Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 3 (26th Legislature, 4th Session)

26-4-3

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly Of Manitoba DE BATES an d PROCEED IN GS Speaker The Honourable A. W. Harrison \ Vol. VI No. 3 Tuesday Evening, October 17, 1961. 4th Session, 26th Legislature <-. -------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Printed by R. S. Evans. Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba, Winnipeg

INDEX Page Speech from the Throne, Hon. E.F. Willis, Q.C. . . • . . . . . • .. . • . . . • . . . • • . . • • • . . . . 1 Felicitations: Mr . Roblin, Mr. Molgat, Mr . Paulley, Mr. Froese, Mr . Campbell, Mr. Gray .....•...•............ ; . . . . . . . . • . . . . • . . . . • . . . • 1 Motion re Sittings: Mr. Roblin, Mr. Molgat, Mr. Paulley, Mr. Froese . . • . • . • • . . • . 2 Motion re Committee: Mr . Roblin, Mr.

Molgat . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . • . . • . . . . • • • . 6 Committee of the Whole: Resolutions . . • . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . 8 Report of Committee: Mr. Molgat, Mr. Roblin, Mr . Paulley, Mr. Prefontaine, Mr . Hryhorczuk, Mr . Campbell, Mr. Roblin, Mr. Hillhouse . . . . . • . . • . . . • • 12 Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • . • • • . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . • . • . • . . . . . . . • • 15 Income Tax Bill: Mr.

Roblin . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . • . . . . • . . • . . . . . • . 17 Metropolitan Act: Introduction, Mr . Lyon . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . • . . . . . . . . . 27 Income Tax Bill: Mr . Molgat; Mr. Paulley (amendment) . . . . . . . • . • . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . . 28 Division on amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . • 40 Mr . Groves, Mr. Wagner .. .... ............ .•. : . . . .. . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . .. . . 44 Metro Bill: Mr. Lyon, Mr . Schreyer, Mr. Dow, Mr .

Lyon . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .• . . . . . . 50 Income Tax Bill: Mr. Hryhorczuk, Mr . Scarth, Mr. Froese, Mr . Cowan, Mr . Orlikow . . • . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . • . • . . . . 55 Mr . Roberts, Mr. Reid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • .• • • . . . . . . . . • . . . 71 Throne Speech Debate: Mr . Molgat, Mr. Johnson (Gimli) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Income Tax Bill: Mr . Hillhouse, Mr.

Alexander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . .. . • . 90 Throne Speech Debate: Mr. Gray, Mr. Paulley, Mr. Desjardin, Mr . Hutton . . . . . . . . 92 Income Tax Bill: Mr. Guttormson, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Shoemaker, Mr. Dow, Mr. Prefontaine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . 108 Mr. Tanchak, Mr . Johnson (Assiniboia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . 123 Throne Speech (amendment): Mr. Lyon, Mr. Guttormson, Mr . Roberts . .. . . . . . . . . . . 126 Income Tax Bill: Mr.

Roblin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . 141 Division (amendment) .............. ..... .. •....... .•... ·. . . . . . . . • • . . . . . • 151 Throne Speech: Mr. Hillhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . 152 Division on amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . 153 Mr. Paulley, Mr.

Schreyer . . • . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • • 153 Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . 161 Committee of Whole: Bills 2 and 3 . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . 163 Income Tax Bill: 3rd Reading: Mr. Molgat, Mr. Prefontaine, Mr. Paulley, Mr. Froese, Mr.

Campbell . . . . . • . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Division . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Metro Bill, 3rd Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 Prorogation . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . • . • . . . • . . . • . 176

THE LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 8: 00 o'c lock, Tuesday, October 17th, 1961 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker . MR . SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions Reading and Receiving Petitions Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees Notice of Motion Introd uction of Bills Orders of the Day :MR. GEORGE WM . JOHNSON (Assin iboia): Mr. Speaker , before the Orders of the Day , I would like to introduce to you, and through you to all the honourable members , a group of �, - students from Westwood Collegiate in what is known now as the fastest growing residential area in the Metro area.

They are located on your left, Sir , in the gallery and they are in the charge of Mr. Peter Thiessen and Mr. Bird. On your behalf, Sir, we'd like to welcome you Mr. Thiessen and Mr . Bird and your charming group of students here tonight and I am quite sure that you will find your visit here not only instructive but an experience that should stand you well as you go to your classes each day. Thank you! lVIR. SPEAKER : Orders of the Day . MR . ELMAJ.'-1 GUTTORMSON (St. George): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the First Min ister.

Could he tell us at this time how many of the bonds that were bought last spring have been turned back in after the six-mont hs' deadline ? HON. DUFF ROBLIN (Premier) (Wolseley): Yes, I can, Mr. Speaker . I'm sure the House and the public gene rally will be very inte rested to know that the redemptions have been very small indeed. I think the sum is in the neighbourhood of a few hundred thousand dollars -- per haps $400, 000 in a $40 million plus issue. That is the latest figure that I can give the House and there seems to be no run on the Bank whatsoever .

I'm very glad to make this ann ouncement because it is important to us that there should be reaso nable stability in connection with these savings bonds , and as this was our experience in this direction, it was of course, a little bit difficult to estimate what these cash-ins would be . But I can say that they're very much less than we had an ticipated and I think members gene rally will agree that the situation is satisfactory. MR . MORRIS A. GRAY (Inkste r): Mr . Speaker, on the same subject, are you contemplat ing having another bond sale in the near future? MR .

