Manitoba Hansard — 23 May 1978 (Sitting 47B, 31st Legislature, 2nd Session)

31-2-47b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

- ISSN 0542 - 5492 Second Session - Thirty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Vol. XXVI No. 478 26 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker 8:00p .m. Tuesday , May 23, 1978 Printed by P.N. Crosbie - Queen 's Printe r for the Province of Manito ba

Time: 8:00 p.m. LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, May 23, 1978 SUPPLY - EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MR. CHAIRMAN Members of the committee, we have a quorum. Prior to closing off for the supper hour, the Member for Lac du Bonnet had the floor. The Member for Lac du Bonnet . MR. USKIW Well , Mr.

Chairman, I was attempting to find out just before 5:30 , how it was that the report that we are looking at seems to deal only with the period in government between 1968 and 1977 and the statements which suggest that there was excessive bureaucrat ic growth without sort of backup material to show where it is or where it was , if it has been eliminated. Making ·statements is not difficult to do on anyone 's part but I would have thought that these reports would have been backed up with some appendices to give us the examples that relate to each one of these statements on undue government growth and bureaucracy.

In oth er words, what are the specific examples or are we going to be provided with specific examples of where that htaken place? The report indicates the desirability of curtailing and eliminating low priority programs . Well, Mr. Chairman, that is not a matter of efficiency; that

part icu lar element relates to philosophy and policy, it has nothing to do with efficiency. So I would like the Minister to give us an idea of where we can find the evidence to back up these general statements on excessive growth and where that growth has been trimmed off, if it has, because as I understand it and indeed in a number of departments that I had some knowledge of in going through their Estimates during this session, we zeroed in very much on those particular points and could not find anything to come close to what are described here , on Page 2, the introduction of this report.

In Agculture, I believe the department eliminated ten positions but, Mr. Chairman , we had frozen a vacancy rate of about 10 percent there for three years and so they eliminated ten positions that were vacant for two or three years . You know , if that is the growth that is worrying the present Minister , then let him say so, Mr. Chairman. I think it's somewhat of an exercise in futility unless we can get some specific documents with respect to where the overabundance of staff was and whether it's been eliminated or is intended to be eliminated .

In the large departments , both in Education and in Health, the indication from the respective Ministers was that there was no excessive staffing and that they were relatively satisfied with the efficiency of those departments. Now does that indicate to the committee that the Minister without Portfolio is running into a very difficult battle area with his colleagues or does it indicate that his colleagues don 't really know what is going on in their own departments or have not had an opportunity to discuss it with this Minister? Certainly we should expect, Mr. Chairman , a little more than general statements .

We should have something in the way of specifics so that we could discuss these recommendations somewhat more intelligently than we are able to do at the moment. MR. CHAIRMAN The Minister has indicated that he will reply to that at a later time . The Member for Selkirk is the next person on my list and then the Member for Winnipeg Centre . MR. PAWLEY Mr.

Chairman, I certainly want to follow on from the comments I thought so ably put by the Member for Lac du Bonnet in that we have reviewed some eight departments and it is my understanding that the Ministers of those eight departments have indicated that they have not observed fat, inefficiency , ineptitude as there has been an attempt throughout this report to suggest. Mr. Chairman , this is, of course, a Conservative document. Its philosophy is well demonstrated throughout. The bias is there . I refer to the very tables .

The fact that the years chosen without coincidence are chosen with the aim in mind of trying to demonstrate a comparison, the first full year before the election of a New Democratic Party government in 1969 throughout the NDP years . There is, for instance, on Page 31 as well we have a table which is of course designed to show that some way or other gross provincial product has gotten out of hand . It shows an increase of 11.8 in 1967-68 to 18.6 percent in 1976-77 . So there's been an increase in the gross provincial product .

Now in Conservative philosophy mentality , of course, there 's something dramatically wrong in 2513

Tuesday, May 23, 1978 that , something dramatically wrong in that type of development , that it demonstrates an involvement by government in areas that are positive and worthwhile . If we want to revert back to the 11 .8 to 12.5 percent gross provincial product, of course , we can easily do that. We can do so by eliminating the programs that have been introduced which make up the provincial spending whether it be in the field of personal care , whether it be in the area of Pharmacare , whether it be in the field of Medicare .

I refer members to 1968-69 , t he Manit oba Hous ing and Renewal Corporation consisted of four employees - four employees - it was but a corporation which existed for window dressing. There was no effective program that had been developed in order to bring housing to those of low and low-middle income groups within the Province of Manitoba. So , Mr. Chairman , Manitoba certainly did enter into fields of public expenditure , and there is absolutely no apol ogies that need be given for that . The movement has been one of bringing to Manitobans worthwhile programs. And I believe , Mr.

Chairman , that in other provinces , whether they be governed by Conservative or Liberal governments, there was also an increase in the percentage of public expenditure and investment , but the Minister has chosen fit not to include within the Task Force reports , graphs which would show for us, for instance, Government of British Columbia expenditures as a share of gross pr ovincial product . the Governme nt of Ontario expenditures as a share of gross provincial product , or Nova Scotia expenditures as a share of gro ss provincial product , because and I'm not criticizing the increase as I indicated , I think the increase has been of such a nature that it has brought benefits .

If the honourable members don 't feel that the increase has been positive and worthwhile , then let them return to the 1968-1969 period . In fact , Mr. Chairman , I suspect that it is the desire on the part of the present government to return us to the 1968-1969 period , and sure we'll be back to 12.3, 11 .8 of the gross provincial product. nd there 's no question , Mr . Chairman , that the government party today in Manitoba - (Interjection) - well, Mr . Chairman , it's the same old story . The only answer ... MR.

CHAIRMAN Could the members of the committee at least allow the Member for Selkirk to address the Chair , please, without too many interruptions . MR. PAWLEY It's the same old answer , what about the hydro rates? What about the hydro rates? But , Mr. Chairman , the central problem that faces the Min ister in the Task Force Report is that there was no excess fat, there was no great ineptitude , there was no large layers of waste , and that is the problem that is confront ing the present government.

That is why at the beginning it was felt , oh we're going to find , and the y led the people of Manitoba to th ink that there would be large areas of excessive waste and fat.

His Ministers have not discovered that waste and ineptitude , as has been demonstrated by their own words - some eight Ministers so far - so that their only alternative now :,s to trim back on worthwhile programs , and we have many areas , I'm not going to burden members with the areas of programs in which they have began to gradually modify programs that have been introduced , Manitobans are well aware of those programs , however , and we are seeing the very beginnings of that at the present time . Mr.

Chairman , in specific questions to the Minister , I would like to ask him if he has a report yet for me in regard to William McCance and his source of salary. MR. SPIVAK Yes, I do . I'll give that after . MR. CHAIRMAN Would the Member for Selkirk wish to carry on or do you want that specific answer from the Minister now? MR. PAWLEY Well , I would like to deal with Legal Aid later but it may be at this point that we'd be moving ahead of ourselves . MR. CHAIRMAN The Minister wishes to reply when you ·ve comp leted your remarks . MR. PAWLEY Well , there 's a number of specific questions I would like to .. . Mr.

Chairman , you can go on to the next speaker while the Minister is obtaining the answer. MR. CHAIRMAN The Member for Winnipeg Centre then. MR. BOYCE That was before supper , Mr . Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN I'd like to report to committee that this is a rather rare situation . I have no other speakers listed on my list although the Member for Selkirk has asked a specific question to the 2514

- Tuesday, May 23, 1978 Minister and is waiting a reply and is there any other person within the committee that wishes to speak now? The Minister responsible for the Task Force . MR. SPIVAK Well , Mr. Chairman , with respect to Mr . McCance , he is employed on contract starting as of October 24, 1977 with a biweekly salary of $1,067 .36. I might point out that he was employe d as the secretary of the Task Force .

That contract and that salary is less than two othe r employees of the Task Force who were employees before the former government, one of whom was on contract at $1 ,299.31 biweekly and one who was salaried at $1 ,157.51 biweekly . With respect , Mr. Chairman , to the remarks of the Honou rable Member for Selk irk, he, I th ink, expressed a very telling remark when he said that the graphs should show for us - I think I'm quoting him directly - " it should show for us" and then he went on to say what h e though t it should show for us. MR. PAWLEY For Manitobans . MR.

SPIVAK Well, no, he said show for us and by us he did not mean Manito ba, he mea nt for the New Democratic Party government. What he is essentially saying is that they should show for us those things that they consider are most advantageous . I should indic ate, Mr. Chairman , that a ten year period, a decade , was used as a basis for comparison. I don 't think that's an unreasonable situation . A comparison to the present date. When one goes back in histo ry to any moment in time, they can bring it up to the present date , they could go back 20 years , they could go back 30 years.

The Task Force went back 10 ten years . MR. PAWLEY Very convenient, very convenient. MR. SPIVAK Well , if the last ten years , Mr. Chairman , eight of which were in fact the government of the New Democratic Party show in some unfavourable light statist ical data which the members opposite are concerned about, that's their problem . MR. PAWLEY It just doesn 't show the true picture , the entire picture . MR. SPIVAK Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't th ink that that's really the case. If any individua l members would like to suggest that there was no fat , there was nothing to be cut, but the reality , Mr.

Chairman , is that at the present time , since October 24th, there has been a reduction in the Civil Service in terms of not departmental employees or casual emplo yees or peop le who were really consid ered term , but those who were within the Civil Service a reduction of over 1,300 pos itions . Mr.

Chairman , the services of government are continuing and I have not heard an uproar from the members oppos ite as to the services of government that had been denied the public , so the reality is that there has in fact been a substantial reduction, a large percentage of a reduction of the people who are employed in government and carry on government services.

And so I have to say to the honourable members , when you say that we were dealing in a situation where there's no fat , I say to you that there has been a substantial reduction of Civil Service with all the attendant costs related to the operation _.; and government services are continuing and they are continuing rather satisfactorily . MR. CHAIRMAN The Member for Selkirk . MR. PAWLEY Mr. Chairman, if there are no further speakers, I would like to deal with some specific areas in connection with Legal Aid, but I don 't want to lead into that area unless there are no other speakers dealing. . .

The Member for Peina has been most anxious to participate in the discussion . CHAIRMAN'S RULING MR. CHAIRMAN Maybe before the Member for Selkirk continues into another aspect of the report, most members of the Committee will recall that the Member for St. Vital - Can I have the attention of most of the members including the Member for Pembina - will recall that at least on two occasions he has asked me for a ruling as pertaining to a vote that took place on Tuesday of last week, the 16th, on a matter of privilege. So I'd like to report to the members of the Committee and particularly to the Member for St.

Vital and the Member for Burrows because the motion was moved by the Member for Burrows, and neither gentlemen were present when we started about 8:01 this evening , so if you will permit me to read this into the record : On Tuesday evening, May 16th, I took under advisement a point of order raised by the Member for St. Vital, regarding the admissibility of a motion made that same evening , by the Member for 2515

Tuesday, May 23, 1978 Burrows. The Member for St. Vital very correctly brought Citation 242-2 of Beauchesne 's to my attention. This citation forbids the acceptance of any motion except to reduce an expenditure or for the Committee of Supply to rise. In addition, matters of privilege should only be brought before the whole House with Mr. Speaker in the Chair. I make no comment on the priority of the basic question of privilege raised by the Member for Burrows, however , it appears that our discussion of this matter was out of order.

Furthermore, since our Committee of Supply rules forbid any votes after 10:00 p.m., the vote held on this question was also out of order. I would like to apologize to the Member for St. Vital and to the Minister for allowing the debate that was inadvertently held on this question , and to thank the Member for St. Vital , who is a former Chairman of the Committee of the Whole for bringing this to my attention.

