think the Member for Lakeside made an excellent case when he referred to the Deputy Minister. I am absolutely certain that if his Deputy Minister ran for any Party and sa id the things that is normally said during an election -- some of them say worse things than others -- that it would be impossible, even if the Minister wanted to it would be just impossi ble to work together with such a man.

The net res ult of this kind of legislation, Mr. Speak er, has to be that it's going to benefit only the government, because the only people who are going to run are those who are working for the government. If they are Liberals or Conservatives or Social Credits or whatever, they're not going to stick their neck out and run, because if they lose the election, or if the Party they'r e running for does not get elected, they know what•s going to happen to them.

So what person who has spent a great deal of time , and we have very senior civil servants -- when I say senior I•m talking in terms of years and se niority -- what civil servant is going to risk his years of work for a government and take a chance of getting fired, And he surely will get fired; there's no question in my mind that he will get fired. --(Interjection)-- Well a lateral transfer would be not bad, that wouldn•t be bad, but I just cannot believe that a person could run against the government -- and he will have more knowledge than other members of the House , he•s going to have a lot of information -- we seen that cute paper that was brought in here last night -- civil servants can find other such embarras sing papers to the government, and wave them around in front of the electorate , and what is the government going to say ? --(Inter� jection)-- The one about bringing in Bolshevism into the sc hools and Fascism and the Regina Manifesto Civil servants can turn around and I•m sure look under the rugs in the Minister's office and in other offices and they will find other such embarrassin g documents , and what is the Minister going to do, after the ballots are counted and that Minister is se curely in his office for another four years ?

May 18 , 1973 3045 BILL 55 (MR . BOROWSKI cont'

d) We know, for example, just in this Legisl ature, Mr. Speaker, we enjoy benefits that on one else has. I•m sure that the Mi.nister of Labour wouldn•t want to give the public the aquality we enjoy. You can get up .here and slander anybody, but under the laws of this pro vince you can•t be sued. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, you can· go and beat somebody up down the street, you can•t be taken to court until 40 days after the sess ion, So, is the Minister of Labour -- I mean, with his obsession with equality is he going to suggest that we•re going to give the public the same immunity to go out there and make slander ous charges against someone and not be faced with the prospect of court action? Of course not. Of course not. So his speech there that sounded so logical and so reasonable is a lot of baloney, Mr. Speaker, because he doesn't mean what he says and he has no intention of bringing that type of equality. And, Mr.

Speak!lr, I don•t mind telling you, I have no intention of fighting for that kind of equality either. We know there's a difference between men and women and we know there's a difference between a Minister and a Deputy Minister, and nobody, no laws in the world are going to change that. When we get to the point where civil servants can go out and campaign, what we •re really going to have, Mr.

Speaker, whether it's this government or the Conservatives, we're going to have a bunch of people on a government payroll assisting the government to get re-elected, because there can only be 57 candidates per party and at most, let•s say we have several dozen civil servants running as candidates. But there are several thousand that could be used to knock on doors and to use their vehicles to travel, to transport people, and to put up signs and to put up posters.

So it seems to me that this is a nice scheme for a government to get a lot of free assistance at the taxpayers• expense, and I don•t think that they should be al lowed to get away with it. We have, for example, in our society the ombudsman, the judges. There are many people who don•t have the same rights as other citiz ens and they have never asked for them and I don•t think anybody would suggest. The Returning Officer, for example, doesn't even have the right to vote. Anybody think that•s terrible? He can•t even vote in a free country.

And we all accept that because we know the system, the democratic system that we have as such, that certain people are deprived of certain rights and they know that before they take that job on. And when a Minister brings in a bill to try and change that, I suggest to you it can only create problems not so much for the House here as for the Civil Service, which we are told every time anybody gets up in this House, is the finest Civil Service in Canada. And I•m not going to argue that.

There's some deadbeats and meatheads in the Ci vil Service but I think by and large they're a pretty good bunch and they're doing a good job; they•re fairly competent. You don•t have the type of a pork-barrel system that the late Ross Thatcher had in Saskatchewan. When he walked in he put the axe or the boots to the Socialists that were in there because he couldn•t stand Socialists even though they were eminently qualified. I think he got rid of something like 280 of them because they were hired by that government. Nobody wants to see that, Mr. Speaker.

But this type of legislation is going to invite that, because there is ro way an incoming govern ment is going to tolerate and have those people who call them all kinds of names in election, continue to employ those people. Mr. Speaker, as a Minister of Highways I had twelve districts in a department and they were pretty well scattered throughout the province. A District Engineer had a large budget, some of them running into millions of dollars, and large staffs, trucks, cars and a great deal of authority.

And this authority was given, perhaps I gave them more authority than other Ministers had previously, as I as a working man have always believed that a guy who•s on the job knows more about what•s going on than somebody sitting in an office. And that District En gineer, whether he wants to campaign for the government or whether he wants to run as a candidate, is going to be in a position, in an intimidating position to all his employees. I mean what are they going to do, if he•s a candidate or if he decides to support the Minister of High ways? What are all those employees going to do, Mr. Speaker?

I leave it to your imagination. We have a better - I can give you a better example of how you can get into real problems. What about the well people that are on welfare? How can these people who are on welfare put up signs in the window supporting someone other than the government? We understand that the welfare queen herself, Una Deeter, is going to run in this election . --(Interjection)-- Well, Mr. Speaker, how is a welfare recipient and I don•t know how many there is in the constituency that she is going to run - how is a welfare recipient going to stick a sign on the window saying

3046 May 18 , 1973 BILL 55 (MR . BOROWSKI cont•d) ....• that 111 support the Conservative candidate" or the Liberal candidate? She wouldn't dare, because that welfare queen will know about it as she has the economic power of life and death over everybody that gets welfare in this province. - - (Inter jection) -- The Minister of Labour, Mr . Chairman, is saying to me that I am a sick man. Let that be recorded. This government here , they think they are so clever, they hired some pollsters to give them some idea of how popular they are and the polls must be fairly good right now judging by their actions.

Anybody who comes in here with critic ism, valid criticism of a very serious nature , they call you, they tell you you•re sick or there's something wrong with you. I• ve had that thrown at me time and again, 11T here•s something wrong with you. 11 Well, Mr . Chairman, Mr. Speaker, I am telling you as a union man that this bill, on the basis of what that Minister has told us , is going to cause chaos in the province and chaos in the civil servants, and they're going to be in effect using many civil servants to try to perpetuate themselves in office .

