Manitoba Hansard — 7 December 1977 (Sitting 16, 31st Legislature, 1st Session)

31-1-16

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 First Session - Thirty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Vol. XXV No. 16 26 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker 10:00 a.m.Wednesday, December 7, 19 77 Printed by P. N. Crosbie - Queens Printer for the Province of Manitoba

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY of MANITOBA Wednesday, December 7, 1977 Time: 10:00 a.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr . Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Honourable Harry E. Graham (Birtle-Russell): Presenting Petitions ... Reading and Re ceiving Petitions. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Me mber for Roblin. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE: Mr . Speaker, I beg to present the first report of the Committee on Law Amendments seconded by the Honour able Mem ber for Swan River. I guess I move that the report of the commi ttee be receiv ed, Mr . Speaker, seconded by the Memb er for Swan River. MR.

CLERK: Your Committee met on Tuesday, December 6, 1977 for organization and appointed Mr. Mc Kenzie as Chairman. You r Committee agreed that the quorum of the Committee shall consist of 16 members.

Your Committee heard representations with respect to Bill No. 2-A n Act to ratify an Agreement between the Government of Canada and the government of the province of Ma nitoba under the Anti Inflation Act (Canada), as follows: Roy Gallagher, City of Winnipeg Police Association and City of Winnipeg Firefighters Associat ion, William Jackson, Ma nitoba Government Emplo yees' Associ ation, Ne is Thibault, Man itoba Federation of Labour, Ai McGr egor, Ma nitoba Paramedical Associatio n, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers - Hydro sect ion, and Manitoba Retail Store Empl oyees Union - Local 832.

Your Committee cons idered Bill No. 2-A n Act to ratify an Agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Ma nitoba under the Anti-Inflation Act (Canada) and has agreed to report the same without amendment. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Roblin. MR. McKENZIE: Mr . Speaker, I apologize for my procedural error. I move, seconded by the Honour able Member for Swan River that the Report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: Mini sterial Statements and Tabling of Reports ... Notices of Motion ... Introduc tion of Bil ls. ORAL QUESTIONS MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Me mber for Brandon East. MR. LEONARD S. EVANS: Mr . Speaker, I would like to address a question to the First Min ister. In view of his very important meeting with Prime Mi nister Trudeau yesterday discussing what I understand is some very fun damental matters pertaining to the state of well-being of Canada and the province of Ma nitoba, whether the Honour able the First Mi nister can advise the Hous e or report to the Ho use on any progress of any significant items of agreement that would be of interest to members of this Hous e. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able First Mi nister. HON.

STERLING R. LYON(C harleswood): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Me mber for Brandon East for his quest ion. I would amend the wording of it only to say that perhaps the expression "very important" is not necessarily fu lly desc riptive of the meetings that we had.

The Leader of the Op position will realize from numbers of meetings that he has had of this nature- some formal, some informal - that these gatherings are always instru ctive and not always productive but in this case, I can say that we did have the opportunity for rather wide-ranging discussions on the economy, particularly centering upon the state of unemployment in Canada and in Ma nitoba, the whole question of inflation as it impacts on the economic situation in Canada, the question of what co operative ventu res cou ld be taken by provinces, in plural, to work with the federal government in attempting to right the eco nomy, in attempting to create more job opportunities across the cou ntry.

There were also discussions concerning an upcoming meeting which is planned by the Mi nister of 435

Wednesday, December 7, 1977 Finance with his provincial col leagues some time in Ja nuary or early February - I am going ju st by recolle ction on that date - to be followed thereafter by a meeting of the Prime Min ister with the 10 premiers of Canada, working from a base or groundwork that will have been done, to some consi derable extent we hope, by the meeting of the Min isters of Finance. This was one of a series of meetings, as my honourable friend will appreci ate, that the Prime Min ister has been having with all Premiers across the coun try.

He is today, as I understand it, meeting Premier Blakeney in Regina and following upon these meetings I daresay that we can expect him to make some announcement, or there will be further correspo ndence relating to the upc oming meetings of ministers. As I mentioned very briefly yesterday, the meetings were amic able, wide-ranging and of a pre I iminary nature, having regard to the upc oming conferen ces. I have nothing else specific to report at this ti me. MR. EVANS: Just one sup plementary, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Ho nourable First Mi nister for his comments and his report.

Was there any intonation with regard to some possible new thrusts in the area of attackinghhe unemployment situation? I appreciate the preliminary nature and the format of your meeting, but at any rate I think, given the direstate of the economy in the count ry, is there any possibil ity of new thrusts - co-operative thrusts - between the federal government and the provincial government perhaps in the area of com batting unemployment this winter? MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, again in response to the Honour able Me mberfor Brandon East, I think the Prime Min ister perhaps answered that question at his own news conference when he said that in the short term, aside from the direct job crea tion programs which the federal government provides through Canada Works Programs and so on, which are based of cour se on the unemployment rates in the different regions of Canada, in the shor t term it was his feeling that there is not too muc h direct action that the government can take, that the longer term remedies would appear to be those of restraining the impact of governments (in the plural) again - government's encroachment upon the taxpayers' dollar and at the same time trying to reduce taxes, as we are attempting to do in Manitoba, albeit in perhaps a modest way so far, in order to enable the taxpayers to retain more of the money which they worked to earn, and thereby increase the spe nding capacity of citizens of Canada.

But no other specifics beyond what the Prime Minis ter said himself at his own news conf erence. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Op position. MR. EDWARD SCHREYER (Rossmere): Mr. Speaker, to the First Min ister.

Qu ite apart from discussions, as the First Min ister puts it, of a wide-ranging but preliminary nature with respect to ec onomic ci rcu mstances of the moment, can the First Min ister indicate if there was any discus sion and cou ld he report thereon relative to the reported proposal to sh ift subs tantial, if not massive, amounts of jur isdic tional powers from federal to provincial ju risdictions - from 91 to 92 in other words? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able First Mi nister. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the Op position, not specific ally, no.

There was naturally some discus sion, as he I'm sur e would expect, about the question of direct and indirect taxation, particula rly as that bears upon the situation arising from the Supreme Court case in the CIGOL case in Saskatchewan, but no quest ion of any massive redistribution of powers as between 91 and 92 of the A et. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, flowing directly from the First Minis ter's answer, can the First Minis ter indicate, if not now, today, cou ld if not he indicate by what time the provinc e of Manitoba might be in a position to make a definitive statement, ' the new administration, with respect to all of the ramifications that flow from the Justice Ma rtland dec ision of the Su preme Court in the CIGOL case? It is a matter of tremendous consequences and I am as king the First Mi nister if he will undertake to make a definitive policy statement or stat ement of attitude whenever he feels appropriate.

THE SPEAKER: The Honour able First Mi nister. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I believe there was a ques tion bearing upon this point a few days ago in the Hous e, and as I indic ated at that time the law officers of the Crown are reviewing the case insofar as it may have applica tion to Manitoba, but of cou rse as my honourable friend, the Leader of the Op position realizes, Mr. Speaker, it has other implications nation-wide, which I daresay, at this very moment, are being discu ssed by the Prime Minis ter and Premier Blakeney.

Rather than build up my honourable friend's expecta tions that there would be any great statement of polic y, I would say that first of all what we are interested in is an

interpretation in the narrower legal sense as to what impact, if any, this has upon existing legisla tion in Manitoba, and then, down the road a piece, a determination, presumabl y at the Federal-Provinci al level as to what, if anything, can be done to cur e this kind of -well defect is not the co rrect word - to cur e this kind of anomaly that has been uncovered by the Supreme Court with respect to the taxing powers of a province with respect to its 436

Wednesday, December 7, 19 77 own natural resou rces. MR. SCHREYER: Mr . Speaker, I appreciate that the work that needs to be done with respect to the

interpretation of the Su preme Court majority decision, first of all has to do with its direct implications with respect to legisla tion in force in Man itoba, but I would rather like to pose my que stion more in the context of implications with respect to Canada as a whole, Canada as a nation. Does the First Min ister have it in mind to view this case cl osely, not only from the point of view of direct implications with respect to Man itoba's Statute Law, but with respect to the implications to the country as a whole? MR. LYON: Mr .

Speaker, I can assure the Leader of the Op position that we share his concern, which I have already mentioned, about the national implications of this ju dgement with reference to the rights of a province to tax natural resou rces which are within the total ju risdiction or at least were thought to be within the total jur isdiction of each province, until the CIGOL case came along.

I can assure him, as well, that there have been some informal discussions already with respect to that ju dgement with other ju risdic tions, and I am qu ite confident that Western Premiers, through the instrument ality of the Western Premiers' Conference, perhaps cal led at an earlier time - I would suspect if the Premier of Saskatchewan wishe d to have such a meeting, it cou ld easily be arranged wuld want to review that case with respect not only to the western region, but its national implications.

So o we stand ready first of all to deal with the narrower point as to what implications it has on our taxing ability in Man itoba, and sec ondly we stand ready to deal, of cou rse, with the broader national implications of the dec ision itself. THE SPEAKER: The Honour able Me mber for St. Ge orge. MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My que st ion is to the Attorney Ge neral and Mi nister of Muni cipal Affairs.

In light of the Min ister of Finance's sta tement yesterday that there would be other new initiatives in terms of crea ting employment in the province of Ma nitoba, could the Attorney Ge neral indicate whether he is now prepared to resc ind the lowering, the cutback on the special Mu nicip al Loans Fund, or indicate to the Ho use any other new initiative that he has planned to alleviate or ameliorate the employment situation in this province? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Attorney-General. HON. GERALD W. J. MERCIER: Mr .

Speaker, Sir, the other winter works projects are under consideration by Management Committee and will be annou nced in due cour se. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Me mber for El mwood. MR. RUSSELL DOERN (Elmwood): Mr . Speaker, I wonder if the First Min ister, in view of his meeting with the Prime Min ister, or in view of the shocking unemployment sta tistics that were released across the country the other day, has reviewed or modified his apparent first goal which is to balance the budget? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able First Min ister. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I think that when the budget of the present government is brought down sometime in 1978, when the es timates of expenditure are placed before the Hous e some time in 1978, and when other announcements with respect to other programs indicated by the Attorney-General that are under review, when all of those are consider ed in thei r entirety, I think my honourable friend will see that we share the concern that he and all other citizens of Man itoba have with respect to the unemployment situa tion here, and also with respect to the ques tion of ensuring that the taxpayers of Manitoba have that kind of fiscal responsibili ty in the operation of their public affairs which is co nduciv e to st imulation of new jobs in the province of Man itoba.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Me mber for St. Ge orge. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. I would like to direct this ques tion to the First Min ister . As his party had in one of their planks the platform of jobs and there will be jobs, is the First Min ister at least in a position to indicate to this Hous e now, that there will be jobs at least in order to keep the employment rate as low as it cou ld be for this time of year? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able First Mi nister. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I really don't believe that the Honour able Member for St.

Ge orge expects a promise from any First Min ister regardless of his political backgrou nd, that any government, includin g the federal government or the provincial government, can automatically cr eate jobs. Even my honourable friend the leader of the opposition wasn't capable of pulling that kind of a rabbit out of a hat. It is not possibl e to make that kind of promise in the shor t run. What you can try to do, and what 437

Wednesday, December 7, 19 77 interes tingly enough, the Economic Counci l of Canada is rec ommending and by a statem ent yesterday the Prime Minis ter of Canada seems to support the policy, wha t you can try to do, is to create conditions in the private sector which are more conduciv e to job crea tion, long-term meaningful jobs in the private sector .. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Me mber for Transcona. MR. WILSON PARASIUK (Transcona): Thank you, Mr . Speaker. My que st ion is directed to the First Mi nister.