ROBLIN: It's always unde r consideration, Mr . Speaker, but there's no anno uncement I can make at the present. MR . GILDAS MOLGAT (Leader of the Opposition) (Ste. Rose): Mr . Speaker, can the First Minister tell us as well how that money is inve sted at the moment ? MR . ROBLIN: The mone y is inve sted in variouS items of Public Works in the province ; it's being used for the Hydro and for the Telephone s and for other matters for which we borrow mon ey. MR . MOLGAT : The whole $40 million? l\ffi. ROBLIN: Yes, I believe it's all employed. MR . J. M. FROESE (Rhineland) : Mr .

Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Education , the Honourable Mr . Stewart M cLean -- whether a vote is going to be held in new divisions formed in the southern part of the province -- the divisions of Winkl er, Altona and Morden? HON . STEW ART E. M cLEAN (Minister of Education) (Dauphin) : Mr.

Speaker, I anticipate there will be votes held in the proposed division which gene rally lies in the area of Morden and the proposed division which gene rally lies in the area of Winkle r, but it is not proposed to have any vote in that which lies in the area of Altona since no request has ever been received from that part of Manitoba for a vote . MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day . Adjourne d debate on the proposed motion of tb:l Hon ourable the First Minister that Bill No. 2,

an Act respecting Income Tax, be now read a second time. The Honourable Member for Ethelbert. MR. M. N. HRYHORCZUK, Q. C. (Ethelbert): Mr. Speaker , I would ask the indulgence of tb:l House to let the matter stand. October 17th, 1961 Page 43

MR. ROBLIN: I'd be glad to do that Sir, but any other member who cares to speak this evening, per haps could be accorded the privilege of rising. MR . HRYHORCZUK: Mr. Speaker, I don't see any objection to that. MR . FRED GROVES (St. Vital) : Mr. Speaker, in the early stages of this sessi on prior to this bill actual ly coming up for debate , the Honourable Member from Lake side asked a question. His question was: Why was this change in the tax rental system made ?

Although I cannot answer this question on behalf of the Provincial Government , because first of all , they didn't request the change and the record indicate s contrarily that they were vigorously opposed to it. Nor can I pretend to answer this question on behalf of the Fede ral Government at Ottawa. But I think I can, however, give one reason, at least one reason, why I think it was changed to show why I think this change has not adversely affected the taxpayers of Manitoba.

All of our provincial governments have committe d themsel ves over the past few years to heavy spending programming, and we who sit on the government side of these Legisla tures must be prepared to defend these programs in our own constituencies and to explain them to our people , who are , in the end, going to be responsible for giving up the taxes in order to pay for them . I'm sure that this province and the other nine provinces of the Dominion have relied heavily in the past and would have been relying more heavily in the future on the Tre asury of the Federal Government to pay for these progra ms .

Why else would the provincial treasurers and the provincial premiers go to Ottawa with the vast demands that they did at the last Dominion- Provincial Conferenc e? We as citizens of Canada I think must think and must consider the effect of these demands on our federal taxes. The Prime Minister, I believe , has wisely advised the pro vinces that he is not prepared to be come the financier and the collector of taxes for provinc es and other administrations that have promised these expenditures and will rece ive the cre dit for them.

Let us look for a moment at what the provincial premiers asked when they went to the last Provincial-Dominion Confer ence . Ontario asked for 50% of income ta.xes, 50% of corpora tion taxes and 50% of succession duties, a total of $500 million, three times more than they had ever asked before in the way of these payments. Manitoba was demanding $25 million. The total de mand by all the provin ces at that time added up to two billion and fifty-five million dollars - over 40% of the Federa l Government 's total spending program. Only six of these added up to this 40%.

The provinces were requesting a tax-sharing formula of 50-50- 50 , a prepaid medical plan, an increase of hospital cons truction grants to one-third, and inclusion as shareable costs under the hospital program of mental and T. B. hospitals and deprecia tion and amortization of debt on hospital construction. They also asked for further fede ral participation in highway con struction , re source roads and tourist facilitie s; they asked for interest- free loans to municipal ities for social capital and for exemption of municipalit ies from federal sales and excise taxes .

This type of thing, I mainta in , was leading the country into a jungle much more dense and much more dangerous than the jungle that our CCF and Liberal counterparts in this House keep refer ring to. The Leader of the Opposition states that this is a disastrous weakness in the new deal; that it's a return to the tax jungle . The Leader of the CCF says that we are turning the clock of progress backwards and that the Rowell Sirois Commissio n Report is being scra pped.

He says further that the Conse rvative Government both here and at Ottawa, have decreed that we go back to 1867 ; be says that this new scheme will disunite the people of Canada. These statements that were made this afternoon, both by the Leader of the Opposition and by the Leader of the CCF party just don't stand up to the li ght. They're nonsense and the men that made them know it.

We are now faced with the principle that the government which spends the money should take the responsibility for raising it, and in my opinion this is a good principle; it's a good principle inso far as it applies to Dominion- Provincial relations .••. (Interje ction) •• MR . SPEAKER : Order ! MR . GROVES: Mr . Speaker, at the last sessi on of the Legisla ture , I think it was the Hon ourable Member from St. George that kept interrupting me . At that time I asked if he wanted to make a speech, be should do so on his own time . On further considera tion I think that was rather a selfish point of view.