And that to me is repugnant and I am really shocked that the Minister would come with such a thinly veiled scheme to try and get the public to get him back into office. I hope , I hope , Mr . Speaker, that the Minister will get up and answer those questions , and if they're not answered properly that everybody on this side will consider defeating that bill, because it's not a bill to help the civil servants . I say it's a bill to help the governinent to get re- elected. - MR. SPEAKE R: The Honourable Minister of . • . MR.

GREEN: I believe that the bill wants-- unless somebody wants to speak, I believe that the Member for Emerson has taken . . • MR. SPEAKER: When moving the motion, when I gave the floor to the Member for Rhine land. The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. GIRARD: I would like to move, seconded by the Member for Roblin, that the debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL 61 MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, would you call the Bill No . 61. MR . SPEAKER: Proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of . MR. GREEN: It•s on the revised Order Paper . Some members may not have it. MR. SPEAKER: Bi ll No . 61,

An Act to amend The Income Tax Act (Manitoba) . The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON . SAUL CHERNIACK, Q. C . (Minister of Fi nance) (St. Johns) presented Bill No . 61,

An Act to amend The Income Tax Act (Manitoba), for second reading. MOTION pl'$Sented. MR. CHER NIACK: Mr. Speaker, it has been my pleasure in the last four years to intro duce bills and income tax bills which I have felt were worthwhile introducing and for which this government has never found it necessary to be apologetic but rather has been able to speak with pride about the tax adjustme nts and tax programs and attitude s that this government has to the _ purpose and principles arid policies related to taxation. The bill before us is' not a difficult bill; it•s not an extensive bill .

It deals withtwo matters. One is where it involves a housekeeping amendment to the Income Tax Act to provide parallel income tax treatment for mutual fund trusts and corporations in Manitoba as is provided in other provinces and, more important, to implement the changes in the Manitoba system of property tax credits announced in the Budget Address in March. The changes to the Income Tax Act affecting mutual funds are a vestige of the federal attempts at tax reform .

There 's the Benson document that was produced, there was legislation enacted by the Federal Government, comple mentary legislation by our government, but in this case the amendment is required to duplicate a pr ovision in federal legislation which is designed to prevent double taxation of capital gains once in the hands of the mutual fund and then again in the hands of the individual .

Accordingly, under this legislation, capital gains are to be taxed when realized by the intermediary the mutual fund, but the tax is to be refunded to the intermediary upon distri bution of the capital gain to the shareholder or unit holder . In this way, gains cannot be accumulated tax fee in the inter mediary, but the full amount of the capital gain may be distr ibuted to the shareholder or unit holder to be taxed at his own particular rate , while federal tax reform legislation covered only

May 18, 1973 3047 BILL 61 (MR . CHERNIACK cont•d) . • . . . federal tax refunds on these capital gains . Accordingly, legislation to be provided for parallel refund of provincial tax is required. Mr. Speak er, up to now I' ve not spoken with too much enthus iasm because I•ve been ex plaining what .has to be done to parallel federal legislation and is in accord with matters that have been bro ught to the attention of our government some number of months back, where we explored it .

It was brought to our attention by the mutual funds and the mutual fund companies , and we agreed that there was a danger of double taxation in the way the federal legislation was written. Representations were also made to the Federal Government and by general agreement it was felt necessa ry to make these changes to avoid double taxation on capital gains in these particular cas es . Mr . Speak er, what makes me somewhat comfortable to proceed with this bill is really the other portion of the bill.

That is the one dealing with several important amendments to the Income Tax Act which deal with the Manitoba system of property tax credits . And while the amendments appear quite minor in the legislatio n, they don•t take up much space in writing or on paper , let me assure all honourable members that their impact is quite , quite substantial. The base on which tax credits are allowed, is to be doubled to include all property taxes not just school taxes . This one change alone will double tax credit benefits for some low income Manitobans .

Furthermore , the benefits available under the plan are to be increased substantially for all property taxpayers under a new formula of $200 . 00 minus one percent of taxable income, to a minimum of $1 00 . 00 . Once again as last year, no one may obtain more in tax credits than he has paid in property taxes or in the rental equivalent of property taxes that now we speak of property taxes and not education property taxes .

And in order to ensure renters as well as homeowners added benefit from the expanded plan, the re ntal equivalent of property taxes for tenants now becomes 20 percent of the annual rent , which is double the 10 percent which was used in last year•s program . And, Mr. Speak er , I•d like to distribute and table and distribute to honourable members a series of examples, just so that honourable members will be reminded of the nature of this . These tables, this set of examples, Mr.

Speaker, were included in the March Budget present ation and show the impact of the 1973 Manitoba Property Tax Credit Plan on various family units by income level and family size . And I would ask all honourable members , or at least I would suggest to them that they pay careful attention to these tables. As well as illustrating the credit entitlements of a single taxpayer, married taxpayer, and married taxpayer with two dependents , the table shows the es timated distribution of bene fits under the new revised system of property tax credits . For example, Mr .

Speaker, for a married person with two children, the maximum benefit of $200 . 00 will be payable until that person's annual income approaches $4, 000.0 0. Benefits are scaled down to $1 89 .00 at $5, 000 income; $1 79 .0 0 at $6, OOO; $1 69 .0 0 at $7, OOO, and so on until the new general $1 00 .00 minimum benefit floor is reached at $1 3, 900.0 0. And people who earn beyond that sum $13, 900 will be recipients of the minimum of $1 00. 00 on the as sumption, which is a very fair assu mption, that their taxes are in excess of $1 00 . 00, their property taxes .

Tables also show the esti mated distribution of benefits . Almost every second tax filer eligible for tax credit will be entitled to maximum benefits . Among married couples, almost 40 percent can expect maximum benefits . For m arried couples with two children, over 30 per cent of those eligible for credits are likely to be able to claim the maximum. Wit h the new minimum level of benefits esta blished at $1 00 .00, all credit claimants will be eligible to claim at least $1 00 .0 0 except in some cases where , as I pointed out, the total property tax is less than $1 00 .0 0.

And in those cases the credit benefits will offset completely the property taxes for which they will be liable in the year. Our calculations indicate that of all pensioners who normally file income tax returns and are eligible for property tax credits , some 81 percent will receive the maximum $2 00 .00 credit and a full 92 percent will receive benefits in excess of $1 80 . 00. Mr .

