Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 76A (31st Legislature, 4th Session)

31-4-76a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Fourth Session - Thirty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 29 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker VOL. XXVlll No. 76A - 2:00 p.m., TUESDAY, 10 JUNE, 1980 Printed by W. T.Matwichyna. OUHns Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty -First Legislature Me mbers, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, A. R. (Pete) ANDERSON, Bob BANMAN, Hon. Robert (Bob) BARROW, Tom BLAKE, David BOSTROM, Harvey BOYCE, J. R. (Bud) BROWN, Arnold CHERNIACK, Q.C., Saul CORRIN, Brian COSENS, Hon. Keith A. COWAN, Jay CRAIK, Hon. Donald W. DESJARDINS, Laurent L. DOERN, Russell DOMINO, Len DOWNEY, Hon. Jim DRIEDGER, Albert EINARSON, Henry J. ENNS, Hon. Harry J. EVANS, Leonard S. FERGUSON, James R. FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GALBRAITH, Jim GOURLAY, Hon. Doug GRAHAM, Hon. Harry E.

GREEN, Q.C., Sidney HANUSCHAK, Ben HYDE, Lloyd G. JENKINS, William JOHNSTON, Hon. J. Frank JORGENSON, Hon. Warner H. KOVNATS, Abe LYON, Hon. Sterling R. MacMASTER, Hon. Ken MALINOWSKI, Donald McBRYDE, Ronald McGILL, Hon. Edward McGREGOR, Morris McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., Hon. Gerald W. J. MILLER, Saul A. MINAKER, Hon. George ORCHARD, Hon. Donald PARASIUK, Wilson PAWLEY, Q.C., Howard PRICE, Hon. Norma RANSOM, Hon. Brian SCHROEDER, Vic SHERMAN, Hon. L. R. (Bud) STEEN, Warren URUSKI, Billie USKIW, Samuel WALDING, D. James WESTBURY, June WILSON, Robert G. Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield La Verendrye Flin Flon Minnedosa Rupertsland Winnipeg Centre Rhineland St. Johns Wellington Gimli Churchill Riel St. Boniface Elm wood St. Matthews Arthur Emerson Rock Lake Lakeside Brandon East Gladstone River Heights Kil don an Dauphin Swan River Birtle-Russell lnkster Burrows Portage la Prairie Logan Sturgeon Creek Morris Radisson Charleswood Thompson Point Douglas The Pas Brandon West Virden Roblin Osborne Seven Oaks St. James Pembina Transcona Selkirk Assiniboia Souris-Killarney Rossmere Fort Garry Crescentwood St. George Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Fort Rouge Wolseley Party NOP PC PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC NOP PC PC NOP PC PC PC Ind NOP PC NOP PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC NOP PC PC NOP NOP PC PC NOP PC PC NOP NOP NOP Lib PC

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 10 June 1980 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (Birtle Russell): Presenting Petitions . . Reading and Receiving Petitions. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Radisson. MR. ABE KOVNATS: Mr. Speaker. the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions. directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. 1 move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. that the report of Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. STERLING R. LYON (Cha rleswood): Mr. Speaker, 1 have a statement to make. There are copies for the members of the House. Mr. Speaker. I wish to make a statement to the House concerning the First Ministers' meeting on the constitution which I attended yesterday in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, there were two important developments as a result of the meeting. The First Minis ters have agreed to reconvene the Continuing Committee of Ministers on the constitution.

That Committee will meet next Tuesday for organizational purposes. followed by meetings in July and August. leading up to a First Ministers' meeting in September. As a result of yesterday's meeting, the Committee has been assigned specific topics to report back on.

These are: a Charter of Rights. including language rights; the reduction of regional dis parities; the patriation of the constitution; resource ownership and interprovincial trade; off-shore resources; powers affecting the economy; communications. including broadcasting; family law; a new Upper House involving the provinces; the Supreme Court and Fisheries. The First Ministers. Mr. Speaker, will reconvene for a constitutional conference on September 8 to 12 next. Mr.

Speaker, in accordance with earlier undertakings. the government of Manitoba will shortly recommend establishment of a Committee of the House to sit between sessions to consider constitutional proposals and to receive briefs from interested citizens and groups in our province. Mr. Speaker, I wish to add that the mood of the First Minis ters' meeting ind icated a desire by all governments to get on with the job of constitutional reform as quickly as possible. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Premier for his brief report.

The wording of the report is such as to be more hopeful than some of the press reports and radio reports that we have heard and I hope indicates a positive attitude is indicated by all Ministers. I'm glad also that the Minister has indicated that he will ensure a committee of this House to meet to consider these proposals and to receive briefs and I would expect and hope that it would be fairly soon so that it may have some influence on the meetings, the continuing meetings, that will take place prior to the First Ministers' meeting in September. I'd like to say, Mr.

Speaker, that we would like to see an open mind in approach to all the issues referred to in the report itself on a charge of rights, reduction, regional disparities. resource ownership and offshore.

Because from the press report that I saw just before coming into the House, there were three particular Min isters who were reported to be somewhat steadfast in their - may I use the word - intransigents and I would hope that in certain areas there will be still be room for a discussion, because that's rather important since I believe, as must we all that the future of Manitoba is dependent on a str.ong and cohesive Canada. We must be flexible and be prepared to discuss all issues, bearing in mind, Mr.

Speaker, that only within the last short period of time we have found, by Supreme Court ruling. that the language rights, as regard to French and English in this Legislature, are already entrenched in Manitoba's constitution and we find that entrenchment we were not aware of before. So, Mr. Speaker, 1 want only to mention that we should be prepared to examine the proposals made, and I do agree with the report that the First Minister said that there must be a heavy onus on those who advocate change.

But I believe one must be prepared to look at change and consider closely whether or not our system is really so responsive, in view of the fact, that on the Order Paper today we have matters dealing with Legislature rejecting court decisions, such as the Defamation Act, such as the Social Allowances Act. There are various infringements on the natural system of justice but that's not necessarily an infringement if the Legislature makes changes which are not always good because we have another bill on the Order Paper which deals with confiscation of shares in a private club. So, Mr.

Speaker, we must discuss these matters; we must see how to protect these rights. Just for a moment, on Natural Resources, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, in Committee of Supply on Finance estimates, it became very clear that the ability of the federal government to be able to support equalization grants which are necessary for a reduction in regional disparities and a proper sharing of the natural resources of Canada by all Canadians 4581

Tuesday, 10 June, 1980 makes it necessary that the Premiers, who are so insistent on protecting their own provincial parochial rights to the natural resources, should be eased by the fact that excess profits or windfall profits should na turally fall into the hands of the federal government, in my opinion, so as to make possible a greater equali zation of opportunity for all Canadians. Therefore, I think that there is a good deal to explore on the question, not of resource owner ship, but really on the ability to benefit for all Canadians in the resources of Canada. With that, Mr.

Speaker, I look forward to further discussions which the First Minister is undertaking to make possible during the summer months. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed with Oral Questions, I should lik e to draw the honourable members' attention to the gallery where we have 60 students of Grades 5 and 6 standing from Windsor School, under the direction of Mrs. Enns. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for St. Vital.

We have 19 students of Grade 6, 7 and 8 standing from Barrows Junction School, under the direction of Mr. Joseph. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Min ister of Municipal Affairs. We have 18 students from Gordon Bell School, under the direction of Mr. Werner Epp. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Wolseley. On behalf of all the honourable members, we welcome you here this after noon. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Acting Leader of the Opposition. MR. CHERNIAC K: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Minister of Labour whether there has been a Conciliation Officer Report under

Section 98 of The Labour Relations Act and if so, when was it made? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Labour. HON. KEN MacMASTER (Thompson): There has been no written report, Mr . Speaker, but the conciliation officer is reporting in the normal fashion. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, may I explain that I was not asking whether there was a written or verbal report, I was asking whether there was a report under

Section 98. If the Minis ter has not responded that there is, then I would have to ask him whether he allowed a longer period of time for the report required under

Section 98 and if so, when did he make that decision? MR. MacMASTER: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Acting Leader of the Opposition is aware that there is provision for lati tude in that partic ular section. That wasn't the position taken by some members opposite a period of time ago. The conciliation officer involved in these particular issues has been allowed what latitude is necessary in co operation with the organizations that he is working with to do the job that he is working so hard at. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, it's very clear that we've known all along what the provision of

Section 98 is. The question is, whether or not the Mini ster has specifically made an allo wance to the conciliation officer to extend the period of time, the 30-day maximum period. He did not give that answer un less he's saying he left it to the discret ion of the conciliation officer. Is that the case? MR. MacMASTER: It's surprisng, Mr. Speaker, how definite the Member for St. Johns can be when it's only a few days ago that it was definite, in their minds, that there had to be a report.

I am ple ased again to say that they now concur that report wasn't necessary and the conci lia tion officer has been allo wed the latitude that's necessary to deal with the situation. MR. CH ER NIACK: Mr. Sp eaker , being disappointed to note that the Mini ster does not know the law and that in deed a report is necessary, unle ss the time is extended, I will then ask the Min ister another question on which he may not have the answer, because he certainly hasn't had the answer up to now. Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the Minister whether or not, in view of consultations which the Mini ster of Health reported he has had with the Min ister of Labour, whether or not the Mini ster has or has been preparing back-to-work legislation? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Go vernment House Leader. HON. GERALD W. J. MERCIER (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I submit to you, Sir, the question is out of order. Any such recommendation would be a recommendation to Cabinet and thus the Member for St. Johns cannot ask a question with respect to any recommendations which may or may not be made. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the objections to the question I will willingly withdr aw it and ask the First Mini ster whether he is aware of the fact that the newspapers have today reported and directly quoted the Mini ster of Health as that he and the Min ister of Labour rep rese nt dif ferent constituents and ther efore it is natural that there could be a difference between them on the basic issue of dealing with the strike. MR. CH AIRM AN: Order pl ease.

Qu es tions of awareness of newspaper articles and the ascer taining of whether thos e articles are correct is the resp onsib ili ty of the person who is readin g the article. The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CH ERNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. would ask the First Min ister whether there is indeed disagreement between his Mini ster of Health and his 4582

Tuesday, 10 June, 1980 Minister of Labour as to how to deal with the strike situation and whether it is correct that it is because they serve different constituencies. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable First Minister. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend's question. as he is well aware, is equally out of order because if such a hypothesis were true, then of course that alleged disagreement would be manifested around the Cabinet table and I'm not here to report on what is said in Cabinet.

But I do say to my honourable friend that the government of Manitoba represents all of the people of Manitoba and will look after the interests of all of them. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Honourable Minister of Labour. I wonder can the Minister advise the House as to Manitoba's position which was reported in the aii Canada unemplo yment figures by Stats Canada today. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Labour. MR. MacMASTER: Good question, Mr.

Speaker, and I'm sure the members opposite share with me the fact that we were the only province in Canada who, seasonally adjusted, had a decline in the employment rate. it was a pretty good Tuesday morning in that respect, Mr. Speaker. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister could advise the House to what he, or the government, may attribute these encouraging statistics? MR. MacMASTER: I hesitate to answer that because it leads a person to want to make a speech, Mr.

