Manitoba Hansard — 20 March 1970 (Sitting 9, 29th Legislature, 2nd Session)

29-2-9

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

: \..' ,_. Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable Ben Hanuschak Vol. XVII No.9 2:30 p.m., Friday, March 20th, 1970. Second Session, 29th Legislature. Printed by R. S. Evans - Queen"s Printer for Province of Manitoba

I' ELECTORAL DIVISION ARTHUR ASSINIBOIA Bl RTLE-RUSSELL BRANDON EAST BRANDON WEST BURROWS CHARLESWOOD CHURCHILL CRESCENTWOOD DAUPHIN ELMWOOD EMERSON FLIN FLON FORT GARRY FORT ROUGE GIMLI GLADSTONE INKSTER KILDONAN LAC DU BONNET LAKESIDE LA VERENDRYE LOGAN MINNEDOSA MORRIS OSBORNE PEMBINA POINT DOUGLAS PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE RADISSON RHINELAND RIEL RIVER HEIGHTS ROBLIN ROCK LAKE ROSSMERE RUPERTSLAND ST. BONIFACE ST. GEORGE ST. JAMES ST. JOHNS ST. MATIHEWS ST. VITAL STE.

ROSE SELKIRK SEVEN OAKS SOURIS-KILLARNEY SPRINGFIELD STURGEON CREEK SWAN RIVER THE PAS THOMPSON TRANSCONA VIRDEN WELLINGTON WINNIPEG CENTRE WOLSELEY NAME J. Douglas Watt Steve Patrick Harry E. Graham Hon. Leonard S. Evans Edward McGill Hon. Ben Hanuschak Arthur Moug Gordon Wilbert Beard Cy Gonick Hon. Peter Burtniak Russell J. Doern Gabriel Girard Thomas Barrow L. R. (Bud) Sherman Mrs. Inez Trueman John C. Gottfried James Robert Ferguson Hon. Sidney Green, Q.C. Peter Fox Hon. Sam Uskiw Harry J. Enns Leonard A. Barkman William Jenkins Walter Weir Warner H.

Jorgenson lan Turnbull George Henderson Donald Malinowski Gordon E. Johnston Harry Shafransky Jacob M. Froese Donald W. Craik Sidney Spivak, Q.C. J. Wally McKenzie Henry J. Einarson Hon. Ed. Schreyer Jean Allard Laurent L. Desjardins William Uruski Hon. A. H. Mackling, Q.C. Hon. Saul Cherniack, Q.C. Wally Johannson J. A. Hardy Gildas Molgat Hon. Howard Pawley Hon. Saul A. Miller Earl McKellar Hon. Rene E. Toupin Frank Johnston James H. Bilton Ron McBryde Hon. Joseph P. Borowski Hon. Russell Paulley Morris McGregor Hon. Philip Petursson J. R. (Bud) l:!oyce Leonard H.

Claydon ADDRESS Reston, Manitoba 10 Red Robin Place, Winnipeg 12 Binscarth, Manitoba Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 2228 Princess Ave., Brandon, Man. 11 Aster Ave., Winnipeg 17 29 Willow Ridge Rd., Winnipeg 20 103 Copper Rd., Thompson, Man. 115 Kingsway, Winnipeg 9 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 104 Roberta Ave., Winnipeg 15 25 Lomond Blvd., St. Boniface 6 Cranberry Portage, Manitoba 86 Niagara St., Winnipeg 9 179 Oxford St., Winnipeg 9 44- 3rd Ave., Gimli, Man.

Gladstone, Manitoba Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 627 Prince Rupert Ave., Winnipeg 15 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Woodlands, Manitoba Box 130, Steinbach, Man. 1287 Alexander Ave., Winnipeg 3 Room 250, Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Box 185, Morris, Man. , 284 Wildwood Park, Winnipeg 19 Manitou, Manitoba 361 Burrows Ave., Winnipeg 4 Room 248, Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 4 Maplehurst Rd., St. Boniface 6 Box 40, Winkler, Manitoba 2 River Lane, Winnipeg 8 1516 Mathers Bay, West, Winnipeg 9 Inglis, Manitoba Glenboro, Manitoba Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 119 Provencher Ave., St. Boniface 6 357 Des Meurons St., St.