Speake r, I ask you to compare that program with the protestations from the other side and espec ially from the Liberal Party, who are talking about assistin g pensioners in handling the additional burden of taxation due to rising costs . Of the pensioners who normally file income taxes, income tax returns , and are eligible for property tax credits , all but .3 percent will be entitled to credit amounts above the st andard $1 00 .0 0 minimum, again except where taxes are under $1 00.00. In such cases again, the full

3048 May 18 , 1973 BILL 61 (MR. CH ERNIACK cont'd) ..... property tax will be offset by this credit plan. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we expect that about 83 to 84 percent of Manitoba farmers who normally file in come tax returns, will enjoy the maximum.credit amount of $200. 00, while a further 12 1/2 percent will have tax credits of between $160. 00 and $200 . 00.

Thus, some 97 percent of eligible farmers in the province will be receiving benefits in excess of $160 . 00, and overall every eligible farmer will be entitled to a credit of no less than $10 0. 00, and of course I don't believe in any case does he pay less in property taxes than $100 . 00. Now, Mr. Speaker, this expansion of both the base and the benefit levels of the Manitoba Property Tax Cr edit Plan will direct $42 million to the citizens of Manitoba, a substantial relief particularly for those people of low fixed and low middle income people; $42 million, Mr. Speaker.

And when the Leader of the Opposition goes out and makes speeches, and his col leagues, about a $700 . 00 budget, never once do they admit --{I nterjecti on)-- $700 million budget, we think in millions when we talk about doing something for people in Manitoba.

And when they go out and they talk about a $700 million expenditure requirement by this government in this year, I haven't heard one of them, heard of one of them saying $42 million of that is a direct rebate into the pockets of taxpayers, of property taxpayers, and if you want to accept it then you recognize that of the 700 million this 42 is clearly a tax rebate. Now members opposite are waving their hands at me and I'd be glad to understand them, but if they're waving encouragement, I do appreciate very much their encouragement. Because, Mr.

Speaker, one can't help but become somewhat enthused about being able to develop a plan of rebate of taxation, of recognition of the fact that it is necessary to attempt to hold down the increasing costs of property taxation and at the same time do it on a selective basis so that the people who are most in need get most of the benefit. Of course, there's nobody waving encouragement across now because the party opposite and the party on my right and to their left are both committed J,'Rlblicly to across-the-board tax cuts, and that is something different. Quite different. Mr.

Speaker, I hope the people of Manitoba realize the difference. When the Leader of the Opposition goes out and says we will cut your taxes, he means we will cut your taxes across-the-board to everybody regardless of ability to pay. And we say, we have cut your taxes, we don't have to make promi ses. It's on the line, we've proven it. And we say we have cut your taxes, we mean we have cut taxes of all people who pay property tax, but in relation, with a measure, with a sense of proportion related to their ability to pay. And that's a matter of pride, it's a matter of pride for all my colle agues I know.

When we agreed on this proposal there was enthusiasm because last year we said we are starting a program which will be beneficial to Manitobans, especially those on low and fixed income, and if we can do better we will.

And in one year we've done substantially better and my colleagues and I have been very pleased to be able to bring this program to the people. (applause) Now to assiet resident homeowners who will face the immediate cost of property tax bills, we have set aside $19 million of the total property tax credit funds which will be advanced to resident homeowners of single dwelling units in the form of deductions from their 1973 property tax bills.

And this advance, which of course is made possible through the co-operation of the municipalities, will provide up to $10 0 as a payment of part of the 1973 Manitoba Property Tax Cr edit benefit to resident homeowners. So they won't have to wait until next spring to be able to obtain their rebate. We are prepaying that.

And for them to know what we are doing, we have recei ved the co-opera tion of the municipalities to inform them at the time they get their tax bill of what the benefit is and how they must deal with it when it is necessary to apply for any balance owing to them at the time of filing their 1973 income tax returns next spring. That information they're entitled to get, that information they are getting and we have the co operation of the municipalities in that respect to give that information.

This amount, this $10 0 which is being paid now is a reduction of their prop erty tax credit benefit, will of course have to be credited to their claim, deducted from their claim, when they make their claim for the balance of the money in the spring of next year. For resident homeowners of single dwelling units whose property tax liability is less than $100, then of course their entire property tax is being paid for them now at the time of the billing of the tax bill and they will receive a nil bill in effect.

I'd like to emphasize that in cases where the tax credit entitlement for 19 . . --(I nterj ec tion)-- all right - for 1973 is greater than the amount advanced, the additional benefit will then be clai med in the spring of 1973, and will be made on the 1973 income tax return, and

May 18, 1973 3049 BILL 61 (MR. CHERNIACK cont'd) ..... people are being informed through the instrume ntality of the notice given to them with their property tax credit that that claim must be made under the income tax form not through the municip ality. In some circumstances advances may be received on residents which are .not occupied by the owner, and where this occurs the full amount of the advance is required to be returned to the Minister of Finance. And, Mr. Speaker, generally, that is the bill before us; at the time of the bill.

I've had distributed a rather detailed explana tion of the various sections to be helpful to us during the committee stage. Because may I say, Mr.

Speaker, the meeting of the Conference of the Premiers of Canada takes place this next week and I will be expected to be there on Tuesday, or going there Tuesday, as a result of which, unless honourable members are able to accommodate through dealing with the matter tomorrow, I will not be able to participate further in the debate, which of course I regret very much because I would like very much both to hear what honourable members have to say about the bill and about the various it ems.

I would like very much to be able to close debate and then I would like to be present in this Chamber when we go through the committee stage in order to deal with the sections item by it em. But honourable members may not be ready to complete it tomorrow, of course that's quite possible, in which case I'm afraid my honourable coll eague on my right will have to conduct the balance of it. But I don't think it's difficult to go through the mechanical drafting and the words that make up the sections . What is important is the concept.

Of course there are some people who may not really accept the concept or agree to the benefits. It may well be that members oppo site will not want to support this bill. That may well be. As a matter of fact, I'm just wonder ing whether or not they will, I'm looking forward to finding out. Because, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to know how consistent they are. Are they going to vote for the bill, I'd invite them to do so. They are in a te rrible quandary of course, Mr. Speake r.

They don't know just how to handle themselves in relation to this bill because last year the Leader of the Opposition called this plan a colossal blunder, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition calle d this plan a hoax, he called it a basic contradiction. Nobody is asking me for the citation but if they did I'd give them the page number and the date in Hansard. Oh, the Member for Rhine land would like to be able to check. And that's all right, Mr.