I have said from the outset that I certainly will make mistakes as Chairman and on that particular evening that mistake did occur and we did proceed with the vote that was out of order, and I thank the Meer for St. Vital for bringing it to my attention and that is my ruling . MR. HANUSCHAK Mr. Chairman , I certainly thank you for your ruling .

There is no question your ruling is a correct one, but I think that the record still ought to show that the Minister without Portfolio responsible for government reorganization and economy , did make a very serious charge against a former First Minister, a charge without any evidence or foundation to back it up, and as the deliberations of the Committee proceed it may well be that we may choose to pursue another avenue to bring this matter to an end. MR. CHAIRMAN Take the matter before the Whole House , before the Speaker. SUPPLY - EXECUTIVE COUNCIL (cont'

d) MR. CHAIRMAN All right, we're back to the general discussion . The Member for St. Vital. MR. WALDING Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I raised a matter this afternoon with the Minister concerning Graph Ill on Page 19. I didn 't hear the Minister respond to those comments. I wonder if he has any response or perhaps I missed it. MR. SPIVAK Mr. Chairman , all Graph Ill shows is the rate of change and it shows it's reflected in a graph form .

The percentage change is not shown but the indication is very obvious , and I think the honourable member realizes it, that the government expenditures rose proportionately higher than the gross provincial product. That's reflected in the statements that are presented in the economic position . MR. CHAIRMAN The Honourable Member for Burrows. MR. HANUSCHAK Yes. I did ask the Honourable Minister this afternoon if he could outline the role and function of the two co-chairmen of the Task Force .

I asked him whether they're jointly and severally responsible for the operations of a Task Force or whether there was some delineation of role of function assigned to each. MR. SPIVAK I accept that question as being a political statement rather than a serious question . MR. HANUSCHAK It's a very serious question . MR. SPIVAK Well, if it 's a serious question , Mr. Chairman , all I say is all one has to do is read the Order-in-Council to determine the responsibilities of the co-chairmen .

We operated as co-chairmen would operate under those circumstances , in which we jointly and severally took responsibility for what was published and for the efforts undertaken. In some specific areas there was some preliminary examination of one phase or another but in reality we examined as a Task Force the total work undertaken by the Task Force , all the material that was available to us in terms of source of information, and we arrived at our conclusions jointly and severally together . MR. CHAIRMAN The Member for St. Johns . MR. CHERNIACK Mr.

Chairman , I now have two comments to make based on what the Minister has said . 2516

Tuesday, May 23, 1978 One is, he talks about the joint and several responsibilities of the chairmen . I marvel at the fact that his co-chairmen has gone in the public and not deigned to come here to give us the benefit of his knowledge, experience and advice. MR. SPIVAK He doesn't have to. MR. CHERNIACK Of course he doesn 't have to . As a matter of fact this Minister doesn 't have to be in this room. MR. SPIVAK Many co-chairmen MR. CHERNIACK When this Minister wants to speak he should ask the Chairman fo r the opportunity to take the floor . Mr . Chairman , had Mr.

Riley remained anonymous and in the back ground , I would at least say, well , he wanted to remain aloof from the political sphere . But was it last Saturday that he decided to give a rare inter30/ view and gave an interview , at some length, on the Task Force and then I think that that was an affront to the tas k he undertook to do and that is to advise the Legislature on the findings of the Task Force and the rec ommendations.

In ot her words , he lent credibility to what was done without being acco untabl e, and when you read all the need for accountability and responsibility and those words that are m enti oned in this Task Force Report , I can only be critical of the fact that Mr. Riley picked and chos e his arena and did not agree 'l o co me here . Now, the Member for St . James again wants to make the .. . he' s made about five speeches , t.Ar. Chairman , in the last five minutes. M R. MINAKER One line speeches . MR. CRERNIACK One line speech , well that's all it was worth his doing ; even then it was a waste of time . Mr .

Chairman, this explanation that the Minister gave for Graph Ill on Page 19 doesn 't make sense , Mr . Chairman. He said something about relative but , Mr. Chairman , a ny graph I have seen - and I've seen a few - has two yardsticks , two measurements. One is vertical and one is horizontal and if you miss one or the other it is grossly misleading to the extent where it is not only useless but it is damaging . I think the Minister ... it would be much better grace on his part to say, " Yes, we goofed .

We should have had a vertical line here which would have had something to show the proportion of which we're talking." Instead of that he brushes aside a major error in the graph . I accept his doing that because I think that that is the value of many of the findings that we have in this report . I bring it up only, firstly, to give the Minister an opportunity to say, I will bring a corrected graph and distribute it to all members , or, to just keep on what he is doing , and that is trying to fudge the issue.

I would expect him to do that because I think there is much that he cannot support in the statements that are made. I'd like to ask the Minister , referring now to Page 22, where the Task Force talks about, well , let me read the first sentence. "Another approach to measuring the size of government is to compare government employment to the population base it serves." Having made that profound statement, I'd like the Minister to tell us what he learned about each of the other provinces, of Manitoba in relation to the size of the government employment to the population base thaCit serves in the other provinces.

Could he inform us of that. MR. SPIVAK Mr . Chairman, the Task Force had various options in the .way in which they presented it. They could have showed for them. which would have been the comparison that they 've always claimed should be made with other provinces , rather we wanted !o show for Manitoba, which is really what we did. And Mr. Chairman, again I point out that since that time we have reduced the Civil Service by over 1300 permanent employees. - MR. CHERNIACK Mr . Chairman , may I ask , did the Task Force reduce the Civil Service? MR. SPIVAK Mr .

Chairman, that was reduced by the government with the co-operative effort of the Task Force, and certainly with the determination of the Ministers involved , and the Premier, trying to live within our means . MR. CHERNIACK Mr. Chairman , would the Minister mind answering my question . Did the Task Force reduce Civil Service? MR. SPIVAK The Task Force can only recommend , Mr. Chairman , and what we did is, in the case 2517

Tuesday, May 23, 1978 of the Estimates for this coming year , we did try to make certain recommendations when we could to influence and have some impact on the Estimates, and I believe we did. MR. CHERNIACK Now , Mr. Chairman , that we've established that the Task Force did not reduce the Civil Service, would the Minister respond to my original question, and that is, did the Task Force have the information of the relative size of government employment to population base in the other provinces? MR. SPIVAK Yes, Mr. Chairman . MR. CHERNIACK Would the Minister care to inform us of that. MR.

SPIVAK Well, it's within the working papers . That information is available to the honourable members . If they want it, they can go out and get it. MR. CHERNIACK Mr. Chairman , would the Minister produce the working papers , please? MR. SPIVAK No, Mr . Chairman , I have no intention of producing the working papers. I am dealing with recommendations that were made . -(Interjection)- There 's no stonewalling , we had a lot of working papers, and I have no intention at this point of dealing with the honourable member 's desire for working papers .

If they feel that there is other information that is important and should be brought forward , they have a perfect right in the Session, outside the Session , to do that , and I have no ~ doubt they will. But the fact is, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with recommendations and information ~ that has been presented in terms of our report. The members opposite can deal with it in any other way they see fit.

They may not accept the position that we've made, they may say that other information should have been put , and they may have followed the procedures of the words of the Member for Selkirk, in which we should have information that would show for us. MR. CHERNIACK Mr . Chairman , I have accepted the fact that the government refuses to produce the working papers . My question was , would the Minister inform us of the information he has relating to government employment to population base in other provinces? MR. SPIVAK No, I have no intention . That 's not my function at this point. MR. CHERNIACK Mr.

Chairman, since the chairman who has the information available to him, refuses to give us that information MR. SPIVAK Mr. Chairman ... MR. CHERNIACK Mr. Chairman , I will not be interrupted . . . MR. SPIVAK On a point of order , on the question of refusal , gives the implication that there's some obligation . There is absolutely no obligation on my part . MR. CHERNIACK Mr. Chairman , I'd like a ruling. Was that a point of order, and was that properly so, Mr . Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN No, I think it was an answer to a question . MR. CHERNIACK Yes, Mr.

Chairman, would you inform the Minister , another Minister without Portfolio , that I am entitled to have the floor unless the Chairman interrupts me. Not the Minister without Portfolio for the Task Force , nor the Minister without Portfolio for Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation. only the Chairman has the right to interrupt me when I have the floor . I wish you would tell him that , because he hasn 't learned it yet. And that's why I feel I have the right not to be interrupted. MR. CHAIRMAN Can I interrupt the Member for St.

Johns at this point and remind all members of the committee that it is very very difficult to carry on the proceedings of this committee with more than one person trying to speak at one time . I have done my best to keep the Minister quiet so that questioners can question him and finish their questions as often as possible. I also remind all members of the committee that we are really dealing with the Minister 's Salary here. The report happens to be the discussion that 's before us that we are choosing to use in discussi ; 1g the Minister 's Salary .

Whether the Minister wants to or doesn "t want to bring in all kinds of other documents that his department may have in their possess ion . in my opinion . is his business . But I just remind all 2518

Tuesday, May 23, 1978 -------- ------------------ --- members that we are discussing the Minister 's Salary, and I would ask all members to please allow the person recognized by the Chair to complete their questioning or their statements. The Member for St. Johns . MR. CHERNIACK Mr.

Chairman, I did not bring the quotations that I had available at our first meeting , where the Minister without Portfolio responsible for the Task Force stated in the House that the opportunity to discuss the Task Force in all its length and breadth would be at this moment , and that's why I am going beyond his Salary and discussing the work he did , and which he is now trying to justify by way of Salary . Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister whether there 's an indication in this report , which I haven 't seen yet, which indicates the Civil Service employment , government employment to population as a percentage. Mr. Chairman , I gather he didn 't understand me . Is there in this report a statement that government employment, related to population , is a certain percentage , that is, so many percent of the population form the government employees? I haven 't seen it, it may be here in the report. MR. SPIVAK Well, have you read the report? MR. CHERNIACK Yes. MR. SPIVAK Have you read Page 22? MR. CHERNIACK Yes.

MR. SPIVAK Well , would you like to read Page 22 out loud? MR. CHERNIACK Mr. Chairman , would the Minister care to answer . .. he doesn't have to answer any questions , Mr. Chairman. I asked him, I have not seen it. I see the increase, the proportional increases , by '12 of one percent , by one percent. I may have read it too superficially . Is it not here ? MR. SPIVAK On the bottom of Page 22, in 1968, there were 11 provincial government employees to serve each 1,000 in population of Manitoba, and by 1976 this number had increased by 36 percent to approximately 15 per 1,000 population . MR.

CHERNIACK Oh, that's helpful. Mr. Chairman , could the Minister indicate what was the percentage population in Ontario for the same periods of time? MR. SPIVAK No, Mr. Chairman . MR. CHERNIACK Would the Minister care to indicate what it was in Alberta? Or any other province? MR. SPIVAK No. MR. CHERNIACK Well, Mr. Chairman, that means therefore that the Minister has decided that it is not relevant to this Task Force report to indicate what is the government population per population in any of the other provinces of . . . He has refused to do that , Mr. Chairman ... MR. SPIVAK Mr.

Chairman, I have not refused to reveal . .. MR. CHERNIACK Mr. Chairman , here we go again. So, Mr. Chairman , it seems to me that if he does not want to present this as part of a balanced report on the Task Force, then surely there ought to be something in the report, and again, I read it very quickly and superficially, there ought to be some indication as to the extent to which government had taken over tasks that were being performed in the supposed private sector in comparable years.