If the gentlemen to our right wish to make their speeches on my time, Mr. Speaker, I'm quite willing to accomm odate them. If they will merely indicate when they want to speak up , I will be gl ad to sit down and let them spend a few momen ts . In my opinion , and I say in my opinion, the time is not too long away when we as legislators of the province are going to have to adopt the same attitude towards the municipalit ies, towards Page 44 October 17th, 1961

(Mro Groves, con t'do) , 0 , Metro and towardEl tho school boards of th:is province, Thi!'l, X reaJ ize , wonld hwolve a re-shuf fling of the ta1<Jng power in order that the mt1l1icipalities aucl the school boards, including our Metro m.llilicipalites, would be able to get tho money to meet tho.IT oblig- a tioiLS , I did not look up the actual speech but X tll.ink the Prime Min.i.ste r, when he was deal ing with tbis matter in the House of Commons in Ottaw a, said that he wished to end the "gimrne gimrne " approach of the provi nces to the Federal GovB:rnmen.L ! think that thi s was a wise state :ment on. the part of the Prime Minister and I think tbFt we as legislators in the prov'illce are going to have to adopt this same approach to end the "gtmme-gimme" attitude of the mllllicipalities and the school boards to the Provinc ial Treasur<; o o o , (Interjections) , , , The lE�ader of the CCF called it relying o n const itutionality and I suggest that the Federal Goveru.ment ln tbis connection has no lntention nor would it dare permit a return to the multi tude of tax collecting agencies that we had in the past and that the province s would be most fool ish to do so even though theoretically the door is open for them should they wish, The necessary safeguards are in the legislation that we have before us to prevent thls .

It is primarily a tax collection agreement , even although the provin ces are permitted to vary the rates. '!'he inclus ion of national resource revenues recognized and corrected one of the greatest financial disabili ties of some of the province s. Equalization to the national average, while disadvantageous to Mar>..itoba, was not, I maintain , a practical goal under the circumstan ces, Equalization, a pay ment by Canada to the province s to bring their per capita return from the three taxes up to a standard or up to the average of the per capita return in the whole Dominion is maintaine d.

There is a floor below which no province can go. Under this agreement the Province of Mani toba cannot receive less than it was receiving unde r the old one . This is the stabilization fea tare • These are the features of stabilization and equalization which must be retaine d for Mani toba.; which our Premier fought to have maintained in this agreement , and which have been re :ain ed, Now what about the history of the provin ce's dealings with Ottawa. The Leader of the Opposition says that they did not get a fair deal.

The Leader of the CCF said it's not good e nough; that we are a rub ber stamp provinc e; that the Premier accepted this without a fight, Well , let's examine Premier Roblin 's reaction to the change from the ol.d basis to the new . In a statement to the press on October 29th, 19 60, be said "There can be no legitimate refusal on the part of the province to collect their own standard tax but I regard the step as unn ecessary and expensi ve . The present tax-sharing agreement has been part of the essential development of the structure of Confederation ·and the result of many years of experiment and evolution.

We should take a very cautious, thoughtful and sober approach to any change ." He later called this a backward step -- he referred to it as being no good. This, no doubt, was the method that he used, according to the leader of the CCF Party, in bowing to his counte rpart in Ottawa. There's no need to elaborate or to deal with the unjust and the ridiculous criticism from both of the opposition parties that we heard this afternoon in this regard.

A review of the state ments which the Premier made in the House, and the newspa per clippings during the conferen ces , revealed that he bent over backwards to get a good deal for the Province of Manitoba and I have with me some of the newspape r clippings.

This one is from the Winni peg Free Press during the first confe rence : "Premier Roblin, who addressed the confe rence after the luncheon hour, made a strong plea that the One Hundred Million four-year adjustment grants now provided the Mari times be placed on a formula basis and be made available to all provinc es that are in need ." Again , a headline in the Tribune : "Duff Tax Demands Set at Twenty Five Million ." In the Tor onto Globe and Mail: "Premier Duff Roblin of Manitoba has announc ed that his province will ask for a much larger tax split at the Dominion -Provincial conference next mont h.

" And again : "Mr. Roblin , who doubles as Provincial Treasurer, says bis minimum request will be a tax split of 15-15-50, He· also says he will fight for retention of the equalization principle ." Again , in the Winnip eg Free Press, and this is quoting the Premier: "The product of our deliberations should be such that with changing and evolving economic circumstances a fiscal policy will be proclaimed that will best ensure the progressive development of our nation . Manitoba was pre pared and eager to do her share i,n promoting that development, but to do so she must enj oy first a position of equality.

The position of equality must be unqual ified and unequivocal ." Then we have a headline in the Winnipe g Free Press: "Duff Will Ask Dief for More." And again , in the Winnipeg Tribune : "The vehemence of the provincial opposition could be measured by the care fully chosen words of Manitob a's Premier , a long-time personal friend of Mr. Diefenbaker, who October 17th, 1961 Page 45

(Mr . Grove s, cont'd.) . , . leans over backwards to be fair. Mr. Roblin was very nearly speechless when he recovered his composure . He wasted no time in calling a press conference to sum up his reaction that the Diefenbaker plan was simply no good. " So there Mr . Speaker is the answer to the criticism from our baboons on the right, to what this government did at the . . • • • MR . THOMAS P. HILLHOUSE, Q.C. (Selkirk) : Mr. Speaker, speaking as one of the ba- boons on this side of the House , would the honourable member permit a que stion ? MR . GROVES: Did you want to ask a question? MR .

HILLHOUSE: Will you permit a question? l'lffi . GROVES: Yes. MR . HILLHOUSE: On the basis of the first part of your argument tonight, do you consider that Permier Roblin was justified in making the demands that he did make of Premier Diefen baker? MR . GROVES: Yes I do, because I think that we 're dealing with two separate subjects . MR . DAVID ORLIKOW (St. John's) : Will you permit another question? MR . GROVES: No, I'll answer t'h2. first one first.

I was expressing my own opinion and giving what, in my opinion, was the F<11 deral Government's reason for wanting to make this change, and the criticism that both of the opposition parties had this afternoon against the gov ernment's attitude towards the provincial-municipal conference just wasn't justified. The re cord doesn't bear it out. MR. HILLHOUSE : That was your opinion and was Premier Roblin unjustified in the de mands that he was making? MR . ROBLIN: I wonder if membe rs of the House would be willing to accord to my honour able friend who has the floor the usual courte sy. MR . GROVES .