Speaker. it's certainly contrary to some of the comments that I've been hearing from the members opposite about the horrible economic situation. We have about 15,000 more people working in May than we had in April. The interesting fact is that there are approximately 14,000 more people working in Manitoba this month than there were a year ago, Mr. Speaker. I have mentioned in my release, Mr. Speaker, a serious note to it all. We don't know how many more there would have been working if God had blessed us with a little bit of rain in the appropriate areas in our province. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. JUNE WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is addressed to the Honourable Minister of Agriculture. I wonder when the Mini ster will be able to respond to my questions of the 21st of May relative to the Milk Board and whether he can, not only answer those questions, but add further information on the deliberations of the Milk Board. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Agriculture. HON. JAMES E. DOWNEY (Arthur): Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The member's question I believe, was what was the procedure in calling a Milk Board hearing, a price review. lt was a reconvening of the initial hearings that were being held earlier on this year. They ruled on the milk price increase and I believe they have, as of today, announced an increase of one cent a litre for the processors of table milk. MRS. WESTBURY: I thank you for that information of which I wasn't aware, Mr. Speaker. But I wonder if the Minister can also reply to the questions which were, were the producers notified in any way of that further hearing.

And also, could he explain why the participants were given only six days notice of the meeting so that they hardly had time to prepare for the further hearing? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I can't indicate who, specifically, was informed by the Milk Control Board.

As I indicated, it was not a new hearing, it was a continuation of one that had been in the process earlier this year and as far as I'm concerned, I think the fact that the individuals who had presented their positions, or their statistics, or their case earlier, probably six days was a sufficient amount of time for them to reappear before the Milk Control Board, because in fact they knew that the hearing would continue after a period of time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge with a final supplementary. MRS.

WESTBURY: On another matter to the Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. I asked a question the other day and the Minister courteously suggested my question was not decipherable. Since I handed him a photostat of the HUDAM report, from which I obtained my information, could he now answer my question, please? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. HON. WARNER H. JORGENSON (Morris): Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the question is, even at this stage, still decipherable.

I'm not sure just what HUDAM is referring to or what my honourble friend is referring to. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Wolseley. MR. ROBERT G. WILSON: I have a question for the Attorney-General. I wonder if the Attorney General could confirm, it was suggested to me that an unanimous resolution was passed in North Dakota at the Manitoba Bar Association Convention, to demand that the 25.00 a hour now paid for Legal Aid be mcreased forthwith to 50.00 an hour. I wonder if the Minis ter would care to comment on those reported events. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. 4583

Tuesday, 10 June, 1980 MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, it's usual practice to meet with officers of the Manitoba Bar Association subsequent to their annual meeting, to review any resolutions which they have passed and which they wish to bring to the attention of the government. On the question, Mr. Speaker, of Legal Aid , we have included in this year's estima tes sufficient funds to eliminate that holdback in lawyers' fees .which had been in effect for some number of years.

We also have a proposal through the Legal Aid Society and with the Legal Aid Liaison Committee of the Law Society, a proposal for a block-fee concept which is being worked on in some detail. That matter is still before them and the discussions have not yet been concluded. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Wolseley. MR. WILSON: I wonder then, in light of the current wage problems in many industries in Manitoba, if the Minister could assure this House that he would not give in to their demands of such a large increase to double.

In other words, that he wouldn't give in to a 50 an hour Legal Aid hourly rate at this particular time. MR. SPEAKER: Order ple ase. I beli eve th e question is hypothetical because the matter has not as yet been discussed. The Honourable Member for The Pas. MR. RONALD McBRYDE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Min ister of Labour, who made a statement today in the guise of a question or answer to a question. Mr. Speaker, I'll just get it on the record.

I wonder if the Minister of Labour has had any success in terms of his commitment since he's been in office to attempt to get the statistics of Treaty Indians unemplo yed included in the Statistics Canada figur es of unemployment. The second question, Mr. Sp eaker, is to the Minis ter of Environment, and I wonder if the Minister yet has an answer to my question of last week about the number of local governments who are applying to be able to use the chemical 2,4 ,5-T, and I wonder if the Minister could confirm that 18 municipalities and one LGD will be applying or have applied to use 2,4,5 -T. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. MR. JORGENSON: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not able to confirm yet as to the number of municipalities that applied to the Clean Environment Commission. MR. McBRYDE: Mr. Speaker, I'll just ask the Minister, then, what is the process for them applying and is it a complicated process and is a record kept of those who have applied for its use and the amount that they intend to use? MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the appl ication is to ensure there would be no envi ronm ental da mage up on appli cation of any chemical. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for The Pas with a final supplementary. MR. McBRYDE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Min ister or his department are monitoring and getting information on the hearings now taking place in Washington, and whether or not the Minister is still considering the ban on the use of 2,4,5- T that he talked about previously. And I wonder whether the Minister has made up his mind firmly about the use of 2, 4,5-T, as has the Mi nister of Highways, or whether he is still considering that question. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Speaker, we don't have anyone monitoring those hearings.

The results of the hearings will be made available to us. But I can assure my honourable friend that we're interested in the hearings and will be fol lowing them. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Memb er for Brandon East. MR. LEONARD S. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I was going to address a question to the Minister of Labour, but perhap s it's more appr opri ately addressed to the Premier at any rate. It's with respect to the unemp loyment situation in the city of Winnipeg.

I note from the statement issued today by Statistics Canada that the unemployme nt rates are much higher in the city of Winnipeg than in the province as a whole. Using the actual data, the provincial rate is 5.6, but Winnipeg is 6.3 percent. So my question is, given the fact that it is much higher in the city of Winnipeg, are the Premier and his government prepared to engage in any special employment programs to al leviate a situation which I believe is serious and is one that will continue to be serious and perhaps grow in the months and years ahead? MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, the specifics of the

interpretation of the figures in question are best left with the Minis ter of Labour. I can only assure my honourable friend that we share concern along with all other citizens of Manitoba if there is any great disparity in unemplo yment rates. The fact that the city of Winni peg is only marginally higher than the rest of the province, not mu ch high er, as my honourable friend would attempt to indicate based on his fig ures, wou ld not lead one to move immediately into some kind of make-work program for that purp ose.

But I am sure that the Department of Labour will continue to monitor that situation and I stress, as I believe the Minister of Labour always does stress, that the figur es that we have today are month-by-month figur es, and really the figur es that one must look at even though these figur es are exceptionally good for the province of Manitoba. The figures that one must look at are the longer-term trend figu res which indicate trends in employment in the province, and fortunately those trend figures have been very good as well for the province of Manitoba.

The fact , as was indica ted in the statement that was passed around that the number of employed people, according to Stats Canada, is 463,000 in Manitoba, up some 15 ,000 from April and 14, 000 more than in May of 1979, I think it's a very hopeful sign of encouragement for all Manitobans 4584

Tuesday, 10 June, 1980 and I am sure my honourable friend joins with all members of the House in noting that good mark in the economic progress of the province. MR. EVANS: Leaving the policy option of job creation programs aside, I wonder if the government is prepared to consider new initiatives to stimulate private investment spending, particularly in the urban centres of the province including the city of Winnipeg, where we note that of the 28,000 people reported as unemployed last month, 19,000 of them were in the city of Winnipeg.

In other words, 68 percent of the unemployed in Manitoba are reported to be in the city of Winnipeg. Given that fact, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the First Minister and his government would be prepared to consider new initiatives to stimulate the private sector in the developing, manufacturing, and other industries in our urban centres. MR. lYON: Mr.

Speaker, I think it's apparent to my honourable friend that roughly 60 percent of Manitoba's population is in the city of Winnipeg so it's not surprising that a figure of about 68 percent, to use his figure, I haven't verified it, of the unemployed would come from the city of Winnipeg. That is rather axiomatic. Mr.

Speaker, with respect to incent ives for the private sector, my honourable friend has had an opportunity, and I can't honestly recall how he voted on some of the incentives that this government has taken with respect to the private sector, but we did reduce the small business tax from 13 percent to 11 percent some two years ago - I can't remember if my honourable friend voted for that. That was a big incentive to small business growth in .Manitoba. We did, Mr.

Speaker, remove a large number of small corporations from The Corporate Tax Act, a tax that was inflicted on the people of Manitoba by my honourable friends opposite. We did reduce, Mr. Speaker, the personal income tax for all Manitobans by two points, and I think my honourable friend or some members of his party perhaps, voted against that and that was an incentive, Mr. Speaker, for all Manitobans. We did as well, Mr.

Speaker, repeal The Succession Duty and Gift Tax Act, which was oppressing farmers and small business people in Manitoba, and I can't remember how my honourable friend voted on that, but that was certainly an incentive for small business in Manitoba. Mr . Speaker, we have done things with respect to regularizing and making competitive again, the royalties for oil and minerals in Manitoba which have resulted in more oil exploration, Mr. Speaker, in the last year than we've had since the 1950s; I think that was a good incentive. I don't know if my honourable friends voted for that or not; I don't think they did.

And on and on I could go, Mr. Speaker. Why is it that when we take these steps to provide incentives for growth in Manitoba my honourable friends vote against them all the time? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon East with a final supplementary. MR. EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, given the fact that the various programs that the First Minister has just enunciated, enumerated, have been very ineffective, have been totally ineffective, because given the fact that Manitoba is expected to have an increase of 7 percent, only 7 percent in the private sector in investment spending, which is only one-half of the national average, third lowest in Canada and less than the rate of inflation; and given the fact, Mr.

Speaker, that in the past three years the level of investment dollar spending in the province of Manitoba, as a percentage of Canada, is even less than the percentage that occurred in the period of 1970 to 1977; given the fact that the private sector has not responded, is the Premier now ready to use public investment spending to stimula te this economy and get it going at a rate of progress that was more characteristic of a few years ago? MR. lYON: Mr. Speaker, I think we have the question at the end of my honourable friend's comments.

All I can say to my honourable friend is that one of the best things that this government has been able to do, to help repair some of the rather considerable chaos and damage that we saw inflicted on the economy of Manitoba in the nine years or so when my honourable friends were in office, what we have seen since that time is a growth in the employment rate in Manitoba which was three times the growth that occurred under my honourable friends each year, 11 ,000 and 12,000 in the first two years and now we're looking at - and these figures will have to be projected for the full year and they won't be as high as 15 ,000 perhaps for the full year - but we're looking at another year perhaps of 10,000, 11 ,000 new jobs.

My honourable friends, with all of their policies, Mr. Speaker, of spreading the taxpayers dollars all over the province, hither, thither, and yon, in make work programs, useless programs of a sort that were helping to bankrupt this province very quickly, were not able to create jobs. So now my honourable friend says that we should do what they did when they were failing to create jobs. We're doing the right thing, Mr. Speaker, by providing incentives for people to do things on their own and jobs are being created at a rate three times better than when my honourable friends were in office. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A. R. (Pete) ADAM: Mr. Speaker, to the First Minister. In view of the fact that he feels that his programs have been so successful, could he explain why that in many towns with a population of 500, almost half of the businesses have For Sale signs in front of them? Let him explain that, Mr. Speaker. His Minister of Agriculture was in one of those towns MR. SPEAKER: Order, order, order please. The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. JAY COWAN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Northern Affairs.