Speaker, I have learned, especi ally yesterday, to realize that it is well to ask people how well they can support the statements they make when they wave papers around and say this is a document I know of. So I want to give the Honourable Member for Rhineland the opportunity to check how I'm quoting the Leader of the Opposition. "Colossal blunder" it appears on April lOth in Hansard of last year on page 81 7. "A hoax" appears on the same page. "A basic contradiction", that appears on a different page, 822. That's three pages or four pages later.

And, again on page 824 he had to say "a half-baked ill thought out shambles" . That's what he said about this plan. And finally on page 825 he reached the crescendo of something or other and he said the most serious blunder yet perpetuated in a Manitoba budget. Now what's he going to do with this bill ? This Tax Credit Plan happens to have been adopted to a large extent by two other provinces in Canada so far. --(Interjection)-- Which one? On e is to the east of us, and that is a fairly large province called the Province of On tario.

That they introduced this plan. (hear, hear) They have a Conservative Government. It so happens that a province to the west of us has also just recently announced this type of plan. I am asked, Mr. Speaker, what province it is? It is the Province of Alberta, the Province of Alberta, a Conservative Government has taken on this plan. So we find that we, with two other provinces in Canada, have embarked on tax credit plans. We now have partially gone through the first year's experience on the plan.

And I expect other provinces to follow on this plan because it is proving to accomplish those ends for which they were planned. So, Mr. Speaker, one can only conclude that the real basic contradiction the Leader of the Opposition had in mind is a contradiction that's so evident and the Conservative Party which rejects tax credit in Manitoba --(Interjection)-- oh, I'm told that it's not true, that the Conse rvative Party does not reject tax credit in Manitoba. --(Interjection)-- The Mem ber for Souris -Killarney, the Member for Lakeside both said not true.

So apparently I'm wrong. --(Interjection)-- Pardon? --(Interjection)-- Well now I still don't know whether they accept it or not. The Me mber for Souris-Killarney who today refused to acknowledge that he made a statement yesterday when he was seated is now again yelling from his seat, and then tomorrow if we say to hi m: "is it true you said so and so" he'll say "what I said on my seat is not

3050 May 18, 1973 BILL 61 (MR. CHERNI ACK cont'd) ..... something for the record. " So I'd just as soon be kept quiet or left the room rather than continuing to talk. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. CH ERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, now I really don't know, Mr. Speaker. Last year I know they were opposed to the plan. This year I am now kept in a state of suspended concern. Are they in support, are they not in support ? Is it a hoax, is it not a hoax? Because it's the same plan and the ex-broadcaster across the way is ready to go back to his old trade and say, tilD.e in tomorrow � and I will, I will, I will.

I will not leave, and I only hope I can· count that tomorrow, if not tonight, I will hear exactly what the Conservative Party proposes to do in connection with this plan. The Conservative Party can no longer surprise me. I've gone through the stage of being surprised with so many vacillations I can no longer be surprised.

So I must tell the Member for Fort Garry that it is no longer with surprise but with interest to see which way they'll flop this time the penny is pitched - a contradiction which the Manitoba Conservatives had and they vote against measures to grant real relief to Manitoba property taxpayers last year, and we'll see how they vote on this motion that was proposed in this year's budget state ment. Maybe their solution should be that the Liberals used some years back where they all switched seats around and therefore there is no record of how they stood. Mr.

Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters on the other side of this House are to be taken seriously at all in their criticism of the Manitoba system of tax credit, let them vote against, let them vote against this bill. But let it be understood, Mr. Speaker, once and for all, that in voting against this bill as they did last year, (that 's why one would expect that they will this year) , they are voting against a system of tax credits which is designed specifically to extend the greatest benefit to those who need it the most. And you know, Mr.

Speaker, last year the Leader of the Opposition he cast many asper sions on our esti mates of benefits under the 1972 year credit plan. We said that according to our best calculations at that time there would be some $28 million payable, and he said it won't be anything like that. And Lsaid I hope you're right, I hope it's less so we can do better the next time around once we've·h ad the experience. But of course he spoke with great knowledge.

All I said is I recall it is the experts who advise me, inform me that to the best of their ability and subject to the fact that there is no history or experience, $28 million is what they think we have to set aside for that purpose. I am happy to report that the preliminary information that is presently available on the tax credit benefits paid to Manitoba taxpayers on our behalf by national revenue, indicates that the 1972 Education Property Tax Cr edit Plan will result in benefits which will be somewhat in excess of $26 million being paid to our taxpayers for 1972 taxes. A MEMBER: Pretty close.

He said about 12. MR. CHE RNIACK: Oh, I think he may have said 20 or 18, I don't remember exactly what he said, I haven't got the quotes so I better not attempt to quote him unless I fall into the trap of one of his seatmates. In his remarks he clai med that the administrative costs including adverti sing of that plan would be in the order of a million dollars. A million dollars he said is what the administrative costs including advertising - if the honourable member wants a reference, I'm informed, it's on page 201, March 29, 1972, in Hansard. Well, Mr. Speaker, once again he's wrong. Once again he's wrong.

He is the gentle man who somehow succeeds every time he gives an esti mate with certainty, he somehow succeeds in doubling or about doubling the amount that it costs. He talked about a letter sent out by the Premier to inform people of their responsibilities and their rights tn regard to Medicare program. What did he say? - 60, 70, 80 million, I forget what he said. He may not remember either. But I remember knowing that it was roughly, it was actually half of what it was .

And I can inform the honourable member that as far as we can see now, and we're well into it now, the cost of advertising and of administration of the 1972 Education Property Tax Cr edit Plan was just over one-half of his figure of $1 million.

And may I point out he's only out by half, he's only out by 100 percent, that's all he is in his estimates, but he speaks with certainty and of course he never retracts what he says because he'd rather let it lie. -- (Interjecti on)-- Now the Member for Lakeside is again jabbering from his seat and if he wants I'll stop for a minute so I can at least hear what he says to judge the value of what he says. I think he and I have the same lack of confidence in the value of what he says because when I stopped talking so did he.