In order to be relevant when one talks about an increase in population , may I ask the Minister whether there is anything in this report to indicate an acknowledgment that there was a great deal of increase of service in matters which this government has not yet indicated that they would reduce. MR. SPIVAK Mr . Chairman , the honourable member is capable of reading the report and making whatever comments he wants , and I am prepared to listen to his report. I am not prepared to simply deal on a line by line questioning on his part or an examination . He is very much aware of what the report contained.

I am assuming that he has read it and I am prep ared to listen. I am not prepared 2519

Tuesday, May 23, 1978 --- to go through this kind of cross-examination . I do not believe that this is even necessary. The report stands for itself . If he believes that there is something in the report that is not of sufficient information or he believes there is a comparative feature that should be brought forward , then he certainly can bring that up to the Committee's attention . But I have no intention of dealing on a line by line , or subject by subject cross-examination, and I tell this to the honourable member .

He is a very skillful cross-examiner, and his talents can be applied in many different ways , but this is, as I see it , not a function that I have to perform at this point. Certainly if he has a comment to make with respect to it, he certainly can make those comments, and I would be prepared to respond . But I am not prepared to deal and I don't think it is necessary to deal with a line or a clause-by-clause examination of whether this is in here or whether that is in here or whether this should have been here, or whether there was some more information. It stands by itself . The most important feature. Mr .

Chairman, was to indicate that in effect, you know, the public sector is a very significant part of the economy , that in terms of the total employment, not including the Federal Government , there are over 70,000 people who were employed by government in one form or the other of our labour force , and that is contained on Page 23, and that represents, Mr. Chairman, a significant percentage of our employees that are funded through public revenues that are gained through taxation . MR. CHAIRMAN The Member for St. Johns . MR. CHERNIACK Mr.

Chairman, I suppose it is fair for me to comment that flattery will not get the Minister anywhere with me in this respect. MR. SPIVAK I have no intention of flattering you . MR. CHERNIACK He has no intention of flattery, then it is even a greater flattery for him to give the impression that he believes in my ability to cross-examine . Mr. Chairman, the Minister said he is prepared to listen. It so happens , Mr. Chairman, that I am not here to justify the work that I have done in this year , nor to justify the salary that I want to have for the forthcoming year .

The Minister is the one and the Minister is the one who said he is prepared to discuss the Task Force in its entirety during his Salary. If he finds it difficult , embarrassing or non-productive to answer the questions which I am requesting of him , then all I can do is to continue to ask the questions. His failure to respond could be interpreted by anybody in any way. But I have to say , Mr.

Chairman, that to me , for one thing it is absolutely ludicrous to talk about growth in civil service as in proportion of population without relating that to what is the experience elsewhere and to what is the experience in this province in relation to services undertaken . Now he was a member of the government which took over the Medicare features, which entered into the relationship with doctors working on a fee for service and took over the entire Manitoba Medical Service Program.

I recall that in our first year in government , when we were carrying out the decision made by the Conservative Government , we took over, I believe it was, 200 employees of the Manitoba Medical Service and took them into government service , to do exactly the same job that they had done in the previous year. Now only a person who doesn 't understand that you have to relate the nature of the service to numbers, would blind himself to saying only , "Here is a number in 1968, here is a number in 1976, " and come to conclusions.

The Minister , apparently , didn 't have the sensibility of showing in this Task Force Report the basis on which it is important to assess conclusions , and , Mr. Chairman , I have not criticized the purpose of a Task Force. I think it is good. I think it has been said before , to evaluate, to review , to look for improvements, but for this Task Force to be credible at all, it ought to have some basis , and that is why I am kind of sorry that Mr.

Riley was prepared to go public and not into this Commitetee to inform us of his conclusions and the basis for it , because he is the presumably non-political part of the team . Now I said presumably because I don 't know , but so far he is put in the same category as this Minister. Mr. Chairman, this Minister is not prepared to give us information that shows a comparison with other provinces , and this Minister is not prepared to give us anything to show that they have made any study whatsoever as to the nature of the change in services.

I heard mention that , '' Is it true that the Autopac employees are included in the numbers shown here of 15,000 per population?" Is that a correct statement . Mr. Chairman? MR. SPIVAK No . MR. CHERNIACK The Minister shook his head. I assume therefore that all of the MPIC employees 2520

Tuesday ; May 23, 1978 ---- are not included in this growth. That would mean then I assume that the Telephone people are not and the Hydro people are not. Is that correct? See, Mr. Chairman , we don't even know and the Minister says, " I am prepared to listen." It so happens , Mr. Chairman . . . MR. SPIVAK Mr. Chairman, just to answer that one question because I think it would be important. MR. CHE RNIACK All right, go ahead . MR.SPIVAK I don 't think the Member for St . Johns would want to put anything in the record that was incorrect . I mean I don 't think that he would want to ... MR.

CHERNIACK So far I have asked quest ions so I am not incorrect. MR. SPIVAK Well, I think it stands to reason that with a million populati on and a Civil Service that was around 15,000 , when one says 15 per thousand , we are talking Civil Service , and that does not include Autopac or the Crown corporat ions . Crown corp orations are a not her 13,000, that would make it 28 per thousand.

I think that when you look at the figure of 70,000 that would make it 70 per thousand, which are those people who in fact are emp loyed by fundi ng from the Prov incial Government, one way or another, that does not include the Federal Govern ment. Those figure s are there. r, Now , I can debate with the honourable membe and I will aft er he co ncludes his pres entation , with respect tO whether that information is complete , wheth er mor e i nformation should be forthcoming , which is really what he was saying .

If he wants to produc e add itional informat ion and then question why it is not on , then I will debate it. There is no problem with that and I th ink that is a healthy debate, but I am simply saying that so the honou rable member will recognize it, 15 per thousand is 15,000 civil servants and there is a million population . So that you could figure that out very quickly . MR. CHAIRMAN The Member for St . Johns . MR. CHERNIACK Mr. Chairman, that was helpful. I appreciate the Minister interrupting me so that we can clarify that in this number of 15 per thousand of population , no Crown corporations are included .

Then the Minister pointed to the 70,000 and speaks of government supported institutions , that would then include Children 's Aid? MR. SPIVAK No. MR. CHERNIACK You see, Mr. Chairman , it would be helpfu l if the Minister could indicate to us the categories that are included in the 15 per thousand , and the cat egories included in the 70.000 . MR. SPIVAK Well , Mr . Chairman , the question is put.

The 70,000 wou ld include those people who are funded partially or wholly through governmen t, including scho ol bo ards , mu nicip al counc ils, hospitals , the Crown corporations , the whole medical program , etc. , that 70,000, th at doe s not includ e the Federal Government, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHERNIACK Well, Mr . Chairman , now that we know 70,000, what is the comparable numbe r for the same classifications in 1968? MR. SPIVAK Well , Mr.

Chairman , you see the problem at thi s point , and I guess the issue that we are going to discuss at this point , I th ink if it is relevant , is whet her the compar able feature s were important in relation to our effort and our work , whether we are prep ared to simpl y say that there is a standard achieved elsewher e as a result of the experiences there , which in effect means that the standard here is equal , therefore , on that basis there was no need for improvement . We could have , as an example, Mr .

Chairman , looked at England , where the figures would have not been 15 per thousand , it would have probably represented 60 percent of the population who were employed . We could have said , "Well , that's a standard to be broug ' ' . ~ in here. " We didn 't, Mr . Chairman . We looked at Manitoba, we looked at our economic base , and we believe , Mr. Chairman , that there is a capability of cutting back from the position where we were at , and we simply stated that. Now the members opposite may feel that other information should be supplied.

I accept that that is their right, but I think, you know , it is on the table and it is clear what we have done . We 252 1

Tuesday, May 23, 1978 have looked at Manitoba , we reviewed the other situations, we did not place it in the report , we simply took the basis that we made an approach , we stated that there is an approach . It is another approach to measuring the size of government in relation to Manitoba , and we felt that within the confines of Manitoba, there was a capacity . -(lnterject ions )- MR. CHAIRMAN One speaker at a time. MR. SPIVAK ... for essentially a control of the growth of the public sector involvement in terms of number of employees , and we think that we have been able to highlight that .

We think the government is committed to that, and we think we are in the process of achieving certainly a reduction . MR. CHAIRMAN The Member for St. Johns . MR. CHERNIACK Mr. Chairman , the Minister has shown us that they gave a comparison on Page 22 between 1968 and 1976 in relation to the government employees per population . That is not a ten-year incidentally , that is an eight-year period of time . They did that on Page 22, but on Page 23 there is nothing to show that there were not indeed 75,000 people employed in 1968.

In other words , they don 't even follow their same measuring stick on one page as they do on the other , and then they come up with some ridiculous figure like 20 percent , absolutely meaningless , when we now learn that the hospitals are included in the 70,000 , school boards, school teachrrs , are included in the 70,000 . What do we compare that with? Nothing . Why did they say that? MR. SPIVAK Well, Mr. Chairman, the very obvious thing we are saying is that 70,000 people within Manitoba , within the Manitoba public sector , are financed through taxation , and that is basically ~ what we are saying .

That the people of the province of one million are paying for that , that is independant of the taxes they pay for the employees who are emp loyed within the Federal Government , and, Mr . Chairman , that happens to be a fairly important factor . If the honourable member doesn 't think that is an important factor , we of the Task Force thought it was an important factor , and we thought it was a factor to be put in the record so that there would be public notice of this , because all we could foresee , unless there is an attempt to do what we are talking about , is a continual growth, Mr .

Chairman , in the public sector, which simply means that the same number of people in Manitoba are going to have to pay more and more by way of taxat ion to be able to support that growth . MR. CHERNIACK Mr . Chairman , the obvious stupidity of ju st doing it that simply is, firstly , you have no comparison with what it was eithe r in 1975 nor in 1968, nor 1960.

The fact is that the provision of teaching facilities , and the providing of hospital services is something that I am not sure anybody would want to eliminate , and yet the Minister says, " But they are living off the taxpayer ," as if this was some heinous crime. He would rather support an indudstry that manufactures widgets than he would to provide teachers , because the widget makers are paying the taxpayers that are teachers , the hospital, and providing all sorts of services . MR. CHAIRMAN May I interrupt the Member for St .

Johns and tell the members of the Committee that it is difficult enought to conduct this hearing or this Committee with the Member for St. Johns and the Minister rep lying to each other without having the Member for Pembina and the Member for Lac du Bonnet discussing whether gasoline is going to be $2.00 per gallon or some figure higher or lower. They obv iously should have been here for Autopac this morning when we discussed prices of gasoline .

I ask them if they must carry on a private conversation either to go to the back of the room or outside in the hallway , but please give the person recognized by the Chair some degree of courtesy. The Member for St. Johns . MR. CHERNIACK Thank you, Mr . Chairman . These farmers , what do they know about widgets? Mr .

Chairman , the point I have been making is that with these superficial statements that are only conclusions designed to justify a bunch of recommendations that have no support and no basis , and more important have no comparison with other provinces , brings me back to the statement made by the Minister when he answered somebody earlier - I don 't mean today but a previous occasion - where he said , ··well , this headlong spending we are into is an indication right across Canada where all the provinces " - I think he said all the prov inces - " are bankrupt anyway, " 2522

Tuesd ay, May 23, 1978 and I am trying to keep some sense of proportion having recognized that he now labelled other provinces , I think all other provinces, as being bankrupt , and he will correct me if I am misquoting him. Then, Mr. Chairman, if that is the case then the bankruptcy extends to civil service per population as well. Therefore , he is not talking about some problem that is rampant throughout all of Canada in the Conservative provinces as well as the NDP and Liberal provinces , and I would like him to clarify beca use that is the impression that I have received. MR. SPIVAK Mr.

Chairman, certainly Alberta is not bankrupt and certainly it would be a mistake for Alberta to be included, but I must say. MR. CHERN IACK How about Ontario? MR. SPIVAK I must say, Mr .