Now, let us see with respect to the acceptance of this agreement what the record of the Campbell government was in a similar situation when t�y were in office and we will find that their attitude was very much similar to the approach which chey ::n.:.de to the Fed eral Government at that time. In the Free Press of January 12th, 195 6 , Ron Turner, the Pro vincial Treasur er , is quoted as follows: "Manitoba would have to accept the best deal that could be mad e." Mr.

Campbell, at the Federal- Provincial Conference on November 25 th and 26th said "Our recomme ndations, howe ver, were not accepted by the Federal Government." Mr. Greenlay, the Provincial Treasurer, said to this House on April 3rd, 1958 -- "A year ago, when the agreement was signed it was the best that we could obtain at the time" and Mr.

Camp bell again at the November the 25 th and 26th Conference said "Moreov er, no better alternative has yet been brou ght to our attention." There is a surprising similarity between the activities of the goverrment at . the time and this government in the matter of their dealings with the Federal Government. Under this pres ent formul a, we are getting 9% of the corporation taxes, 50% of the succe ssion duties and a gradu ated rate on the personal taxes from 16 up to 20% in the year 1966.

We asked, at the conference , for 15-15-50 and the Provincial Treasurer told us in terms of dollars what this me ant to the Province of Manitoba. The 1957 agreement extended over the five year period gave us 21 million dollars less than the 1962 agreement is estimated to give. The 1958 agreement which amended the pact that was made in 1957 reduc es this increase , of cours e, to some two or three million dollars . He also pointed out that we shouldn •t lose sight of the fact that federal grants for other purpo ses have increased by some 24 million dollars or 400% .

We have, all in all, got a better deal from this arrangement than we got from a Liberal Premier of the time dealing with a Lib er al Prime Minister, and an even better deal than when the present Conse rvative Government extended the agreement in 1958 . The Premier made quite clear in his speech of yesterday that the government is not satisfied and that they would be constantly striving for more monie s from the Fede ral Government. The attitude of this government has been far from the rubber stamp description that was given to them this afternoon by the Honourable Leader of the CCF party.

The Leader of the Opposition stated this afternoon that the Roblin government was increas ing taxes and he forgets that by the same measure that there is a substantial relief to those tax payers of the province who need it the most by way of a reduction of the hospital premium from six and three dollars to four and two dollars . He says that the tax that is proposed to be raised under this bill is not a tax for hospital purposes , that it is a general tax, and except for the 1% Page 46 October 17th, 1961

(Mr. Groves, cont'd .) • , • inc rease which is to go to the Manitoba Hospital Services Plan, this t.ax by reason of the abatement of their taxes to the same amount is to make up for the pro ceeds from the ta.'t rental agreement received from Ottawa in the past. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition also says that there should not be a provincial income tax, and he and his foi lowers , and the CCF likewise , stood up this afternoon and voted against this bill in principle . I mainta in, lVIr. Speaker, that this is hypocrisy and irresponsibility on the pa..-rt of these two op position groups .

They are, in effect , , , , , , , MR. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Leader of the CCF Party) (Radisson) : Mr. Speaker, I wonde r whether or not my honour able friend is just going a little beyond the bounds of propriety and parliamentary procedure when the accusation is made of hypocrisy. I did not rise , Sir , when we were called baboons because of the fact that l thought that that was merely a slip of the tongue of my honourable friend, but I don't think his last remarks should be taken unn oted, MR . GROVES: ])Jlr . Speaker, if the word "hypocrisy" offends the Honourable Leader of the CCF, I withdraw it. MR .

PAULLEY: , , • offen ding, Mr. Speaker , whether or not it was the proper term to use in this House , MR . GROVES: Well, I withdrew the remark and I'm not ••• , They are in eff ect, v;oting against a decrease in hospital premiums . They know that there is no other source at the mo ment to replace the revenue s that will be lost by the drop in premium s. They know that this bill must pass in order to do what both of these parties have maintained in the past on the floor of this chamber, that is , to reduce hospital premiums to those in the low income groups.

Th13y know that the province must accept this bill, just as Mr. Campbell knew in 1957 that they had to do likewise. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition didn't say how he thought the money to make u.p the loss in the tax rental payments was to be raised. He didn't mention in his comments on hospitalizatio::J. how he proposed to make up for the loss of all the premiums . Surely we must regard as silly, under the circumstances as we know them , that this diff erence will not be forth coming from Ottawa.

We can only assume that the Liberal Party must be advocating a sales tax and that they think that a provincial sales tax, the burden of which will fall on those with small incomes as well as those with large income s, is better than a provincial income tax that's based upon the ability to pay. If this is what they advocate, I hope, Mr. Speaker, that further Liberal speakers in this debate will clarify their position for us . The Honourable Leader of the Opposition also said that we will not catch in our tax net the big corporations of eastern Can ada, and he used the auto mobile industry as an example.

Appar ently he didn't read Hansard , for yesterday when the Premie:t; of the province was making his speech on the second reading of this bill he said this: "What about the fact that some corporat ions have bead offices outs ide the Province of Manitob a. Are we going to lose unde r this agree ment the right to tax those companies on the money that was earned in this province ?

Is there going to be a return to the days when a corporation with a head office or with branches outside the Province of Manitoba would escape their fair share of Manitoba corporation taxes?" Then he goes on to say: ''We are adopting the same formula as they've had in the past, namely , that the gross company reven ue s allocated to this province is calculated by 50% of the wages and salaries, and that this formula has been worked out over the years to make sure that there is a fair share of taxes paid by corporations out of profits made within the Province of Manito ba." If the Honourable Leader of the Opposition had even looked at the current corporation income tax form he would find on Page 2 that this formula, this basis of allocating the income of those corporations with head offices outside of the province , is provided for right in the tax return.