In your discussions with the Prime Minis ter, did he indicate to you why the federal polic y of the last two years to sti mulate the economy by rest rained federal government spending and by reducin g income taxes through indexing and by reducin g corporation taxes which they did last March in their budget to the the tune of $2 billion, why these actions to st imulate the economy and create long term jobs has failed so miserably so that we have the highest unemployment rate now in Canada sinc e 1940? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able First Mi nister. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, the Memb er for Transcona and I might share occa sionally, some mutual points of criticis m with respect to federal policy, and the application of that polic y to the particular situa tion as we find it in Canada today, but having regard to the particularity of this question I can only say that explicit point was not discus sed.

What was of concern, however, and what remains of concern, not withst anding the efforts that have been made by the federal government and by many of the provincial governments, is that the federal government cash de ficit at the present time stands in the order of approximately $9 billion and the outlook for the next fiscal year is not promisin g at all in that regard; and that in tur n is contri buting to the inflation and unemployment, which is the handmaiden of inflation, that we have at the present time.

I don't, at this moment, feel tha t I need instruct the Prime Mi nister about the dangers of that situa tion. e're facing a somewhat simila r situa tion in modified form in Man itoba and trying to deal -with it as best we can.

But we should not be unaware of the twin problems that face the federal government: one, the question of unity, which has a bearing upon international investment; and number two, the quest ion of the huge federal deficit which overhangs not only the efforts of the federal government but indeed overhangs the efforts of any provincial government, with respect to restimulating the economy in Canada. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Me mber for Fort Rouge. MR. LLOYD AXWORTHY: Well, Mr . Speaker, I have a que stion for the Mi nister responsible for Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation.

Can the minister now confirm that the Board of Directors of Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation have sla shed in half the proposed public housing program for 1977, and will in fact only be applying to Central Mortgage and Housin g for the addition of some $23 to $25 million worth of projects, instead of the $46 million that were presently on the considered list? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister responsible for Man itoba Housing. HON. J. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, I cannot confir m that at this time. The decisions have not been comple ted. MR. AXWORTHY: A supple mentary, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister indicate when in fact he would be able to confirm to this Ho use that these decisions have been taken, and to annou nce to this Ho use if the government has any alternative program in mind to supply housing in the provinc e, considering that the vacancy rate in Winnipeg is now less than one percent? MR. J.F. JOHNSTON: Mr . Speaker, the Leader of the Op position asked me a very simi lar quest ion yesterday as to when I could confirm the program of the Manitoba Ho using and Renewal Corporation, and I told him that I would be able to in the very near future. I cannot today.

MR.AXWORTHY: Well, a final supple mentary then, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate whether there has been any kind of an application to Central Mortgage and Ho usin g to see if there are sur plus funds available, that they would be re-directed then to alternative programs such as the assisted rental program, or other forms of programs to st imulate rental housin g in the provinc e? MR. J.F. JOHNSTON: Mr .

Speaker, the question that have we applied to CMHC to see if there is any further funds at the present time, is no; we are presently looking at our program for next year in which it . is being consider ed as to where we go. As you know, CMHC's year ends at 31st of December. Our year ends on March 31s t and we are always in that little area of problem. We have to now see what CMHC has available for next year. We know what we had for this year. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. 438

Wednesday, December 7, 19 77 SCHREYER: Wel l, Mr . Speaker, my quest ion is to the Minis ter reporting for Man itoba Hydro. Given that the National Ener gy Board has finally approved, a few months ago, the construction of a 500 kv line interconnection southward to the United States, can the minister assure the Hous e that work on that line is proceeding a pace for in-service 1980, and is not being cutback or modified to sl ow-down? MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Min ister of Finance. HON. DONALD CRAIK (Riel): Mr.

Speaker, I can indicate to the Leader of the Opp osition that there has been no cutback or no decision s taken by the current government with regard to any change in the program that was underway with regard to that line. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Mr . Speaker, I'd like to address a ques tion to the First Mi nister.

In view of the fact that by far the largest proportion of manufactu red goods which Man itoba consu mers buy come from outside of Man itoba, is not the First Min ister concerned that a cut in personal income taxes will to a large extent not have the desir ed st imulating effect on the Man itoba economy, because of the leakage of such funds out of the province for importation of such goods? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able First Min ister. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I su ppose that that's a que stion that could have been posed to any Premier of Man itoba si nce 1870.

I don't have anyspecific answer to my honourable friend other than to say that I have always been of the personal view that people were much better managers and much more prudent managers of their own money than any government, of whatever stripe, cou ld ever be. MR. EVANS: Mr .

Speaker, I'm sur e the Honour able First Min ister is qu ite concerned about job creat ion and therefore I ask the question in relation to getting the greatest number of jobs for the amount of tax cut or the amount of government spending, and I ask him if he has com pared the number of jobs he can obtain for the people of Ma nitoba via a direct job creation program versus a tax-cut approach, which is obviously the approach that the government is choo sing to follow.

And I ask that que stion of comparis on, whether a real honest com parison has been made as to the effect of one approach versus the other, because of the fact that the greatest percentage of the manufactured goods ... MR. SPEAKER: Or der please, order please, order please. I must remind the member that ques tions are intended to be concise and to the point, and I would ask the member to keep that in mind when he's as king his ques tions. The Honour able Me mber for Ste. Rose. MR. A.R. (Pete) ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Min ister of Agricultur e, and I would ask him if he has received any additional information on the points I raised so me time ago in this Ho use in regard to the reduction of the basic herd in the Parkland area? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi nister of Agricultur e .. HON. JIM DOWNEY (Arthur): Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I believe I had a report on the feed yesterday but I do have a further report for my friend opposite that I have a report from several people in the area in markets and they are tel ling me that the normal cull ing of herds is taking place but there is no great amount of breeding stock being removed, that they are saying that there is a little extra cullin g but no removal of basic herds. MR. ADAM: Yes, to the same minister, Mr . Speaker.

Could the minister advise if he has received document ation from the ranchers in theParkland area indicating an impending reduction of between 30 and 40 percent in the basic herd? MR. DOWNEY: Mr . Speaker, at this time I have not received such a docum ent. I have received documents indicating the amou nts of feeds available but I have not received a document stating the number of herds being cut down. MR. ADAM: A further supplem entary, Mr . Speaker. Could the same minister advise if he has received a request for a meeting from ranchers in the Parkland area? MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I believe I reported to the Ho use yesterday afternoon in Ques tion Period that a meeting is being set up with a group of ranchers from the northern part of the province. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for St. Ge orge. MR. URUSKI: Mr . Speaker, to follow up on the que stion of the Me mber for Ste. Rose arid my 439

Wednesday, December 7, 1977 quest ions yesterday, has the minister received a petition or a su rvey con duc ted by farmers in the Fraserwood, lnwood, Komarno and Ma lonton areas? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Agricultur e. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check on the exact areas. I have them from certain areas but I cou ldn't state at this time that it is that area specifically. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, a supp lementary quest ion.

Based on the minister's answers yesterday that there is no overall feed shor tage within the region, is the minister prepared to consider some assistance to the 150 farmers who would be short some 20-odd thousand tons of hay not including the hayttat has been spo iled as a result of the adverse weather conditions in the region that I have ju st mentioned? MR. DOWNEY: At this time, I have no intention of com ing forward with a feed assistance program. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Me mber for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: Mr . Speaker, again a question to the Minister of Agricult ure.

Is he able to advise the Ho use when this meeting is going to take place at this particular time with the ranch ers? MR. DOWNEY: Firstly, I have offered them the feed test ing lab for their service to find out what the qual ity problem is and have rec ommended, after we have a little more information, that we meet at that time and hopefu lly it will be fairly soon. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Me mber for Ste. Rose with a supp lementary. MR. ADAM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was trying to find out if the minister could indicate ju st when adate will be set for a meeting with the rancher s. MR.

DOWNEY: As soon as it is convenient for both parties concerned. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opp osition. MR. SCHREYER: A supplem entary, Mr. Speaker, to the Min ister of Agricultur e. Even though the minister said that he has no intention at this time of introducing an emergency feed assistance program, may I ask if he can indicate to this Hous e whether he has met with any se nior federal officials with respect to the applicab ility of the federal 50 percent cost-sh aring on any such emergency feed assistance program? MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, to this time, I have not met with any sen ior federal officials. MR. SCHREYER: That being the case, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Min ister of Agricu lture if he is satisfied that non-ut ilization of the federal offer of assistance, at a time of distress being faced by some with feed problems with respect to their livestock, is in the public interest? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Me mber for The Pas. MR. RONALD McBRYDE: Mr.

Speaker, in order to further enlighten myself on the Conservative ec onomic policy, I wonder if the First Mi nister could explain if the situa tion that persists across Canada where 20 percent of industrial capacit y is not util ized, if that same figure applies to Manitoba and if it does, how that fits in with the Conservative philosophy. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able First Mi nister. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take the que st ion as notice with respect to the amount of unused capacit y in Manitoba.

I believe from what I have heard and read that the honourable member's figures with respect to Canada are approximately correct. We have to take his question as notice insofar as it affects Man itoba. MR. McBRYDE: Mr. Speaker, in light of the way the First Min ister has been responding today, I just have to ask him, besides meeting with the Prime Mi nister yesterday, he also met with his public relations or public image people? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Me mber for Transcona. MR. PARASIUK: Thank you, Mr . Speaker.

My question is directed to the M inist er without Portfolio res ponsible for the Task Force on government effici ency. Will civil servants whose particula r positions are found redundant in his exercise be put on a waiting list to have first access to jobs for which they are qualified that might arise through attrition in the futur e? 440

Wednesday, December 7, 19 77 mr. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister. HON. SIDNEY SPIVAK, Minister without Portfolio (River Heights): Mr . Speaker, that's a hypothetical ques tion. MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the minis ter's state ments that there will be reduc tions , will these people be put on a waiting list? MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, the intention of the government is to comply with the Civil Service Act. MR.

PARASIUK: Ha ve the two civil servants who were terminated recently been put on a waiting list which is a normal cou rtesy in any provincial ju ris diction when they are going through any type of reduc tion exercise. MR. SPIVAK: Well, Mr . Speaker, my unders tanding is that the Civil Service Act applies and the procedures that are allowed or provided therein in fact will be followed. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Me mber for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask a question also of the Mi nister without Portfolio in cha rge of the government task force on organization and ec onomy. Can the minister advise the Ho use of the size or extent of the budget made available for his task force? MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, I am really not in the position to do that at this time. The budget would come under the Executive Council at this particular time because it is a func tion that is under that structure.

I should indic ate to the Honour able Memb er for Brandon East that it is not intended to be a high budget and to date there have been no expenses relating to the individual members of the review teams. I think I have indicated in the Hous e that there may very well be some travel required. I assu me that that cost will be borne but the intention, Mr . Speaker, is to keep it at a minimum, in line with the rest raint polic ies of the government. MR. EVANS: I thank the honourable member for his answer. I would like to ask him a supple mentary, Mr .