May 18, 1973 3051 BILL 61 (MR. CHERNIACK cont'

d) Mr. Speaker, it may be of interest, I think it 's of interest for honourable members to know the responses in relation to the advertising plan that we had in order to encourage people to learn about the nature and effect of the Education Property--P roperty Tax Cr edit Plan. I'm glad that the Leader of the Opposition found it amusing. Pos sibly he's not interested in the kind of enquiries we receive. Now he said so mething. What did he say? A MEMBER: He says, "I have some idea of what people think of it. " MR. CHER NIACK: Oh, well I'm sure he does. He's been see ing the polls lately.

He knows exactly what people are thinking about it. And Mr. Speaker, the queries for the period of January 8th to April 30th, 1973 --and I'll read these figures quickly: By telephone - Winnipeg calls 19, 715; Other - 5, 376; Interviews in Winnipeg - 1, 68 1; Outside - 1, 594; Letters from Winnipeg - 85; Letters from outside - 294 ; Shut-in visits made in Winnipeg - 122 ; a total of 28, 867 enquiries about the method by which one can obtain the reba tes.

Breaking that down into homeowners and tenants was 15, 280 homeow ners, 8, 443 tenant s, and so mething over 5, OOO misce llaneous which includes unclass ified queries. I have a note that 6, 462 were pen sioners. And when the Lea der of the Opposition talks about the cost involved, I can tell him it 's a lot cheaper to put in acr oss- the-board tax cuts.

It is a lot cheaper admini stratively if you don't care to recognize the difference in the ab ility-to-pay and the burden of property taxa tion, and if the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about cutting costs, and that's what he talks about , I must say, Mr. Speaker, he's not yet produced any worthwhile figures to show where that 50 - 60 million dollars he talks about in expense reductions will come about . He keeps saying it will yet come. It'll come.

It'll come years from now when he's sitting as a grey-haired or grey bearded old man in his back room trying to figure out just what he was talking and what happened to him. -- (Interj ection) -- Counting on his fingers. · Mr. Speaker, he can do it cheaply. It doesn't cost much to print some paper changing a tax rate and reducing the rate. But in order to do it at an equitable, understandable way in order to do benefits, one has costs. And if the costs are so mething under one perce nt, that ain't bad, Mr. Speaker. And I'm saying that for the benefit of some members who would like to hear that kind of respon se.

Now Mr. Speaker, I think that I have described the bill, I think I have spoken in such a way as to receive the support of members, in my own inimicable fashion, the Member for Fort Garry says, such as I hope will succeed in per suading some members opposite to recognize this year that this bill is a bill which is worthy of support beca use the plan is a vital and important and good one. I hope that there will be members opposite who will be abl e to say that "last year I made a mi stake, that last year I voted wrongly, that last year I should have sup ported the bill.

" And that we' 11 be ab le to do so by supporting the bill this year. I happen to have a copy of the page of Hansard, Page 3300 of last year, which gives the ayes and the nays, and the people of Manitoba are indeed fortunat e, Mr. Speaker, that there were 28 yeas and 17 nays . Indeed they were fortunate . 17 nays . Mr. Speaker, is it in order if just to - A MEMBER: Well, why not ? MR. CH ERNIAC K: Oh I'm be ing asked now, and that means if I read from Hansard I will have to refer to the names of some honoura ble members and I do so out of respect and out of the fact that I'm reading Hansard. The nays, Mr.

Speaker, --(I nterj ecti on)-- Messrs. - the Member for Lakeside is so co-opera tive - Messrs. Bilton, Blake, Cr aik, Einarson, Enns, Fe rguson, Graham - may I interrupt to say yes, so are they all. All honourable men. Well I said honourable men. I'll bo back; Bilton, Blake, Cra ik, Ei narson, Enns, Ferguson, Graham, Henderson, F. Johnston, Jorgenson, McGill and McG regor and McKellar, and he's here and he's ready to vote in the proper way. Sherman, Spivak, and Mrs. Trueman. 17 fine names, and they are fine names.

They are nice-so unding names and they are good names and .they are all honourable men in every sense of the word. Well I am looking forward to their recognition, Mr. Speaker, of the need for the support of a measure which has proven itself to be an impo rtant one good for the people of Manitoba, especially good for the people in the lower income brackets, people on fixed income. And let me just conclude that when I said good for all Manitobans, that includes, Mr. Speaker, those people who will only receive the minimum of $100. 00. People on large income. Because if

3052 May 18, 1973 BILL 61 (MR.

CH ERNIACK cont'd ) ..... you go up and down and knock on the doors, say the retail stores on Portage Avenue, and ask them how is business, they will be ones who will quickly tell you that the moneys that were turned back into the pockets of the people of low incomes are moneys that were expended for necessaries and for some little luxuries immediatel y, and not hoarded and not put away and not taken out of the economy as an investme nt, but rather put right into the economy to work and stim ulate the general economy of the province, so when I said "is beneficial to all Manito bans", indeed it is, but to the degree that there may be an imbalance, an imbalance in the benefit, then I will vote, my colle agues will vote in favour of the imbalance being for those on low income, on fixed income.

How the members opposite will vote will be revealed; as the Member for Fort Garry said, come back tomorrow and see what we will learn. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, would the honourable member permit a question or two? My first question is, the amount budgeted last year of $28 million, from the experience that they have gained this year in making the payment s, will there be a substantial surplus on that $28 million ? MR. CH ERNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, I am sure that I was speaking a little too enthusias ti ca lly about the plan and possibly too loudly, and therefore pos sibly the Member for Rhineland didn't hear when I stated that as far as we can now see, where we had esti mated $28 million for last year 's program, it appears that it will work out to in the neighbourhood of $26 million. MR.

FROESE: My second question, and this no doubt will be very delightful to him, is the Honourable Minister aware that in the Garden Valley Division, where we still were non unitary, and we had the $50. 00 rebate on the resid ential and also on the individual proper ti es, plus the tax credit plan, that many people with small holdings received much more than 100 per cent. MR. CH ERNIAC K: Pa rdon me - they received much more than 100 perce nt ? MR. FROESE : Much more than 100 perc ent of their taxe s paid. MR. CHERNIAC K: That we rebat::id to them in excess of 100 percent of the tax es? MR. FROESE: Yes. MR.