I'll ask the Minister if he can confirm that the present Deputy Minister of the Department of Northern Affairs is being removed from Thompson, and can the Minister clarify if this suggests that the Deputy Minister of Northern Affairs 4585

Tuesday, 10 June, 1980 is being removed from that position or does it mean that the peputy Minister's office of the Department of Northern Affairs is being removed from northern Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Northern Affairs. HON. DOUG GOURLA Y (S wan River): Mr. Speaker, I can say that I have this under active consideration. MR. COWAN: Mr. Sp eaker, acco rdin g to my sources, I would suggest that it's under very active cons ideration and a memorand um has been presented that would remove that Deputy Minister of Northern Affairs from the city of Thompson.

Can the Minister inform the House if there will be a further reduction in staffing levels for the Thompson office of the Department of Northern Affairs; and while the Minister is answering, can he also indicate if his own Executive Assistant is based in Thompson or in another part of the province? of the Department of Northern Affairs, and while the Minister is answering can he also indicate if his own executive assistant is based in Thom pson or in another part of the province? MR. GOURLAY: Mr.

Speaker, I can answer the last question that my executive assistant is stati oned here in Winnipeg, he works with me out ol my office. With respect to reduction of staff in the Thompson office, as I ind icated I have under active con side ratio n moving the Deputy Minis ter to Winnipeg, however.

To go back to 1978 it was a decision of the government of the day to place a senior staff position in Thom pson to try and sort out the mess that had been left of this government back in 1977, and I can honestly say that the position of the Deputy Minister in Thom pson has fulfilled the obligations very well and I feel that it would be an advantage to have the Deputy Mi nister here. However at the same time I would hope that I could get appr oval from Cabinet that a senior staff man would be located in Thompson to fill the position that would be vacated by the Deputy Minister there. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill with a final suppl ementary. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Minister of Northern Affairs for a typical answer from his side of the House in regard to why they have taken such action. I'd ask th_e previous Minister of Northern Affairs and the now Minister of Labour if he recalls making the statement in September 6, 1978 and I quote We feel your needs can best be served with a senior minis ter . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

May I suggest to the honourable member that statements or policies of former Ministers have to be asked of the present Minister, you cannot ask a question of a Minister on a former portfolio that he occupied. The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr . Sp eaker. appr eciate your advice on this matter and will direct my question then to the Minister of Northern Affairs, who is currently occupying that portfolio.

As the previous Minister has indicated that he feels the best needs of northern Manitoba ns can be served by a senior adm inistrator close at hand, and as the Minister has now indicated that he has under active consideration and has in fact ordered the removal of that senior admin istrator from northern Manitoba, can the Minister of Northern Affairs indicate if he did so with the advice and upon consultation with the Minister of Labour, or if he took that decision onto hi s own and thereby by doing so breaking the election promise that was given to the people of northern Manitoba by the Minister of Labour. MR.

SPEAKER: Order ple ase. May I point out to the honourable member that asking for internal cab inet decisi ons is a qu est ion that is not recommended. The Honourable Member for Church ill. MR. COWAN: Perhaps I can try one more chance at rephrasing it, Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence.

I would ask the Minister of Northern Affairs if he believes that the interests of northerners can best be served by having a senior admin istrator, namely the Deputy Minister of Northern Affairs, close at hand, namely in the community of Thompson; and does he feel by removing such a person that he will be in fact taking away the advantage of having that person within the general northern constituency. MR. GOURL AY: Mr . Speaker, in view of the present situation with the current staff at Thompson, I feel th at the Deputy Minister could serve the department well in the office here in Winnipeg. MR.

SP EAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minis ter of Agriculture. I wonder can the Minister advise the House if he has received any reports of the impact of th e severe kil li ng frost th at the wea therman had imposed on northw est Manitoba last week. MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that was one more of the ditficulties that the agriculture people are facing, particularly in the northwest region.

We saw frost damage to the alfafa crops that were doing fairly well, as well as the rye crops that had survived the dry conditi ons in the northw est region, particularly in the Roblin and the Swan River area. The rye crop in that area was in the blossom stage and was destroyed, as well as 30 to 40 percent of the alfafa crop was hit by frost.

Frost conditions also hurt the crops that were doing fairly well in all the other regions of the province and the toll at this particular time is hard to estimate but it's one more hardship that the producers of livestock will have to face when it comes to gathering their feed supplies. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for The Pas. MR. McBRYDE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and try 4586

Tuesday, 10 June, 1980 to get clarification from that Minister, which is very difficult. I wonder if the Minister could tell the House, is his Deputy Minister of Northern Affairs moving from Thompson or not moving from Thompson. MR. GOURLAY: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, I have it under active consideration. MR. McBRYDE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs is his Deputy Minister moving from Thompson or is he not moving from Thompson? MR. SPEAKER: The que stion is repetitive. The Honourable Member for The Pas. MR. McBRYDE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to get an answer from the Minister.

It looks like it's going to be difficult. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister could tell us then whether or not his Deputy Minister in Thom pson has sent out notice to his staff, sent out notice last Friday that he will be moving from Thompson. Could the Minister confirm that? MR. GOURLAY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My que stion is to the Minis ter of Labour and while we on this side of course appr eciate the good news contained in todays unempl oyment statistics, we agree with the First Minis ter that trends must be examined also. Can the Minister of Labour confirm that on both an actual and a seasonal basis, that with 28,000 unemplo yed in the province that there are more unemp loyed today than when the government took office; that there are 1,000 more unemployed on a seasona lly adjusted basis and that there are 6,000 more unemployed when actual figur es are taken into consideration? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nis ter of Labour. MR. MacMASTER: I can't confirm those figures, Mr. Speaker, I know the Member for Churchill well enough to know that he'll dig out some set that relates to something, someplace, somewhere. I know that the average this year, when you average it out over the number of months so far in the year 1980, there are approximately 6,400 more people working in Manitoba this year than there was last year. That's on the year average, Mr. Speaker. MR. COWAN: Thank you. Then the Minister should also know me well enough to know that my facts are usually correct.

I'd ask the Minister then . . . - (I nterjection)- The First Minister wants to drag MacGregor into this and I would ask him to look at the well samples to ask who should be believed in the matter of the spill at MacGregor and the fact that we on this side consistently told the full picture and a complete picture. But my question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Labour, or perhaps, let me redirect that, to the First Minister who made such a hullabal loo about the fact that 15,000 more people are employed May of this year than April of this year.

Can the First Minister confirm that going back as far as 1966 that an increase of 15, 000 for May over April is in fact the average increase and has been exceeded many times under the previous admin istration and has been exceeded many times by the adminis tration previous to the last New Democratic Party Government? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, what I can confirm from the release that is in front of all honourable members - and I don't have to distort it in any way at all - is that year over year, according to the releases in front of me the increase, that is from April of last year to April of this year, and I'll just get it and read it again, Over 94 percent of the Manitoba labour force was working last month with the number of employed totalling 463, 000, an increase of 15,000 from April and 14,000 more than in May of 1979. I don't have to give any further dilation on those figur es, Mr. Speaker.

I think all people in Manitoba under stand them , even ii my honou rable friend doesn't. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Churchill with a final supple mentary. MR. COWAN: It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the First Minister wants to talk about trends and then when you point trends out to him, he doesn't want to talk about them. My question to the First Minister is, can he confirm and explain why it is that since his government took office that for every four persons entering the labour force, on average, one of those persons was unable to find a job?

Why it is since he took office that 25 percent of those people entering the labour force in this province have been unable to find productive work? Can he explain that to the people of Manitoba? MR. LYON: Mr . Sp eaker, I don't know from whence my honourable friend gets his figu res. Even more, Mr. Speaker, even more of an enigma is where my honourable friend gets some of his political phi losophy. But what I can say to my honourable friend is that the participation force for workers in Manitoba is higher now than it's ever been before.

What I can say to my honourable friend is that the jobs that are being created in Manitoba today are being created in the private sector, not in the public sector by make-work jobs, such as the Member for Brandon East was asking us to start doing again.

I tell my honourable friend for his benefit that he is observing what can happen in this country, and indeed in this province, when the private individual is al lowed some el bow room and isn't oppressed by government taxation and other government rules, such as my honourable friend is trying and will be running in the next election to try to put back onto the necks of the people of .Manitoba. They won't buy it. MR. COWAN: Thank you. Well, since the First Min ister indicated that he did not know from whence I got my figures, I would ask him if he can confirm 4587

Tuesday, 10 Juoe, 1980 that since October of 1977, 29,000 persons have entered ttie labour force and during that same period only 23,QOO of them had been able to find productive work. Can he confirm that would lead us to the conclusion that one out of four had been unable to find work and that is where the statistics come from, Statistics Canada, can he explain that away? Ptt'!R. l YON: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, I don't know from Whf:!nce my honourable friend gets his figures. All I G!!fl tell him is that the participation rate of people employed in Ma nitoba is up over what it used to be, and thank heaven it is.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Church ill. MR. CC)WA!"': Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd ask the Minister of Labour if he can confirm that on a seasonal basis the num ber of unem plo yed has resulted, in fact, in 2,000 new jobs since January. The seasona lly adjusted level has resulted in 7,000 new jobs; the seaso nally adjusted level in January of this year being 481 and in May being 488,000 persons. MR. SP EAKER: Orde r ple ase. I sug gest th at detailed information of that nature can best be served by an Order for Return. The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister for Economic Development that Mr. MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ple ase. The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: I'm sorry, Mr . Speaker, the House Leader was quick. I wanted to ask the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker, whether he has had any recent conversations with the hospitals involved in the strike to review with them their ability to pay a reasona ble settlement, an increase, without lifting his ceiling of restra int? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L.R. (Bud) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Not recent, Mr. Speaker.

The hospitals know where they stand in this situation and they have been pursuing their objective which is to settle the strike fairly and reason ably. There have been no discussion of that kind. MR. CHERNIACK: Would the Minister confirm that the hospitals know that they stand with a ceiling imposed on them which is a restraint of some 8 percent? MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I've dealt with that question before. There is substantially more than 8 percent on the table so the contention of the Honourable Member for St. Johns is unsupportable on the evidence, Sir. MR. SP!i=A!<ER: The Honourable Member for St.

Johns Vtlilh a final suppleme ntary. MR. CHERNIACK: Will the Minister confirm that the only way they can work out any higher rate than that would be from other parts of their budget because of the restraint imposed by this government on the hospitals in the health service field? MR. SH ER MAN: No, Mr. Sp eaker, for the innumerable time, for a num berless time, I won't confirm thqt. The Honourable Member for St. Johns knows what the procedlfffl is, the hospitals know what the procedure is and the situation will be resolved the way it's always been resolved, by dealing with hospital budgets as they confront us. MR.

SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just had a questio n of Mi nis ter of Agri cu ltur e to ask him whether he has yet found an answer for the question that he took as notice about thr ee weeks ago, an c::t that is, why the number of farms in Manitoba are disappearing or being reduced three or four times as rapidly as in Saskatche wan and Al berta? MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable Mi nis ter of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, the answer is the same and that is the fact that they were worked under a NOP government for eight years and it's the effects of their programs and their policies that have caused that reduction. MR. EVANS: Mr . Speaker, I don't think th e Honourable Minister heard the original question or doesn't remember the original question, because the period of time we're talking of is ... MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. Order please. This was the qµestion period. The time for question period having expired, we'll proceed with Orders of the Day. Order ple ase.