Chairman , that if one examines the financial positions of the provincial governments, if one examines the long-term commitments that have to be made with respect to pension funds and commitments over the next period of time , one can only recognize that the government's capacity is not within the self-sustaining ability of the provinc es but in the expectation and hope that somehow or other the economy will continue to rise in a way that will be able to provide the benefits, be able to pay off the obligations that have to be paid.

Now the question of what factors are responsible for bankruptcy or what are the elements for bankruptcy can be several. I suggest that there is a very logical position that could state that we have lived beyond our means in this country in many respects , that there is an expectation that the next generation are going to be in a position to pay off the obligations , and to pay the commitments that have been made to people who have , in fact, paid into government on the assumption that they will be provided for and that that, Mr .

Chairman, from an actuarial point of view I don't think can be supported, and that there is logic to believe that there is a need for a re-examination and an attempt to try to control government growth and its expenditures. The members opposite may disagree . I believe that this is the case. Now Manitoba is a very small island in terms of the total area of Canada and much of what we do cannot be controlled because of the external factors that influence and impinge on us, but to the extent that I think governments are in trouble, I believe that to be the case, but I have to put the caveat , Mr.

Chairman , that the exception, of course , is Alberta. MR. CHERNIACK Well, Mr. Chairman , I think the Minister has now made it clear , at least I am making this

interpretation, that nine of the provinces of Canada are in the same position of being in a financial problem in the foreseeable future , and he is not ... MR. SPIVAK Well, I wonder, does the honourable member not believe that to be the case? MR. CHERNIACK And that means, Mr. Chairman , that he has not shown Manitoba as being different from the other provinces.

Here he has refused to give us comparable examples from other provinces , has singled out Manitoba in this Task Force Report, but has just now ind icated that with the excepti on "1("' of Alberta , that the other provinces are in the same kind of a financial problem . Now , if he wants to discuss the total picture , then I would say, tear up the conclusion s, the misinformation , or the facts that are releated here only to Manitoba , put them in a proper context and then let's discuss the future of Canada , and Manitoba is part of Canada . That is not what was done by Mr.

Riley and I suspect it wasn 't done by this Minister either. I think that that would make a much more meaningful, worthwhile, long-lasting discussion than does the drive which this Task Force has taken in hand. MR. SPIVAK Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the honourable member would be prepared to indicate what his belief is and what his position is with respect to the financial positions of the Federal Government and the other provinces .

He, having been a former Minister of Finance and having attended many Federal-Provincial conferences and is privy to a fair amount of information within the Executive Council that cou ld give him an insight, does he believe that the financial position of governments today are good; does he believe that the financial position of the Federal Government is good? MR. CHERNIAC K Mr.

Chairman, I am prepared to carry on that discussion in the proper forum and serio usly, I am and I think I have done it before, I think that there is a basic difference in philosophy between Conservatives and New Democrats which just step into the very area of the problem we have and h ow do we cope with it and we do believe in a planned econ om y and the 2523

Tuesday, May 23, 1978 Conservatives believe in completelaissez-faire and no participation. But, Mr. Chairman , 1 will not be drawn into a conversation at a time when we are examining the basis and the credibility of the Task Force Report. That is why we are here. We are not here for the Minister to sit and listen to our opinions, as he volunteered to do on several occasions . We are here to examine the credibility of this report and I believe that it is lacking to a very large extent . I intend to put more questions in that regard . I am , Mr .

Chairman , and I inform other members of the committee , especially those opposite me who are certainly anxious to get into this discussion , I am prepared to deal now with Page 24, with statements made by the Task Force, for which I want to press some accountability . I am quite prepared to step back , before I go to Page 24, in case other members wish to take over . MR. CHAIRMAN The Member for Selkirk , Lac du Bonnet , and then St. Vital. MR. PAWLEY I defer to the Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. CHAIRMAN The Member for Lac du Bonnet.$ MR. USKIW Mr.

Chairman , a moment ago the Minister indicated to the committee that Mr. McCance was on his salary on a contractual basis with the Province of Manitoba since the 24th of October . I have here a statement issued to The Free Press dated November 10, 1977, by the Great-West Life Assurance Company, indicating that Mr. McCance will continue to be on their payroll, unless of course heee is going to take on a permanent position or something of a very long duration . So , Mr.

Chairman , there is obviously an inconsistency between the statement of the Minister without Portfolio and the statement of the company for whom Mr. McCance has worked for many years and continues to work . I am wondering whether the Minister has any comments about that inconsistency? MR. SPIVAK Well, no, I don 't think that is the case. I think that the information contained in the press report is incorrect. MR. USKIW Is incorrect? MR. SPIVAK I believe that to be incorrect because he was employed with the government as of that date. I don't think he was receiving two salaries. MR. USKIW Mr.

Chairman , the Minister wants the committee to believe that the Great-West Life Assurance Company went out of its way to tell Manitobans that they will continue to pay Mr. McCance 's salary. Now, why would they do that? The Minister indicated just a moment ago that he doesn't believe that this gentleman is getting two salaries , one from Great-West Life and one from the Government of Manitoba . If, indeed, he is getting two salaries or receiving two salaries, then he is not working for , either part-time during his duties with the Task Force, or he is getting a very high reward for the amount of effort put in.

MR. SPIVAK Mr. McCance worked full-time for the Task Force and full-time for the government . MR. PAWLEY What about the double salary. MR. SPIVAK Who says there is a double salary? Well , I don 't know about that press report. MR. CHAIRMAN It could be his employee benefits , the package is carried for him . MR. USKIW Pretty cushy . . MR. CHAIRMAN We should get Sid Green, he's a shareholder in Great-West Life. A MEMBER That's right , Sid will investigate it for us. MR. CHAIRMAN The Member for Selkirk or the Member for St. Vital? The Member for St. Vital. MR. WALDING Mr .

Chairman , 1 have a question or two for the Minister , arising fro m his discussion with the Member for St . Johns when they were discussing . on Page 22, the number of civil servants, the number of government employees . I believe that I heard the Minister say that in Britain the figure of government employees was 60 percent . Did he say 60 percent? MR. SPIVAK I'm not sure . I said I believe it to be 60 percent . That is the total people who are 2524

Tuesday , May 23, 1978 --------------------------------------~ funded by government MR. WALDING Would the Minister use a microphone; I can 't hear him too well . MR. SPIVAK I'm sorry. Wha t I am saying, without dealing in specifics. I'm talking about the total number of peo ple who are funded through government sources , in the same way that we talk in terms of those people who are funded through government, Crown corporations , agencies , the various institutions in whi ch funding comes from the taxpaye r. MR. WALDING Can the Minister tell us what documentation or figures he has to back up that allegation? MR.

SPIVAK I want to make it very clear that that percentage figure may not be correct. I use that - it may not be as high, it's fairly high , it's pretty high - but I simply indicate that that is one -(Interjection)- No, I don't think so , Mr. Chairman , and I don't want to be held to that parti cular figure and I want that understood. But the point is that it is a very high percentage. A very high percentage of the people are in fact employed through government sources. MR. WALDING Mr.

Chairman, the figure of 60 percent, according to my rough ca lculation , would be about 30 million people and that is more than the total adult population of Brita in. Is the Minister suggesting that all of the adult population and some of the children are working for the government in Britain? MR. SPIVAK No, Mr. Chairman , that would be of the total labour force. I'm not talking about the people. That's all referred to here . It was heard on the basis . MR. WALD ING Well, Mr.

Chairman, the Minister was speaking in the same context as he gives the figures here, that 15 out of every 1,000 people are civil servants . MR. SPIV AK No, I was not, Mr. Chairman. MR. WALDI NG . .. and further , he mentioned the figure of 70,000 out of a total population of one million. He gives the figure of 60 percent , just off the top of his head , presumably on the same basis. if he is coaring figures with figures , for Britain , which would come out to approximat ely 30 million people. Now, is he prepared to stand by that figure or does he have something to back up these figures? MR. SPIVAK Mr.

Chairman, the honourable member can look at Page 22 and Page 23. The reference of 15 per thousand was used in one paragraph , the reference of 70,000 , or another 20 percent of the labour force derives their income from the government is sho wn. The figure that I used , and that figure may be a bit high, I don't know whether that is high , it deals with those who are in the labour force, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if somehow or the other the honourable member believes he was misled, I simply indicate that that was not intending to mislead him .

I simply say that there is a lot of information that could be placed in the report; it wasn 't placed. That was a decision of the Task Force and we just simply placed it as we did here. If the honourable members feels that that is not accurate or it is not sufficient or a greater comparison or more information should have been provided, they are perfectly welcome to be abie to say that in the committee and I acce pt that. MR. WALDING Mr. Chairman, the point is not whether the members of the committee are making allegations; the poin t is that the Minister has made an allegation and I will accept his correction.

He now says that 60 percent of the labour force in Britain is totally funded by the government. Now, I ask him to back that up with some figures. Where does he get his statistics from? MR. SPIVAK Mr. Cha irman, I withdraw that figure. I am not prepared to back it up; I am not prepared to discuss it. It is not relevant and so, therefore, Mr . Chairman. it is not relevant; it doesn't deal with Manito ba, I accep t that . I think it would be far better to deal with that. The question of whether other com paris ons from othe r provinces were relevant is an issue that can be discussed. MR. WALDING Mr.

Chairman, I will accept the Minister 's admission that he does not know what the figure is for Britain that he quoted. MR. CHAIRMAN The Member for Selkirk . If not , St. Johns , then Burrows. MR. CHERNIACK Mr. Chair man, I woul d like to get greater clarifica ti on on the top of Page 23 2525

Tuesday, May 23, 1978 where it deals with various levels of government enterprise and government-supported institutions. The 70 ,000 figure apparently does not include the private agenc1es tbat do work completely funded by government. Why not? MR. CHAIRMAN The Minister. MR. SPIVAK Mr . Chairman , I can 't indicate whether it does or it does not. I believe that if a private agency is completely funded, 100 percent funded , it probably was included in that. But those agencies that are partially funded are not included in that . Then one would ask where the separation is.

The working papers on this I do not have in front of me, but I know that the figure itself , when it was examined by the Task Force , was carefully examined and that the individuals who produced that information within the government , particularly within the Management Committee staff , that information was reviewed and the fi(;ure represents a pretty accurate

summary of public sector involvement , but not really through the private institutions although there are some private institutions which are entirely funded and whose work is really entirely an extension of government. To that extent, I think that they would be included . MR. CHERNIACK Hospitals are partially funded MR. SPIVAK No, hospitals are included . MR. CHERNIACK But hospitals are partially funded not by tax dollars . Hospitals make charges; they have user fees and they have organizations that raise funds for hospital work , women's organizations and others , and yet they are included .

I ask , Children 's Aid . which I believe is almost completely funded by government - it may receive something from the United Way , I don't know , certainly they would have various fund-raising endeavours - now we don 't know whether the myriad social agencies are included or not included in the figure . I wonder if I could ask whether , let's say the Winn ipeg Art Gallery , is that included in this 70 ,000 or not? MR. SPIVAK No , Mr. Chairman , as far as I know , not. But I am quite - prepared to try to get that information .

I think that that figure is a pretty startling figure and I think that that is something that I'll try to get clarification on. MR. CHERNIACK Then the Minister is prepared to get that information for us. MR. SPIVAK Well , I think that the question , because in fact that figure is important , I think , in relation to the total situation in Manitoba , I think there is value . Unfortunately, I don't have the . information available; I will try to get it. MR. CHERNIACK So then the Minister is going to give us a breakdown of this 70 ,000 people. MR. SPIVAK No, Mr.