Speaker, and ask the honourable minister whether he can advise us whether the rural members of his task force will be paid out-of-pocket expenses. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, that is some thing that st ill has to be worked out. I would susp ectthat in some cases this will occur, in some cases it will not. It will be a policy determination by the task force dealing with the individuals. And the time allotment, the fact that many of them will in fact be travelling to Winnipeg in the cou rse of other matters, it may very well be in a position to adjust to the meetings scheduled. MR. EVANS: A supple mentary, Mr.

Speaker, if I may. Then, as I understand the minister from his remarks, there is no, at this point in time at le ast, no idea or es timate that he can give the Hou se of what degree of expenditure will be involved in the task force. MR. SPIVAK: No, Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult . I have indicated again that those who are ser ving the task force will not be paid. There obviously will be some costs that are attendant to the operation of the task force including printing.

I would suggest that the intention again of the government is to try and minimize the cost but recog nizing that, in some cases, out-of-pocket expenses will of course have to be met. In terms of an overall global budget, that has not been set. I think we will be in a better position onc e all the members of the review teams have been sel ected and we have some idea of the procedures that will be operating in the various situations. ' MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Fort Rouge. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr.

Speaker, to the same minister on the same su bject, can he indicate that of the eight review teams that are being estab lishe d, whether he intends to make public the names of the members of each of those review teams and give thei r background and particular qualifications for undertaking this task? MR. SPIVAK: Not all the teams have been sel ected and we are not really in a position yet to provide that information in detail but it is the intention that the names will be known. MR. AXWORTHY: A su pplementary, Mr. Speaker.

In the operation of this task force where they are undertaking cer tain special studies on things like Legal Aid and inter-gove rnmental relations and so on, who is un dertaking these special studies? Are there going to be additional teams or con sult ants going to be hired for these spec ial studies or are they being undertaken by civil servants presently in the government? 441

Wednesday, December 7, 19 77 mr. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, the intention is that the review teams will have available to them those who are involved within the c ivil ervice deals/ ing in the line departments along with those who are involved in the overview of the departments from Management Committee, along with members of the task force. It is not the intention in the main to request the assistance professi onally of consu ltants although there are a number who have offered, Mr . Speaker, their assistance at no cost to the government and it may very well be that they will be cal led on. In addition, Mr .

Speaker, a request has been given for written subm issions and we have received a substantial number so far and they are com ing in daily. Thos e submis sions will be given to the review teams for their consi deration and will provide part of the additional information complementing the information suppl ied from the civil service and from the Ma nagement Committee and from other members in the various line departments. MR. AXWORTHY: Another supplem entary, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister indicate whether these review teams, as they undertake their operations, will be dealing with the variety of cl ient groups affected by different government departments? For example, the review team on local government, will it be interviewing different officials of mun ici pal and city government to determine what their evaluation is of the effectiveness of different government programs, or would they be maintaining a totally in-house operation? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi nister. OR. SPIVAK: Mr . Speaker, I don't want to any way indicate exactly how the review teams are going to operate.

I would su spect that they will, in fact, operate in some cases in the way the Honour able Me mber for Fort Rouge has sugge sted, but that will be thei r determination within the time limits available to them for the initial overview, and hopefully first rec ommendations for consid eration by the task force. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ou rable Member for Fort Rouge. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr.

Speaker, the Min ister's answer jus t gives rise to one final suppl ementary, and that is, do I understand that each of the review teams will be, in fact, determining their own particular method of evaluating these programs and the task force has not set out its common herms of reference for them to evaluate so that each department and each program will be evalu ated differently by these review teams? MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Min ister. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, that conclusion is not a correct concl usion. Mr .

Speaker, I simply indicate to the Ho nourable Memb er for Fort Rouge that there are a number of different operations of government and a number of different fu nctions, they do not operate in the same way.

The overall objectives of the task force has been set out to the review teams that have been organized so far, the methods of procedure, in general, have been discussed, but it is going to be up to them to make the decisions of how to achieve the objectives that have been set forward, and they will apply common sense in trying to deal with the information and obtain the information for the decision making that's required. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ou rable Leader of the Op position. MR. SCHREYER: Mr .

Speaker, given that there will be eight review and accord ing to the Min ister that they will minimize and nevertheless incur ring some ju stifiable costs, I would like to ask the Mi nister of Agricultur e if he will undertake, even if perhaps at the expense of one of those eight review teams, to incur some ju stifiable cost is dealing with the problem of those who incu rred subs tantial loss of feed because of drought in the early part of '77 because of rain pre-empting a second cut harvest of hay later in 1977 ? should like to ask the Mi nister of Agricultur e to confirm or deny that, in fact, there is a sta nding program to meet this problem which is joined in by both Federal and Provincial Governments on a 50 percent cost- sharing basis.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Agricultur e. MR. DOWNEY: Mr . Speaker, I will take that as notice, and check into it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: Yes, to the First Mi nister. I wonder if he could advise the Hous e if there were any discussions yesterday with the Prime Mi nister in regard to Ma nitoba's withdrawal from the wage and price quidelines. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable First Min ister. 442

Wednesday, December 7, 19 77 MR. LYON: Only in the very generalized sense of discussions on the economy itself. MR. ADAM: Was a date discussed, was any date discuss ed for Man itoba's withdrawal? ADJOURNED DEBATES - SECOND READING BILL NO. 3 - GIFT TAX AND SUCCESSION DUTY ARTS (MANITOBA) MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honour able Min ister of Finance. The Honour able Member for Lac du Bo nnet. MR. SAMUEL USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, the other dy, in fact yesterday, the Me mber for Pembina gave us a deluge of opinion as to the value or the lack of value of succession duties as part ofour taxation system, and in the cour se of his remarks he tried to sugge st to us, Mr. Speaker, and convince us that indeed that was an unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of private companies, and indeed, Sir, he belaboured the fact that it was indeed an intrusion on the lives of many of his constituents, namely the farm population. I would like to begin by pointing out, Mr.

Speaker, that succession duties are not something new, they've been with us for many, many decades, I believe at least sinc e the end of the last war, and that they were applied univers ally across Canada for a number of decades, which indeed, of cou rse, would be the preferred way in which I would like to see them con tinued. It is somewhat more difficu lt, Mr. Speaker, to have some provinces in a form of taxation and others out, for the simple reason that there always is the argume nt, if not the reality, of the lack of ones com petitiveness if one is in and the other neighbouring provinces are not. Mr .

Speaker, in introducing succession duties into the provincial sys tem, many provinces, of course, made very dramatic chan ges from the succes sion duty policies of the Federal Government as they were applied up to 1972, and I think that is the point that has been coopletely overlooked by my friends opposite, Mr. Speaker, in that one would have to do a good analysis of where we are compared to where we were with respect to the level of taxation.

On a stage, one would have to take a look at the level of taxat ion imposed by the federal government up to 1972 and the level of taxation that is now imposed by all of the remai ing provinces that st ill apply the levy. I believe that it's, and I don't have the exact figure, but the federal exemptions, when they vacated the field, were somewhere in the order of $60,000 back in 1972. Not so long ago, Mr. Speaker, only five years ago. And I think you would have to agree, Mr .

Speaker, that when the provinces moved into the field that they indeed took a different view to the question of basic exemptions in rec ognition of the fact that we had an inflationary situation before us, that values were cha nging fairly rapidly and that not only should we incr ease the exemption to protect smal l busi ness and small farms, but we should certa inly maintain our position with respect to inflation. And I think we have done more than that in all of the provinces that have applied the succession duties in the last 5 years.

Certainly, in this province, we have moved our people from an exemption rate of 60,000 or so, which it was under the federal syste m, to now 250,000 ; and if you takeinto account, Mr . Speaker, the Marital Property Act then you really are talking about a basic exemption of $600,000 as between spouses. And I think that is important to bear in mind, because what seems to be happening, Mr .

Speaker, is that we have sort of gone on a tangent on this issue, that we have overstated it in terms of its so-cal led negative impact on small busi ness and farms in Man itoba, and that we are really in a position where we have become hung up about some thing that was truly not a problem to anyone in the province of Man itoba, not a financial problem, Mr. Speaker, as the Me mber for Pembina tried to sugg est. I think it's interes ting to note, Mr. Speaker, that to date, if there were any hardship cases, they have not shown up. I don't believe the Memb er for Pembina, Mr .

Speaker, was able to produce one document here in his debate yesterday, in his cont ribution yesterday, to show us, to convince us, that one individual of all of the people of Man itoba had a hardship position with respect to the payment of succession duties. He was not able to show us one ex ample, Mr . Speaker. Yes, he was able to generalize, but he was not able to show us one con cr ete example of a problem that was created as a result of Manitoba's estate taxes. And sur ely, Mr. Speaker, if there is a problem, we should become aware of it.

I don't think we should generalize as has been done by Me mbers opposite in presu ming that there is a problem when there really there is none that exists. I asked the former Mi nister of Finance whether he was aware during his term of office, and the Mi nister of Finance before the last one, Mr. Speaker, whether he was aware, and as far as they are aware, Mr. Speaker, there is only one case where there was some request for an extention of time in order to pay the succession duties. Of all the transac tions, there was only one such request in the province of Manitoba in the last 5 years. Certainly, Mr .

Speaker, that doesn't indicate to me that this presents a serious problem to the people of Ma nitoba, that indeed it requires an emergency meeting of the A ssem bly in order that we deal with a very onerous tax situation that is putting many people into bankruptcy. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe it the exemption rates are extremely generous - extremely generous, Mr . Speaker. But before we get into the detail of the exemptions and whether or not they are adequate, I think we should take a moment, Mr . Speaker, to discuss the principle of taxation on wealth, because that is 443

Wednesday, December 7, 19 77 basical ly the philosophic al gap between the two political parties in this ass embly, at the present time; and that is that it seems that my friends opposite want to hang on to old con servative dogma, Mr.

Speaker, they believe that those people of great wealth are the ones that must be catered to in order that the masses would benefit somewhat from their exploitation of resour ces through the use of that wealth, or from whatever they do with that wealth in the local or national economy and thatthereare spin-off benefits that will indeed someho w trickle down so that the average individual can find a job, can demand a pay package, and so on. That is the theory that has been so consis tent by Members opposite for a . good number of years. Mr .

Speaker, I believe the former Mi nister of Mines did a splendid job yesterday in pointing out the fallacy of that argument, and it is not my intention to repeat some of the stat istics that he introduced into this Chamber yesterday, but only to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is true that if that were so, if that were so, then cert ainly the provinc es or the areas of the world which didn't apply that levy sh ould, of cou rse, be the best off. That is not the case at all, Mr. Speaker. Bu t I think it is a mark of the maturity of a socie ty when they do apply some level of taxation on wealth.

I think it indica tes their openness, broad-mindedness, recog nition of the fact that ac cumu lation of wealth was a resul t of living in that soci ety, of living in that ec onomic syste m, and therefore it was a contribution made to them in the first place by the system itself, and therefore there is nothing wrong with an obligation to contri bute back at a time when wealth transfers from one generation to another. That is a principle I think that sh ould not be difficult for most people of common sense to appreciate.

Certainly, wealth is not generated by oneself, wealth is generated by the total sys tem ; and to the extent that one is involved with investm ent capital, the crea tion of fu rther personal wealth or gains, that has to be derived from the co mmunity as a whole, Mr . Speaker, because it is a co mmun ity as a whole that cr eates the wealth. It is a pair of hands that are put to work, Mr . Speaker, that creates the basic wealth, and that's something that should not be forgotten. There is no wealth without productivity, and productivity is of the common people, Mr. Speaker. Money will not make money, Mr.