CHE RNIACK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am indeed interested because I now would ask the Honourable Member for Rhineland to give us a lead so we ca n get recovered - recover from them moneys that apparently the Federal Government returned to them in excess of the moneys which they are entitled to keep. -- (Inte rjecti on)-- Pa rdon ? Oh, the 1964 plan, is that what the honourable member is talking about ? MR. FROESE: No, I'm speaking of last year 's experience under the non-unitary system. MR. CHE RNIAC K: Oh based on the -- Well there 's an explana tion which of course accounts for the honourable membe r's sta tem ent.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: Well, Mr. Speaker, at the specific request of the Minister of Financ e, who knows how difficult it is for me to refuse to be aroused to speech when he makes that app eal, and unprepared as I am, let me nonetheless offer a few comments about the bill before us . Mr. Speaker, I can't really make any comm ents without at least reminding the Honourable Minister of the occasion when he first introduced this legisla tion to the House.

He was then Minister of Finance and it seems to me that I had just about that time received into my hands a copy of the new Federal Income Tax form, the multi-pages of which I fluttered for all to wit ness, and indeed the Honourable Minister of Finance witnessed them, but aside from that lit tle bit of theatrics it seems to me that I expressed some concern, which of course the Honourable Minister of Finance poo-poohed and said it was my usual acting style and that it wasn't to be taken se riously, that there was going to be no problem, no problem at all on behalf of any citizen of Manitob a to claim his legiti mate tax rebate form.

That was when the Minister introduc ed the plan. Well, Mr. Speaker, would you believe $100, OOO next--no, $200, OOO next, $300, OOO next, TV advert is ements about that lovely house wife that was busy dusting her chair and all of a sudden pops out and says, "Have you filled out your tax form yet? " or that fellow shovelling snow and says " See what a fine lovely bunch of fellows we have. I've just got to fill out that tax form. " That was I guess about the $300, OOO or $400, OOO mark.

Just about then, of course, just about then, of course, they had over a million. dollars budgeted, but just about then, just about then even the ridiculousne ss, the waste,

May 18, 1973 3053 BILL 61 (MR. ENNS cont'd ) ..... the sheer government waste of this caught on to the then Minister of Finance and they, I suspect, if they were honest and showed us the advertisin g budget, they curtailed the program. They said "Shut it off. Shut it off. Even we are not that stup id; we can recognize when we have overdone a good thing, you know. We just can't ca rry on this way.

" Because after all, if you keep on this way the Member of Lakeside might be proven right, that the people of Manitoba are going to find a great deal of difficulty in understanding that compli cated formula that the Minister of Finance announced, and that this government has spent, you know, Mr. Speaker, a hundred thousand dollars, two hundred thousand dollars, a half a million dollars they spent. Okay Mr. Speaker, I will go back. I'll go back--I expect that he probably has invoices to show that he only spent $300, OOO, but Mr.

Speaker, I also recall that they hired four or five civil se rvants to travel the countryside. Eve rybody in Manitoba can phone a Zenith Number if he's in trouble. What is that charge, Mr. Speaker? We have people, in fact, Mr.

Speaker, I used that services, beca use my good people for whom I ex presse d some concern about in the Interlake, we had not one but three meetings about people who had never filled out an income tax form before, want ed somehow to find out what lar gesse this government was providing them with, and of course, all that was laughed at , all that was boo-hooed, but this government, this government, Sir, and this Minister of Finance, who I am the first to acknowledge as being, you know, the master of acting in this House, I acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, he has paid me that tri bute.

He has paid me that tribute from time to time but Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that as when Sir Laure nce Olivier pats Tony Perkins on the back, and I acknowledge that , in that con text, and if he thinks I'm an actor, then at least put me in the stature of a Tony Pe rkins and I take off my hat to the Sir Laurence Olivier of this House beca use, Mr. Speaker, with what righteousn ess, with what righteousness did he discre dit any idea that it was going to be a com pli cated bureauc ratic red tape system of returning some of the people's money that they over taxed in the first instance. Well Mr.

Speaker, so much at least, I know, you know, these ... we've all, every Manitoban has seen the adverti seme nts, heard the radio advert is ements, has seen the full page ads . Mr. Speaker, you know, even in the wildest days of Duff Roblin, who used to be accused of spending taxpaye rs' money like a drunken sailor, you know, in the wildest days of Duff Roblin, never, never was the abus e of taxpaye rs' money more evident than in the program that this very Minister brought into being. The Stonewall Argus, the Teulon Times. Well, Mr.

Speaker, okay laugh, laugh; they well might laugh at the contempt for the rural week lies. They may well laugh at the Brandon Sun. They may well laugh at the Gla dstone Times. But these happ en to be papers, these happen to be journals that I and my people read and my consti tuency read. Well, Mr. Speaker, they 'll find--let them equivocate what the point of course was. They were going to argue, just like the other night they were going to argue as to whether the argument was between Nazis and Communism, now they are going to argue about the size of the ad. Was it a full page ad or a half page ad? Well, Mr.

Speaker, let them argue. Let them argue that finite point. Let them argue that finite point. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, Mr.

Speaker, that while a previous administration tried a similar sc heme, and indeed we milked it politica lly too, I can recall and most res idents recall and the officia l journals of this House have recorded the fact, that in the payment of the cheque, the $5 0. 00 rebate that was sent under that system, there indeed app eared a little notice signed by one Duff Roblin, signed by one Duff Roblin, and that was the extent - and that was the extent of the advertising of that rebate campa ign.

Now do you want to compare that , do you want to compare that to the massive TV barrage that we've had, to the radio barrage that we've had, to the newspaper barrage that we've had, and to the , I don't know how man y civil service people that have been hired to wander around the country side to help facilitate this cumbersome scheme? Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, like in the Autopac scheme, if the Minister of Finance is prepared to say honestly that he spent $300, OOO on the sc heme, then I tell him directly that he spent a million. The only difficulty is I can't find the other 700. I can't find the other 700.

That's right. That's right, but we're agreed at least on that. We know how lousy your accounting is on Autopac where $5 million deficit all of a sudden becomes an asset. We know that kind of accounting. So all I ca n tell you my friend is that if you admit to a fact of having spent $300, OOO on this program, that I am reasonably assured that about a million dollars has gone down the drain on that program.

3054 May 18, 1973 BILL 61 (MR. ENNS cont'

d) Now, Mr. Speaker, so much for that particular aspect. I had to get that off my chest; I I had to get that off my chest because -- (Interjection ) -- No, well, Mr. Speaker, it was only beca use of the fun the Honourable Minister of Finance made at me when I happened to suggest, when I happened to suggest to him when he introduc ed the scheme that it would take a little bit of explaining, that it would take a bit of money, that it would take a lot of PR, it would take a lot of effort to make people understand that. He thought that that was not the case.