Chairman , I'm going to explain how it is made up so that the composition MR. CHERNIACK But not a breakdown? MR. SPIVAK No, I don 't think ... MR. CHERNIACK Mr . Chairman , then let me ask whether the construction firms that do most of their work for governments , are they included? MR. SPIVAK No. MR. CHERNIACK Mr. Chairman , we have , I believe in the City of Winnipeg, we have garbage collection done by employees of the city and some contracted out. Does this included the contracted-out people? MR. SPIVAK I can 't say that for sure , Mr. Chairman . MR. CHERNIACK Well , Mr . Chairm an, that is not very helpful.

I wonder if the Minister would tell us what else he is not sure of. MR. SPIVAK Mr . Chairman. I indicated before that I was not prepared to go through this kind 2526

Tuesday, May 23, 1978 - - ---- of cross-examination on the part of the member. I don 't think that it is incumbent upon me to do that. But the figure itself requires some explanation and I will get that information. MR. CHERNIACK Do you realize, Mr. Chairman , then , that we are not being given the information which would support the statements made by the Minister. MR. SPIVAK Mr. Chairman , if the honourable member thinks that this information is not correct, put on the table the information you think it to be.

If you think that the figure that is represented is not correct, if you believe it to be less or to be more , put it on the table. You were in government for eight years; you had access to all the information; you can compile all the information yourself. It is not necessary to go through this. The truth of the matter is that you and your colleagues are not prepared to put anything on the table. What you are prepared to do is to try and fudge it up.

What you are prepared to do is to try and suggest in some way that somehow or the other the basis on which the government acted was improper, that everything was going on fine , that there was no fat within the government, that there were no problems, that you were exercising restraint and that somehow or the other the taxpayers would not have had to in some way or other fork up more money. I don't believe that that is the case. MR. CHERNIACK Let the Minister remember that he is here to justify . his work .

Let the Minister remember that it is not for us to involve ourselves in the kind of game that he used to play when he was a child, when I know he doesn 't have an older brother but if he had one he might say, "My older brother is stronger than your older brother," and think that he can get away with supporting ...; the work he has done. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister has to be responsible for what he did. It is not for someone else to come along and give him correct information for him to get involved in that. This is his report. It is the report of Mr. Riley . It is the report of other people.

Either it stands on its own feet or it doesn't. Mr. Chairman , he can say this from today until doomsday , if you don 't like it bring your own figures , that is a ridiculous position and an unnecessary one. Let me tell him that I was not involved in government for some years. I am told that the government was going through a process of restraint and of reduction in expenditures . I don 't know whether they were or not , it is not for me to say. It is for him to say and for him to prove. And , Mr .

Chairman , it is not enough for him to say, "I will not give you a breakdown of the $70 ,000, go get your own figures. " It's go play in your own little sand lot. If that 's the kind of game he wants to play he won't find very much company in that kindergarten that he wants to operate . Mr . Chairman, he has already made it clear that he is not sure of the basis of his figures. He has volunteered now to give us . information as to the nature of the people who were included in the $70,000, but he is not prepared to tell us how they're broken down .

I gave him the comparison that seemed to - well one of the things that stymied him - when I asked him whether they included the garbage collectors who were on contract as compared with garbage collectors who were on salary. He's not sure whether they 're includ ed or not. I would then have to ask him whether it makes any difference whether they're on contract or on salary , from the standpoint of his exercise. MR. SPIVAK Mr.

Chairman , I certainly can't be expected to know every detail of the report and the assumption that somehow or other I can be in a position to simply satisf y any kind of questions on any subject. We understand , I think that 's very clear . The Task Force Report itself is in front of the honou rable members . They are perfectly able to make a judgment as to whether they want to support the salary of the Minister or not and my guess is that they don't , but that I unde rstand . I am going to try and get information.

I am prepared to try and deal with it as best I can. can·t answer every specific question off the top of my head. But I am not going to , Mr. Chairman , get myself involved in a situation where somehow or other it's necessary to prove every statement , whether the honourable members believe it in the case or not. That would be , I think , a futile exercise with respect to the Task Force responsibility. I have tried to indicate that I will attempt to show that figure . I think that figure is fairly significant and I think when I obtain the info rmation , if I can obtain it tonight, I will put it on the table.

I think that the record will stand. If not I'll certainly produce it at the next reading. That's all I can say. Mr. Chairman. The honourable members can continually debate whether this is included or that 's included. I'm 2527

Tuesday, May 23, 1978 not in a position to be able to give that at this point . MR. CHERNIACK Well, Mr. Chairman , of course the Minister can 't be expected to have all the backup material available at his fingertips . It is available, I assume . But, Mr. Chairman, I asked a question which is not related to his knowledge but rather to his opinion. I asked him whether there was a basic difference between employees who work on contract who may be excluded from this group and those who are employed on a salary and are included ; whether from the philosophy of government cost there 's any difference . MR.

SPIVAK No, Mr. Chairman, they would still be funded by the taxpayer and they still would be included within this . MR. CHERNIACK Well then, Mr . Chairman , on that basis I would think that a contractor whose major work is for governments - that is municipalities , school boards and provincial government - are being paid out of taxpayers ' moneys . MR.

SPIVAK I have no doubt that the public sector involved in our economy is very substantial and that if one was to include all the numbers that are affected directly or indirectly by public funding , that the numbers could be added to a much greater significant number . But these are sustaining costs , Mr.

Chairman , of people who are employed essentially by organizations which are almost fully funded by the government - either fully funded or almost fully funded - and they include the Crown corporations , the Civil Service , the hospitals , the school boards , the municipal councils who receive funding and I want to stop there , Mr. Chairman , because I'm not in a position to go beyond that until I look at the information .

I think if one looks and thinks in terms of the numbers of people - and I think you can almost make some estimates from knowledge of how many are involved in the health field , how many are involved in the school board field who are financed - you can make a deduction with respect to that $70 ,000 pretty close . But it doesn 't include , Mr. Chairman , those who may very well have received a government contract , who are doing work for the government with whom the taxpayer has some relationship because he's paying for it. MR. CHERNIACK Well , Mr .

Chairman , I'm concerned about the relevance of the statements made on Page 23. If the statement is being made that government plays a very large role in the economy of the country , I don 't see any argument about it. But if the use of the figure of 20 percent is an indication that it 's too much, then I do want to discuss that.

Now maybe the Minister will make it clear whether that is intended to mean , that 's too much , or whether that's intended to mean , " Hey, fellows , we have a great deal to say in the economy of the country by the amount of people involved and providing services in this way and therefore we have a more important role to play ," I wouldn 't want to debate that because I think tha t' s obvious . But is that supposed to show us that it's too much? MR. SPIVAK Mr.

Chairman , it's to indicate the fact that government is a major employer , is the major employer , is the single biggest employer in the province ; and that, Mr. Chairman , government's revenues are dependent on the taxation that is exercised against those who are the taxpayers, whether individual or corporate . That without a growth in the economy the taxpayers will have to pay more or the government will then have to mortgage the future .

That in examining the commitments that are made to those who are your employees , because government is the single most important employer and the greatest employer in the province , there is a need now to try and put things into some balance on the basis that there will be a point where it will be impossible, without a self-defeating purpose being achieved, to tax the taxpayers to any greater extent , and in turn there will be a limit to the capacity to borrow. On that basis governments, literally , will become bankrupt in the same terms as New York . That potential did exist and does exist for Manitoba .

The honourable member may not believe that to be the case. The Task Force believes that to be the case and therefore the factors that were mentioned are mentioned as indicators of the concern and raising the flag that's necessary in an attempt to try and recognize the limitations of our capacity; because , Mr . Chairman , if in fact taxes become too high the taxpayers will leave this province and in spite of what the honourable members think , government cannot pick up the slac k.

The inability of being able tc raise revenues will simply mean that a mortgaging of the future will have to take place . and we think there are limits to that . Now you know , this goes back to basic philosophy and the honourable members , I don 't think , 2528

Tuesday, May 23, 1978 ------ ---- believe this. The reason for the reference to the figures is to indic ate thi s a nd indicate wt;at was believed to be an important change in direction that had to be taken . MR. CHEIACK Mr. Chairman , now that we've heard this speech , it seems to me we ought to first recognize that the Minister has not said that 20 percent is too much. He just said that 20 percent indicates that it's important.

But when he talks about leaving the province, it's the same kind of talk that has been going on from his party for some time and yet he wasn't even prepare d to indicate where they will go because he's already said the other eight provinces , excluding Alberta. are bankrupt . So where will they go if we 're heading in that direction?

I'm not saying we're not heading into a serious direction and we must study it carefully ; but if the Minister and his Task Force wanted to have a balanced presentation so as to garner the support for their endeavours - or their sta ted endeavours - which would be believable , then they would have done a much better job in giving the full perspective . I deplore the fact they haven 't done so .

For example, I am not sure that he makes his point when he talks about this 20 percent or the $70 ,000 , when he's already told us that includes a number of Telephone System employees , and when we know very well that those employees who work for Bell Canada in the eastern part of the country are not included in comparable figures . So what is he showing th at way? Nothing . They are not being paid by taxpayers.

They are just the same kind of employees , indeed, as are the employees of Ma Bell, or of Great-West Life somebod y suggested , they are providing a servi ce, then it's not helpful to use this kind of slanted information to try to be pejorative about it. MR. CHAIAN The Member for Burrows. MR. HANUSCHAK Yes, Mr. Chairman , one question with respect to the number of persons in Manitoba on the public payroll. One group, one large significant group that the Honourable Member for St.

Johns made reference to , the refuse garbage collectors , those on civic payroll as it were as opposed to those working for contractors whose main source of revenue , of course , is the public purse - funded in whatever way , municipally or provincially or through a combination of sources . Another large group, Mr. Chairman , th at I'm interested in is, I would suspect that in the Province of Manitoba there must be somewhere in the order of 1,500 school bus drivers, at the very least. The Minister of Education is here sitting on this committee .

I would think that there must be at least that, some working full time , some only working half-time and I wonder whether those are included and if the half-time employees are counted as full-time employees because that would certainly inflate the figure considerably . Anyway , that's one question that I wish to ask him . What concerned me most , Mr. Chairman , is that once again tonight the Minister is attempting to apply the reverse onus principle which he has attempted to do since this committee started meeting.

That is to say that here are the Task Force committee 's recommendations , observations , conclusions, and if any member of the committee has evidence to the contrary to disprove that , let him lay it on the table . Well , Mr . Chairman, it is not up to us.

The onus does not rest upon members of the committee to disprove statements that he makes but the primary onus rests upon him to bring in the facts and figures in support of the recommendations that he made . and that was the purpose of the Order for Return asking for the background information to the Task Force committee's recomm endations , . which it does not have. Now , you 're quite right , Mr. Chairman , that we are here debating the Minister's salary and that the Task Force Report is only incidental to that.

However , I suppose we have to examine his past record from April 24 to March 31 , and on that basis establish some judgmental opinion on what we think his performance may be in the fiscal year that we have entered into at the present time . I do not wish to interfere with the debate that's in progress at the moment , but to prepare ourselves for discussion of the Minister 's role and function during the 1978 -79 fiscal year I would like to ask the Honourable Minister one question . You will recall , Mr. Chairman , that the Task Force Report was tabled before the end of the last fiscal year.

At that time the Minister did indicate that the Task Force was disbanded. There were a few left around him , I don 't know who, but for all intents and purposes the Task Force was disbanded. So , obviously , Mr . Chairman , the Minister without Portfolio who was responsible for the Task Force on Government Reorganization and Economy is no long er acting in that capacity because there is no Task Force. So in considering his salary for the current fiscal year , perhaps , Mr .