The Le ader of the Opposition also produced for us a set of figures that he presuma bly had done on his own, and these tables proceeded to show that the Province of Manitob a stays the same and that there are inc reases in some of the other provinces and that On tario is the one that really benefits by this new deal. He also has another table in which he uses Ontario as a basis of lOO to prove that every other province comes down . I'm not impressed with his figures. It's surprising what you can do with figures.

There's a saying that says: "Figures don't lie, but if you're smart enough with them you can tell quite a story." He feels that Manitoba has backed down to the demands of Ont ario; that the Province of Ontario is the only winner in this new tax collection plan; and he asks us to cease protecting the Ontario Government, Well this all sounds good in a speech but it just doesn't stand up when it's examined in the light, I'd be very October 17th , 1961 Page 47

(Mr. Groves, cont'd.) •• o interested to know the source of the Honourable Leader's figures because on the basis of what I marked down while he was speaking they just don't make sense, To sum up then, I think that the change from the old basis to the new was a wise move on the part of the Federal Government.

I would like to emphasize, as the Provincial Treasurer has emphasized earlier in this debate that the Province of Manitoba is not satisfied and will continue to press the Federal Government for what they feel should be the province's share in the national income, As far as the imposition of a provincial income tax is concerned, I think that it is the only thing that could be done under the circumstances; that it's the sensible thing to do; and that it's the fairest way of raising this money.

In the reduction of the hospital prem ium, I'm sure that many people of this province will be extremely grateful for this reduction and will be extremely grateful of the fact that we have introduced into the Manitoba Hospital Service Plan the principle of ability to pay. The Liberal and the CCF, I think, have adopted a negative attitude in this matter and I am sure that it will be rejected by the people of Manitoba, MR . MOLGAT: Mr, Speaker, I didn't want to interrupt the honourable member during hls speech. I would just like to make a correction in the statement he attributed to me this after noon.

Vlhen I said that there were taxes the province could not collect I was referring to per sonal income tax not corporation tax. I believe I made that point in my speech. I think if he will check Hansard tomorrow be will see that I specifically stated that • • , • (Interje ction) o , , o But equally true . MR . ORLIKOW: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the honourable member who just concluded would permit a question.

I wonder if the honourable member would tell the House whether.he thinks the Prime Minister was justified in turning down the requests of the provincial Premiers , in cluding the request of the Premier of this province? MR. GROVES: I think that the Prime Minister, and I don't pretend to speak for him, I think the Prime Minister recognized the fact that the demands from the provincial governments, including Manitoba, were getting out of hand . They just couldn't be met. MR . SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR . ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, if no one else cares to speak , , , , Page 48 October 17th, 1961

MR. P. WAGNER (Fisher): Mr. -Speaker: My intentions were not to speak tonight and just after lunch I drew up some notes. However, my friend from St. Vital, I believe he entertained this House tonight and maybe I can entertain also a little bit, because last year even the paper said that I was amus ing when I was speaking. However, Mr. Speaker, I don't see no reason that we are arguing here tonight or yesterday and so on. The government made its mind that they are com ing through with this blll, and as the Honourable Member from St.

Vital, he re ferred himself to some names , trying to convince this side of the House. Well this side, it seems to me, equally stand on their own feet, as the other side, so there ls not much more I can add to convince anybody and I'm not going to try to convince anybody. I' m not going to quote any statistics because, as the Honourable Member for St. Vital said, you can juggle the figures either way, and so our Honourable Prime Minister juggled with the Farm Stablllzation Bill 237. It was a terrific bill at one time and Blll 2 may come to the same thlng. However, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to com ment and remind, possibly some of the memb ers that forgot, that when the Federal Government was elected our Prime Minister said nobody will be unem ployed ln Canada and a bigger financial share to each of the provinces and parity prices to the farmers. We have all that--we know it. Now when the hospital premium was brought in by the Liberal Governm ent, In speculatlon thdt they may win the election on it, fortunately or unfortunately the Conservative Government got elected and they got stuck wlth lt.

Ho wever, the Honourable Minister of Health even stated that he would have never entered into this agreement untll he was ready for it, but he says I took office and I was stuck with it. Now the premiums were $4. 10 at that time . No session was called. The government just jacked it up to $6 .0 0. Then when my leader, I must admlt thls group leader, when he followed the announcement on the TV saying that he's protesting as far as he's concerned, and his group is concerned, the hornets• nest started. However, Mr.

Speaker, the people were disp leased, particularly I can speak for the farm people, and I don't need to tell you me mbers how the farm ers are off today. You know it. So what happens? What does our government do? I don't know. I am going to guess on two things. The government drew up the $6 .0 0 on a married couple and $3 .0 0 on a single man or a woman, testing probably the public, the reaction of the group, the opposition parties that is, and If the public had sat quietly and the opposition had sat quietly, no doubt we wouldn't be sitting here today--specula tion in my opinion.

Now when the hornets• nest started the government thought, well I'm going to bring ln the House to this sitting. However, how surprisingly to a lay man as me the govern ment did not bring the sitting when they jacked up the premium; but when they want to go down they are calling a session. They want everybody's opinion. However on this side, according to the Honourable Member for St. Vital--baboons--! don't know what suggestion they can give.

Now the government is going to pay retroactive or refunds from July 1st and so on and so forth, but I' m speculating too on this point that our First Minister will come up with some fig ures, as he intimated just a little mom ent ago, that he wlll explain everything. I just wonder how much that refund of this premium of $2.0 0 and $3 .0 0 wlll cost the Treasury, or possibly you have a way out to get out of that without no expense. Possible-or probable; I don't know. But, Mr.

Speaker, I'd rather like to see the higher corporations, the large corporations pay more, than I would like to see the individual paying the income tax. Because as insofar lt's not clear to me, I've no doubt in my mind there are lots of members here today that haven't got a clear picture, as I read in the paper, how this Income tax will work--this 1% wU l work- and no doubt in my mind that this Income Tax Bill No. 2 may just be exactly as Blll 237 of Fed eral Government on stablllzation deficiency payments.