Speaker, unless you have a lot of sla ves under it, and that is a basic principle that has been understood for many, many centuries, Mr. Speaker, it is not a new revelation. My friends opposite can have all the money they want; unless they have the willingness and participation of people in socie ty to work and to contribute, they cannot generate any new wealth from the fact that they already have some in the first place, they have to have the co operation and the willingness of people in the com munity. The Mem ber for Pembina went on to sugge st, Mr .

Speaker, that indeed he was faced with such severe hardship cases in his constituency but unable, Mr. Speaker, to prove his allegations, unable to demonstrate in fact by presen ting us with a case problem that indeed that was the case. And you know as I listened to him speak, Mr. Speaker, it became obvious to me that he really didn't know of any problems. He was as sumin g from an ideological point of view that this had to be a bad thing for people with money, and that's as far as his research went, Mr. Speaker. Because, Mr.

Speaker, he went on to tell us that there were real problems there, that land values had gone up from $400to $700 an acre, and as these people got richer, they got poorer at the same time. He said it was a hardship for them to become wealthy. Wel l, heavens, they could have become poor if it was difficult to be wealthy. What are capital gains, Mr . Speaker, but windfall profits in the first place.

When the Member for Pembina sugge sts that his friends, his neighbours, are having a tough time of it because their land went from $400 an acre to $700 or $800, you know, everybody in Manitoba would wish that would happen to them, Mr. Speaker. , 99 percent of our citizens would hope that that would happen to them. Mr . Speaker, the suggestion that increased wealth someho w inhibits those people who have had the enhanc ement of that wealth has to be nothing but absolute nonsense, Mr . Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, I am prepared to take on all the wealth that gentlemen opposite are willing to give me, and I will pay the share of gift taxes or su ccess ion taxes or whatever they are a combi nation of that is required by the succession duty laws of this province during the time of this government. How incred ible, Mr .

Speaker, that we have a debate in this Chamber about the need for tax relief that affects one and a half percent of our people, that we have to have an emergency sess ion -(I nterject ion)- the top one and one-half percent, yes - that we need an emergency sess ion to bring relief to one and a half percentage points of our population, the top income earners of this province. Mr .

Speaker, in the cou rse of my travels, in the cou rse of my discus sions with people with some wealth, it was difficul t to find very many that would find themselves in a problem situation with our su cces sion duty laws as they were, with the generous exemptions that have been provided. Bu t you know the psychology of my friends opposite is that you must somehow, for your special interest group, provide them a free ride, let somebody else pay the bill. That's really their psychology. Now, Mr .

Speaker, let's talk about paying bills, let's talk about you r shar e of the cost of running this province, of running this coun try, of the basic services that are provided. Let's examine the problem of the farmer in Pembina, rght around Morden. He might even be a farmer, Mr. Speaker, who delivers products to Morden Fine Foods and is getting a subsidy through the indirect subsidy of the plant itself. Numb er one su bsidy right there, Mr. Speaker, the subsidy to underwrite the losses of Morden Fine Foods goes right into the pocket of my friend, who says his farm is having problems with increa sing land values.

That's really what he's telling me, Mr . Speaker. We're talking about the elite in agricultur e, Mr . Speaker - the best land, special co-op product ion, these are the elitists in agricultur e, Mr. Speaker, but who are subsid ized every day through the sale of their products to Morden Fine Foods, every day. When they accu mulate wealth as a result of those subsidie s, they then say "we don't want to pay any Suc cession Duties." -(l nterject ion)- That's basically what he is saying, Mr . Speaker. That's basically what he is saying. Mr. Speaker, let's examine the other concessions.

Let's examine the other concessions that my 444

Wednesday, December 7, 19 77 honourable friend's constituents enjoy. They don't pay any motor fuel tax; some thing that the average Man itoban doesn't have the privilege of doing, Mr . Speaker. It's an exem ption, Mr. Speaker, provided for a spec ial group of people. They don't pay sales tax on most of their purchases. They don't pay sales tax on most of their purchases, Mr. Speaker. -(I nterjectio n)- Tha t's an exemption, exemption provided for those people whom my friend is conc erned about, who can't afford to pay Suc cession duties if they own a million dollars. That's really what he is sa ying. Mr .

Speaker, they don't pay the full Property Tax. They have been exempted from taxation on their homes from day one. Nobody else in society is so exempted. The only group exempted from paying taxes on their dwelling - Mr. Speaker, that is a conces sion. Mr. Speaker, they have been subsid ized with low interest rates sinc e ever I can rec all, on their loans. They are sub sid ized on their loans, Mr . Speaker, and have always been su bsidized and will conti nue to be subsidiz ed. Mr .

Speaker, they have been provided aconcession under capital gains, whereby they can roll over the farm unit to the next generation.without penalty. All of these concessi ons Mr. Speaker, were provided for by provincial and national governments, for a very good reason, for a very good reason, Mr. Speaker, -I don't argue against them - the reason is that agricultur e being uns table, unsur e, inse cur e, that these basic exem ptions and privileges were extended to the farm com mun ity to make them viable. I don't quarrel with it, Mr . Speaker. I think they have to be done that way. But, Mr.

Speaker, in the end when you tell me that you have ac cumul ated a million dollars and you have benefitted from all those exemptions over the years, don't tell me you don't owe anything to soc iety. A MEMBER: Hear, hear! MR. USKIW: Don't tell me you don't owe anything to so cie ty because somebody has to pay the bills. -(I nterjecti on)- Yes, we educated them, Mr . Speaker, there's no question about that. The public paid for that too, of cou rse. Somebody has to pay those bills.

The ques tion is whether you are going to ask the person who has some wealth to pay some of those bills, or whether you are going to put the fu ll load on the little people, Mr. Speaker, as what my friends opposite are advocating. Mr . Speaker, let's examine this ques tion most thorough ly. Let's examine this ques tion, Mr . Speaker, because what is the basic exem ption under our inc ome tax laws at the present time? The basic exemption before one starts to pay inc ome tax, provincial and national, it's about $2, 100.00.

After I have worked with these two hands and earned $2, 100, the state demands of me that I make a co ntribution to pay for state services. Mr. Speaker, how can my friends opposite, honestly put the argument that an individual who earns more than $2, 100, is obligated to contribute to the state, to pay for social services, government services, and a person who through a windfall benefit, pays nothing even if it's in the millions of dollars? Ho w can you put that argument, how can you even say it in terms of religious or Christian princi ple, Mr.

Speaker? -(I nterjec tion)- Where is the conscience of my friend, the Me mber for Pembina, when he is prepared to unload all of the burden on the little people of Pembina, in order that he will protect a handful, Mr. Speaker, because that is ess entially what the stat istics bear out. Mr. Speaker, the stat istic which sticks in my mind, is that this legislation is being passed for 148 people for 1976. Of a population of over a million, this legisla tion is being passed for 148 people, of a population of over a million, 1. 4 or 1. 5 percent of our population. Wel l, Mr.

Speaker, the member - I can't rec all, I don't know who it is. Oh, it's the Memb er for r Arthur - is sugge sting that he would like to talk about land-lease. Wel l, I'm going to get to that, Mr . Speaker, because it was introduc ed into this debate by the Memb er for Pembina, who also didn't know what he was talking about, Mr . Speaker .. He talked about the hardsh ip of young people getting into agricultur e because of estate taxes. Mr . Speaker, he talked about the hardship. You know in Alberta they never had any for years. When did they have estate taxes in Alberta - can anyone tell me? How long?

Fine farming commun ity. It's interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that Saskatchewan and Man itoba are leading the whole of Canada in terms of new young farmer entries into agricu lture in the last census period. It has nothing to do with estate taxes, Mr. Speaker. It has to do with the willingness of governments to put forward programs that give some incentive and encou ragement for young people to get started. Mr .

Speaker, it is an absolute fact that the rate of entry of young people into Ma nitoba agricultur e as a percentage of the total new entries is greater than any other part of Canada except Saskatchewa n, at 21 percent, Mr . Speaker. The national average, Mr . Speaker, in the last census period was 19 percent of the total new entries as being young people. In Alberta it's 19 percent, Mr . Speaker. -(I nterjec tion)- Yes, in Alberta it's 19 percent, but in Man itoba it was 21. I suppose it's because we have Suc cess ion Du ties that we have so many more young people entering agricultur e in the last five years, Mr.

Speaker. Is that really what my friend is trying to sugge st? So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from members opposite, if they can show me a case in point where there has been a problem created, a hardship cr eated, and where they were not able to solve that problem through the provision made in the legislation itself. Mem bers opposite know that there is a six-year period over which one can pay whatever level of taxation is imposed on them. The legislation also provides that if that is insufficient, and if there is hardship, that that period can be extended for an indefinite period.

At what rate of interest, Mr . Speaker? I don't know why, I don't even know why we did it, Mr . Speaker. At what rate of interest? At five percent, at a subsid ized rate of interest for an indefinite period of time into the futu re - another su bsidy, another su bsidy, Mr. Speaker. The Me mberfor Pembina talked about 10 percent money and the cost of paying this off over a period of years. He didn't even know the Act, Mr. Speaker, because he talked ten percent money. 445

Wednesday, December 7, 19 77 Read

Section 53, Mr. Speaker. Read Sect ion 53 and you will find that those who have to pay succession duties and find it difficult to meet the six -year deadline to make those payments, are able to extend that period for an indefinite length of time, at five percent interest rates, Mr. Speaker. Five percent interest rates - better than they can borrow money any place els e in the world, Mr . Speaker. Yet, this is to facil itate a very wealthy transac tion. ) I don't know why it is that the Min ister of Finance put in a five percent interest rate. I really can't understand that, Mr.

Speaker, because we're dealing with someone who has a problem of inheriting a half a million dollars. That's really what we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker, someone who has a problem of inheriting a half a million dollars. - (I nterject ion)- Of cou rse, I am not afraid to debate that one, Mr. Speaker. I have yet to find one who really has a problem, Mr . Speaker, under that Act. I have found many who have been confus ed by my friends opposite, but Mr . Speaker, I have not fou nd one who has had a problem with this Act.

Now my friends are going to have to do what I told them they're going to have to do in the Throne Speech Debate. They are going to have to continue to misle ad the people of Ma nitoba in order to try to hang on to their cr edibility. That's basical ly the position they've put themselves in, because once you start mis leading, you have to conti nue to mislead. A MEMB ER: Oh what a tangled web we weave when once we practise to deceive. MR. USKIW: So, Mr.

Speaker, during the time when we were in government and during the time that you have been in government si nce the last elec tion, no one has yet convi nced me or has shown a case problem where someone has had difficult y in handling our Succes sion Du ty laws. Not one, not one out of all the transactions and we've had 39,000 of them, I believe it was, Mr . Speaker. All told we had 38, 609 deaths in Man itoba sinc e 1972, and out of that, 81 1 were taxable retu rns, Mr .

Speaker, and out of that we haven't had more than one - I sho uldn't say not one, because I was told that there was one who made an inquiry about extending the payment period. Now, Mr . Speaker, that has to be an emergency situa tion, to say the least, doesn't it? It requi res the attention of all of the members of this assem bly because in five years only one person out of 39,000 estates fou nd some difficulty in meeting the requirements of the Estate Tax laws of this province. I don't know who that one is even, Mr. Speaker.