Chairman , it would be advisable if the Honourable Minister - and now I'm asking him because he is placing the onus upon us so I am asking him now - if the Honourable Minister would indicate to us what his role 2529

Tuesday, May 23, 1978 and function will be in Cabinet , what he thinks it will be during the year 1978-79 , because as opposed to the Ministers responsible for line departments we know very little about what his role and function will be other than what has been reported in the Manitoba Government Information Services and in the press that he will be Vice-Chairman of Management Committee , and I assume that the Vice-Chairman acts only in the absence of the Chairman , so when the Chairman is present , I really don 't know what this Minister 's job will be in this fiscal year.

Perhaps to assist the committee in properly debating his role and function in Cabinet during this fiscal year if he could take a moment or two and inform us of what his job will be in Cabinet. $ MR. JOHNSTON Mr. Chairman , I would like to suggest that. MR. CHAIRMAN Is that on a point of order or something ? MR. JOHNSTON A point of order , yes. MR. CHAIRMAN I keep a list of speakers . MR. JOHNSTON Well on a point of order , I would like to suggest that the Minister 's role will be decided by the Premier and I think that's 1.(a). MR. CHAIRMAN The Member for Selkirk is the next person on my list. MR. PAWLEY Mr .

Chairman , if I could just return to the graph on page 18 showing the increase in total expenditures 1968 up until just recently during the ten year period . The Minister indicated he was doing that tor reasons of convenience rather than for reasons pertainto politics . I would ask the Minister then , so we can ob tain a fair balance , to know whether or not there was anything really out of proportion during that ten year period if he could advise us what the total expenditure was ten years prior to the commencement date of the graph .

If the Minister is not sure of the figure I would like to suggest to him that that figure was roughly in the neighbourhood of $80 million in 1958 and that the increase over a ten year per iod from 1958 to 1968 was about four times over , as it has been during the ten year span 1968 to 1977. I think that if the Mini ster had attempted along with his co-chairma n, Mr. Riley to indicate that information in the Task Force report that it would have demonstrated a desire to present a fair and a balanced report.

But I believe the Minister would have to confirm and concur with me that if the ten year period prior to 1968 had in fact been taken , that the commencement date figure-wise would have been in the neighbourhood of $80 million so that there would have been an increase , if the graph was shown from 1958 to 1978, the increase would be similar , similar in proportion as the period from 1968 to 1977. MR. CHAIRMAN The Minister responsible for the Task Force . MR. SPIVAK Mr.

Chairman , with respect to the $70 ,000 and I only have part of the working papers but I think I'm in a position to indicate it would include the civi l servants , the term employees - that is within the civil service itself , the Crown corporation employees , those employed in the school division both teachers and non-teaching staff , those employed in universities , the employment in hospitals that are funded by MHSC and mun icipal employees MR. WALDING That doesn 't include doctors . MR. SPIVAK No. MR.

PAWLEY I would just like to pose a further question to the Min ister if he in fact is taking my question as notice or whether he agrees with the figure which I used for the 1958 period of approximately $80 million . I would also point out to the Minister that in tha t period 1958 to 1968 as far as rebates are concerned , the only rebate that I can recall of moneys which were paid out of those revenues collected , government expenditures , were in fact the so-called Roblin Rebate which was paid over a two year period .

From the period 1968 up until 1977 we had the Property Tax Rebate , we had the Cost of Living Rebate , we' ve had Medicare which were included in the figures plus inflation so that , in fact , the period 1958 up to 1968 the Minister wants to deal with , and I'm again not suggesting that there's anything particula rly wrong , but the Minister if he wishes to present a fair and balanc ed report should acknowledge that and dur ing that peri od of time there certainly wasn 't the emphasis upon pay-ba ck and various progr ams of rebates that there was during the most recent ten year peri od . MR. SPIVAK Mr.

Chairman , the hon ourable member has made a c omment. The fact is that the 2530

Tuesday, May 23, 1978 most rapid increase in gross provincial product in the past decade took place between 1972 and 1976 and pro vincial government expenditures went up as shown here by an increase of 21 percent in the fiscal year ending March 31 ' 1970 and they escalated from ther a on in. To a certain extent they were transfer payments which is literally what happened.

Taxes were paid and people were given rebate programs which is really a transfer back on the basis that this was a form of progress activity and that in effect it was a program in which certain objectives were to be achie ved , but the taxes still had to be raised from the taxpayer. The money still had to come from somewhere. MR. PAWLEY The difficulty, Mr.

Chairman , with the comments by the Minister , he selected from the last ten year period the years 1972 to 1976 after indicating to us earlier that for the graph he deliberately chose the period from 1968 to 1977 so that it would show a better picture and it was felt on his part that that was a more reasonable picture. What I would like to do so we could have a more reasonable picture and understanding of what has happened during the past ten years I would like to compare that in relationship to what happened in the ten year period immediately prior to the last ten year period.

I'm not interested in picking out four years and saying well this is where things really went wild.

I'm trying to play it by the Minister 's rules and accept a ten year span and I'm trying to draw the Minister 's attention to the ten year span 1958 to 1968 in which the expenditures increased , from my understanding - if the Minister wants to challenge my figures he can certainly do so, but I understand the expenditures increased from approximately $80 million in 1958 to - the Minister has the figures here of $350 some million in 1977, so that the increase is about four times , approximately the same rate of inc rease as in the period 1968 to 1977, despite the fact that there 's been a hell of a lot more transfer payment and payment back to the taxpayers during the past ten year period than there was during the so-called famous Roblin period of time .

So considering balance and fairness of comparison I don 't believe that this graph on page 18 demonstrates anything , Mr. Chairman , except that the trend has increased in pretty well the same relationship from 1958 right up until 1977. Now if the Minister disagrees , I wish he would so indicate but I do believe that all that this graph indicates is that the rate of increase from 1968 to 1977 is comparable, is similar to the rate of increase from 1958 to 1977 which , playing by the Minister 's rules, is a fair span of time in order to make comparisons . MR. SPIVAK Mr.

Chairman , we could have, I guess , gone th ro ugh what I would consider the academic exercise the honourable member wants us to go through and I have to indicate that if this was a university it 's conceivable that in presenting it that was what would have happened.

However , our situation was we had to deal with the proposals for recommendations for both changes in programming and for an over-view with respect to the management government and suggested changes with respect to the central management and the whole question of dealing with the merit system within the Civil Service, accountability , etc . and we did this on the basis of the past period of time.

We did this on the basis of the most important growth that occurred in reality in the last decade both in terms of numbers of people involved either affected th rough programs or involved in the carrying out of programs and a number of program changes that occurred and in the dollar rise that it occurred and the need in our opinion to examine the whole process of central management, and that 's what our object ive was . Our objective wasn 't to accomplish what the honourable former Minister would like us to have accomplished .

That may very well be an exercise that will be done by others who will talk about the so-called Schreyer government and the so-called Schreyer period . Our object , Mr . Chairman , was to try and deal with an immediate situation and to try and come up with recommendations and we dealt on that basis . We could have presented many kinds of options. We could have presented substantially more information if that was necessary .

We made selections on the basis of trying to really deal in as simple as we can with our basic suggestions for improvement with respect to the central management and the operation of government and we think that we made certain approaches that are fairly important with respect to central management and that 's all. The honourable member would like other information to be brought in, he would like our position to be shown in his sort of words, we would like other things to have happened .

That's fine , he certainly would like that and maybe he'll want to write that, maybe that would be a documen t he should prepare, I'm not denying that, let him prepare that , we didn 't. MR. PAWLEY Mr. Chairman, all that I'm really posing to the Ministe r is a question which he can answer. I think , without too much debate , whether or not the increa se in expenditure during the past ten years is out of proportion to the increase which existed in the ten year period immediately prior to the past ten year period.

If that is an academic exercise, then certa inly the Minister 's g raph on page 18 is an academic exercise. You know the problem as I see it, unfortunately with the Task Force, and the Minister is really dramatizing it right now, is that it 's fine and dandy when 2531

Tuesday, May 23, 1978 we talk about government fat and inefficiency to look at the so-called Schreyer years , but let us not go back and compare the so-called Schreyer years with the so-called Roblin years , that's taboo and all that I'm requesting the Minister to do is to confirm what I think is the obvious, the obvious. He's agreed with the figure that I used for 1958 that the rate of increase 1958 to 1967 is comparable , is similar to the rate of increase in total government expenditure 1968 to 1977.

Now, either the Minister can agree or he does not agree and when I can obtain a clear-cut answer from the Minister then we can go on to the next subject . MR. SPIVAK Mr . Chairman, I don 't think I have to agree with the figures or not , I'm not sure the figures are accurate but I'll assume for the sake of the presentation that they are .

The most relevant information that was presented was the fact that there was (a), a deficit that was going to be occurring this year , that the projections if a 20 percent increase in Estimates was to proceed, which is substantial - well if e look at the averages the last four years , what I'm simply saying is that's the relevance of the last decade and the last period of time . The fact is, Mr. Chairman , if the rise in Estimates would have been as the average of the last four years , we would have had to add another $200 million to the deficit for this year .

Now , the members opposite have to understand that , we're dealing with this year and we're dealing in this period of time and there is reference to the historical situation , but the real ity is that we had to deal with the position as it was and we took the last decade as being a reasonable period touching base with the former government , that is the previous government before the Roblin government as well as the Schreyer government and we placed them that way .

We could have presented 1t in other ways, but I think the relevant information and this I think is really the important thing, is to look at what happened in the past situation , to deal with what the deficit position was going to be, to recognize that there is a factor involved as to the degree of taxation that can be levelled directly or indirectly by government with respect to the taxpayers, and the need, Mr.

Chairman, for restraint and for some new approach with respect to central management so as to be in the position to be able to make valid judgments on correct information , if I can apply the words of the Member for Winnipeg Centre , and for that reason we based it on the immediate situation because that is what we really were dealing with. We were not presenting an historical document, Mr. Chairman . MR. CHAIRMAN The Member for Selkirk . MR. PAWLEY Mr. Chairman , I wonder if the Minister had eliminated the $200 million which has been paid out by way of property tax rebate and by way of cost-of-living rebates.

I assume that those figures are included in his graph on Page 18. If, in fact , he would not then acknowledge that in fact the rate in relationship of growth during that ten-year period would be - I know the Minister doesn 't want to deal with historical perspective because he has imposed upon himself blinkers, but certainly it's the same period; it's a historical ten-year span - if it would not be even more favourable than the ten-year period prior to 1967-68 . MR. SPIVAK I know what your approach is; I have tried to indicate that .

We did not prepare a historical document ; we prepared an immediate document dealing with the immediate situation, dealing with the past rises in expenditures and the growth of government. We were not dealing with an $80 million budget; we were dealing with a budget of a billion 600 million. So, Mr. Chairman, the honourable members may want to approach it in a different way, that 's fine. We approach it on the basis that we had to deal with the immediate situation.

We had to look at what had happened in the past ; we had to look at what would likely have happened in the future based on the past and then make some determination whether there were changes that could occur . MR. PAWLEY Mr. Chairman , I would just like to make a comment at this stage , ratherpose further questions. The purpose of my questions, and questions of members on this side, has been to demonstrate - and I believe it is being demonstrated - the bias that exists within the Task Force in the preparation of this document . It is certainly not a historic document , as the Minister has indicated .