Boniface 6 Box 629, Arborg, Manitoba Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 15- 500 Burnell St., Winnipeg 10 11 Glenlawn Ave., Winnipeg 8 463 Kingston Crescent, Winnipeg 8 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Nesbitt, Manitoba Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 310 Overdale St., Winnipeg 12 Swan River, Manitoba 56 Paul Ave., The Pas, Manitoba Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Kenton, Manitoba Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 777 Winnipeg Ave., Winnipeg 3 116'/:z Sherbrook St., Winnipeg 1

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Friday, March 20, 1970 167 MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed with this afternoon's business, I wish to apologize to the honourable members of the House for my delay in bringing this matter to your attention. I realize a failure by the Speaker to maintain a constant maximum consciousness and awareness of those House rules which may from time to time be relevant is certainly not deserving of com mendation and is an error which the Speaker ought to the best of his ability attempt to avoid.

In order that embarrassment may not be caused to honourable members on future occasions by establishing a precedent and contradiction to our rules, I feel that I must rule on ari incident which occurred this morning. In the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for St. Boniface that the report of the Special Committee on Professional Associations be received, the honourable member spoke twice, the second time purportedly to close debate. May I remind the honourable members that our Rule 45(1) gives the mover of a substantive motion the right to reply.

However, the motion herein referred to was a subsidiary motion, that is to say, a motion made use of to move ques tions forward in the different stages of procedure through which it has to pass before its final adoption 0 Therefore, the right to reply does not exist.

In view of the fact that this motion has been voted on, it is now under control of the House 0 I am mindful of the rule that's stated in Beauschesne, Fourth Edition, Citation 69(1) which reads in part as follows: "The Speaker exceeds his authority if, without having been specially instructed by the House, he takes upon himself to alter any of his rulings which once given are under the exclusive control of the House." However, I am not certain that an inad vertent omission to apply a rule which could have the effect of establiShing a precedent contrary to our rules ought to be construed as a ruling.

Therefore, I humbly beg of the House for its pardon and to be allowed to rule at this point in time that the reply of the Honourable Member for St. Boniface was out of order, the matter not being a substantive motion. May I also point out that if the House will be kind enough to so agree, that it would have no material effect on the motion passed. I also wish to make it clear that in doing what I am presently doing it is not my intention to establish a precedent for Speakers to present rulings in post mortem faShion. MR. JORGENSON: I wonder, Mr.

Speaker, if in view of the ruling that you have made now, if it would be appropriate to have the honourable member's remarks, along with those made by the House Leader which were also out of order, stricken from the record. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for bringing this matter to our attention, and for our side in any event we accept the fact that your ruling will not be a precedent, that is that this morning's oversight will not be considered as a precedent or a ruling in that matters would therefore not be bound by it.

I would also indicate that in view of your ruling this after noon it would appear, Mr. Speaker, that I was in order this morning, not out of order. MR. FROESE: On a point of order, I was about to speak and I was ruled out of order as a result. I just wooder whether I would not have the right to speak on future occasions. MR. GREEN: Well, Mr. Speaker the question has been put and I would ask my honourable friend to give the same indulgence as I am giving.

There will be another report presented, at which time I am sure the honourable member would be able to fit in his remarks if I correctly assess the ingenuity of the honourable member. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend you on the manner in which you handled this problem. As I interpret it, you are not making a ruling on your own action, it's more of a correction. We certainly accept that and I would think that, by leave, when the motion comes up again, any honourable member who wishes to speak would be given some lati tude so that he could be heard. MR.

BILTON: Mr 0 Speaker, on behalf of those of us on this side of the House, we do ap preciate your comments and your ruling. We understand the dilemma that will develop from time to time in the cut and thrust of debate and we fully understand your thoughts and appreciate the opinion you've given which has been collected no doubt from a good deal of thought, and we on this side of the House, this party, agree with your conclusions conclusively. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR.

SPEAKER: I should like to direct the attention of the honourable members to the gal lery where we have with us 22 students of Grade 5 standing of Lansdowne School. These. students are under the direction of Miss Kreshkao This school is located in the constituency of

168 March 20, 1970 (MR. SPEAKER cont'd.) .... the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources and Com missioner of Northern Affairs. We also have 60 students of Grade 5 standing of the Centennial School, these students under the direction of Mr. Sawatsky, Mrs. Gaudin and Miss Morgan. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Youth and Education. And 35 students of Grade 8 standing of the Robert H . Smith School - I'm sorry, the Robert Smith School. These students are under the direction of Mr. Katazinski and Miss Michalski.