The Honourable Member for Brandon East on a point of order. MR. EVANS: Yes, I have a point of order. I asked a very serious question of the Minister three or four weeks ago. Obviously he doesn't understand it and I would appr eciate 10 seconds so that he would understand the question find look in and try to give this House an answer, because he obviously doesn't understand with the period of time we're talking about, which is 1977 to 1979. MR. DOWNEY: On the same point of order, Mr.

Speaker, I believe I responded at that particular time but I will check out to see the specifics of the question and will take it as notice. If in fact that is what I said I would do, I would respond in the proper manner after doing so. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Economic Development, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House 4588

Tuesday, 10 June, 1980 resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented and carried, and the House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply with the Honourable Member for Radisson in the Chair for the Department of Education, and the Honourable Member for Virden in the Chair for the Department of Finance. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPL V SUPPL V - FINANCE MR. CHAIRMAN, Morris McGregor (Virden): Call the committee to order. We're on Resolution 66, 6. pass - the Member for St. Johns. The Honourable Minister. HON. DONALD W. CRAIK (Aiel): Mr.

Chairman, maybe before we deal with tax credits, there were a number of questions that were left over from yesterday. The Member for Seven Oaks raised the question on the refund of revenues. In the last fiscal year. 1979-80, the refund of prior years' revenues totalled 2,723,000 and the refund for the current year's revenues totalled 6,248,000.00. They'll be shown separately in the Public Accounts. There were further questions by the Member for Lac du Bonnet on the pattern of Manitoba expenditur es on and recoveries for Regist ered Indians. The main question was the escalation rate.

I haven't got a definitive answer on that, except that the department has confirmed that projecting into the future there are indications that the rate of urban migration is again increasing at this time - (In terject ion)- into the urban areas. The rate of migration from the rural to the urban areas is increasing. Cost increases will proceed apace and therefore, unless the federal government agrees to an adequate increase in its financial commitments to meet the exceptional costs of services to Indians moving into the urban area, the net input of the province's local governments will again increase sharply.

So it's presumed that they will increase unless there's agreement on the programs and the financing of the programs. As we go along there will be a rate of increase that will escalate at a rate greater than the normal inflation rate.

The questions with regard to the Bond Issue 10C, the department has worked out a comparison as to whether, if the issue had been paid out at the callable date of June, 1978, rather than the June, 1979 date when it was called, and what the saving would have been, the difference works out, making some assumptions on rates that were prevalent at those times, that there would have been a possible saving in 1978 of 2,440,000 Swiss francs, which translates roughly into about 1.7 million Canadian. I think that's all the questions. Oh, I have one other. I've mentioned to the Member for St.

Johns that if we could leave it until we come to my salary portion, I would deal with it then. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, there are some number on the tax credit that were taken as notice as well. Maybe we can leave those until we get on to your Item 66. MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on it now. MR. CRAIK: I guess we are; maybe you want to deal with the other one first. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, there's only one item under 6. If the Min ister has answers to questions raised, then maybe we should have the answers and it'll save time, I think. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister.

MR. CRAIK: Yes. okay. I mentioned last night that there was a question with regard to the likely or projected number that would qualify for CRISP, and I indicated that our rough answer was 30,000. I see that this is confirmed by the department on looking at it, roughly 30,000, with a full year expenditure estimated at 19.4 million. it also appears that in the order of 27,500 pensioners over the age of 55, and senior citizens, that is 65 and over, will qualify for MSP. So the total number qualifying for the Manitoba Supplement for Pensioners is estimated at 27,500.

That includes about 3,500 pensioners between 55 and 64 inclusive. An additional 2.2 million is the current estimated annual cost of the extension of the MSP to pensioners over 55 and the doubling of maximum payments. With regard to SAFER for pensioners and senior citizens, the estimated number of eligible people is in the order of 7,500, of whom an estimated 3,500 will receive SAFER payments greater than the new property tax credits, and they would get the greater of the two. Under 1,000 in the under-65 pensioner category are expected to qualify.

Generally speaking, we expect the enrichment of SAFER and its extension to pensioners over the age of 55, to be accommodated within the existing SAFER expenditure provision in MHR C. Since SAFER, in part, represents an advance payment of property tax credits to eligible applicants, SAFER payments to new applicants have the dual impact of increasing SAFER expenditur es and reducing tax credit expenditures.

The block vote principle followed for the White Paper reform facilitates any necessary reallocations of expenditure authority between property tax credits and SAFER in light of actual experience among the interdependent programs. As well for the senior citizen and pensioner univ erse, close to 50,000 pensioner homeowners and tenants are expected to qualify for the enriched pensioners school tax assistance and extension to tenants proposed in the White Paper. The annual cost of these initiatives is expected to approximate 6 million, up from the 1.5 provision in the Main Estimates.

Approximately 2.5 million of the increase is expected to flow in this fiscal year. On the family SAFER side, an estimated 2 million is included in the 29.6 annual cost of the White Paper package, of which 500,000 is expected to flow this fiscal year. An estimated 4,000 to 4,500 families with children will qualify for larger payments under SAFER than under property tax credits. 4589

Tuesday, 10 June, 1980 At this stage, the admin istrative arrangements, as I indicated, aren't quite finalized. We have the thr ee

part committee that is in the final stages, MHR C and the Community Services and Finance. The Finance Department has had an active role in the research and the preparation, of course, and produced the White Paper, but as far as the admin istration of the programs is concerned, it will now flow as a result of the three department examination into one of the line departments for administration. I think, Mr. Chairman, that pretty well covers it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr.

Chairm an. wanted to ask the Minister whether there has been any attempt to approximate, to estimate, the portion of the property tax credit which goes in reduction of education tax and that portio n which goes in reduction of municipal taxes. MR. CRAIK: Not that I'm aware of, Mr. Speaker. I think I gave up a long time ago, attempting to get a resolution of that question. It's a question I've heard before, of course. MR. CHE RNIACK: Then the Mi nister is really speaking on behalf of his department, to say that they haven't come up with any estimate. MR. CRAIK: They may have, Mr.

Chairman, I can't say that they haven 't. I haven't dealt with it directly and felt that it was going to be resolved with any definition. MR. CH ERNIACK: Mr. Chai rman, possibly the Mi nister is prepared to en quir e and inform us whether they have. MR. CRAIK: I will enquire to see what we can come up with. MR. CHERNIACK: All right, Mr. Chairman, I'll move on then. To make a general statement, Mr .

Chairman, in the first place I did indicate yesterday that I belie ved th at this program is a very progressive tax measure; that it deals with moneys that are provincial moneys, most of which are raised from the form of progressive taxation, which I believe the Tory government has reduced to some extent in various ways, but generally the largest part of provincial income is in the field of prog ressive taxation, and only to some extent has the province enabled municipalities to tax, in growth taxation, i.e., both either progressive taxation or in other growth tax areas, which makes this tax credit program even more valid as a progressive measure.

That's why I always felt that the Minister had gone overboard when he attacked it so violently back in 1976, and maybe even earlier, that in fact any person involved in taxation and bel ieving in the principle of rogressive taxation - which means ability to pay, which means to tax people at a higher level who are better able to pay tax, and to tax low income people at a lower level - that this would be consistent with that principle; The Tories have not yet rejected the principles of progressive taxation.

Having said that and having, as I mentioned yesterday, a belief that in addition to zeroing in on the two specifics of property taxation and cost of living, that this does have a redistributive effect, to some extent, wherein people who don't even pay tax get a rebate under the cost of living tax credit. I think that that's good and right, and I really don't expect the Minister to carry out the prediction he made in 1976, that it would be wiped out. I can see there will be change, and we'll be discussing that at greater length if we have a chance to, before the next election.

I do believe that this latest measure which we've been calling for for the last thr ee sessions, of increasing the amount of the property tax credit, that having finally received an increase, the increase was regressive. In the first place, Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Op position react ing to the fi rst announcement that the minimum was increased by 100.00, used the phrase, too little and too late. I want to submit to you, Mr.

Chairman, that when you speak about 100 increase, the first in three years, then you would have to recognize that it is the equivalent of a 16.67 increase if it were made in each of the thr ee years; in that, in the first year back in '78 there should have been an increase and there wasn't, and if there had been an increase designed to put 100 into the pocket of a municipal taxpayer, or property tax payer, then to do that it would have been a cost of 16.67, or an addition.

In 1978, the following year, would be 33.33 , that is the 16.67 in '78 and again in '79 and in this year 50 would have been another increase of 16.6 7 and that totals 100.00. So that, had the government carried out the pol icy of increasing the tax credits by annual installments then to have ended with 100 this year, which they did do, it was the equiv alent of a 16.67 increase in each of those three years.

Since we have no idea of what's going to happen next year, then I can only say that in these three years, in '78, '79 and '80, the Tories, by giving 100 this year, have given the equiv alent of 16.67 increase in each of the last three years and that's why I think the Leader of the Opposition was so right in saying, too little, and it really is too little and not at all reflective of the additional costs, just cost of living alone. So I'm critical of that, Mr. Chairman.

The other regressive feature I want to refer to is the fact that, as the minimum and maximum increases, the disparity is negative to the principle of progressive taxation. And the previous government also increased by similar lump sums which doesn't make it right, but the higher you go the worse it gets. This year, if you increase the minimum, which is universal, by 100, you increased from 225 to 325, which I calculate - and my arithmetic is subject to review - which means that in this year the universal increase was a 44 percent increase to rich and poor alike.

When you look at the maximum, an increase from 375 to 475, that 100 increase is an increase of 26 percent and the people who are the beneficiaries of the maximum are the people in the lower income group, othe rwise th ey wou ldn't qual ify. I don't remember what the cut-off is for reducing the maximum down to the minimum but we can well recognize that all the people of all income groups, including the richest, have received a 44 percent increase in the reduction of their property tax or in 4590

Tuesday, 10 June, 1980 the benefits from this program here; and those in the lowest income groups who are paying property tax of 475 have only had an in crease of 26 percent, and that is to me clearly a regressive increase. So we 're still dealing with progressive taxation though within the bracket of progressive taxation. This is typical, I think, of the attitude of this government as shown in all its tax measures since the emergency or the quick session in 1977. So that although I indicate disappointment, I do not indicate surpr ise.

It just means that the Conservatives do not believe in progressive taxation in this way because they've cut back in various ways, in regressive ways, even when it comes to the principle of progressive taxation. I suppose if they hadn't done so then there might be less of disagr eement in philo sophy between the two parties vying for power and I suppose that's what makes for democracy.

But I couldn't let the opportunity go without pointing out that the amount of the increase was too little, too late, in that it has taken thr ee years to make even that equivalent of 16.67 a year, and that the change itself is a regressive change and one unjustified.

Now we'll see what the next change will be after we hear about the educ ation changes, but my prediction is that it will be again one which will be a regressive one, just as social allo wances are being adversely affected, just as other proposals are aimed at - of course, I recognize - at those who are practically in a destitute line - and I recognize they are being helped - and also are helpful to the wealthiest and that the middle income or lower income people are adversely affected by the policies - and I believe they're phi losophic policies - of the Conservative Party. MR. CHAIRMAN: 6- pass.

Resolution 67, 7.(a) ... MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Yesterday you balled us out for not raising our hands and I saw the Member for Lac du Bonnet's hand but you weren't looking at us. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oka y. I take that rap on the knuckles and honour the Member for Lac du Bonnet. I didn't see him, honestly. MR. SAMUEL USKIW: Mr. Chairman, obviously the Mini ster did not intend to respond or at least he doesn't appear to be wanting to respond to the criticisms levelled by the Member for St. Johns. But I would like to have a breakdown of the 156,3 00,000 if I could.