I think he now acknowledges publicly that in fact that was the case. Mr. Speaker, let me deal with one other aspect of the bill. And really it deserves a little bit of atte ntion. The Minister of Finance and the members in the government opposite generally, like to dism iss, you know just with a wave of the hand, our suggestions of a general tax cut as being discrim inating in favor of the rich and not taking into any consi deration the legitimate problems that the lower income people of this province face and the real aims that it has to do. Now, Mr.

Speaker, let's really take a short look at what we mean and what we feel that across -the-tax-board deduction means. -- (Interj ection) -- Yes, Mr. Speaker, it surely means at face value the kind of arithme tic that members opposite are so prone to throw at us. It means perhaps a $200 or a $300 saving to that man in the $15, OOO or $20, OOO income as com pared to a $10 or $20 or $30 saving to the man in the medium or low income. Yes, you're quite right, tha t's exactly what it mea ns. But, Mr.

Speaker, to show you the callou sness, the utter disre gard and the utter meanness for politica l expediency that members opposite have, these same people don't give a cotton-pi ckin' damn about raising the price of br ead, about rais ing the price of hamburger, about raising the price of butt er for the very same people that can least afford it. They with disdain, with disdain, wash that off. -- (Inte rjection )-- Oh, yes, there's the smear again, there's the smear again. Well, Mr.

Speaker, really, do you think, do you honestly think, do you honestly think that we can pay our - well grocery clerks, or our tellers at the grocery clerks, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 15 dollars an hour and not have that affected on the price of grocer ies ? Do you think that you can keep on adding government tax loads on to wag es and that that's not going to be a pressure for increasing wag es and that's not going to reflect in the price of food? Surely, Mr. Speaker, there has to be a time when we start to realize that. And, Mr.

Speaker, the real concern of course is that those more fortunate for one reason or other, whom the effects of risi ng food prices, whom the effects of risi ng rent or rising costs of shelter bear least on, they ca n withstand that kind of inflationary pressure best.

The persons, the persons that this government all too often reminds us is most dedicated to repres ent in this Chamber, most dedicated to serve the low income earner, the person on fixed incomes, for them they show utt er disdain, utter disdain, beca use rather than implementing the kind of fis cal responsibili ty, fisca l responsibility that cuts down the cost of government , that can provide for lower food costs, that can provide for lower rents, that can provide for lower shelter costs, they would rath er take the avenue where there is a big ripoff firstly for themselves in terms of the half million or million dollars advertis ing expenses.

They'd sooner extract the tax money and then pass it out, then pass it out as gra nd fellows, well met, in the hope that that will get them re-elected. Well, Mr. Speaker, it probably will get them re-elected in certai n seats in certain areas. But, Mr. Speaker, let it be said that I have no apologies, I have no apologies for taking a consi stent position with respect to the vote on thi s matt er last year - the matter of this vote last year. Mr.

Speaker, we believe that we have a responsibili ty and we believe that we have a genuine responsibility, particularly to those people, to those people who are locked in, to those people who are locked in with fixed incomes, with pension plans, whom the inflationary spiral that this kind of government hurts most and has no regard for, has no regard for. Mr. Speaker, the tragedy of this is, and unfortunately the Member for Cresce ntwo od who of course has lost interest in the people of Manitoba and has not graced this Chamber for a consid erable length of time and --(I nterjecti on)-- Well now, Mr.

Speaker, I'll tell you what happened. If you want to talk about a deal, a deal has been made , the deal has been made with this government, with the Premier and the Member for Cr esce ntw ood-- says Mr. Member from Cresce ntwo od you will do me a service if you do not run for me because that puts me into a better position. After all that doesn't fit, that doesn't fit with the Schreyer image, the Schreyer admi nist ration. You want to talk about a deal that 's been made, the biggest deal has been made with convincing the Member

May 18, 1973 3055 BILL 61 (MR. ENNS cont'd) ..... from Cr esce ntwo od that it would be better that he not run, that it would be better that he not run. Now that deal has been made and it 's evident by his lack of interest in this Chamber. He hasn't been in this Ch amber, he of course is holding down his 14 or 15 thousand dollar salary as a University Professor. But, Mr. Speaker, I am returning to the bill ... MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Thank you. I would like to ask the co-opera tion of all the honourable mem bers. I know that every so often they have to have a little loud hour, but it's over.

Let's get back to the bill. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS : Well, Mr. Speaker, what I was at tempting to say, and this is really why I was diverted, as I've been known to be diverted occasio nally, when I thought about the Honourabl e Mem ber for C resc entwo od. Because, Mr. Speaker, if he were in his seat then he would be the first one to stand up and support me that the inflation ary press ures hurts the least those in the best position who can cope with it.

He's the first one to suggest that if we have a wage increase or if we have an inflationary spira l Gene ral Motors doesn't get hurt, they increase the price of cars; U. S. Steel doesn't get hurt, they increase the price of steel, you know; and the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources said that . But, Mr. Speaker, who does get hurt and who is prepared to let them get hurt? Who is prepared to let them get hurt? Who is pre pared to let them get hurt? Mr.

Speaker, all I am saying is, all I am saying is that if this government was prepared, if this government is prepared to give back to the people of Manitoba $28 million of taxa tion, then for God's sakes give it back to them. Don't bullshit them into giving it back to them, don't put out a bunch of newspaper ads, don't hire a bunch of acto rs to act it out for them on TV; give it back to them. You don't have to, you don't have to - you know, where's all this--y ou know, you've talked to me, Mr. Speaker, I've been accused of acting, but , Mr.

Speaker, this government not only acts but they hire them professi onally to act out their government policies on TV. About how the little girl dusts off the chair and wipes her brow and says, "Now a messa ge from the Minister of Finance. And I've just got, I've just got my $100 tax reba te, aren't they fine fellows. " Well my goodness gracious, my goodness gracious. Mr. Speaker, it's a tragedy. -- (lnterjection )-- Well my Honourable Member from Morris has just come to my aid and he says that it's some thing that I should put on the record.

It 's entitled the Gonick Thesis or the Member from Cres centw ood's thesi s. It is sim ply this: "When the government passes consumer legis lation or raises corpora te income taxes in order to lower medicare pre miums and the corporations pass on the additional cost of such government action to the consumers in the form of higher prices, in the end the cons umer ends up paying the shot, no matt er how much the government strives to redist ribute incom e. " So, Mr.