This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. On behalf of all the honourable members of the Legislative Assembly, I welcome you here today. PRIVATE MEMBERS' RESOLUTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. BEARD: Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the House I would- ask that I be allowed to withdraw this motion. I understand the Privileges and Elections report which has come be fore this one will allow me to speak and express my opinions. It is my understanding that my resolution is now out of order. Perhaps you could give a ruling on it. MR.

SPEAKER: I believe the honourable member is referring to the House Rules Com mittee rather than Privileges and Elections because that was the report which was filed. If the honourable member wishes my ruling, I would rule it out of order on that basis because it is anticipatory of a matter contained in the report. But the honourable member I understand is withdrawing the -- (Interjection) -- yes. (Agreed) The proposed resolution of the Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for LaVerendrye,

WHEREAS leading political figures in the Government party have made statements which have caused some unrest in the private enterprise sector; AND

WHEREAS from time to time business proprietors have publicly voiced concern, and indeed some have taken their industries out of the province; AND

WHEREAS if the present mood of uncertainty which exists in some quarters persists it will lead to loss of jobs, loss of taxes to the province, and curtailment of expansion in private industry, and also may prevent outside investment from coming in; THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government issue a clear statement of intention and policy with respect to this government's relationship with the private enterprise sector; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this statement would list the industries which would be free of government intervention and those industries which would be subject to govern ment take -over or control. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I'll like to raise a question of propriety in the resolution. I, on the point of order, Mr.

Speaker, would like to have your ruling that the proposed resolu tion is not in order, and in making this submission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear to the honourable member and to the members of the House generally that the government has no sensitivity about discussing this matter. There will be ample opportunity during the course of the proceedings of this Legislature to discuss the questions that are raised by the honourable member, and I therefore want to make it clear that it's not through not wishing a debate that I'm making this submission.

I make this submission on the basis that the resolution is not in fact a resolution such as is permitted by the rules of the House, and I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to an analagous resolution that was put last year by the Honourable Member for St. Vital relative to asking the government to make statements or make submissions or state its policy. A resolution is something on which the House resolves on.

There are various ways in which the honourable member has within the rules of the Legislature an opportunity to get an swers to the type of question he is asking, either on Orders of the Day, in which case a Minister would or would not be required to answer, or during the departmental estimates, or during a bill dealing with the subject matter or on a resolution stating a position. If the hon ourable member wishes to put a resolution that the government not involve itself in business and asks the House to resolve itself on that question, that would be a proper resolution.

If on the other hand the member wants to make a resolution that we do involve ourselves in business, that would be a resolve on which he could put a resolution. But this particular resolution, when

169 March 20, 1970 (MR. GREEN cont 'd.) .... given, does not resolve in any position being taken by the House. If a list was then prepared I suppose a resolution could be asked for another list. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you on the same grounds as you ruled last year that the Honourable Mem ber for St. Vital's resolution was out of order, and I would refer you to your ruling on that question and to the debate which took place on the point of order, that this resolution be ruled out of order. MR. G. JOHNSTON: On the same point of order, Mr.

Speaker, with all deference to the House Leader, it seems to me that this argument is against having a debate on the subject. He mentions the fact that this could be handled before the Orders of the Day. Well, I don't see how a debate can take place before the Orders of the Day. A question can be asked, or two ques tions can be asked and then they can be answered and that's all, so I fail to see how it could be handled in that manner. -- (Interjection) -- The Minister of Finance says the Throne Speech.

Yes, it can be handled in the Throne Speech but not in the manner that I am suggesting it could be handled. -- (Interjection) -- There's no conclusion is right; there's no vote. Now, is not the idea of a Private Member's resolution is a method of putting forward a policy for discus sion, and through a discussion, an amendment or a vote, something is decided by the vote of the House. Mr.

Speaker, I contend, Sir, that this is a debate that is of interest to the people of this province, what the policies are of the government and what the policies are of the people in the opposition, and I think the only manner in which it can be handled is through a debate of this nature. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, obviously the honourable member did not understand me. I don't want to rule out a debate. I say that questions can be answered on Orders of the Day; if it's more than a question that you are seeking an answer to and you .... MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. MR.

GREEN: I'm just replying on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The:r;emaybe other members in the House who may wish to speak on this point of order. MR. WEffi: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't mind just saying a word or two, and I was attempt ing to do some homework before I did but I haven't had an opportunity to do that homework, Mr. Speaker. I think that there may very well at the last session have been a precedent along the same line.