Just how does that apportion out amongst the several tax credit programs that we are now involved in? No, this is two, that's right. Can we have a breakdown of . . . ? MR. CRAIK: I presume, Mr. Chairman, the member wants a breakdown, not of that item but the total package. With the changes announced in the budget which will change the figures in the estimates book MR. USKIW: By another 28.6. MR. CRAIK: Yes, additional. MR. USKIW: Yes, that's right, 28.6. MR. CRAIK: It will probably be more valuable if I was to give you the breakout of the program. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I wonder if we couldn't divide the 156 first and leave the 286 out, because there are a number of programs in there that are not really tax credit programs. MR. CRAIK: Yes. MR. USKIW: In the 286. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: Well, I'm just asking the Min ister if he could give us a breakdown, Mr. Chairman, MR. CRAIK: The 15 6 - the proper ty tax assistance would be, as indicated in the estimate book, 11 6 million, the cost of living tax credit would have been 39.5 mil lion, and then there's an admin istrative fee to the federal government of 0.8 million, for 156.3 million. MR.

USKI W: Could the Mini ster give us the difference between last year's property tax credit total figure and this year's? What was last year's? MR. CRAIK: 105.3 milli on. Last year's was - in 197 9-80 - MR. USKIW: What was the cost of living tax credit for last year? MR. CRAIK: 299 - sorry, Mr. Cha irman, I'll correct that - last year's property tax was 109.2, the cost of living was 35.0, federal admin istration 0.7 for a total of 145. MR. USKI W: Mr. Chairman, what that seems to demonstrate is, that we're really talking about the same dolla rs as between last year and this year, in these two programs.

Well almost the same. But what has taken place is a shifting around as between programs. 11 6 and 39.5, as I understand it. Is that correct? MR. CRAIK: Yes. MR. USKI W: So that's about 15 6, yes, million dollars. It's about an increase of 11 milli on. That's what we're talking about here. MR. CRAIK: Yes. MR. USKI W: Could the Min ister then explain to us, do they have a projection on how many homeowners will receive a real increase in the property tax credit? That's after they file their income tax.

How many will receive a gain out of all these changes, based on the property tax credit changes and based on the cost of living tax credit changes, after filing? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, of course, all will get the basic increase. All the property taxpayers at the muni cipal office get the minimum, which is included in this too. 4591

Tuesday, 10 June, 1980 MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, just to explain to the Min ister what I am trying to arrive at. After we do all of the calc u lations, the addi tional credits, the negative aspects of these changes, because of the change in formula, many people will get a reduction because of the change in the method of calculation.

So somewhere the department must have a figure in order to arrive at the milli ons of dollars that it's going to spend in this program, as to how many tax filers, next year when they file their income tax, will have a negative impact because of the changes, and how many will have a positive impact. There is a trade-off here, the Min ister alluded to it himself in his budget address. What I'm trying to do is put a figure on it. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any figur es that would be worthwhile on the property tax credit side.

It's not anticipa ted that there would be people, any substantial number, who would receive less, the vast majority would receive sign ificantly more. That's not the case in the cost of living tax credit though. MR. USKIW: I think, Mr. Chairman, the Minister's last point demons trates his, I gue ss, lack of und erstand ing my question here. I'm combining the two, and I'm asking the Mini ster how many tax filers then, let me use that term, will have an financial advantage because of these changes, and how many will have a disadvantage? How many tax filers are there in Manitoba? Let's start with that figure? MR.

CRAIK: I don't have that, Mr. Speaker. If the member wants all this, I think he'd better write it out, because it's going to take some time. He may as well file an order for return to make it complete. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, as I recall it, and I may be wrong, I thought that the Mini ster mentioned a figur e at one time, somewhere in the order of 18 6,000 people, tax filers, having a negative result from this whole exercise, but I may be wrong. My guess was about 250,000 will be worse off, after they file their income tax.

I think the Min ister used a figure of 186,000, and I would judge that to be a conservative figur e. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, I thought the member was ref erring to one particular aspect. MR. USKIW: No, combined. MR. CRAIK: If he's talking about total tax filers, figur es I gave in the House were about 400,000, and that there would be, as I recall, 13 0,000 fewer as a result, not of the property tax but of the cost of living tax credit changes prin cipally, that would get a reduced return under this program. The reduction num ber was around 13 0,000. MR. USKIW: Not 186,000. MR.

CRAIK: I don't think it was that high. Well I'll find it, Mr. Chairman, as I did give the figure in the House. I'll come back to it, Mr. Chairman. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, what I'm trying to demonstrate here, is that the Minister's alleged tax changes - and his words are designed to help the people that need it most - don't quite work out that way. I tried to point that out in the debate on the budget, that whether you take income people of 7,000 or 8,000 or 10 ,000 or 12 ,000 or 17 ,000, you come up with a negative result after you file your income tax return in 1981 .

Any family combinations work out by and large to a negative result because of the changes, that's why I'm trying to determine just how to qua ntify on those num bers whether we're talking about half of the tax filers being worse off, or less than half, or more than half. But obviously there is a shift. What I'm trying to understand is the Min ister's logic in shifting benefits from people who earn 7,000 or 8,000 to other people who earn much less than that. It seems to me that is an awkward shift.

I can't see that as being a progressive shift in taxation because every one recognizes that a 7,000 or 8,000 income is below a poverty line situation. Yet the net effect of the Min ister's changes results any transfer of wealth from people who earn 7,000 or 8,000 to people who will qualify for other things in his program that are well below that income figur e. To me that's not the resource from which to extract revenue in order to pay for needed programs.

If the Min ister was shifting wealth from other areas in the economy to pay for SAFER or to pay for CRISP or what have you, you know that makes an awful lot of sense, Mr. Chairman. But to take income away from people who are on "modest incomes, people who have families of two or three children, earning 10 ,000 or 12 ,000 or 15 ,000 or 16 ,000, end up with less money under this pr ogram. How this Min ister rationalizes that as being a logical progressive tax change is beyond me.

It isn't taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor, not by any stretch of the imagaination; it is taking from the poor and giving to the poorer. That what's it is .. . MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, that's not the case at all. You know, the member gets on one of these tangents and you just have to let him run. You've got it on the record, and go ahead and say it, but the member hims elf may we ll have been gett ing it. People who are making 100 ,000 a year were getting a cost-of -living tax credit. The member is saying that we ought to have maintained a tax program that was leaking that badly and ignored . . . MR.

USKIW: But you haven't plugged that leak. MR. CRAIK: It is plugged. It would be plugged further if we could do it. MR. USKIW: It isn't likely. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, the member is ranting on here and saying now, sugge sting that the resources are coming from a low income area to do something non-usefu l. MR. USKIW: For the destitute. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, it couldn't be more completely wrong, but I have no illu sions about the fact that I am some way going to stop the member from saying it; he's going to say it anyway.

So be it, but the fact of the matter is that tax program which I presume was set up by the former government to do 4592

Tuesday, 10 June, 1980 a job, namely to provide some income support for low income families, was in fact subject to so many distortions and anomalies in it that it was leaking in areas where it was never intended that it would; in one fact alone, that the family income was never taken into account. If we had a choice in setting it up, we would have gone even further and used a provision or an income from the tax form that would have dissallo wed the deductions for RRSPs and MUR Bs and other things. That wasn't available to us.

If we had the option, we would have gone that one step further and removed all of those from it as well, but it wasn't possible to do it. However, we are at least partially getting at the source of the problem by going to the combined family income. It is going to stop a lot of the leakage that was occurring as a result of the program that was not doing, again, I don't think, what it was originally intended to do.

So it was a reasonable and logical source to go to, since what we're doing is attempting to get at, on a needs basis, to those same people that are most in need that would have fallen under this program but who wou ld have received much less under the old program. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the Min ister alleges that these changes will plug some of the loopholes or seal off the sieves, so to speak, to reduce the leakage, but the fact of the matter is that the bulk of the leakage with respect to high income people is on page 1 and the top of page 2 of your Income Tax Return.

That's where you are able to write off income against all sorts of tax shelters or RSPs. There are ump teen ways of doing it and any one that has a healthy income is obviously using that method as a means to reduce his taxable income. I gave the Min ister a num ber of ill ustrations during Budget Debate on that very point. But they are factual, Mr. Chairman. MR. CRAIK: I just referred to that myself. I endorse you 100 percent, so what's the use of saying it four times over. MR. USKIW: They are factual. All right. MR.

CRAIK: That alternative is it is not avai lable under the federal tax collection system to get at that. MR. USK IW: Mr . Chairman, I recogniz e that; there's no question about that, that it is currently not available. But it seems to me that there should be some common purpose amongst the provinces and the federal government in rearran ging the tax forms so that it could be made avai lable. If tax credits mean any thing, it means some transfer of wealth or relief of taxation, whic hever way you want to look at it, in favour of those who need it most.

But that isn't what's happening because of the way the tax forms are drawn up, and we have to live with that problem and so does this government have to live with that problem. But the changes that have been brought about this year do not detract from that. That is still fully int act and those people who are earning large su ms of money will continue to shelt er those earnings both from taxation and in favour of tax credit benefits, wherever they can. That is natural. I don't fault them for it, because if it's open to them, why not?

The person who is sort of in the middle income category isn't able to do that because they are not in a position to fin ance these kinds of ventures and they have enough trouble just paying their mortgage payments and the car and keeping the family together. People who are earning 15, 000 or 20,000 do not earn an excessive amount of income these days if they are raising a family and buying a home. That is the group, not only at that level, but right down to 7,000 of income, Mr.

Chairman, is where the shift is taking pl ace from in favour of those other programs and unle ss the Min ister wants to dispute my analysis, I don't think I'm wrong. I've worked out a num ber of tax forms based on several dif ferent income categories, right down to 7,700 of income, Mr. Chairman. I could go lower, but I took five examples. We have a negative situation arising out of this policy, even to the person earning 7,700 a year, a married couple with one person working.

Whether you look at that one or you look at where you have two incomes, combined income of 17,000 between two income earners in the family, they still end up with a negative position after they file. So really the Min ister is not shifting from where he can find the resources. He is shifting from people who can't afford it and that is the argument that we are presenting, Mr. Chairman. It is not a logical shift. It's not a progressive shift.

If you look back over the last three years and recognize the tax concessions that have been given to the corporate sector and the business sector in Manitoba, to the wealthy sector, Mr. Chairman, and then you compare that with these measures, one has to raise the question, surely the Mini ster can't get away with the notion, or at least can 't convince me that these chan ges are progressive. They are to those people at the very very bottom who will receive additional benefits, but he's scalping the people right next to them in order to make it possible.

He's taking it away from a 10 ,000-breadwinner, from an 8,000-bre adwin ner, from a 7,000-breadwinner in favour of people that are virtually destitute, or are destitute, Mr. Chairman, and that is the wrong kind of reallocation of taxation as far as we are concerned. There are many other areas that the Mini ster can find his 10 mill ion, or whatever it takes, or 15, to do his thing, but certainly to reduce tax credits to the average Ma nitoban who is trying to pay for his mortgage and trying to educate his children, is not the area that I would find the money, Mr. Chairman.