However, to substantiate my argument that we were not called into this House when the premium went up, the Farmers ' Union pre sented a brief to this government in July some time, and then they reiterated the same state ment on Decenb er 22nd, and I quote just a paragraph: "May we also suggest that any change in the rates of Manitoba Hospital Services Plan in the future be discussed and debated in publlc form, either at a public hearing where the taxpayer could have his say directly, or on the floor of the Manitoba Legislature where his elected representatives could debate the merits of the case".

I'm just wondering if the Farmers' Union brief presented this to this government, and I'm just wondering how many members on that side of the House protested against the increase of the hospitalization premiums. The First Minister stated so many hundreds of thousands of people wU l pay incom e tax and October 17th, 1961 Page 49

(Mr. Wagner, cont'd. ) .••. so many won't pay, and so on, and so many thous ands are exempt from.p aying hos pitalization and so on and so forth. One thing my leader touched today, and it's bothering me perso nally. I'm sp eaki ng for the people in Fisher Cons tituency rather than on behalf of all Manitoba that see the wa y I do , and I also wa nt to draw an example myself. My son today ls attending high school he re in the city. He ls of the age that I have to pay for him his ho spi talization.

Now he doesn't earn a penny--and I know students in my area that could not afford to come to university or college or any place here in the city. How do you expect them to pay and they do not qualify for soc ial allowance? And yet they are to pay the hospitall zation premi um--( Interjection)--Mr. Speaker- -that's a good question Honourable Attorney General. You rem inded me of some thing. While we are discuss ing, Mr. Speaker, tonight the Bill 2, it would be a darn · good idea if we discussed the whole comp rehens ive health scheme in Manitoba as they do in Saskatchew an.

I would apprec iate very much, and sooner or later I wi ll see the Province of Manitoba discuss ing this com prehensive health scheme and having the gen- eral public beh ind it. · MR. ROBLIN: If no other member wi shes to sp eak on this debate at the present time , Sir, I suggest that we allow the adjournment to stand in the name of the Honourable Member for Ethelbert Plains . MR. SPEAKER: Second reading Bill No. 3. HONOURA BLE STERL ING LYON, Q. C. (Attorney-General) presented Bill No. 3,

An Act to Ame nd the Metropolitan Winnipeg Act and to ma ke provision res pecting the final date in the making of the annual esti mates in Metropolitan Winnipeg in 1962, for second reading. Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR. LYON: Mr. Speak er, this bill is a very short one and, I think, se lf-explanatory, so I won't burden the House wi th any lengthy explanation. The first portion of it deals wi th the giving of notice wi th respect to changes in zoning by-laws.

Members of the House will appreci ate that the Metropolitan Corporation which now has control over zoning ir: the Grea.terWinnipeg area took over or embodied into its plan, before it undertook to produce a master plan, the existing zoning by-laws of all of the area municipallties wit hin it. At the present time it ls functioning with the zoning codes that we re set up by the area munic ipalities and app lications are made , as ls the usual course from time to time, to h::: .ve certai n of them adjusted.

As the Act now stands , the adjust ments to these exis ting zoning or town planning schemes require the same formalltlcs of notice as wi ll be required in the future when the establishment of the co mplete Metropolitan Developmedt Plan takes place. The purpose of the amendment then is to alleviate or abate these notification requiremen ts insofar as they apply to the existing town planning schemes which are being administered by Metro Government.

The change wi ll be that there wU l be no adver tise ment required in the Manitoba Gazet te , but instead of three we ekly insertions there will be two we ekly insertions in two daily newspapers ln the Greater Winnipeg area advertising the application before the Board of Adjustment.

This has been requested largely bec aus e, at the prese nt time because of the requirem ents that are in the Act, the applications have been carried on over a protracted per iod and of course the additional advertising in the Manitoba Gazet te results in additional expense to the individual applicant who wi shes to make application to the Board of Adjustment. It is not felt that anyone wi ll be prejudiced by this change; in fact it is felt that this change wi ll benefit the general public of the area.

The main portion of the Bill, of course, relieves the Metropolitan Corporation in the year 1962 only from the necess ity of comp leting its budgeting and certifying it's levies to each of the area munici palities by the 31st of January.

This time has been extended so that if this House is to meet <:arly in the new year, or some time in the new year to consider certain matters which may have an effect upon the financing of the Metropolitan Winnipeg Corporation, these changes can be made in the new year and can be made, we hope, in time ln order that they would have effect upon the 1962 Budget of the Metropol itan Corporation. I don't believe that there is anything else that need be said in connection wi th the two sec tions of the Blll, Mr. Speaker. MR. R. E. SCHREYER (Brokenhead) : Mr.

Speaker, if ln fact the first se ction of this bill does anything to enhance the opportunities of the people, person or persons affected by poss ible changes ln the zon ing in some of the me mber munic ipalities of the Metro area, then I welcome Lt. I sa y this because in my own area, in the course of the last few months , t here has developed Page 50 October 17th, 1961

(Mr. Schreyer, cont'd. ) .•. • or there has arisen a situation which certainly doesn't bode too well as far as the people of that area are concerned. If lt does happen to turn out tn the next short while that the Board of Adjustm ent does not act favourably towards a petition being for warded to it by the residents of the Municipality of East St. Paul, then I shall hold this Govern ment directly responsible.