It seems to me that I recall my colleague, the Member for Riel, introducing a resolution at the last session of the Legislature which was somewhat similar and which was ruled out of order. Now, Mr. Speaker, I haven't had an opportunity to do my homework; I was attempting to. My suggestion would be if there's any doubt in your mind that you take the op portunity and report on it at the next time we meet on Private Members so that it can be proper ly documented and so forth and no hasty decision being made. But I just seem to recall there being a precedent along the same lines. MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, in replying to my honourable friend I said the Member for St. Vital; it was the Member for Riel and the Leader of the Opposition is referring to the resolution that I intended to direct your attention to. let me say to the honourable member that I have no objection to debating this type of irrelevance. I can be just as astute as he is debating this kind of question, and if we wish to get into that type of debate he'll find me a will ing partner. What I am suggesting is that this resolution need not be put in order to have a debate.

You can resolve that the government not involve itself in private business; you can re solve that it do. This isn't the only resolution that we could bet will precipitate a debate. This resolution resolves itself into nothing. After the House has passed it, the House must then wait presumably for a government statement of policy which may be to the liking of the honour able members and which may not be, and therefore the question would not even be resolved in that respect. So I would ask you to look at the last year's resolution on this question. MR.

SPEAKER: I wish to thank the honourable members for their comments. I will take the matter under advisement and give my ruling thereon when the resolution next appears on the Order , Paper. The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, he is absent from the House at the moment. Can this mat ter stand? MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for LaVerendrye. MR. BARKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the indulgence of the House to have this matter stand. MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for Assiniboia.

170 March 20, 1970 MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for LaVerendrye,

WHEREAS at the last session of the Legislature on the lOth of October, 1969, this House unanimously approved the following resolution: ''WHEREAS the present Property Tax is imposing great financial hardships on many of our citizens, and

WHEREAS the burden of this tax falls most heavily on those on low and fixed incomes and people who are receiving Old Age Security pensions, THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government give consideration of enacting legislation to municipalities to exempt the first $2,000 of municipal assessment on the resi dence of an owner who is receiving Old Age Security pension and Old Age Supplement, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Provincial Government give consideration to the advisability of reimbursing to each municipality the equivalent amount lost to the municipalities by way of such exemptions." THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House now requests the government to act upon this unanimous decision. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I hope this point will facilitate the debate. I'm not trying to interfere again with my honourable friend, I just want to clear up an ambiguity. The resolution passed last year referred to the government giving consideration to the advisability of taking certain action because the effective part of the resolution dealt with matters affecting the Con solidated Revenue of the province.

If the honourable member is now moving that the House request the government to act, if his request for action is that we consider the advisability of acting, then the resolution would be in order; if the matter that the honourable member wishes to do is have this resolution mean implement the proposal, of course it would be out of order. Therefore, I would merely request that the honourable member make it clear as to whether he wants to move a redundant resolution. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the House Leader. I would like to change the operative part, "Therefore

be it resolved that the government consider the advisability of enacting legislation", with the leave of the House. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, may I request - and he's asking for leave may I request the honourable member whether he would consider merely deleting the first and last paragraphs so that we deal with the resolution that we dealt with last year, which would accomplish the honourable member's purpose. MR. PATRICK: I don't see any advantage in deleting it, but if this is the way I can get. .. MR. GREEN: .... if you do it this way. Mr.

Speaker, we merely ask the honourable member if he is merely moving that we consider the advisability then his last paragraph takes care of that, if you're asking for leave, we're prepared to do that and you'd be able to debate this afternoon. :MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, it just happens there's more members on this side and I feel if I try to proceed the way the resolution is, with the exception of "consider the advisability of", it will probably be voted down. I would like to get the debate on the floor and I will agree to change, with the leave of the House.

Remove the first paragraph and the last paragraph where it says: "Whereas at the last session of the Legislature on the lOth of October, 1969, this House unanimously approved the following resolution." -- (Interjection) --Yes, and the last paragraph. MR. GREEN: I'd like to point out that this doesn't inhibit my honourable friend from say ing that he did this at the last Legislature and making as big a point as he wants to of it. MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave? MR. McKENZIE: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order, if we eliminated the first paragraph, would that mean that the resolution of last year would then be out of order? MR. SPEAKER: No. Does the honourable member have leave? MR. BILTON: Mr. Speaker, before you proceed with this matter, I'm at a loss to under stand what the Leader of the House is driving at. What harm is there in having reference made to what happened in the last session when the resolution as a whole was approved at that time. MR.