That's the essential difference of opinion between members on this side and the government's. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Min ister. MR. CRAIK: Well, one comment, Mr. Chairman. would think that the member to be consistent ought to recall that he was advocating the abolition of indexing, and if his real concern is for the tax bracket that he's indicated here . MR. USKIW: I didn't say that. MR. CRAIK: . . . or his colleague, the Member for Brandon East . . . 4593

Tuesday, 10 June, 1980 MR. USKIW: I don't think he said that either. I was asking you. MR. CRAIK: I see. Wel l, I withdr aw that, Mr. Chairman. I presume now that the members are indicating that they are opp osed to withdr awing indexing. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, Henry J. Einarson (Rock Lake): The Member for Brandon East. MR. LEONARD S. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, just to eliminate any confusion. MR. DE PUTY CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for Brandon East on a point of order. MR. EVANS: Yes, re the Minister's statement on the indexing, we have taken no position on that, we were trying to seek a position.

We were trying to obtain the clarification of the government's position on the matter of indexing as to whether it should be removed or modified. But I took no position on it. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has not told us what he believes about indexation, has he? MR. CRAIK: I think the Member for St. Johns was perhaps out when we did deal with it last night after MR. CHERNIACK: And I'm told that the Minister has not taken a position on that. MR. CRAIK: Well, the government's position to date has been th at we ha ve not favoured the removal of indexing.

Until there is a change In the position, that's it. MR. CHERNIACK: So the government of Manitoba is opposed to removal of indexation. In other words, it favours indexation. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, that is the policy, and we haven't taken a position in opposition to it.

We have to assume we endorse the position of Indexing, but I added last night that we haven't dealt with it, and I think that in any depth if it comes up in the present course of looking at the const itutional changes, or equalization, or other financial matters that are bound to get dealt with over the next 18 months, then it will have to· be looked at more closely. But you have to assume at this point in time that the government supp orts the positio n of indexing, and until there is a change in that position, that's it. Now, I don't know what the NOP's position is.

I presume it's the same, because they went through a period of time in government where I don't recall them taking any opposition to indexing. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chair man, the reason I got into this is, that I want the Minister to know - apparently he's not been informed by his research staff - that as a government we did take the position In opposition to Indexation, but that is not the position that the NOP is now taking. You know, I quote my colleagues on that, but if the Minis ter wants to have a very reasoned, personal opinion, he can just look it up, my personal opinion. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Chairman, I have to assume then, that if the NOP position hasn't changed, that they are still in opposition to indexing. I thought they were, as I recall from the questions that were raised, that they were in opposition. I guess they are not prepared to indicate their policy. MR. CHERNIACK: The reason I mentioned that, Mr.

Chairman, is that I don't think the Minister will succeed in trying to box us into any positio n, because his own example is so prominent in the minds of many of us in relation to Autopac, in relation to investment in mining development, in relation to property tax credit, and so many other things, where this Minister and the Conservatives have taken a clear position and have then waffled back and even went back on positions they had taken. So if they are able to do that, then they can't really force the NOP into any sort of a corner by the Minister's assumptions.

That's the reason I raised it, and that's the reason, Mr. Chairman, I took the trouble to interrupt to point out, that even if he hasn't done any research, that if he did some rese arch, he wou ld flnd fhat I once made a presentation in favour of indexation away back - I don't know when, but whenever the question came up - and that does not mean it is a continuing NOP policy. It was the position of the government at that time, and times change and situations change, as we all know. So I just want to make it clear that it is the government that has to take a position and the NOP may take a position.

While I'm saying that, Mr. Chairman, I point out also, the Minister doesn't even have a position on the equalization of mineral resource revenue under the Equalization Act, because I think yesterday he learned for the first time that there is a qualifier in the Equalization Act, and he doesn't yet know what position he is going to take, mainly because he didn't know what had gone on. Mr. Chairman, I think that he had better do some research before he either gets Manitoba into trouble or his party into a bind. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Chairman, on the latter point, the equaliz ation changes that will occur next are for the fiscal year ending 1981-82. So we're looking at changes that may occur two years from now. In the meantime we're locked into a five-year equalization formula, so the Member for St. Johns, or anyone else in this room, can get themselves excited about one aspect of the equalization formula. But let me remind the members that there is not going to be anything done about it until the negotiations take place on the next formula.

So if he's suggesting that somehow there is something going to arrive because somebody is not recogn izing an aspect of the formula, again, let me repeat, you know, he's using a tactic that's not uncommon in suggesting something that would have an impossible chance of anyt hing occurring if you were concerned about it. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, the point is, that when indexation question arose, just the last week or 4594

Tuesday, 10 June, 1980 two I think, from the Prime Min ister, it suddenly became something necessary to discuss. I would think that it is up to the Manitoba Government to review the whole thing and start formulating a position on it before it's too late. The reason I related that to the equalization, is that in the end, Mr. Chairman, it could be and was a uni lateral decision by the federal government.

I want the Min ister to be aware of the fact that you don't delay positions until it becomes too late and that therefore, although the new agreement is maybe two years off, discussions will be starting much earlier, and I think you told us that it's starting this year; I think you said that. -(In terjection)- Next week? Well, all the more reason, Mr. Chairman, for the Mini ster to be fully familiar with the pros and cons to make sure that he gets into the discussion early because it is very difficult to go back to a prior position and argue that than to take the present and argue from that.

I think that on the equalization issue, which is so basic to Manitoba and is apparently going to be part of the whole constitutional discussion that's about to take place, that the earlier the better - and the earlier may be next week - to get involved and to start instructing staff to aim for a better and fairer and more equitable deal on equalization, as well as on indexation. That's the reason I mention it now rather than wait for a year or two. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Resolution 66- pass. Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding 156,300,000 for Finance- pass. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 7.(a)- pass; 7.(b)-p ass the Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: Sorry, I thought we were on 8. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Looking at the description of this particular division reminds me of the Task Force that was headed up by Mr. Spivak a couple of years ago and I'm wondering whether this division is utilizing th at partic u lar set of recommendations and is continuing to review government departments in light of recommendations made by the Spivak Task Force on government organization. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Chairman, I may have missed some point and the member will pick it up if I did. This group here, which formerly was the Management Committee function of Cabinet, this is the group that came out of Management Committee and went into fina nce and has operated as assistance to the Secretary of the Treasury Board in the operations of the Treasury Board function. It has gradually been growing smaller and smaller and I wouldn't be surpris ed if next year, when you look at this, it will be smaller still, as time goes by. It's the government's intention to experiment.

First of all, a number of the management committee group were retained for this function as The Financial Admini strat ion Act has got into force and the governments have taken over the operation of their own programs. The role that was done by the Management Commmttee staff in this area before has diminished and, as a result, it's down to the point where it plays a very minor role in the department and in the operation of the Treasury Board. MR. EVANS: Mr.

Chairman, very briefly, I don't expect any lengthy detailed answer, but very briefly, for my edification at least, perhaps others know of this, but how does this organization, this branch or

section operate differently from the Management Committee secretariat? Just basically, what is the dif ference in their approach? What is the dif ference basically in their role? I under stand it's a diminishing role from your remarks just made. But esse ntially, are you saying that there is less reveiw, a less sort of a check in balance approach because of the way you are now organized with this division as opposed to the Management Committee setup? I don't want to put words in the Min ister's mouth; I just really want to know exactly and very concisely what is the basic dif ference in the approach? MR.

CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, the budgetary process, the budgets of various departments are prepared within the department and come to the Treasury Board from the departments and are reviewed, go back, go through the give and take of the budgetary process and then go back to departments and are adminis tered by the departments. Prior to, under the former sys tem, as th e member is aware , the Management Committee received the budgets and did a separate analysis of the budgets.

The Management Committee analysis of the departmental budgets went before the Management Committee of Cabinet, which I think was normally chair ed by the First Mini ster, the day up until the latter days of the government, anyway, and then reverted back to the departments. But the Management Committee, when normal things came up that by the rules that were laid down had to come back to Ma nagement Committee in the course of the year's operation, came back up through. Again, the Management Committee screened it before it went to the Min isters who were on the Management Committee.

That screening of the budgets, first of all, has been reduced to very very little and there are still requirements that have to be met during th e yea r's operation for siz es of expenditures, types of expenditure. If they exceed a certain level, they have to come before Treasury Board. If they are below a certain level, they are what we call pre-cleared through the system with Min isterial approval but require Min isterial approval, which in turn is documented with the Cabinet every week and is ther efore reviewed by all Cabinet.

If they exceed a certain limit, they have to be appro ved by the Treasury Board and then go before the Cabinet, as the Treasury Board minute, again for a review by the Cabinet. But what essent ially has happened is that in the middle group the Management Committee has been all but removed completely from the system and the budget is prepared by the departments, app roved by the Treasury Board which is made up of Min isters and then during the year's operations, if they exceed certain limits in their expenditure which vary from type-to-type in their limits, it comes back again for approval.

But again when it comes back, it's not normally examined by any staff other th an the 4595

Tuesday, 10 June, 1980 departmental staff before it goes directly to the Treasury Board and, as a result, the procedures are much more rapid than they were. MR. EVANS: The Minister said earlier that he sees this group becoming smaller. What provision - and this group services the Treasury Board, which is a committee of Ministers - if the Minister does not envisage that this group will disappear altogether, because it would seem to me that you need some sort of a secretariat or a staff to assist the Treasury Board in its responsi bilities. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Chairman, that's essent ially what it is becoming and has become is a secretariat support for the Secretary to the Treasury Board rather than a program analyst or invest igator, which was more the rule under the previous administrative procedures. MR. EVANS: Getting back to the question I had asked previous, the task force on government organization and efficiency headed up by Mr. Sidney Spivak, I was wondering whether this group would still be trying to carry out certain recommendations of that particular report.

Looking at the terms of reference as described in the estimates booklet and knowing what the recommendations were in the Spivak task force, is this group still attempting to implement some of those recommendations or is that a dead issue now? MR. CRAIK: I don't think at this point in time that this group itself would refer in any regular way, at this point in time, to the recommendations of the Task Force. The setup that we're operating under is not the type of setup that was recommended by the Task Force. MR.

EVANS: What group within the governmental structure does the Cabi net have to conduct an ongoing assessment as to staff size? In other words, what organization do you have that can help you maintain a watch over excessive growth of SMY s or what have you? I appr eciate, during the budget review each year, that's a matter of concern, but my experience has been normally departments come in asking for more bodies, for more positions.

It would seem to me that it's a useful mechanism for government to have or an organization to have within government that looks at it from the reverse point of view, not just respond ing to departments requests for more positions, but an organization which says, we'll look at this particular program under this departme nt, th ere se ems to be a dimunition in its activity, and so on, and ther efore perhaps there should be a reduction of staffing here, reduction of positions and so on.

In other words, taking a look at efficiency and staff levels from the govern ment's point of view, as opposed to a departmental point of view which comes in with a vested interest. The department, with the best of intentions, will come in at budget time asking for all kinds of money to fulfil! what they see as their mandate. It seems to me it's useful to have a body that sort of take a non-departmental viewpoint and it has to be some staff persons that have the time to advise the Minis ters. MR.