In the first place, before the advent of the Metropolitan Act the matter of zoning was in the hands of the local planning authority ln that municipality; then with the passing of the Metro Act, over my protest, a large part, almost all of the Municipality of East St. Paul was incorporated inside Metro. And what has been the result? It seems that

whereas the local authority had its final jurisdiction would have turned down the request of British American OU commercial assets to have certain properties there re-zoned to suit their own selfish purposes, instead of them having that final authority it now, of course, no longer rests with them. And who is responsible for that? This Government, of course. I think it is more than just a coincidence that the northern boundary of the Metropolitan area should be strangely coterminous with the northern boundary of the property which was purchased by this on com pany. MR. ROBLIN: Mr.

Speaker, my honourable friend is making insinuations. I would llke him to be perfectly definite about it, because I would like to deal with lt. MR. SCHREYER: Certainly, lt is my intention to be as clear and explicit as possible so that any doubts that might lurk in my mind, if they are unfounded in fact, I would like to have them dispelled. Why should it be, or is it logical for a large company to buy property for a certain purpose when it knows so well that at the time when it is negotiating for purchase this property couldn't be used for the purpose which it intends.

But nevertheless, in full confidence, they go ahead and buy it. And then comes the session and the advent of the Metropolitan Act and very--coincidence you say--but nevertheless with the passing of the Act the authority as to zoning and zoning adjustments passes out of the hands of the local authority and the company is then secure in the knowledge that it has a better chance of having the property re-zoned for its own particular purpose. Now, let me be--(interjectlon)--It is not gossip.

Look at a map and you will see that the northern boundaries of Metro and the property are coterminous, and there is a bulge in the territory that's taken in. It doesn't follow the pattern of Metro. I cer tainly wish for some clarification on this.

Now, as I said, it is before the Metropolltan or it is before the Board of Adjustment at the present tim e--the authority that is responsible for the zoning--and I certa inly wish that the opinion of some 1, 900 people of the area are taken into accouqt and is given some we ight be cause this, as most of you perhaps know, ls one of the most beautiful residential areas in the Province of Manitoba.

At present there is already one refinery; there is property purchased for a second and it is zoned for that purpose so nothing much can be said about that; but pro perty b.as been purchased for a third; and with three refineries along a stretch of road of approx imately three and a half miles--it will turn this rather beautiful looking residential area lnto a gasollne alley. It wlll look like something like southeast Chicago and certainly the people there are opposed to it. I just can hope that the proper authorities, appeal authorities, wlll deal with it in the proper way.

I make no apologies for what appears to be an insinuatlon to the First Minister. It's just too much of a coplCidence to be left at that without explanation; namely, the fact that in East St. Paul the border of Metro goes a little bit beyond the pattern for the,rest of the area. There is, so to say, a bulge, and in that bulge the northern boundar ies of Metro and the oil refinery property is coterminous, and I think we need some explanation on that point. MR. E. I. DOW (Turtle Mountain): Mr.

Speaker, this Blll, while explained by the Honour able Minister Ls short, has some certain misgivings in my mind from a municipal standpoint. He procrastinated that the reason was that certain legislation would be implemented possibly in the next session to be incorporated in Metro, and while we in this group do not want to withhold the passing of the blll, we don't want to be associated with the fact that we are altogether too happy of the Metro Blll as it is in the whole matter.

But my concern, Sir, from a municipal standpoint, is not altogether expanding and lengthening the date of municipal governments being allowed to process their budget. As I recall, up until I think it was 1956 or 157, municipal governments in the Province of Manitoba had to have their budgets ready for tax appllcatlon by not later than the end of February, but my understanding is, and I am subject to correction, October 17th, 1961 Page 51

(Mr. Dow, cont'd. ) .... but it seems to me that in 156 or '57 the date was expanded and extend ed to April 15th to allow for certain assessment" groups to get their figures out. Now that has stayed in the statutes and the effect that this has, Sir, within the various munici palities, is that the budgets are not out till that date and in the meantime they have to borrow money for current expenses and, therefore, it is costing the taxpayers more money.

I feel, Sir, that rather while this act specifically states only for the year 1962, that we should go a little further and possibly retract the extension of April 15th in the Municipal Act and bring the whole thing back. Then this brings up this point, Sir, with our present government, and in this I do not wish to take away from the Acting Minister" of Municipal Affairs -- he's young; he's youthful and he's full of energy and capability -- but why is the municipal people of Manitoba still without a Minis ter acting for that department.

I think that in these days, as comprehensive and as many as the various prot)lems they ha.ve to wee� that this Government sbollid hi;�ve a full -time Minister and I believe that if we had this might ha�e some consideration. . . MR. SPEAKER: Are you read'y-for the question? · · MR. LYON: If no one else wishes to speak, Mr. Speaker, I will close the debate on this. I wasn't aware that we were going to be treated to another re-hasbingof the battle ::>f the bulge tonight, Mr . Sp eaker. The honourable member has of course raised the point which is not within the direct jurisdiction of the Legislature.

Of course it's within the power of the Legis lature eventually to correct it, but this is a matter which has been left originally for municipal corporations to deal with and now for the metropolitan corporation to deal with. I certainly re echo the words of the Honourable the First Min�ster when he said that if there ts any insinuation or any innuendo of collaboration or collusion or anything of that sort, I wish he would be man enough to come out and make it and stop beating around the bush as he did in his remarks, which I think were entirely uncalled for.

That is not to deprecate or to lessen in any way the interests of the legitimate persons in East St. Paul who are apparently opposing this change be fore the Board of Adjus tment in Metropolitan Winnipeg. They may well have a very good case and I am sure that they will receive a good hearing. But I do not feel, Mr. Speaker, that they, any more than any one else, likes to see such an issue exploited for personal political purposes on the floor of the House of this Legislature. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, certainly that wasn't brought up in this Chamber for personal political purposes.