Now my friends opposite know, they know full well that there are many ways of alleviating that problem or potential problem, if they have structu red their busi ness in a certa in way. Ma ny farmers have the facility of incorporation. You know the "tear-jerk" argument, that you know this young son who worked on the farm all the time and he's really inheriting his own productivity. He should get it while he's doing it, he should get a bit of a wage. You know the Member for Pembina didn'teven have his statistics right on the gifting, because when I interjected he sugge sted - includin g the Minister of Finance, Mr.

Speaker. Wel l, Mr . Speaker, I was correct. The exem ptions on gifts have been increased from two to five thousand dollars, and six thousan d dollars for the spouse under the new Ma rital Property Tax arrangement. A MEMB ER: Maybe he's going to change his vote now. MR. USKIW: So, all of the facts, Mr . Speaker, that have been produced by the Memb er for Pembina, are found wanting, Mr. Speaker. All of the facts that he had laid on the table have been found wanting.

I ask him to produce me a specific case, a file, a docu ment to show where one individual in this province has had a problem under that piece of legisla tion. And then I ask him, Mr. Speaker, to search his conscience and re-examine the position that the ordinary people, Mr . Speaker, should pay the full burden of government services and the wealthy people should get off scot-free. That's really what I'm as king him to do, bec ause, Mr. Speaker, they are getting off scot-free. If they don't pay Succession Du ty, they have been off scot-free. -(I nterjec tion)- Mr . Speaker.corporations don't pay taxes.

It's the people who buy their products who pay the taxes for them. Other than on their personal salary, they do not pay any taxes and my friends opposite, know that. So if you remove this one, they have been in busi ness for a lifetime and they have had no obligation, no obligation to society, to the jurisdic tion in which they have accu mulated this wealth that has become such a problem to them. Mr . Speaker, that argument can not be' cannot be sold su ccessfu lly. On examination, Mr . Speaker, that argument falls flat on its face. Mr .

Speaker, I reject totally and completely the argument that the present laws, as they are, are inadequate, are crea ting hardship. Mr. Speaker, I make only one, not conces sion, but observat ion perhaps, because we have already had the example of this government, the New Democr atic Party government, adjusting those levels, the exemption levels every year, every second year, to reflect the current econo mic co nditions. There's no doubt in my mind that we would have had to do that again over and over again. Mr .

Speaker, there's no doubt in my mind that we probably would have come to the position of elimination if it was obvious that we were going to be left as the only province - although I'm not sure that that would have been necessarz, but I believe that probably would have happened . You know you have to remember that most Canadians are sti ll su bject to estate tax law. It's the minority Canadians who are not, and really if you have any conscience whatever, with respect to tax policy, then we should be the last to go out, not the first, Mr . Speaker. We should be the last ones to vacate that field.

Because it's an insult, Mr. Speaker, to tell anyone who has to pay taxes after $2, 100 of earnings that someone who has a windfall of $1 million should n't pay any. lt'san absolute insu lt, and 446

Wednesday, December 7, 19 77 my friends will not be able to convi nc e the masses of people that it is not. Thank you . MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi nister of Financ e. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I'll be closing debate. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Gladstone. MR. JAMES R. FERGUSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to rise at this time and make a few comments to do with Bill No. 3.

This is a particular matter that has been discu ssed many times in this Ho use through the form of Private Mem bers' Resolutions, etc ., over the many years, and I think we've all heard the various argume nts a hundred times both ways. It basically is an ideological clash between the two different trains of thought. The Me mber for Pembina yesterday laid out, I would say, possibly one of the most comprehensive statements that has come forth to this point. He is a new member and I think that he will have a bright futur e in politics. He has done his homework.

He presented the case very well and certa inly put forth the views of his constituency and most of the people in rural Man itoba. As usual, the Min ister of Agricultur e is comple tely out of touch with reality and it has shown in practica lly every endeavour that he has undertaken when he was minister. He normally found himself on the wrong end of votes. Seventy-seven percent of the people in the agricultur e sector at one point in time assu red him of where their show of su pport was and it certa inly wasn't with the Mi nister of Agriculture.

Many of us from the rural areas do feel a bit indebted towards him to the degree that he did spend a lot of time in our constituencies and, as always, he was a big help to us during elect ion time. So we cert ainly appreciate that effort, again. Thank you. It would seem that his trip to Cu ba last year also went to his head. He trotted around last spring showing us his pictures of what was going on in the co mmunal farms as against the free enterprisers. It never occu rred to him at any time, possibl y, that those people that were living in those so-called shacks , etc., they maybe preferred this way of life.

And possibly the day will come in Cuba, not probably without another revolution because this doesn't happen when you get a socialist or a com munist government firmly enough implanted. You find it very difficult to unload them. He has preached over the years, Mr. Speaker, his stay option. I think he has missed the point. He has missed the point comple tely and you can easi ly understand it, because really, on the other side, there is very little representa tion from the farm com mun ity or the busi ness co mmunity.

I am talking about the smal l busi ness - the people that are out putting forth risk capit al, taking the risk in the marketplace. And you can understand the wage-earner and the profes sional people leaning back and sa ying, "Well, you know, the rural people are out for another free ride.

They are always giving a subsidy here, and a sub sidy there." I think they should be aware of the fact that in most cases when a subsidy is paid out to the rural people, they get it back, because normally the cour se of events is that we're out not on a free-load deal but to supply food to the cit izens of Man itoba, which incl udes the wage-earner more than possibly anyone else, as cheaply as possible. We have had several sta tements made -the Hon ourable Memb er for La Verendrye the other day stated that there had been an outflow of capital of $1 billion.

It may be $1 billion and it may be $10 million or whatever the case may be, but here again the reason being that this capital is not staying in the province, it is not generating any further jobs. First, people are not invest ing it. It's going out simply because of the fact that people had lost the inc entive to put risk capital into this province due to the thinking of people like the Min ister of Agriculture. We find that he also said that the rural people are getting a free ride.

I'd like to point outt o him that in the municipal budget the education tax is running anywhere from about 55-58 percent where the balance is going in the mun icipal. Bu t we basic ally could, you know, Mr. Speaker ... MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Lac du Bonnet, a point of privilege. MR. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, the Me mber for Gla dstone indicated that I had said that farmers are on a free ride; I had not said that. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Gladstone. MR. FERGUSON: Wel l, I'll jus t take the principle, then, not the exact words, Mr. Speaker.

He inferred several times through his speech that, you know, that capital ac cumula ted, it didn't make any difference whether you had spent three or four generations doing it, basically again the wage-earner can say, "Well, so what?" And I think again where the minister has mis sed the point is that the rural com mun ity are not out to seek special benefits; they are basically out to try and hold their units together that they do have.

The complic ations and the problems that cou ld arise were explained very adequately the other day by the Member for Pembina, and I don't think really that the urban dwellers have to have any fear of the family farm or the individual unit beco ming a capitalistic socie ty, or a monopoly or whatever the case may be. Somewhere along the line over the cou rse of years by attrition, by possibly an unfortunate accident or some thing along this line, that family farms will eventually fall apart.

You can see it in every rural co mmun ity and consequently the general run of events in many cases will decide what is going to happen. 447

Wednesday, December 7, 19 77 I think that someth ing that has been lost track of here is that the big operators, the people that are well in-the-know, in the tax brackets that are far beyond the average farm, are in a position to protect thems elves through forming other compan ies and various tax dodges.

Whatt heformer Min ister of Agricultur e has forgotten is that there is agr eat hardship to the degree that through estate planning and one thing and another you find that possibly due to the fact that one's health is not good enough that you can't carry life insur ance to protect your estate, and various other things that can happen that basically does contribute to a very punitive taxation. Something else that should be pointed out is that on every dollar that one is taxed on, succession duty tax has already been paid on it so really you're not seek ing any special benefits.

I ncome tax has been paid on every one of those dollars. So if you happen to have one left, you find that succession duty is any dollars that were eligible for taxation were taxed -w e'll put it that way. -(I nterjec tion) Yes, okay. So conseq uently I feel that there is a good case to do away with the double form of taxation.

As I pointed out earlier, what is basical ly happening here is that rather than having the minister's plans whereby you tax to the degree that you have to sel l and then the feds move in and take a capital gains tax , you know and this was all going on for $5 million, I think last year through succes sion duties. I would wonder what it has cost the people of rural Man itoba, not only in dollar value, estate planning and various other methods of trying to escape su cces sion duties. -(I nterjec tion)- Yes, the lawyers and accountants have never had it so good.

There's ju st no way, but this basically is the former Min ister of Agricultur e's theory that you should tax into a degree whereby he could come rush ing in or one of his representatives, the first person into the yard - and say, "Well, you know, we'll buy your farm. You can be a serf for the stat e." And that's the stay option and the rural people pretty well grasped the sign ificance of what his maneuveri ng was about. It showed on October 11 th and will conti nue to show.

As long as the former Min ister of Agricu lture espouses his theories, I can assure you that the NDP and the soc ialist government will never pick up a seat in rural Manitoba. This was one of the election promises of the Cons ervative party. As a matter of fact even the former Premier at one time duringhhe election campai gn more or less sign ified that there would have to be some revamping of the ideals and the First Min ister came from a farm background. He has an idea of what inflation has done to the economy of rural Manitoba. We'd be ju st as happy if our land was worth what it was three years ago.

We'd be just as happy if our farm machi nery was worth what it was three or four years ago. We aren't certa inly as king for an inflationary value on land. The cost of our produc e certa inly hasn't gone up si nce 1974-75. I would say it's down in many cases 40 percent, even 50 percent or higher. So to those people that are sta ying alive, it is cert ainly crea ting a hardship. But to those people that are dying, it was going to cr eate and has cr eated a little sour ce of revenue to the government.

They have had a very firm ideological stand on this that there was no way that they would at any time even consid er - if it became politically expedient, then they would make their move. And this, Mr. Speaker, has boiled its way back down to the rural com mun ity. We don't feel that we're as king for anything that's unfair. And the former Min ister of Agric ultur e has stated many times that it's onlyuffec ting one and a half percent of the population. Wel l, I would like to have had him with any of us rural members who were campa igning during the elec tion.

At each meeting this ques tion was asked by many people; possibly at each meeting you might get it four or five times. What are you going to do about success ion duties? And of cou rse it was one of the planks of our platform. We said that they would be abolished . They have been abolished and the legis lation will be effective back to October 11th. This is one of the reas ons that elections are held and why there are changes of government. The previous government, of cou rse, came forth with many programs. They didn't get thems elves in too much problem financially, either, until the last fiscal year.

And this again possibl y, Mr. Speaker, during the period of 1974- 75, I don't think there was ever a period when there was a higher income in the province of Man itoba. The farming economy was healthy. The federal grants were good. The busine ss com mun ity was healthy. All of a sudden we find that there is a down turn and basically my honourable friends ac ross the way can claim credit for so me of it. Not all of it of cou rse, but they can to a degree claim quite a lot of credit.

We now have the opportu nity to put forth our ideas and one of the things that I say is going to happen is there will be no more worry as far as the succ ess ion duties goes in rural Manitoba and the loss of revenue here I don't think is going to be that great. Dur ing the period when we were consideri ng the farm protect ion bill last year, we had occasion to talk to many of the real estat euge nts who were dealing with the West Ge rmans, the Italians and other foreign buyers. All of them told us that in mostcases the capital was not sta ying in Manitoba; it was being trans ferred directly, mostly to Alberta.