CRAIK: That staff end of it is vested in the Civil Service Commission, which includes the large number of personnel that were one time in the Manageme nt Committee. MR. CHAIRMAN: 7.(b)- pass. Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding 185, 100 for Finance-pass. Now appr opriation 8. and 9. on the next page deal with Statutory Expenditur es which need not be voted on. However, if any member wishes to comment on these items, they may do so. The Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, the matter that I would like to pursue at this time is the decision on the part of the Minister to retire that Swiss loan. MR . CHAIRMAN: Are we going back to the Minister's Compensation? MR. USK IW: No, we can discuss this here. You don't vote on it. MR. CRAIK: That's right, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of places where this can be dealt with and the normal place you would deal with it is under the Act before the House that in the final analysis that presents this, but it's not normal to deal with statutory provisions under estimates. MR. USKIW: You can discuss it. MR.

CRAIK: There's no exclusion of discussion. The normal place you would discuss it is when the bill is before the House that makes the provision and at that stage. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, there is not necess arily any bill before the House dealing with these items. There may be a bill, well, there certainly is a bill for future borrowings. But, Mr. Chairman, I do believe that it has never been out of order to discuss and ask questions on these statutory items, for example, on members remuneration, which is another statutory one.

But I don't recall any occasion when people were prevented from asking questions, getting information, and discussing this item before us. That's why it's there. Vote them down, but it's not voted on. MR. CRAIK: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, there is no vote on this, so I think technically, in terms of setting up the rules of the operation of the committee, you should deal with it under the Minister's salary, which is a wide-ranging discussion. Perhaps that's what we are doing, but I th ink technically you either vote on it or debate it under an appropriation, or under a bill in the House.

Now the only appropriation that is broad enough to provide it is the Min ister's salary, so if you wish to indicate that it's under the Minis ter's salary, I think you'd be setting a precedent you'd want to follow in normal committee operation. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, you'll see how ultruistic I am when I tell you that I want to fight on 4596

Tuesday, 10 June, 1980 behalf of the opposition; since I expect that members opposite will be in opposition soon, I want to protect their interests. Mr. Chairman, when salaries used to be discussed at the beginning of a department, this item was still a matter for discussion, and this is presented in a form which is detailed for information. I do believe, Mr.

Chairman. that the Mini ster is trying to set a precedent, but that the precedent before us for 17 years that I've been around, is that this item is discussable. it's not to be voted on; it is an item before us, but it's not to be voted on because it is statutory. I would think that no one should try to prevent our gaining information when staff is present. and of being able to comment on this, because you cannot comment on it otherwise. Mr. Chairman, the reason is, that though it is statutory, the amount is not statutory.

The requirement to make the payment is statutory, but the amount is not,. and if we, in discussing this, are able to show the Minister that there's a mistake and that there has to be a change, more or less in amount, then this would be the occasion to do it. So, Mr. Chairman, really the precedent, I am quite sure, is that this is a matter that is before the committee, which the committee has a right to discuss and ask questions on but has no right to vote on. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well. the Chair did reasonably cover it I thought. If any member wishes to comment on these items, they may do so.

So Item 8 - the Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, that's the whole point that I was trying to pursue, the decision of the government to retire the Swiss loan at this point in time by floating a debenture of 50 million in Canadian money, at a rate, as I understand it, according to the OC, a quarter of one percent below the average prime rate, which in today's terms would be about 13-1/ 2 percent.

As I understand, the Minister indicated yesterday that the Swiss interest rates were somewhere around 6 to 8 percent; that's quite a range, and I'm not just sure where it is, but obviously we're talking about a rate half of what the i Canadian rate is at the moment.

So, I would like to find out from the Minister whether he is now making the judgement that the exchange rate is going to continue to be unfavourable in terms of Canada, and that for this reason he feels quite comfortable in ignoring the option that he does have, and that is of rolling over the Swiss loan again for Swiss francs, instead of going for Canadian money in refinancing this amount. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Chairman, there is every indication that the short-term rate, or the bank prime rate will continue to fall at a rate that exceeds the drop in the long-term rate, and from that point of view the decision was made on the advice of the financial advisors and others that this would be the prudent way to go at the present time in order to stay in Canadian funds. The American picture, at this point in time, would not have provided any improvement. and as a result the decision was made, not that we expected to remain up in the 13 percent range, but that it would drop.

There is a provision in this issue for payout at the end of two years. it's a five-year issue, but payout. after two years. it remains to be seen whether it's been a good decision or not. If a year from now we are still paying 13 percent, I expect you'll tell me about it. MR. USKIW: Exactly the point. Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Minister would indicate to us what the value of the Swiss franc is today, so that we know exactly what we are dealing with. MR. CRAIK: Seventy one cents, I understand, Mr. Chairman. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, obviously I'm not going to argue with the Minister, you know, it is a judgemental thing. But he is foregoing his option to refinance in Swiss francs and has opted for Canadian money, despite the fact that the interest rates are double at the moment in Canada, compared to what they are in Switzerland. I'm not saying he's wrong, but it is a judgement that he is making in terms of the next two years, at which time he has an option, or even for the whole five, that conditions will continue to be unfavourable exchange-wise and therefore he feels that this is a prudent course of action.

We will remind him two years down the road. MR. CHAIRMAN: Appropriation 9 - the Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: I don't want to overlook the opportunity to say that I think that it is a favourable transaction if one were to require Canadian dollars; I'm excluding the point made by the Member for Lac du Bonnet. I'm not sure that this is the time to buy Swiss francs, which the Minister is about to do, and give up the opportunity to borrow Swiss francs at a lower rate of interest than he is obligating himself to pay in Canadian dollars. That I'm setting aside.

I agree it's a judgemental decision, and one that he is making, but the loan itself, if one is to borrow Canadian dollars, I think is a favourable way of doing it at this time, and I want to congratulate whoever negotiated a borrowing related to prime in this way, because I think that it is a good idea. I still doubt very much if it should have been done at this time and for this purpose, but if the Minister's going out for that, then okay, that would be a way to do it. Could the Minister indicate who are the lenders? MR.

CRAIK: There are two lenders, two trust companies, Permanent Trust was one and Canada Trust was the other. The agents, of course, were our two fiscal agents. MR. CHAIRMAN: Then we'll return to the Minister's Compensation. Resolution 61, 1.(a) - the Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I have two specific items, both of which the Minister undertook to deal with. One is the question of tax refund discounter. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, there was a court settlement on the matter. There was an outstanding question that the Member for St. Johns asked me, 4597

Tuesday, 10 June, 1980 as to whether the discounter still had his licence, and I have to advise him that he does. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister whether he has discretion in granting the licence. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Chairman, there is discretion under subs ection 67(4) of the Income Tax Act that th e Mi nister may cancel the regist ration of a discounter, if the decision of the court on the advice of the Crown was to impose a minimum fine because of the technical nature of the infraction, such as failing to be registered; as an example, as opposed to violation of the inte nt of the Act, to require payment of at least 85 percent of the refund, then it would appear to be logic al not to impose a subs equent deregistration of the dis counter's certificate. Now, Mr. Chai rman, in this case the pri mary conditions were met.

He paid the 94 percent average of it, and ther e was not sufficie nt cause nor recommendation coming from the court system that he not be registered, so the registration has not been cancel led. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I assume the th ree cha rges were laid. I assume th ere were indications that there had been less than 85 percent paid, my question then is, did he remedy his breach? Is that what happened? Or was it discovered that the charge was incorrect, because now you are saying, Mr.

Minister, that 94 percent of the amount of refund was paid, on an average, which implies that he did not pay less than 85 percent? MR. CRAIK: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHERNIACK: Well what where the charges that were laid, that were not dealt with? MR. CRAIK: The charge that was laid was the char ge that he was operating without being registered. MR. CHERNIACK: No, that's the one to which he pleaded guilty. What were the other thr ee charges? MR.

CRAIK: The three counts made were of failing to pay 85 percent of the amount of the estimated refund at the time of acquisition, and the difficulty lay in proving the time of acquisition. Well, the thr ee counts were all on the same principle, that of failing to pay 85 percent of the amount of the estimated refund at the time of acquisition, and the dif ficulty lay in proving the time of acquisition. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, does that then mean that he paid up an adequate amount to bring him above the 85 percent in these thr ee cases? MR. CRAIK: He paid 92 percent, 96 percent and 93.8 percent. MR.

CHERNIACK: This was after the charge was laid. This was justifying his ... having it withdrawn, is that ... MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, the advice I receive is that it was before the charge was laid, that he had paid this amount. MR. CHERN IACK: I see. The Minister read from the Income Tax Act that he has discretion, and I just want to put it on record, that he has exercised his discretion to continue this man as a discounter, properly licenced. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Chairman, for the current year at least, he can't have his registration cancelled, as a result of the actions that were taken by the court and the fact that he had met th e general requ irements. There won't be a move made to cancel his registration. MR. CHE RNIACK: Mr. Chairman, could I have an assurance that the Minister will inspect carefu lly his appl ication for registration for the next year. MR. CRAIK: Yes, this one will expire and will have to be renewed by January of 1981 and we'll keep an eye on it. MR. CHERNIACK: All right, Mr. Chairman, I accept that. Mr.

Chairman, I would very much like to complete this item in the next five minutes but the other question I asked is a really complicated one, as I understand it - I don't know if the Minister has a one-minute answer - on that

Section 39 of The Financial Admin istration Act. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, I haven 't reviewed it since it was raised last night. It will come up in the bill and there will be an opportunity there, if the member wants to review it at that time. I'm not in a position to make further comment than I was last night, I haven't had an opportunity to look at it. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, if the Minis ter undertakes that we will have full opportunity to review it when the bill comes before us, with the assistance of staff - and when I say staff I don't neces sarily mean the people in his department but I th ink I mean some representative from the department but also the Provincial Auditor and the Legislative Counsel - I hope he'll clarify it because to me there's an anomaly in this and to repeat it year after year I think it looks silly to keep saying, well, we're not going to be bound by a

section which we brought into the legislation. So it's not a pressing thing. I'd like the Minister to undertake to study it, to become fa miliar with it and to give us ample opportunity to discuss it and maybe by studying it he will reach the conclusion I'm close to reaching and maybe we'll change the appr oach. By all means, I don't want to press it for an immediate response now but I want that opportunity. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Chairman, I'm advised that the staff have met with the Legislative Counsel and with the Provincial Auditor and that amendments are going to be recommended for review at the time we look at the bill. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, since there isn't a matter of principle or policy here except just legislative good sense - I don't like the Legislature 4598

I Tuesday, 10 June, 1980 doing what looks so silly - I hope that I can be apprised of this early enough so I can try to understand what is being proposed so that the matter will go smoothly when it comes before the House. I have no right to ask for that but I express the hope that we can, so that we can just seem to make sense in what we're doing. MR. CRAIK: If that's agreeable, Mr. Chairman, I'll get it to the member at the earliest opportunity_ MR. CHAIRMAN: 1.(a)-pass.