Certainly it was not, Mr. Speaker. MR. LYON: My honourable friend can draw his own conclusions from my Innuendo if there was one. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, again rising on a point of privilege. I didn't make any accusations. I certainly didn't wish to throw innuendo at members opposite. I asked for mem bers opposite, who are in a position to answer, who know the facts of the matter, to attempt to explain to me how it was that the northern boundary of Metro in that particular area should be coterminous with the property bought by the oil company.

If it can be explained to me then certainly there is no -- all cause of doubt is erased. · MR. SPEAKER: Would members forget about personalities in the debate in this Legislature. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, as I recall and my memory is not too accurate on the point with respect to the boundaries in that particular area, this matter was explained in Committee of the Whole and what resides in my mind is some question as to location of the two public trunk highways out there.

That, as I -recall, is the only reason that was given at the time for the ex tension or for the slight bulge that occurred in the metro boundary in that area. I know of no other reason. There are other bulges which ls quite true. There is one in St. Norbert. The metro boundary there comes down to take in the village of St. Norbert in my own constituency and that is about all I can give.

Now I unfortunately can't pretend to answer to my honourable friend or to anybody else in the House for the individual purchas ing policies of either individu als or corporations in this province, and I suggest that he will have to seek counsel from other sources rather from members of the House or from members of the government on that point. The Honourable Member from Turtle Mountain raised the point with respect to budgeting times and I think his point was accurate in saying that they have been moved forward to the 15th of April in '57, I believe the amendment was.

We have had some private consultations with area municipalities with respect to this date and we are hopeful that it will not unduly prejudice or in any way adversely affect the budgeting processes of the area municipalities ln Greater Page 52 October 17th, 1961

(Mr. Lyon, cont'd. ) .... Winnipeg. I can•t presume to answer to him for the other aspect of his rema rks wi th reference to the head of this Depa rtment of Municip al Affairs. I can only assure hlm that I wi ll continue to try to give them the best of what ablllties I have ln the dis charge of the duties that I presently have ln an acting capacity, and wi th the help of peopie such as the Mayor of Boisse vain who sits in this House as the Member from Turtle Mountain, and from all of the other municipal people in Manitoba, we'll try to get along as best we can untU that vacancy is filled. lVlr .

Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Roblin for an Address to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor in answer to his Speech at the opening of the Session. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. MR. ROBLIN: My honourable friend does not wi sh to proceed tonight, but lf any other membe r wi shes to speak I think the House would be glad to hear them, otherwise we 'll let the matter stand. MR. SPEAKER: Order stand. MR. ROBLIN: Mr.

Speaker , I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of In dustry and Commerce, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a comm ittee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House resolved itself into a Comm ittee of Supply, wi th the Honourable Member for St. Matthews In the Chair. MR.

ROBLIN: The members of the House will have received this afternoon the suppleme nt ary supply estima tes that we are now cons idering, and I think that having looked them over they wi ll recognize that these are me rely the sums that will be required for the operation of this present session. All the ite ms are of a regular nature which we have discusse d on previous occasi ons at some length and I suppose there are not many questions to be asked of them. If there are, I'll do what I can. MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a further sum not exceed ing $53, 800 for legislation.

(1) Legislative printing and binding, $7, 000--Passed. 4th Session, 26th Legislature-Sections (

a) to (c)-- Passed. Total, $53, 800--P assed. Com mi ttee rise and report. Call in the Speaker. MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman, may I direct a questi on to the Provincia l Treasurer ? WUl this $53, 000 be included in the Bill No . 1 for income tax? MR. ROBLIN: No, my honourable friend can rest at ease. We have sufficient money in the Provinc ia l Consolidated Fund at present to pay for this wi thout calling on the income tax which, after all, doesn't come into effect for another three or four months . MR. CHAIRMAN: Comm ittee rise and report. Call in the Speaker . Mr.

Speaker, the Comm ittee has adopted a certain resolution, directed me to report the same and ask leave to si t again. MR. W. G. MARTIN (St. Matthews): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Hon- ourable Member for Cypress , that the report of the Com m ittee of Supply be received. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. ROBLIN: Mr . Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Edu cation, that the resolution reported from the Commi ttee of Supply be now read a second time and concurred in. Mr. Speaker presented the motion. MR.

CLERK: Resolved that there be granted to Her Maje sty a further sum not exceeding $53,8 00 for Legisla tion for the fiscal year ending the 31 st day of March, 1962. Mr. Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney General, that Mr. Speaker dow now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Com mi ttee to consider of Ways and Means for rais ing of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Mr.

Sp eaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion ca rried and the House resolved into a Comm ittee of Supply, wi th the Honourable Member for St. Matthew s in the Chair. MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolved that towards making good certain further sums of money October 17th, 1961 Page 53

(Mr. Chairman, cont•d. ) .... granted to Her Majesty for the public services of the province for the fiscal year ending 31st day of March 1962, the sum of $53, 800 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund--Passed. Comm ittee rise and report. Call Ln the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Comm ittee of Ways and Means has adopted a certaln resolution, direct ed me to report the same and ask leave to sit again. MR. W. G. MARTIN (St. Matthews): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honour able Mem ber for St. Vital, that the report of the comm ittee be received. Mr.

Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Health and Public Welfare, that the resolution reported from the Commi ttee of Ways and Means be now read a second time and concurred in. Mr. Speaker pres ented the motion. MR. CLERK: Resolved that towards mak ing good certain further sums of money granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the Province for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1962, the sum of $53, 800 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund. Mr.

Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. Mr. Roblin introduced Bill No. 4,

An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain further sums of money for the public service of the Provioo e for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1962. MR. ROBLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of In dustry and Commerce, that the House do now adjourn until 10:30 tomorrow morning. Mr. Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House adjourned until 10:30 a. m. Wednesday morning. Page 54 October 18th, 1961

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	26-4-3
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	26th 4th hansardpdf 3.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b9ea24195bbd6836e4f11bc133f5011f439f0d0a

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