GREEN: On a point of order, the Member for Assiniboia is indicating a willingness to proceed; I don't know why other members should be involved. It's his resolution. MR. WEffi: Mr. Speaker, we're prepared to give leave; we'll have our say on the motion.

March 20, 1970 171 MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member has leave then? (Agreed) The proposed reso lution of the Honourable the House Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. GREEN: The honourable member now wishes the question put so he can deliver his speech on Resolution No. 5. MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, after we have dispensed with the technicalities and the rules to comply with the House Leader's wishes, I wish to make my remarks and proceed.

As a matter of fact I was trying to help the government in bringing this resolution again to this House, because really what I'm trying to do, I don't want to see the government and the admin, istration accused of falsely lulling the populace during the election campaign that they were going to remove the exemption of $2, 000 on every household.

This is what they were telling the people, so as you recall at the last session of the House the House unanimously passed this resolution, and all I was trying to do at this time was to remind the government is to do some thing on it, to act on it so that we do not leave these people in the same position they are at the present time. I also wish at this time --I hope I don't have to bring the formula out because it seems some of the members on that side of the House at any time that one introduces something here, the question is asked, How are you going to pay for it or where are you going to raise the money ?

Now, Mr. Speaker, the way you are going to raise the money or how you are going to pay this, it doesn't take much money. As I explained last session of the House, it's a very small amount and I can tell the House Leader and the members on that side of the House, when they were on this side of the House, there's many instances on many occasions that they re quested the government at that time for many things and they did not produce a formula where the government was going to raise this type of revenue.

On the other hand, I'm sure the Hon ourable Member for North, Stanley Knowles, in the House of Commons, he asks the Govern ment of Canada for many many things and I'm sure he doesn't produce any formula or tells the government where it's going to raise this capital, so I hope this debate doesn't go in that direc tion because this is what started the other day. Mr. Speaker, we've been talking the other day and I would say if we can keep our industry in Manitoba and expand our industry in Manitoba, it will be quite simple and easy to raise this capital.

But getting back to the contents of the resolution, some two years ago there was an

article in the Tribune where soaring local taxes are costing some people their homes, and it was an

article by Val Werier on April 20, 1968 and he said: ''The case in point is where a modest one storey home inWinnipeg" - I'm quoting now - "in 1960 the taxes were $150. 00; in '67 it rose to $254; and this year to 357. All her costs are going up. It has been especially unfair to ex pect Mrs. M 's modest home to support the rising costs of government. It is unjust that 36 cents of every one of her cash dollars goes to education or 14 cents goes to Metro." And since that time, Mr. Speaker, there is not anything that has been done in respect of some of these people.

I feel that many of these people have worked their entire lives to have a home of their own, and probably this has been done with a great deal of sacrifice to themselves and their families. Now in their retirement they simply do not have sufficient income to pay the costs and the up keep of this house when the taxes are gradually rising every year, and I'm sure you're aware, Mr. Speaker, that just a few days ago the assessment on land in the Metropolitan area has been increased and again this year the property tax will have to be raised.

I think these people are really discouraged with the heavy tax load, when they thought they could retire with honour and decency, now finding themselves in very frustrating financial situations. But these are the reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I want to again insist that the government proceed to do something in this respect. I know that some of these people have not enough money to pay the fuel, the light bill, the tax bill, and some of them are forced to sell their homes and to look for different accommodation.

I've had this experience because I've had people come to see me, and I'm sure the Honourable Minister, the Attorney-General will con cur with me that there have been instances, I'm sure in the Council that they've had experience of people probably posing the same question to him. I'm not talking about every householder or owner; I'm talking about the people who are in need, the people who probably are already re ceiving some social, besides old age pension, receiving a supplement as well. I also feel that the property is not a fair basis for raising the revenue for education and other services; and, Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure that government front bench members will agree with me, because when they were on this side at that time they agreed with me, the whole

172 March 20, 1970 (MR. PATRICK cont'd.) .... House agreed with this resolution last fall I know that govern ments cannot do anything overnight but there has been time. I wish there would have been some mention made in the Throne Speech in this respect; I wish there would have been some sugges tion of a committee set up for a complete review of the tax situation in this province. This has not been done, Mr. Speaker, so I had no other course except to introduce this resolution.