We are not asking that it be a histo rical document but what we are asking for is information which will demonstrate whether we are out of line with other pro vinces ; whether we are out of line with the period , a reasonable period of time . When he takes one ten-year span , whether we are out of line with the previous ten-year span . It's not an unreasonable position to place to the Minister. But he wishes us to work within very narrow , very rigid confines that serve his particular purpose . So that , Mr. Chairman, the technique and the method ology that has been used here unfortunately 2532

Tuesday, May 23, 1978 has been one that has been pursued under the handicap of a political burden ; a burden to try to justify the position of the Conservative Party prior to the October election . 1977. Otherwise the Minister would be all too happy to attempt to relate to the information as to time-wise . as to other provinces. It would be shown clearly in the document before us. And I regret very much, Mr . Chairman , that that bias is being demonstrated th roughout this document and certainl y by the spokesman for this document on the par t of the Minister tonight. MR. CHAIRMAN The Member for St. Johns. MR.

CHERNIACK Mr. Chairman, I pause just to give an opportunity to my colleagues from the Conservative Party to respond to what Mr . Pawley said. It was the Minister who said , " Lay it on the table ." Now, Mr. Chairman, Mr . Pawley just laid a simple thing on the table : $80 million in 1958 . Now , Mr . Chairman , that figure , related to 1968 , is even greater than the 1968-78 figure and I think that members should be aware of the fact that the Conservative Party rode in on a statement of fat; rode in on a statement of mismanagement; and rode in on a falsehood in that respect.

The Conservative Party made allegations which they have not proven. They have talked here about increases in proportionate costs. And, Mr. Chairman , I recognized they were increases, there is no doubt in the world that there were increases and there is no doubt th at th ere were increases all over the world . And for the Conservative Party to take the position to make it appear as if thi s was something unusual is false and is dishonest , and to perpetuate it is a disgrace.

Now , it so happens that has been mentioned before , we 've been through eight departments. _, What was the Minister 's reaction when he saw that the Minister of Health , who is responsible for about 40 percent of the total budget, make a statement something to the effect that the previous government ran a tight ship in that department? You know , Mr. Chairman, I heard the Minister say he didn't say that. I wasn't there and neither was he, but I haven 't checked Hansard.

The fact is that in those Estimates that I have listen' ed to I have found Ministers come in a forthright manner and admit that they have not found fat , that they have not found mismanagement . But this Minister , who was given a job by the Premier ; go out and prove that what we said during the election campaign was true ; go out and prove it and bring in a couple of people who appear to be objective , give them the information on which they will have to support you in that case .

Now , the two graphs shown on Pages 18 and 19 are a very good example of the kind of distortion that the Minister is doing in carrying out his hatchet job. The only thing is that the hatchet was applied to programs and applied to people , and applied to salaries and to incomes of people but the hatchet was not done to apply to fat , and the hatchet was not done to apply to mismanagement . Mr . Chairman, I have to tell you that I have no way of knowing really whether or not there was some fat , but I believe there had to be some in every operation of that size.

I didn't know whether or not there was mismanagement ; I believe there had to be some in any operation of this size. But the Conservative Party talked about fat and mismanagement to such an extent that I was almost / ready to believe that what this Task Force would come up with would be something horrendous , and I use a word which is a word that the First Minist e r used - horror stories. We haven 't heard them , Mr . Chairman . But when we look at this Task Force Report - I won 't even , at this stage , quarrel with recommendations.

I have not quarreled with the stated purpose and the need for the Task Force to work ; I quarrel with the bias that is evident from the very day that the Task Force was set up . And the Member for Selkirk , who was asked to put it on the table, did put it on the table , and showed that an honest to goodness presentation of Graph 2 on Page 18 would have gone back to show that in the previous ten years there was more or less the sam e increase , proportionate increase , in the graph .

And that would then have given the proper perspectiv e and would have thrown out the statements that are made in the report itself that would seem to indicate that all the troubles occurred in the last five years . The graph on Page 3, the Minister has not yet had the good grace to admit that it's an unsatisfactory graph. It can't be false because it doesn 't pretend to .

Well , it is false because the profile it gives is absolutely false not only in the sense that it makes it appear as if government expenditures are greater than gross provincial product , which is obviousl y impossible, but the rise , the proportionate rise, is not accountable because there is no line showing the left-hand graph . Now , this is carried forward throughout the report and that's why we have a right to challenge the bias . have to challenge the hone sty of the present ation . 2533

Tuesday, May 23, 1978 Mr. Chairman . I do want to go now to Page 24, and I asked this question of the Minister quite awhile ago . The way I read the first paragraph it would seem to indicate that the Task Force wanted the reader to believe that the Provincial Auditor co-operated in the preparation of the projections for the year ending March 31 , 1978. He didn't answer that, and I would like to know: Is that the intent of the Task Force? MR. SPIVAK No, that was not intent ed that ... MR. CHERNIACK You see, Mr . Chairman, it was not intended and yet anybody reading this will see that that 's clearly what it says.

I know it was false . .. MR. SPIVAK No, Mr. Chairman , on a point of orde r. The Task Force Report reads as it says . If the honourable member has interpreted it that way , I have tried to indicate that that was not intended . I read it differently than he does and I th ink others can. I don 't think it's necessary to get into debate as to whether he thinks it should be read one way or I think it should be read another way. I am trying to , for the record, indicate that that was not intended.

If he reads it that way , I am sorry and that may very well be the fault of the way in which the wording was placed , but let the record show that that was not intended . MR. CHERNIACK Well , Mr. Chairman , I appreciate that statement because the statement as it stands is not true. It is dishonest. MR. SPIVAK No, Mr. Chairman. I want the record to point out , because this is a constant reference on the part of the Member for St. Johns who continually uses the word " dishonest ". There can be an

interpretation given by him as to certain facts or a certain statement , and I can give an

interpretation, and I don't think it necessarily follows that the statement is dishonest. The problem with the honourable members opposite is that they don 't know what honesty is all about , and they didn 't know it during the period of time of their adm inistration with respect to the presentation of their financial position , and they are not prepared to accept what was in fact a proper

interpretation at the time that we took over government. And one of the things that has been constant in the debate that has occurred is for them to put on the table what that information was, if they say this information is incorrect. Now, I have tried to indicate , Mr. Chairman, that this is an

interpretation that could be given . I accept that the honourable member has taken that

interpretation . I have not quarreled with whether that

interpretation of his was taken honestly or not , but I suggest , Mr . Chairman , that that doesn 't mean that the statement is dishonest. I read that differently than he did , but if in fact he interpreted it that way, I said that was not intended and it may well have been that the wording should have been altered and changed so as there could have been no question about it. But that doesn 't in itself , Mr. Chairman , mean that it's dishonest . MR. CHERNIACK Mr. Chairman , you may be learning from the Minister what is a point of order ; I don 't know if you are really doing it but that's his indication . Mr.

Chairman, anybody reading this who knows anything about grammar, or even common English, would know that it says that the new government instructed the Department of Finance , in co-operation with the Provincial Auditor , to prepare an interim report on the financial position of the province for the six months ended September 30, 1977, as well as projections for the year ending March 31 , 1978. Mr.

Chairman , I don 't know who can interpret this any other way than to say that the Department of Finance , in co-operation with the Provincial Auditor , were instructed to prepare an interim statement as well as projections . Now , 1 knew it wasn't true . How did I know it wasn 't true? I read between the lines in that six-monthly statement that was issued by the Minister of Finance , and I didn 't think that the Minister , who is appearing before us, would want to continue what I say is a dishonest statement. It may not have been intended to be dishonest but , Mr. Chairman , it is dishonest. MR. SPIVAK Mr.

Chairman . again for the record , I read that as. " The Department of Finance, in co-operation with the Provincial Auditor , to prepare an interim report on the financial position of the province for the six months ending September 30, 1977, as well as for the Department of Finance for projections for the year ending March 31 , 1978." Mr. Chairman , that was what was intended . Now if in fact the

interpretation of the honourable 2534

Tuesday , May 23, 1 978 member - (Interjection)- Well , Mr. Chairman . I interpret it as saying what I said : I think it could have been said more explicitly but the question of whether that int erpretation of my interpretatior · is correct is not really a question of honest y. If he suggest that . tn his opinion , it is a mis leading statement, I accept that but for him to question the honesty of the statement is anothe r issue. MR. CHERNIACK Mr. Chairman , I really don 't mind his int errupti ons too much but I don 't thi nk they should cont inue . I said it is not an honest stat ement . and it isn·t.

I didn 't say he was dishonest because I gave him the opportunity immediately to disassociate himself from thi s state ment and to give a correction to it. Mr . Chairman, the statement is dishone st. MR. SPIVAK Mr . Chairman, I am not disassociating myself from the statement; I am saying th at the statement could have been given possibly in greater clarity but the statement itself stands and I believe it can be interpreted ver y directly as saying what I just said before. The Member for St . Johns may take a different

interpretation ; that's his privileg e. MR. CHERNIACK That 's what I said all along , Mr . Chairman . I claim th at this is a di shon est statement , and I stick by that. I believe that anybody who understand s Engl ish will underst and that that 's it. You know , Mr . Chairman , if the Minister had had the good sense - I said good grace earl ier, now I say good sense - to admit that the graph on Page 19 is wrong and phoney, and incomplete . all right then we would stop talking about it. I am now prepared to stop ta lking about the first sentence on Page 24, but, Mr.

Chairman , I claim that it is part of the bia s tha t gave them the opportunity -" to give misinformation. Now, I would like to ask the Minister , who now says that the defic it . .. I am looking at the third paragraph , the current account and revenue division defic it originally forecast at $2 5 million , including supplementary estimates , was projected to reach $ 129 million for the year . May I ask the Minister when he discovered that that $129 million figure was not correct? That is that it would not be $129 million ; when did he learn that? MR. SPIVAK Mr.

Chairman , I am prepared to answer the questions of th e Member for St. Johns when he finishes; I am not going to go by a cross examination , I indicated that before . Let him proceed with this particular

section and at the time he has concl uded I will then answer the question . MR. CHERNIACK Allright, , Mr . Chairman , the next sample says:" At the same time direct budget ary Capital expenditures were forecast to exceed related revenues by $96 million . Would he expla in what is meant by " related Revenues " ? Wh at related revenu es are there in relation to the Capital expenditures that makes it appear th at it was bad budgeting or defic it budgeting , to raise Capital expenditures that way? So , Mr. Chairman, we find that they come up with a total, this is a new sentence , Mr .

Chairm an, " In total , the combined deficit for 1977-78 , was $225 .1 million. " ,/ Mr. Chairman, this report is dated March 31, 1978. I don 't remember when it was presented in the House , but I am suggesting that the Minister knew by that time that these figures were not correct , that is, that the projection was made - I don 't deny that the projection was made but that the projections were wrong . I would like to know from the Minister , when did he know that , when did he learn that? MR. CHAIRMAN Has the Member for St . Johns concluded? MR. CHERNIACK Mr.

Chairman , I thought that the Minister would respond . The fact is th at he has made a statement here . MR. SPIVAK Mr . Chairman, I will respond . When the Task Force commenced its operation the information in front of it was the information that was available and is in

part contained on Page 24. That was the basis on which they undertook their task and the information as presented is accurate as to the information that was avail able for discussion purposes at the time , the strategy had to be worked out with respect to the report and the unde rtak ing had to be completed.$ The situation did change, it is obviou s that it changed. The informati on was supplied to the Hou se.

I can 't give the details as to what time I was aware of that , I reall y can 't tell you th at, but I can say this , that that is an accurate statement of the financial positi on and the projections that were made at the time that the Task Force commenced its operation and the acti ons that flowed flow ed 2535

Tuesday, May 23, 1978 --------------------------------- on the basis of the fiscal situation at the time. The fact that conditions altered and changed may be of significance to the honourable member, but in terms of the work that had to be undertaken on the Task Force and the basis on which the Task Force had to operate , it was based on that . There were a number of recommendations of the Task Force that were incorporated that were responsible for part of the savings that occurred .