Her e again, qu qting figures with no verification for but word-of-mouth, they did quote a figure of $100 million that had moved out of the provinc e simply because farmers had sold their land, they had estab lis hed res idences out of the province and this money was no longer available for inves tment in the province. I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that I have a great deal more to say on this bill. I'm sure now that it will be pass ed. It certa inly is not going to create any undue hardship as far as the amount of money gone.

It will mean a great piece of mind to the rural people of Man itoba and it will, as far as I'm concerned, go further towards the preservat ion of the family farms and keep them as viable units without interference from government. We don't really want that. We don't want to be in a position where the Me mber for Pembina stated the other day that supposi ng two deaths happened consecutively, in consecutive years, that you could find you rself in the position of sel ling and great hardship could be - as a matter of fact the busi ness cou ld be dissi pated or have to be sold to pay the succession duties. 448

Wednesday, December 7, 19 77 So with those few words, Mr . Speaker, I am sur e that there are other speakers that want to speak but to those that are so concerned on the other side - the worker, etc. -y ou're not losing that muc h money as far as taxation goes and conseq uently I don't think it is going to be any particular hardship as f� r as you as taxpa ye.rs go. If anybody makes a dollar, they're st ill paying income tax on it and basic ally removal of th 1s 1s only to try and preserve not only the tarn i ly farms but the small busi ness as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for St. Vital. MR. D. JAMES WALDING: Mr . Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by thehonourable Member for Flin Flon, that debate be adjou rned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL (NO. 4) -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MINEL ACREAGE TAX ACT MR. SPEAKER: On Bill No. 4, the proposed motion of the. Honour able Min ister of Finance. The Hono urable Me mber tor Kildonan. MR. GREEN: Mr . Speaker, the Honour able Mem ber for Kildonan adjourned debate so that I would be able to speak. MR. SPEAKER: Will it stand in the name of the .. . MR. GREEN: No, I think it can come out of his .. . MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Mr .

Speaker, this bill is presented as the elimination of a nuis ance tax and one which has caused a great deal of problems, particu larly to farmers in the province of Man itoba. In that respect, Mr . Speaker, it runs a parallel line in some respects to the Estate Tax Act because it is being sugge sted by members on the other side that farmers in the province of Man itoba are the ones who are paying the estate tax. Wel l, Mr . Speaker, I believe that this is a fallacy, that this is not true, that this is the kind of approach that is often used when one deals with exem ptions.

I commend to honourable members a book called "The Rich and the Su per-Rich" which is a book which deals with how exemptions are requested under tax proposals and they are always requested on the basis that they will accom plish some thing for the poor. The best example that I can remember in ttat regard, Mr. Speaker - and perhaps many of us fell prey to it - was the big petition that came here with regard to removing the sales tax on laundry.

I think the honourable members were in government at the time, the honourable members opposite were in government, and huge sacks were brought in to indicate that sales tax shou ld be removed on laundry and dry cle aning and the slogans were "A tax on clean liness" and things of that nature. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I su ppose that if the tax were removed, then the working or average income group or farm group in the province of Manitoba would save a few dollars on their laundry bills but they forget that there will be a great many more dollars saved by people who use laundry and drycle aning on a much more greater percentage basis than is used by the average working class family and when that money doesn't come in and the government contin ues to spend, the taxes have to be imposed. It is qu ite often that the imposition will be worked out much less equ itably than has been the previous tax.

"The Rich and the Super-Rich" is a book which dealsqith all of the exemptions that are cla imed by people - and the Honour able Mi nister of Finance has introduced a beauty in this sess ion - he has introduc ed a tax which I wish I was in the income group that it would save me $500 a year.

He says that he's going to give a reduc tion in income tax and the reduction in income tax will save an income earner in the neighbourhood of $100,000 a year some thing like $500 or $600 - 1 don't know what the figures are - and will save an inc ome earner in the field who is in the $7,000 or $8,000mr $9,000 category very little, I would say $10.0 0 or $15.00, if that. They are hoping to get to this gentleman andsay, "We've saved you $10.00 or $15.00. " But that's not what occu rred, Mr. Speaker.

What has occu rred is that there has been a redistri bution of the tax load and that taxes or moneys col lecor moneys col lected in other ways will work out much less equitably. Now this particula r removal, Mr. Speaker, is thrown up as some thing that will help the farmers, like the estate tax. I would say, Mr .

Speaker, that of the $5 million that would be col lected in estate tax and now I'm really es timating but my friend, the Min ister of Indus try and Commerce, has given me full sweep - if he can say a billion dollars, I can say that the amount that would be paid by farmers in estate taxes out of the 5 million, well I'm going to say a million. SOM E ME MBE RS: No, no. MR. GREEN: No? Wel l, my friends are annoyed with me because I'm really going too high but if I say a million, I am being high and that is going to be paid by a few farmers. Mr.

Speaker, not more than 20 farmers in the province of Ma nitoba and the honourable members say that this tax is hurting the 449

Wednesday, December 7, 1977 30,000 farmers in the province of Man itoba and that's the pitch that they make. MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. May I remin d theMe mber for l nkster thatwe aretalking on Bill No. 4 , The Mi neral Acreage Tax. MR . GR EEN: Mr . Speaker, I'm going to relate that exactly to the mi neral acreage tax because I said that this second tax ... A ME MB ER: It might take a while. MR . GRE EN: ... this reduction - that's right - this reduction is based on the fact, Mr. Spe aker, that farmers are the ones who are sufferi ng by this tax. Now, Mr .

Sp eaker, not one farmer who is farm in g is paying taxes in accordance with this bill on land on which he is farm ing. If he is, then somebody should help him.

The Min ister of Fina nce's department, I am sure, will tell that man that he is exempt and doesn't have to pay any mi neral acreage tax, that the only people - and I hope I will be as exhaustive as I can - who are paying mi neral acreage taxes are non-farmers who hold mine ral rights in the province of Man itoba, people who used to be farmers and their land is either leased or being used by somebody else and they have retained the mi neral rights, but no farmers are paying this tax. So what will the effect of this tax be, the reduction in the tax which is said to be a nuis ance tax?

It will reduce the taxes of some huge corporations that hold a majority of the mi neral taxes, Mr . Speaker, to the extent of some 15 0,000 out of the 300,000 that was colle cted, these huge corpora tions who suddenly will pay nothing for holding the mineral rights by the people of the province of Man itoba, as agai nst Saskatchewan where they are paying it. My honourable friend, in an attempt to show that it's not corporations, says that there will be 13 ,000 indi viduals - I don't remember the figur e but I think it's something lik e 13 ,000 indi viduals. . Bu t, Mr.

Sp eaker, you know, there's no difference between indi viduals and corporations in terms of them paying the tax. The fact is that the indi viduals who are paying it may be people who are holding mi neral rights, they could be held by trust compan ies or by other organizations or by other indi viduals who happen to have purchased mi neral rights. I, personally,um aware of indi viduals who have nothihg to do with the farm comm unity who hold mi neral rig hts and they are holding them and they are now paying what everybody elses pays on every other piece of property which they hold, they are paying a tax on it. .

Now the honourable mem bers say that this is a social ist attempt to expropriate all mineral rights without compensa tion , that the real purpose of the bill - Mr . Speaker, they have inf erred this - that the real purpose of the bill is to levy a tax on mi nerals, that the man will not want to pay it and the property will be sent back to the Crown.

As a matter of fact, theM in ister of Financ e said that this is the worst resu lt of the mi neral acreage tax, that all kind s of people are going to have to give ther mi nerals for nothin g to the Crown and that this is a di abolical plot on the part of the New Democrats to get Crown-owned min erals. A MEM BER: Ri ght. MR. GREE N: Well, right, Mr . Speaker, that's right. I'll tell you, Mr. Sp eaker, there was a conspi racy of that kind, it did take place, it was success ful, it was not done by a New Democratic Party government, it was done by a Cons ervative government.

When I say Conser vative, it was done by a progressive govern ment, it was done by a government other than New Democrat. Mr. Speaker, it may be a shock to members in this Chamber that si nee about 1 890 no citizen who got title from the Crown, from the government of Canada, had mi neral rights inclu ded because that government decided that all of the mi neral rights belon ged to the public of the province of Manitoba and no titles were issued with mi neral rights and no title issued by the provinc e of Ma nitoba sinc e 19 30where Crown land was given to an indi vidual contained mi neral rights.

The government decided that they would expropriate, without compens ation, all mi neral rights of any person who was to get land because everybody previously got them and retain them for the Cr own. That was the conspi racy. It was done success full y and by virtue of that, Mr.

Speaker, a great majority -well, that might be an exaggeration - a good numb er of Man itoba citizens who hold title never had mine ral rights, do not now have mi neral rights, had those mi neral rights taken away from them and not by a New Democraticpar ty government but by a government that said the mi neral rig hts belong to the people, we are going to keep them and we are not going to give them to any ind ividua l farmer. It wasn't Bolsheviks who did that, it was people of the same political stripe as my honour able friends.So when they say that this is an attempt to expropriate mi neral rights, Mr .

Sp eaker, it is an attempt to provide equity. No citizen in the province of Manit oba can hold any interest in land without paying a rentto the Crown. There is no such thing, as we ind icated last year, as ulti mate private property and land. Every person who has a title is required to pay a rent. He pays it either through a mun ici pal tax ... but he pays for the holding of property which he holds from the Crown to the exclusion of all other citizens.

In other words, some citizen in Manitoba is given a mi neral rights and a piece of property in Vir den,he is given that to the excl usion of all other citizens even though it is public lands and he says, "I will not pay anything for this exclus ive privilege." Now, Mr . Speaker, that's the main feature of this leg isla tion and that's why 1 call it, Mr . Speaker,

Article , 3 of the Declaration of Dependence issued by the Conser vative Party when thethrone Speech 450

Wednesday, December 7, 19n was read some two weeks ago, because members opposite say we have to retain the goodwill of these people. They are a. very s�all minority of people. In large part, tte tax is paid by corporations. No farmers who are farmmg the1r land pay it and the hono urable member in dicated that to us. He said that the problem was, Mr. Speaker, they had to fil e an exemption which in dicates that they don't pay it and if th�y pay it, t�ey sh�utdn't pay it; they are exempt from payment of tax on any lands that they farm wh1ch hold mmeral nght s. Many, Mr.

Speaker, don't even know about it. 1 would say - I'm not certain- but I would think that the majority of farmers in the constituency of Swan Ri ver- twonder if the First Minis ter will help me out - that the majority of farmers in the constituency of Swan Ri ver do not own their mi neral rights. They don't even know that there is such a tax because they never hear about it. The majorit y, very few, pay it. I know that the Member for St.

George told me that no farmers in his area, or very few again, know anyth ing about these mi neral rights but there is a certain select group who, through an accident, happen to have lands, title to which was issued before 1930, who are holding miner al rights, are not farming, are not doing anyth ing with them, and insi st that they have the right to hold that to the exclusion of everybody else and with a privil ege which nobody else has without paying a tax. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I don't kno w why the honour able members are doing this except to dowhatthe Minis ter of Health and Social Welfare said,"lt's a matter of psychology." It's a matter of demonstrating to these people that this government, even though it makes no sense at all is going to see to it that they have their privi leged position and that it won't be upset. Now, Mr.