I think, as I mentioned the supplement is sufficientproofthat these people need some im mediate relief in order to be able to continue to live in their own homes. Mr. Speaker, I also know the question will be posed: What about the people that are renting their suites? I know that this has been not incorporated within this resolution.

These people perhaps need some as sistance as well, but I think the immediate thing that we can do is probably have some relief for the people that are living in their own houses at the present time and all I'm asking for is a homestead exemption grant for the first $2, 000 of assessment. The other point, Mr. Speaker, I think we must remember that old age pensions are not keeping pace with the cost of living, despite the automatic indexing, and this I think has been reported in the newspapers in the most recent while on quite a few occasions.

I think that the figures indexing under the present system have proved to be inadequate means of protecting pensioners against inflation. I think it is our responsibility to our residents who are receiving old age pensions by giving some relief to these people and not forcing them out of their own homes. It think it also has been indicated just most recently, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of living again has gone up and I think that we must do something. We cannot afford to wait; we must do something immediately. Now again, Mr.

Speaker, may I say, I think the government can act on this immediately; they can act on this during this session of the House; and really what I'm trying to do, is trying to help the administration so that during the next election rtiey will not be accused of falsely lulling the populace with promises and then not keeping the promises. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Official Opposition. MR. WEffi: Mr. Speaker, I had originally anticipated in taking

part in this resolution, if in fact it was ruled in order, by indicating that our party's position would be found in last year's Hansard and that a repetition of debate that we've become accustomed to in opposition over the years wouldn't be necessary at this session of the Legislature. But, Mr.

Speaker, because of the petty position taken by the House Leader, I am going to enter the debate and I'm going to take the position that this motion should have been ruled out of order; it should have been ruled out of order on anticipation of what was contained in the Throne Speech, because as a result of accepting this resolution at the last session of the Legislature, the government at that time ac cepted the content of this resolution and the results of it should have been seen this year. The reason, Mr.

Speaker, the reason for an abstract resolution, or "give consideration to the advisability or•, is because a member on this side of the House doesn't have the means of getting a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, the only reason for that phrase "give consideration to the advisability or•. But, Mr.

Speaker, when the government of the day votes for a resolution, when the results of this House are unanimous, it means that there is a unanimous view in te1·ms of the subject matter of the resolution; it means that the government of the day has accepted, has accepted in principle, and that they who have the ability to get that message from His Honour will, at the earliest opportunity, present legislation to this House, or a program to this House which can be implemented.

Now in terms of the picayune objection to the resolution that was taken by my friend the House Leader, may I point out, Sir, if we want to just deal with nothing but whether or not it's in order, let's have a look at what was on the Order Paper before the motion was moved, which was subsequently changed by leave because it was the only way the Member for Assiniboia could talk about it. It talked about it having been unanimously approved at the last session and it also said, "Be it resolved that the House now requests the government to act upon its unanimous decision. But what was the decision, Mr. Speaker?

What was that decision? That decision was to "give consideration to the advisability or• - "give consideration to the advisability or• reimbursing to each municipality the equivalent amount to the municipalities by way of the exemptions. So in effect, Mr. Speaker, contained within the last paragraph of that resolution was the same qualification as existed at the last session, and may I say, Sir, that the objection that was taken by the government was petty and picayune. As far as I'm concerned it is a means of attempting, attempting to get around the fact that they did accept in principle and that they

March 20, 1970 173 (MR. WEm cont'd.) •.•. didn't have contained in the Throne Speech at this session of the Legislature the obligation that they accepted when they voted for this resolution last year. May I say, Sir -may I say, Sir, that I expect to see at this session of the Legislature duplicates, absolutely duplicates of the situation that we find ourselves in at the moment. And may I say that I think that the government look again, look again at the procedures that make up the pre sentation of government mem~rs' resolutions.

If they don't agree with it and don't agree with presenting a message then they shouldn't vote, they shouldn't vote for the resolution .•.. MR. ENNS: That would be politically unwise. MR. WEm: .... because the wording of that resolution is specifically, specifically be cause a message from His Honour can't be granted to members on this side of the Chamber. So, Mr.