Speaker, from the oracle, from the words of their prophet, whom they have convinced that he should temporarily lea ve them during the course of this election, because of possi ble election embarrassme nt, who I'm sure we'll see much more of should that undesira ble event occur as this government should come back, but none thel ess who has temporarily left us, there is the words from none other than the prophet on high. Well, Mr.

Speaker, let me end with one another prophet whom I happen to have even greater respect and regard for, and that is none other than the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources who has stated in this House that no matter what government does, if we double production, if we double the gross national product, if we double wa ges, if we do whatever, but if in the end result we haven't basically improved the lot of the 25 or 30 perce nt of our poor then I have done nothing. And I'm paraphrasing loosely a speech that he made in this House. Mr. Speaker, he made that speech in 168. I suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that the Barber Report is sued after three or four years of admi nistra tion of this government esse ntially substan tiates what the then Member for Inkster and now Minister and House Leader of this government said in 1968, that they've done nothing. And of course, Mr. Speaker, that is the real tragedy of my socia list friends opposite. They have nothing to offer, they have nothing to offer the poor and the underp rivileged. All they have, all they have to do is to tear down and to pull down those who have achieved so mething, wher eas, Mr. Speaker, I aspire to nobler hopes.

I honestly hope that it would be my good fortune to create the kind of socie ty where we can all aspire to better things rather than be pulled down to the common denomina tor that is all that a socialist government can offer its people; all a socialist government has ever offered its people here, other countries and ever will. Because Mr. Speaker, ess entially they 're

3056 May 18, 1973 BILL 61 (MR. ENNS cont'd ) . . bereft of spirit, they're ber eft of imagination and they're bereft of beli ef. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm just going to speak for a few minute s. The honourable member has -- (Interj ection) -- Well I promised my colleague that I will only speak for a few minutes. The honourabl e member paraphrased me and he is in the right track but not exactly so.

The figures that the. previous admi nistra tion previously used to cite were retail sales, GNP, other economic industries - manufactured goods, exports, things of that nature. And I said that if you doubled the GNP and if you increased the export, if you increa sed your manu factured items by double, if you did all those things but you did not improve the genera l well being of the people of the Province of Manitoba, then those figures meant nothing.

Now if you double wages, if you double wa ges and left the 25 perc ent poor in a position where they're still poor, I think that would be dreadful, but you would have increased the lot of some people and I really am only saying this, not for the purpose of challenging the honourable member. Well the Honourable Member for River Heights, the Leader of the Opposition is shaking his head.

There really isn't a grea t deal of difference in sy mpathy because I would accept the honourable memb er's statement that if you double the lot of the top 75 perc ent of the popula tion and left the other 25 perc ent where they are I would consider that horrendous, and I would say that if we did that that would be a terrible thing and probably I would be just as upset with that kind of result as the reult I spoke of in 1968.

But if the honourable member want s to know what I said in 168, it was that the economic indices that if they all increased and none of those econo mic indust ries result ed in better housing, better health care, better education, people being better fed, people being bett er clothed, that that would mean nothing to me. I would feel that I have not done anything as a member of a government. And therefore although there's not a great deal of difference I think the honourable member should be at least be awar e of what I did say.

The other point that I wish to make is that I believe that substan tia lly the position that he has put with regard to taxa tion is correct. I repeated on numerous occasions that changes in taxat ion ulti mately do not effectively redistri bute wealth.

That those people who have the power, who are in positions of power, who are in positions where they now are ab le to avoid taxes, if you increase the taxes on them, such as doctors, such as lawye rs, and to get down to it, such as plumbers, such as field workers, that if their taxes go up at the next round of negotiations the first thing that they will get is that they will go back to their net pay position. I said that, I repeat it, I have always believed it. I have never consid ered taxati on measures to be the effective way of distri buting.

But that doesn't mean that when you're looking at one tax form as agai nst anothe r you do not try to choose the best form; and it also doesn't mean that there isn't some change and that there has to at least be an adjustment in terms of the economic status quo ass erting its elf before that change is effective.

So that esse ntially what the honourable member says in that respect - he doesn't neces sarily have to quote the Honourable Member for Cresce ntwo od as an oracle and say that they have to get rid of him in order to keep that kind of talk out, because if they had to do that they have to do that with the Minister of Mines and Reso urces as well, and so far I am still on the government benches, have been nominated, will participa te, will be partici pating in the next election, although the position with . . . A MEMBER: No question about that . MR.

GREEN: ... regard to the position with regard to taxa tion I really think that those who believe - and there are many who do - that you can effectively redistr ibute wealth by tax ation are really barking up the wrong tree. You can do something, but you cannot effectively redistr ibut e wealth. I know that when I was a lawye r . . . A MEMBER: When you were a lawye r? MR.

GREEN: When I was a lawye r, a practising law yer, if the government decided that they wanted to tax me a little more it just meant that I had to tax my clients a little more, because I didn't want to live any less good than I lived the day before they levied those taxa tions. And the same is true with people in positions of power. Now for the honourable member to take those two propositions, which I ess entia lly agree with although the first in a little different sense, and say that means that we have done nothing

May 18, 1973 3057 BILL 61 (MR. GREEN cont'd ) .... is not correct. Because the New Democratic Pa rty in four years in power has done more to effectively make a move in the direction of changing the economic status quo than any government I think in the North America n Continent . That the fact is that the change in the economic status quo that resulted from 35 to 40 million dollars of automobile insurance pre miums coming into the pu blic realm as aga inst the pri vate realm was a very effective change in the status quo.

That the provision by this government of nursing home ser vices on a fairly universal basis to all of the people in this province is an effective change in the status quo. And my honourable friend should understand that when he talks about poverty. And I believe that he and I are not much different in this respect. Poverty means that you can1t get things, and when there was only a select part of the population that was entitled to an education and they br ought in universal education, they effectively dealt with poverty.

When it was in fact that only a certain people could get health care, and I told my honourable friend that when I was a child, the fact is that I would not go to a docto r, although I had broken a knee ca p playing rugby, because I knew that that was a terrible expense, and I hobbled around with it for two days, not going to a doctor, and when it was a case that no person need worry about the individ ual expense of getting health care, that is an effective at tack on poverty, and the difference between you people and us is that you people have always opposed those things.

You opposed universal education, you opposed universal hospita lization, you oppos

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-5-110
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 5th hansardpdf 110.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9068893c1922a399339714b605e2377b40fcbe4f

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