Speaker, some of my hon ourable friends in talking to this issue, I think it was the Member for Swan Ri ver, said, "What harm is there if this farmer has this gravel, why are you trying to take t away from him?" I think it was him, perhaps I'm wrong but somebody over there talked about it being a small matter that this farmer had gravel and we were trying to take it away from him. Mr. Speaker, he's sugg esting that there is a sort of a conspi racy on this side to take away gravel rights that belong to farmers. Mr. Speaker, there was a conspi racy.

The conspir acy was entered into by the min isters who occupied the front benches of the Conservative government in 1967 and the conspi racy was written in to the taw under the Crown Lands Act and that taw said, Mr.

Speaker, where mines and min erals have been or are reserved out of the dispo sition of lands made under this Act or under the Provincial Lands Act, after the 15 th day of Ju ly, 1930, which in dicates that everything was reserved after that date, the reservation - and listen to this, lis ten to those who talk about expropriation by comp ensation' who talk about retroactive legislat ion, who talk about dispossessing people, by law, by the auth ority of law, little people who have gravel on their land, "the reservation shall be con clusively deemed to inc lude and always to have in cluded a reservation of sand and gravel.

" Do the honour able members know what that means because we asked in the House what it means. We asked why is this Act necessary? And the answer that we got was, "Well, there is now some argument as to whether sand and gravel belongs to the Crown or belongs to the ind ividual little farmer." - who those people say they are trying to protect. We say it belongs to us. That is, the Conservative adminis tration said that it belonged to the people generally, belonged to the Crown, and there are some who are assertin g it belongs to them.

"Rather than take a chance of having this matter decided in a court, we want to pass a law that says it belongs to the gov ernment." That terrible word that members opposite often refer to. Mr. Speaker, what would happen if the New Democratic Party brought in a piece of legislat ion of this kind. It would be accused of Bolshevism; it would be accused of Fasicsm; it would be accused of dispossessing the farmer; of going after the gravel of the lit tle guy but, Mr. Speaker, I ask honourable members to took at it. We ask, if it belongs to the Crown, why do you need a statute?

They said, "Well, yes it does belong to usxut some people may sue and we might not win and therefore rather than let that happen, we're going to expropriate all gravel on lands whic h have a mi neral right reserved and we're going to say it belongs to the Crown before some judge says that it doesn't. " And where did that advice come from, Mr. Speaker? Well, we asked Mr. Gu rney Evans why he was doing this, why he was legisla ting away the potential gravel rights of the little farmers in theprovince of Manitoba and here's his answer. "I think there's a hypothetical doubt.

There's no doubt in my mi nd; there's no doubt in any of the officials minds of the Department of Lands Branch." If there's no doubt, why did they legi slate? This is brought forward, as I und erstand it, for technic al reasons - yes, very techc cal - to make sure that those farmers couldn't make a claim to those mi neral rights and my hono urable friend, the Attorney-General gave me this very useful phrase: "Out of an abundance of caution. " Who was the Attorney-General of the prov in ce of Mani toba? A MEMBER: Not me. MR. GREEN: No, it sure wasn't. Do you want to guess who it was?

The Attorney-General was the present Fi rst Min ister who talks about governments expropriating private rights, who talks about dispossessin g' who talks about private ownership in land, who talks about protec tin g the little man. But, Mr.

Speaker, when there was a doubt as to whether gravel was owned by the in divid ual farmer or owned by the Crown, the Attorney-General said, "Out of an abundance of caution and because we don't want any chance of lo sing in court, we will legislate not for the future," - listen to the terms of the legislat ion - "the reservation shall be con clusively deemed to inc lude and always to have in cluded a reservation of sand and gravel." Now that's int eresting, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the present legislation that's being been brought forth.

The miner al rights of the province of Mani toba belong to the people of the province of Manitoba by error or by in advertece or by previous wrong 451

Wednesday, December 7, 19 77 practice, recognized as wrong by every subsequent government, so me mineral rights were transferred to private individuals. When there was doubt in a Cons ervative administration's mind as to whether they properly reserved the gravel, they didn't both bother sayi ng, "We will let this be decided and if a farmer now owns his gravel, we will pay him tor it, we will compens ate him tor it." No.

They sai d, "We will expropriate but without compensation every ounce of gravel and sand that now may be the property of an individual farmer in the province of Man itoba." I tell that to the Mem ber tor Swan River who said that here is a government who's worried about an individual farmer having a little bit of gravel. They expropriated; there was a conspi racy in the kind ofvenacular that is used by my honourable friends and they used government power to see to it that every ounce of sand and gravel belonged to the people of the province of Man itoba. Every government, Mr .

Speaker, si nce 1930 has agreed and has gone to great lengths to protect themineral rights of the people of the provinc e of Manitoba. But that some of them, because of his torical transfers of title, are held by private people. And we are not say ing we will eJ<propriate them. No. We are saying that there isn't any kind of real property in the province of Manitoba that is held without payment of a tax.

If a person, individual, wishe s to hold as his own to the exc lusion of all other people in the provinc e of Man itoba a portion of real property, which mineral rights are incl uded, - I tell that to my honourable friend, the Mi nister of Finance - he pays a tax. -(I nterject ion)- Pardon me? A MEMBER: For services. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, there are some pieces of property which are held in the province of Man itoba tor which no services are given and which they pay taxes tor. A MEMBER: That's right. MR.

GREEN: As a matter of fact, I know of no place where property is in a mun icipality- perhaps the Min ister of Finance can correct me - but I know of no place where they do not either pay a tax or a perm it tee or some thing tor the holding of property to the exclusion tor themselv es to the exc lusion of all others but this one area, Mr . Speaker, which the government of Alberta had the sense to legislate - and by the way we were the third - B.C. did it; Alberta did it; Saskatchewan did it and then Manitoba did it.

And if it's not enough money, if it's not enough money, the amount can be raised because 10 cents an acre is not enough, you can make it 50 cents an acre and it won't be farmers who will suffer. It will be people holding those mineral rights and I know many individuals who hold them, here in the City, who hold them in Western Manitoba waiting tor the day that perhaps there will be a discovery and if they want to we tell them the same as the mining companies, if you want to hold rights to the exclusion of other citizens of lands in the province of Manitoba, you shall pay a tax.

The Honour able Mi nister of Finance says no.

Article 3 of the Declaration of Dependence of the people of Man itoba to individuals who now hold privileged positions shal l be moved on first reading, moved on second reading and ratified. What we will do, Mr.

Speaker, is to indicate to the people of the province ju st what is happening, ju st what is happening, hoping that out of ten people in a room, one of them who previously thought that farmers pay mineral taxes or that somehow this was an unfair imposition on oil companies, on the Hu dson Bay Company, on the rail roads, who hold mineral rights in the province of Manitoba which are really an accident because recent titles do not contain them, that the Conservative administration felt that in order to sur vive, it had to maintain this privilege. I hope that one person in ten, Mr .

Speaker, will decide -(l nterject ion)- that's not what we expected . We had some notion, perhaps it wasn't well enough explained that the farmers were paying mineral taxes on land that they were farming and that this was a new imposition and that every farmer had these mineral rights and all of a sudden the government went in and paid taxes. Not that a minority of them had them and not that it wasn't paid by anybody who was a farmer, we intend to explain that.

We intend to explain it to the farmers; we intend to explain that by eliminating this tax -e ach farmer will pay a very smal l amount it's true - but a small amount of additional taxes which he would not have had to pay -(I nterject ion)- Yes, we should have - and I want to tell the honourable member that I've been around here ju st slig htly longer than him and perhaps I shouldn't be pulling rank and giving gratuitous advice but I think the honourable member said yesterday, or if he didn't then perhaps it was his seat mate.

He's here for the first time and he said, "If we tried to do this we would be wasting our time on useless debate in the legislatur e." You don't have to waste your time on useless debate; you don't have to come here. Really you do not have to be in your seat until you vote and then you vote for what you are told and forget it. We don't think the debate is useless and we intend to explain and we intend to try to make our points which perhaps were not made in the last election but there is always another election com ing, unle ss you intend to bring in a bill canc elling elections.

So don't sit secure that these positions are not going to be fought throughout the provinc e of Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the honourable Min ister offinance, the Honour able Leader of the Op position. MR. SCHREYER: Mr . Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honour able the Member for Brandon East that the debate be ad jour ned. MOTION presented and carried. 452

Wednesday, December 7, 19 77 BILL NO. 5 - FAMILY LAW MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 5. On the proposed motion of the Honour able Attorney-G eneral, the Honour able Memb er for Logan has 18 minutes left. MR. WILLIAM JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It seems to be my lot these days to make two speeches on the same topic because I seem to be running out of time on the cl ock. So if I am a bit repetitive in picking up the debate, I hope that you will bear with me on that point, Sir.

When we broke for the supper hour last night, I was asking through the medium of debate in this Ho use honourable members opposite, espe cially the new members - we know what the stance is of the former opposition members who are now the government who were on this side of the Ho use when this bill was debated and when it was voted on. We have a pretty good idea where the Honour able Member for St. Ja mes stands and the Honour able Min ister of Tourism and Recr eation but we don't have any idea about the Honour able Memb er for Sou ris-K illarney who wasn't in this Ho use. He, to my knowledge, has never taken

part in a debate in this Hous e yet and I am looking forward to hearing from him. I'm looking forward to hearing from other honourable mem bers over there who are new members to this Chamber. As my col league the Honour able Memb erf or I nkster said, and I believe yesterday the Ho nourable Member for Pembina said that we didn't believe in usel ess debate in this Hous e or the debate that was taking place in this Ho use was useless. Bu t, you know, Mr .

Speaker, when we were discussing yesterday the Suc ces sion Du ties and Gift Tax Act, all of a sudden, all of a sudden, the Honour able Member for Pembina cert ainly had a lot to say. He cert ainly had opinion. Su rely he has some opinions on this family law. But we haven't heard them. We heard from the honourable member when he introduced the motion and address to the reply to the Speech from the Throne that he felt that the contr ibutions of wives and families of the farm co mmun ity were consider able. Well, Mr .

Speaker, I wish he would get up in this Ho use and say that be he believes in some of these things that were instituted in the legisla tion that was passed last Ju ne. Or is he jus t giving lip service for the benefit of his constitue nts? Does he really believe that the family farms can be jointly owned by the spou se? Mr . Speaker, I'm speaking now espe cially to the new members on that side of the Hous e, especially to the new members since many of them come from farming com munities and since this type of legisla tion is set up to protect those people.

Does the Honour able Memb er for Pembina or other rural members, depending upon the cir cu mstances of a farm 1. Can the family home therefore be jointly owned by a couple or, 2. can it be a commercial asset and therefore owned only by one spouse and not shareable unle ss there is a separation or, 3. can it be both a family home and a commercial asset? What are your opin ions on that? We haven't heard a thing from you. All we've heard is the breeding qualities from the Bantam rooster that leads the Tory barnyard over there. That's all we've heard. The Bantam rooster of the Tory barnyard. That's all we've heard.

Also, we would like to know, Mr . Speaker - dealing with the farm. If this farm was bought during the marriage or with marriage in mind and the couple have their home on it that this half section, the 320 acres on which the hous e is located will be jointly owned by the couple. Do you believe in that? I haven't heard one of you say anything. I would like to hear you; I think that's what the whole process of parliament is about. It means to speak. And if it is larger, what are your opinions there? If it is larger upon separation, if it is over 320 acres, are you prepared to see it shared on separation?