Be it Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding 906,500 for Finance-pass. In accordance with Rule 19(2) the hour of 4:30 having arrived I am interrupting . . _ I maybe need some guidance here. MR. CHERNIACK: No, Mr. Chairman, we finished the item. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, committee rise, and we will be going into Energy and Mines this evening, I believe. Committee rise. SUPPL V - EDUCATION MR. CHAIRMAN, Abe Kovnats (Radisson): This committee will come to order. I would direct the honourable members' attention to Page 41 of the Main Estimates, Department of Education, Resolution No. 53, Clause 4, Item (

h) Manitoba School for the Deaf: ( 1) Salaries-pass - the Honourable Member for Rossmere. MR. VIC SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, I note that this is another one of the items, the Manitoba School for the Deaf, which does not appear to be keeping up with ir.11ation, and I'm just wondering whether the Minister could explain why that is. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. HON. KEITH A. COSENS (Gimli): Mr. Chairman, if the honourable member can tell me what is keeping up with inflation these days, I'd like to know. We're seeing an increase here in the Salaries' area of some 10,000.

We are not seeing an increase in our staff at the School for the Deaf at this time. Our enrolments are remaining reasonably static; we are not getting any large enrolment there at aiL lt has remained reasonably static over the last four or five years. We find that we can deliver the services quite adequately with the particular staffing we have at this time. The advisory committee of parents and interested citizens who sit on the board of this particular school advises that the service level is adequate.

I would suggest to the honourable member that things seem quite in order as far as the School for the Deaf is concerned. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, my calculation, based on constant 1971 dollar values on this particular area. are that in 1976 there were 691 ,000 spent; in 1977, a substantial increase to 776,000; in 1978, a slight slippage, down to 772,000; then by '79, there was a drop to 753,000; there was a slight increase in 1980 to 765,000; and now we're down to 740,000.00.

So from 1978 to 1981, we're down by some 32,000 in constant 1971 dollars. lt would appear that trend downwards has started only since the change in administration. Has there, at the same time, been a change in the workload. Are there fewer students? Is there some other reason why there is a decrease in funding in this area? MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned with level of service that's provided to the children in this particular school for the deaf. I'm assured that service has not lessened, in fact it may well have increased, Mr. Chairman, over the last two or three years.

If the honourable member wishes to play with constant dollars and any type of dollars that he would like to bring up, that's fine. I'm concerned that we maintain service levels, and we're doing that, Mr. Chairman. MR. SCHROEDER: Have there been any changes in services in the past year? MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, our SMYs for 1979- 80 and 1980-81 will be identical at 7, 105. MR. SCHROEDER: Again, is there an increase or a decrease in the numbers of students? Is there any waiting list for people to get into that school, and if so, what are the numbers? MR. COSENS: Mr.

Chairman, I can give the honourable member the enrolment over the last eight years. In 1972-73, it was 133 people; 1973-74, 127; 1974-75, 11 2; 1975-76, 11 8; 1976-77, 11 9; 1977-78, 121; 1978-79, 11 3; 1979-80, 11 5, and I don't believe that we anticipate any significant increase at this time. As far as a waiting list is concerned, I'm not aware that one exists, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: (1 )-pass; (2)- pass; (h)-pass. (

j) Child Development and Support Services:

(1) Salaries- pass - the Honourable Member for St. VitaL MR. D. JAMES WALDING: Mr. Chairman, the Minister gave us some figures the other evening under a different appropriation for the amounts that were to be expended on special needs' education. I've been reviewing those figures since then and I wonder if I could go over just briefly with the Minister to try to ascertain that I've got the right amounts in the totals that he gave us. I wonder if the Minister can confirm that this year under the Foundation Grants there is some 5.218 million, special needs' category; 1 million in Other Grants, special needs; and that 3.(

e) is 2.289; 4.(

h) is 1.474; and 4.(j), 2.071. I wonder if this is the sum total of the amounts for special education that are going from the Department of Education. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, I think I also pointed out to the honourable member when I was giving him that cumulative total the other day, that the branch budgets in the department are also included in those figures under 4.(

h) that we have just passed, a sum of 1.474 million; and of course, the present

section that we are considering at this time, Child Development Support Services, a budget of some 2.071 million for a total of 3.545 million in that particular

section as well, Mr. Chairman. 4599

Tuesday, 10 June, 1980 I also mentioned to the honourabl e member at that time that other government departments also provide services in the special needs area and particularly I referred to Community Services and Corrections. I belie ve I un dertook at th at time to get the honourable member the breakdown in that regard as far as Communi ty Services and Corrections are concerned, Mr . Chairman, and I na ve that information available for the Member for St. Vital and I'll send it over to him at this time. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St . Vital. MR. WALDING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Mini ster did confirm a couple of the figu res that were listed there. Other figur es that I have were other grants and a special needs of 1 million and 5.2 18 under Foundation Grants. Those totals, according to my arithmetic, comes to very slightly over 12 million. I'd like to ask the Mini ster if I'm using the correct figu res and if that is the total for the Department of Education spending for special education. MR. COSENS: I would have to check the figur es, Mr. Chairman.

The figur es that I gave the honourable member also included - and I broke them down for his particular in terest in this area - they also included the school division contributions as well. I believe the final total of both provincial government and local gov ernment contribution amounted to some 27.9 million that I quoted to the honourable member. If the school div ision contri bution is subt racted from that, it may well be in the neighbourh ood of 13 million or 14 mill ion in the actual contribution of the provincial government. MR. WALDING: Mr.

Chairman, the Mini ster is quite right, that he did give me other figures the other evening including the amounts spent by the school divisions and also amounts spent by Health and Social Development or Corrections, whatever the department was. I've had a chance to review those figur es since then and what I'm trying to get at with the Minis ter now is the actual contribution by the Department of Education to special needs children. I wonder if the Minister would care to just review these amounts again.

Foundation Grants 5.2 million; under Other Grants, special needs, 1 million; under (3)(e) 2.289 million; under (4)(h) 1. 47 mill ion; and under (4)(j) 2.07 mill ion. Do I have all of the categories now for expenditures by the Department of Education for special needs? That total comes to 12.05 million. MR. COSENS: Yes, on the basis of these figur es, Mr. Chairman - and these would cover the major areas of granting and support from the Department of Education - that figure would be very close to being correct. MR. WALDING: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Mini ster for that reassurance.

I'd then like to compare those figur es with the figure given last year, again under the same categories tor the '79-'80 year. Those figu res that I have here are: Foundation Grants, 5 million; Other Grants, .5 million; under (3)(e) 2.011 million; under (4)(h) 1.46 million and under (4)(j) 1.96 million. The last three were taken directly from the estimates book, the others from figur es the Minister gave last year, and that comes to a total of almost 11 million, 10.936 million. I wonder if the Mini ster can confirm that figure. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, I'd have to take a minute to confirm it.

We are seeing an increase of a 500,000 this year in (3)(

a) area, in the grant towards special needs alone. We are seeing in creases in every other area, as well, whether it be in the grants towards resource teachers, TMH, EMH, OE C teachers or authorized clini cians and co-ordinators, an in crease of close to 200,000 in that regard. We are seeing an increase also in the appropriation that we are now considering, of over 100,000-and-some, Mr. Chairman. So I would suggest, without sitting down and doing the actual computation, that the honourable member is perhaps reasonably close in his figur es. MR. WALDING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have every reason to believe that the figur es are correct. I merely repeated them for the Min ister's benefit, to be absolutely sure I was using comparable figur es and not attem pting to compare apples with oranges. It would then appear, if these figur es are correct, that last year the Department of Education had spent 11 million, in round figur es, on special needs and that this year it is up to 12 million, very slightly over, for an increase of 1 million. The Mini ster gave us a figure that the school divisions this year would be spending 13.876 million on special needs education.

I was int erested to seek a comparison with the previous year, '79 to '80 year, as to how much the school divisions spent in the same area. Again, going back to Ha nsard to review the debate, I find that the Min ister had given a figure of 10.9 mill ion that the school divisions were spending. So a year ago we had an alm ost exact match from school divisions on the one hand to the department on the other, in that both were intending to spend 10.9 million.

This year the government is putting in an extra million dollars; the department is putting in an extra million dollars. lna sfar as the school divisions are concerned, the increase there is alm ost 3 milli on, 2.9 millio n, in round figures 3 million. So it would seem that school divisions are viewing their responsi bilities perhaps a little more responsibly than the Mini ster of Education. The expenditure now by school divisions is running some 2 million ahead of the department,

whereas only one year ago they were approximately even. I seem to recall that the principle of the Foundation Program, when it was set up, was that most of the increased costs of education would be borne by the provincial govern ment in the proportion of approxima tely 4 to 1; that was the basis of it. We have heard from the Minister and his colleagues on several occasions that they are in favour of this proportion of 80 percent provincial input.

It would seem to follow then, from that, that there is a respo nsibili ty on the government when there are incr eases in the costs of education, tha t the provincial government take the bulk of th ose, whether it should be exactly in the proportion of 4 to 1 or something else, but there would clearly seem to be an onus on the Minis ter, on this government, to 4600

Tuesday, 10 June, 1980 bear those increased costs. Yet, we find exactly the opposite when it comes to special needs' education. The government is increasing its contribution this year by 1 milli on and school divisions by 3 million. In other words, the bulk of these extra costs are going on to the school divisions and from them on to their local taxpayers.

I wonder if the Min ister would care to comment on those figures, and whether he feels that the division of costs as of a year ago was correct, and whether the relative increase in those two costs between the divisions on the one hand and the department on the other are correct and equitable in this year. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Min ister. MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, of course, we share in the funding with the school boards of the special education services.

What the member is suggesting at this time, that the government's s h are should be greater in this regard, and I can assure him that under the educational financing review that is under way at this time, that we have discussed at some length during these estima tes and that this is one of the areas that certainly is being given very special attention. We're attempting to rationalize many of the problems of funding that do exist in this area.

We would be the first to admit that over the last number of years the approaches by government to the funding of special needs has been less th an organiz ed - might be one way of putting it, Mr. Ch airman - in tha t there has never been an established form of funding that has remained in pla ce, so that school boards quite often are not sure from one year to another what the government's decision will be or what grants will, in fact, be continued on and what grants will cease. However, Mr.

Chairman, I can assure you that in the educat ional financing review that we now have under way, we are lo oking at ways and means of regularizing the grants of moneys that go towards the supp ort of special needs' services in this province. It is one of the priorities in that particular review, and I would hope that next year when we approach these estimates that we will have renewed many of those inequities that exist. Mr.

Chairman, jus t while I'm on my feet and we are discussing this particular area, I would like to cover a number of the areas of service that are provided to special needs' children in our schools and those areas of responsibility that the department does look after, because we have dis cussed this bit by bit and piece by piece as we move through the estima tes and I would like to, at this time, just cover a number of those areas that are the resp onsibility of the department and we have accepted as our resp onsibility. One of them, Mr. Chairman, of course, is accessibility of schools.

This has been a problem that certainly has been in place for some time as far as handicapped chil dren have been concerned. Our pol icy, of course, is to provide adequate access to school buildings for physically handicapped students whenever this is possible. Of course, under new school construction the policy is to eliminate any access barriers, so that wheelchairs can be taken in and out of buildings without difficulty and students can have access to all parts of the school plant. We have suppor ted school division requests for modifications to existing school buildings in order to provide better access.

We give this high priority construction approval and in capital funding. In the past th ree years, ther e have been a significant number of modifications to buildings that we have made to provide access, both into the buildin g and for ease of circulation with in the building. In th ese cases, th e department has appro ved indoor and outdoor ramps, elevator service and low level hydraulic lifts, depending of course on the recommend

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-4-76a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 4th hansardpdf 76a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	98f8f08c95b05bafe1646c1ecf67494085f4551b

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