The honourable members have talked about a reduction of $11 million with respect to the deficit but what they don 't accept is the fact that that reduction was a net reduction . The reduction was substantially higher and had the cost escalation continued as it was increasing at that time , without the restraint program being exercised , it would have been substantially higher and any new revenues or moneys that would have been coming from the Federal Governmen t, as a result of change in forecasting, would have been eaten up .

In addition , the Capital expenditures were in fact controlled as a result of recommendations from the Task Force , which in fact were accepted by Cabinet. So , I can say very clearly, Mr. Chairman, that with respect to the information that the Task Force had at the time it commenced its operation, that is an accurate statement of the informat ion available to them . It was on the basis of that that the Task Force undertook its responsibilities . And that is a statement that reflects the position at the time.

The honourable members would like us to now say we should reflect the position after the restraint programs were organized, after the work of the Task Force was undertaken , and that should have been put in as the basis on which the Task Force undertook its responsibility . But , Mr . Chairman , that wasn 't the case . When the Task Force commenced, this was the information it had available and it is contained in the Report. MR. CHERNIACK Mr . Chairman , the Minister has said to us, " Put it on the table. " He has made allegations and claims now for all kinds of savings . Will he put that on the table? MR.

SPIVAK Mr . Chairman, I am quite aware of the kinds of activities that were being undertaken by the former government and the kind of control that it exercised and the failure of their restraint program , notwithstanding the remarks that have been made in this committee room . I simply say that it is my belief , and I think I can support that , that had there been a continuation of the program , there is nothing on the track record of the previous government to indicate that in any way they would have been able to control.

As a matter of fact, there is a great deal of information that would indicate that they weren 't even aware, or very few were aware , of the true financial position prior to the election and that in effect , if they were aware , that they hadn 't taken the course of action . They had talked about a 10 percent reduction and I have heard it before , Mr. Chairman , but the fact is that they didn 't have the will or the desire or the abilit y to be able to implement it. They talked in terms of reduction .

The First Minister talked about the fact that there could have been a reduction in Northern Affairs of maybe 100 employees . He acknowledged that maybe there could have been that reduction but the fact is tha t it didn 't take place . And the fact is, Mr . Chairman, that there were benefits . The members opposite have indicated that somehow or other , if they had been in government they would have taken over , there would have been the additional revenues that would have been forthcoming ; they would have cont inued on as they had and there would have been no problem.

I don 't believe that that would be the case . But certainly in terms of the accuracy of the position , this was the position . And I say again to the Member for St. Johns and there are other members of the Treasury Bench who are here , if the information of $225 million as at the time that the new government took over is not correct , you were in government , you had the information , put it on the table as to what that information really was . Don 't start talking about the possibilities of some additional changes that may have occurred in three or four months .

You simply indicate that this projection was not correct, that that projection shol'ld have been $150 million , $175 million ; you tell us what it should have been . You were in government ; you gave it up on the 24th. I am saying to you that at the time the Task Force commenced its operation those were the figures that were available to them , those were the projections and it was on that basis that they carried on their program. MR. CHAIRMAN 1.(b) - the Member for St . Johns. MR. CHERNIACK Mr. Chairman , I want to remind the Honourable Minister that I was not in government and I do not have the figures . MR.

SPIVAK There are other members of the Treasury Bench here . MR. CHERNIACK Mr . Chairman , would you please tell the Minister that I listened to him as quietly 2536 ...

Tuesday, May 23, 1978 as 1 could . Mr . Chairman , it is all very well for him to scream about , " Put it on the tabl e. · I want to draw to his attention a couple of statements he made. One is that at the time tile strategy had already been worked out . A very signif icant sentence: ·'The strat egy had alread y been wor ked out. " I wrote it down as he said it. MR. SPIVAK The strategy of the Task Force ... MR. CHERNIACK Mr. Chairman , would you tell this Min ister to keep quiet . MR. SPIVAK Mr. Chairman , on a point of order. MR. CHERNIACK On a matter of privilege . MR. SPIVAK No, on a point of order , Mr.

Chairman . MR. CHAIRMAN Just a minute . A few mom ents ago the Member for St . Jo hns was speaki ng. He stopped and he waited about 30 seconds for a reply from the Min ister. The Minister hadn 't rep lied. I am sure that the Member for St. Johns was in a state of shock at that pa rti cular moment . The problem between the Member for St. Johns and this particular Minist er is that they both seem to want to talk at the same time and be quiet at the same time . It is not very easy to conduct this committee with you two persons at it. Perhaps it was easie r when the Member for St .

Johns sat up nice and close here, but he is not there . ../ MR. CHERNIACK Mr. Chai rman , the record wil l show that I have not spoken except when you said , " The Member for St. Johns ." MR. CHAIRMAN That is true , but a few moments ago, the Minister was quiet and you were in a state of shock waiting for an answer . MR. CHERNIACK But the Minister , nevertheless , has been interrupt ing me. MR. CHAIRMAN Unfortunately , sometimes he wants to give you the answer rather quickly. MR. CHERNIACK Now , he raised a point of order . MR. CHAIRMAN The Minister , on a point of privileg e. MR. SPIVAK Mr .

Chairman, on a point of privilege , the member said that the strategy was undertaken, or words to that effect. MR. CHERNIACK Had been worked out. MR. SPIVAK Yes, it was worked out. It was worked out by the Task Force , that is, the strategy of the Task Force , the strategy of the review teams . Yes, Mr . Chairman , I was talking about the / Task Force, and that's all I said and I think that the record will show tha t and I simply ask the honourable member to refer to Hansard when it is printed . MR. CHERNIACK Mr. Chairman , I won 't quarrel with that.

He said the strategy had been worke d out and that meant that they were going blindly ahead regardle ss of what new information they acquired . To me, that is what it meant . You see, Mr. Cha irman , he is prepared to make broad statements . He made the statement - I didn 't know whether it was true or not - he made the statement that the budget process consisted of the First Ministe r from the previous government sitting down for a week and going over the budget . Mr. Chairman , I don 't know wheth er it is true or not; I was not part of Cabinet or of the Management Committee .

I am sure it is not true but I can 't vouch for it not being true . The Minister said it more than once and now I believe th at it is absolutely untrue and he said it. He says , well , now prove I am wrong . Mr . Chairman, he has said that this previous government would have cont inued to spend at the same rate . I say this is not true , Mr. Chairman , I don 't believe that . He believes it; he says he can prove it . Let him prove it. Let him not make broad statements unless he is prepared to back them up , unle ss he is prepa red to say. " I do believe that. " Okay .

But don 't let him say, " I can pr ove it," and then not prove it bec ause no one , and I really mean hardly anyone , would take his wo rd wit hout his bringing some supportive evidence to vouch for it. Now , Mr . Chairman, he has now admitted - I think he has admitted - that before thi s report was published , he already knew that the projection was incorrect and he is telling us that this report 2537

Tuesday, May 23, 1978 was based as of, I don 't know , October 14, 1977, or some similar date , which means, Mr . Chairman, that they took what they were told then and without any additional information , they then proceeded to file a report. He talks about history , this report will stand on the record that on March 31 , 1978, this Minister , with two other people , presented a report which supported the statement as to the deficit . We know it is a false figure . We know , and I use that word advisedly. it is not an honest statement .

It is designed to make people believe that that was the deficit as it was known , as at the date of this report and they didn 't have the guts to tell the truth when they knew it to be so. Now , the Minister says he doesn 't know when he learned that this statement is incorrect. Well , I don 't know when he learned it either , Mr . Chairman , but he certainly learned it before he signed the report , and yet he continues this along . So, I have another question to ask . At the bottom of Page 24, Mr .

Chairman , he quotes the Provincial Auditor as: Considering that the former separation of Current and Budgetary Capital on an arbitrary basis is not practical, etc ., and he says that the Current and Budgetary Capital figures were combined in the Interim Report . I assume he knew - I have to assume he knew - that the Estimates for this current year were supposedly on a combined Current and Budgetary figure . My premise to my question is that he knew that .

I would like to know when he learned that it was the government's intention to spend $30 million more in Capital Expenditures than was shown in the Estimates figure that we are now dealing with? MR. CHAIRMAN 1.(b) - the Minister . MR. SPIVAK I said to the honourable member , and I am prepared to answer answer questions , I am not prepared to go through the cross-examination . I will answer it , but I am not prepared to do a paragraph by paragraph cross-examination on the part of the honourable member. I am not prepared as a member of the Treasury Branch to basically tell him when I knew anything.

As a member of the Treasury Branch I am part of the Treasury Branch . That information is being presented by the Minister of Finance. I simply indicate to the former Minister that I think he understands it very correctly. I am not prepa red, Mr . Chairman , to get involved in this detail. I am certainly prepare d t o answer in a general way . I again state for the record so that there will be no question , that as of the date that the Task Force commenced , the best information they had was at $225 million .

I am aware as well that the Task Force knew that part of the restraint program was working , the degree to which it was working was very difficult to assess but they did know that it was working , based on the prelim inary reports that had been received , and that was very important. They were also aware of the fact that a number of Capital projects which were foolish in their design and concept were cancelled and as a result there were savings to be made there . Now , the fact that the net deficit position would change and alter by March 31, I think was understood . There was no quest ion.

The work that was going on would obviously affect it but , Mr. Chairman, the information that is presented in the Task Force , i s the information as of the date that the Task Force commenced . This is a review of the economic position and the fiscal position. The honourable members want to get around the $225 million . With all the talk , it is just hogwash ; they haven 't been able to get around it at all. They have said that the information is incorrect . They have said it is improper . They have said that there was information that came forward afterwards which showed more Federal money .

They said there was a restraint program which had its effect. All of these things indicate, Mr . Chairman , that insofar as they ·.vere concerned , it couldn 't have been $225 million . All I have said to them , well , if it wasn 't $225 million and that information was given to us, again , by the very same officials who were within the government before . and that was on the basis on which we undertook our project and that is the basis of the fiscal situation at the time that the repo rt was undertaken . Mr .

Chairman , if we are supposed to , in terms of the honourable members opposite in order to sort of satisfy their particular need , are to produce information after action has been undertaken by the government , afte r some of the suggestions of the Task Force have in fact been carried out and afte r there has been a new change in position , put that as being the position in November , that would be patentl y false because that wasn 't the position in November. That wasn 't the position when the Task Force commenced its operation.

And while the honourable member won 't acknowledge that that is reall y all that says. he is trying by one way or the other to get around the positi on and to try in some way or other to suggest that the $225 million projection was an incorrect projection with respect to the government . because. Mr . Chairman , the fact is that it was the project ion; the fact is that the honourab le members don 't wan t to acknowledge it because 2538

Tuesday, May 23, 1978 it is horrendous by comparison to what they were suggesting before . The fact is that it really did show a deterioration with respect to what was happening . and the 1 1ct is it is a!so an Indication, and I think in a very direct way . that the members oppo site who were in the government really didn't have control of what was taking place and did not have the accurate information from which correct information from which judgments could be made , valid judgments could be made.

This , of course , is one of the main objection s and one of the main suggestions with respect to the report, the need for proper management information system and for proper financial information so that judgments could be made . Now , Mr. Chairman, I am not dealing now with what took place in March. I am dealing in the report and discussing with the Minister - the report is dealing now with the position as of November , the projections .

If the honourable member says that those projections are not correct and if he says that that 225 million is not correct , that in November it was 180 million , then say it , produce it. We have indicated in here directly the information that was given to us, and that was the information that was given to us. There were subsequent changes

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-2-47b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 2nd hansardpdf 47b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b19ce120ed580ac31733ed83114ee5e05cdcae02

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