We've never heard, never heard from the new members. Als o, during the debate and during the hearings, there was talk about sq uandering of assets. What is the belief of the honourable members opposite on the sq uandering of assets by one spouse or the other? I think it was pointed out qu ite clear to the comm ittees during the interess ional hearings and during the hearings on the bills when they were before the Committee of Statutory Regu lations.

You know even when a couple haven't sep arated one spouse may be deciding that he's going to get even with the other one or vice-versa and they cou ld sq uander or dissipa te an asset. Do you believe then that the other spouse has the right to make an application to the court within two years to become half owner of that commercial asset or do you think that she should wait until he has sq uandered and dissi pated everything so that there will be nothing left for her or him, whatever the case may be. And in family maintenance, do you believe in the no fault principle?

Do you believe that wives should be battered and bruised and neglected and that if they can't stand it any more and they leave the family marital home that they are not entitled to any maintenance? Is that what you believe in? Get up and say so, let's hear you. At least, under the new legis lation, if the position becomes untenable, she can leave the marital home and apply for interim maintenance. That is what you're doing with your delaying of this Act. You're perpetuating a very sad situa tion, a tragic si tuation for the wife in many cases and the chi ldren, their only means of supp ort is the husband.

He abuses her and if you don't think that he abus es her, you should have listened to some of the women that came and they came voluntarily, we didn't su bpoena them. We didn't put them under oath. Perhaps Mr . Ho uston would have wanted us to do that. Bu t we believed them. I say, Mr . Speaker, we know what the position of the former members of the opposition party who are back here in this Hous e was on family maintenance. They voted against it to a man. Family maintenance. Everyone voted against it and that, I say, is the most despicab le thing that they've done. 453

Wednesday, December 7, 1977 A ME MBER: There's more to come. MR. JENKINS: And there's more to come probably as my honourable friend said. At least on the sharing of fami ly assets, five of them did get up and say that they would support the legislation and did sup port the legislation. But on famil y mai ntenance no, absolutely not. And I think sometime or another before this debate ends that the new members ... And that incl udes the new Cabi net Minis ters who were just newly elected, and it incl udes the Minister of Labour.

It also incl udes the Member for Pembina, who was so charitable toward farm wives and their famil ies to get up and make his positionclear in thi s Hous e that they want to see more Murdoch cases and more Kowalchuck cases. We haven't ueard. We haven't heard a word but I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, when it is someth ing that they have promised within the election campaign - to abolish gift tax, succession duties, mineral acreage tax - they have lots to say. I'm not saying that they haven't the right because they have more members over there than we have over here. We know what you're going to do with the bill.

We have heard where the bill is going to go; it's going to go to Law Amendments Comm ittee. I would lik e to hear a pledge from the First Mi nister, and also from the Honourable Attorney General, a statement of princi ples, so that when we go out to hear public representations from the interested publi c that we know and they know exactly where they stand. Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker. MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to leave this standing in the name of the Honour able Memb er for Inkster? (Agreed) BIL L NO. 6-

AN ACT TO AMEND THE EM PLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT MR. SPEA KER: We then go on to (Bill No. 6),

an Act to amend The Emplo yment Standards Act. The Hono urable Member for Flin Flon. MR. TOM BARROW: Mr. Speaker, I adjourned this for my colleague from Brandon East. MR. SPEER: The Ho nourable Memb er for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'd ju st lik e to add a few words to the debate that has taken place thus far on this particula r legislation which, among other things,- Bill (No. 6),

an Act to amend The Em ployment Standards Act (Overtime Rate of Wages)- esse ntially abolishes, or will abolish, the one and three-qu arter time provision, which we had made in the last session or inhh e last legislature.

The Ho nourable Minister of Health and Social Development, yesterday I believe it was or perhaps the day before, made a very impassioned speech regarding some of the points that we had been makin g in this debate on this particular piece of legislation. ranging very widely over a numb er of areas of labour law and indeed dealing with matters such as state intervention in the li ves of people, and making very wild accusations, in my view, that this government or the previous government and the New Democratic Party believed in state intervention, but that hi s party and his government did not believe in state intervention.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd lik e to have that same wide-ranging latitude that the honourable min ister had in debating this, again talkin g about the bill essentially and the principle of the bill, but relating to it some other matters in the field of labour relations and labou r legislation. One comment that I cou ldn't help but note ... And incidentally, Mr. Speaker, l'm very surpr ised that we're dealing with a piece of legislation in the field of labour and the Min ister of Labour is not present in this House. I think that that is an affront to the Ho use.

Now, I understand that we move along rather rapidly at times, and rather slowly at times. Bu t it seems to me, out of courtesy, that the Min ister of Labour. or whichever minister is involved in a particular piece of legislation, sho:.�ld be present. They don't have to be present, she does not have to be present but I think ... - (In terjection)- Well I think, Mr. Speaker, if the honour able member has any speeches to make I suggest that I'd love to hear him get up on his feet and mak e a speech. I always enjoy listening to the honour able minister.

At any rate, even though the Min ister of Labour is not here, I would like to reply to a coupl e of poi nts made by the Min ister of Health and Social Development, who as I said made a nuer of points the other day, because I know he has a great interest in this particular field of government or of legislation - that is, labou r relations - and he made a numb er of statements, one of which was that here we were passing a piece of legislation for which there had been no petitions, for which there had been no great representation by the labour movement or by employees, or by unions, or by other representatives of labour.

Bu t I'd like to point out to the honour able members of the Hous e, and hopefully to the Mi nister of Health and the Minister of Labour, when they read Hansard - if they ever do - that in most cases where we are dealing with The Emp loyment Standards Act we are dealing essentially with those people who are in the unorganized sector of the working force.

Those people, many of whom are young people, many of whom are female, many of whom work for various small enterprises, sim ply do not have the means, simpl y do not have the wherewithal to make representation to government whenever there is an amendment to labour legislation. And it is very unu sual for that unorganized 454

Wednesday, December 7, 19 77 secto r, if you will, to be represented in com mittees, or be represented in any way, shape or form by means of a petition or subm ission to the government of the day or to the legisla ture regarding labour matters. Of cou rse this bill and the thrast of the bill to eliminate overtime, or any measure that is dealt with in terms of employment standards, it is not unu sual that representat ion is not received, because we're dealing with the seg ment of the workforce that is unorganized, and it is anderstandable that no representat ion is received, or qu ite often is not received.

I don't know what the his tory is in this legislatur e over the decades when the legisla ture has been dealing with employment standards, what the record is of representation from that group which this Emplo yment Standards Act applies to. Ideally, if we had a more perfect situation in the labour market, if you will, where there was more equal positioning in terms of colle ctive bargaining between employer and employee, you would need no labour standard or no minimum employment standards as is embodied in this particula r Act.

This particular Act, as I understand it, and it goes back through the years in attempts by government to provide minimum standards, is historic not only in this province but in other provinces - minimum standards for the unorganized sector. Bu t ideally it would be good if we did not have to legisla te any minimum standard. Ideally it would be muc h better if the employee and employer were in a position that they could bargain col lectively in order to ach ieve whatever was a satisfactory solution to both employer and employee with regard to wages, working conditions, fringe benefits, and so on.

In other words what I'm sa ying, Mr. Speaker, is I believe in a pure laissez-f aire approach, ifthat were poss ible in labour relations, a free colle ctive bargaining approach, and I think that has been the approach of the Ne w Democratic Party his toric ally in government and cert ainly in opposition. I say that ideally we'd prefer to have to legislate no minimum standards. Ideally it would be best ifu laissez faire situation prevailed entirely so that there would be freedom of colle ctive bargaining between employer and employee.

But there are in our province a great number of people who are not in a position to bargain with their employer and hence the Labour Standards Act or Em ployment Standards Act. And as I said, this is an his toric piece of legisla tion, or type of legisla tion, and it has been recognized by parties years gone by that there is some need to provide some minimum standards. The argument, I believe, for one and three-quarter payment of overtime was put forth well by the previous Mi nister of Labour, who is no longer a member of this Hous e, who is now in his retirement years.

When he introduced the bill he stated very clearly that overtime should not be encou raged, for a number of reasons. And one way, of cou rse, to discour age overtime - at least in terms of the employer in his approach to overtime - is to have to cause that employer to have to pay more than time and a half, to pay one and three-quarter or whatever higher ratio. The minister, in introducing this legis lation to the Hous e, indicated that by discoura ging overtime we could look perhaps toward fewer accidents in the workplace.

In other words, there is a greater propensity for accide nts to occur among people who are working extra hours, or excessive hours in the week or during the day. And so by discou raging overtime it is possible that you might have a beneficial impact on the incidenc e of accidents in the workplace.

Similarly, the former minister in introducin g the legis lation pointed out that certa in social and family problems can and do arise in situa tions where the working person of the household has to put in a considerable amount of overtime and hence is away from the family more hours, is away from the home to a greater extent.

And therefore, again, if by discou raging excessive overtime we could possibly be adding to the so ci al fabric of the province; we could be enhanc ing the family situation rather than what could happen if the reverse was the case where a lot of overtime, the working person being away from the home causing a deterioration in family relationsh ips. Of cou rse the other argument that was used is that overtime rates at one and three-quarter cou ld enhance employment in the province. It makes it more attractive to hire other employees if you have to pay a higher rate on overtime.

So it cou ld therefore also contribute to the employment situation in the province. It is obvious from the ques tions and the answers and the dialogue that has occurred in this Hous e, and it is as obvious from reports in the media today and from the statistics we obtained from Ottawa, the number one econ omic problem facing Manitoba is the unemployment situa tion.

And in some way this bill cou ld contribute - albeitindirectly, but it cou ld contribute - to alleviating that unemployment situation and if it does nothing els e but help alleviate the unemployment situation then one and three-quar ter overtime is worth maintaining. Bill 65 was the number of the bill which the previous Mi nister of Labour had brought into the Hous e and which was su bseq uently passed. As I sa id, the main purpose of Bill 65 was to discourage overtime by making it more costly for the employer.

And also reference was made in the introduction of this bill that one and three-quarter was ju stifi able for this particula r segment of the workforce because this particular segment did not have the same fringe benefits that often accrue to people in the organized sector, where there are labour unions dealing with employers. So to some extent at least the one and three-qu arter - the increase from the one and a half rate to one and three-qu arter rate - cou ld make up for some of the fringe benefits that many of the people do not receive in the Jnorganized sector.

So this is st ill another reason given by the government- by our government, by :he NDP government, by the Min ister of Labour at the time - for the introduction of the bill. And I :hink that these arguments sti ll stand. These arguments are valid arguments for this government to rvant to withdraw Bill 6 and in effect tur n the clock back. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Honour able Minis ter of He alth went on to a number of matters that I'd like to jeal with but I guess better after lunch. 455 o o b t l r u t t w d

Wednesday, December 7, 19 77 MR. SPEAKER: Or der please. The honourable member will have an opportunity at a later date to complete his remarks. The hour being 12:3 0, the Ho use is adjourned and stands adjourned until 2:30 this afternoon. 456

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-1-16
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 1st hansardpdf 16.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ff2b03f2c67655262a0497600842ca47223edb44

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