Speaker, without going into the details, the Member for Assiniboia did that, but in terms of the petty and picayune position that was taken by the Leader of the House on this specific matter and in terms of the fact that they really accepted in principle the fact that they would do something about the decision that was made at this session of the Legislature last year, I'm just a little more than concerned at the attitude and the understanding that friends opposite have about their responsibilities. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, I am entering the debate at this time merely to indicate a difference of opinion between the government and the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition as to the meaning of the phrasing of an abstract resolution. I think the basic difference be tween us is that the Leader of the Opposition appears to say that the words mean more than what they say and our position is that they mean exactly what they say. It's as simple as that.

I know that it was the position of the previous administration to feel that they had to vote against every private member's resolution that asked the government to consider the advisability of taking certain measures. It is our view, Mr. Speaker, and we intend to proceed in this way despite the admonitions -- (Interjection) -- well, Mr. ~aker, we say that it means exactly what it says. The government is charged by the constitutional framework under which we operate as being the only agency which can bring in legislation affecting the treasury.

The government is in a position of considering numerous matters which would affect the treaS\11"Y and it is in the position of having to choose priorities between ·certain matters and other mat ters, and when a private member, any private member asks that the government consider the advisability of seeing whether certain things can be done, the government is going to do ex actly what the private member asks if it sees fit to make that type of investigation, and the resolution that was passed last year, despite what my honourable friend the Leader of the Op position wants to say about it, indicated that there was a problem relative to certain people and real property taxes and it asked that consideration be given to a manner of dealing with this.

And let me advise my honourable friend that this matter has been considered in accordance with the unanimous resolution of the House as passed last year and the government in con sidering its total program and in considering its priorities, delivered a Speech from the Throne which indicated its position with respect to certain matters and I don't think that in ariy way de tracts from the private member's resolution which was put forward and, as my honourable friend says, unanimously passed.

Now I can't for the life of me understand my honourable friend's chagrin at what we have asked be done to make this resolution in order. Surely my honourable friend would agree that on a private member's resolution, whether passed by the House or not, the government is not authorized to spend money from the public treasury and therefore the government has to give consideration to the advisability of doing just that.

May I say that we have considered the advisability and the government program will be announced in due course, but in the meantime we see no objection, and indeed that is what we said, that the honourable member put his resolution forward again. But in doing all these things, and as my honourable friend who was the head of the government knows full well, I am sure that his government considered the ad visability of taking some measures that they wanted to take but couldn't because of their scheme of priorities.

Now any government has the same prerogative of considering its entire scheme of priorities, and this is one of the things that we considered and we are prepared to make our position as to how it will be done this year. But certainly last year, when we unanimously passed this resolution, we were prepared to do no more and no less than what the resolution said, and I really don't understand my honourable friend suggesting that the resolution means

174 March 20, 1970 (MR. GREEN cont'd.) .... something other than what it says. I have had in the course of my legal experience some experience at trying to interpret the wording of documents, and some times it is ambiguous; sometimes it can mean one thing and sometimes it can mean another thing; but even the most dextrous of lawyers couldn't get these words to mean other than what they say, that the government consider the advisability of doing something. Mr.

Speaker, re gardless of the position that was taken by my honourable friends when they sat over here, and I for one could never understand it - moved resolutions in which we asked they consider the ad visability of taking certain steps and they always saw fit to vote against them. I don't know why you people voted against them because they were asking for consideration. Well I am advising my honourable friend that we are going to react differently.

If a private member moves a resolution -- (Interjection) -- Well it doesn't surprise anybody, it doesn't surprise anybody in this province and they wanted apparently a different type of reaction and they made their views felt.

And I don't want to keep reminding you of it, but the fact is that when I sat in opposition and we moved this type of resolution, I can tell my honourable friend that I couldn't understand why the government couldn't say and didn't say: Well, we might not be able to do this thing but we are certainly prepared to consider the advisability of doing it within our scheme of priorities and let the resolution go. Now that's all we did last year, and Mr.

Speaker, I can tell you that if private members wish to move resolutions which make some sense and which deserve government consideration, this government is going to consider them, but that's it. In the last analysis, in the last analy sis, Mr.

Speaker, in the last analysis in determining the government program, we are going to tell you in the last analysis when considering the government's program -and my honourable friend knows this full well and other peoplfi! who have held ministerial responsibility know it full well - that there are many things that they have to consider, but then they have to come down with a government program and passing a private member's resolution that something will be considered doesn't give that priority in the government program.

And we are saying that now, and if that bothers my honourable friend then I say that we are going to operate a little dif ferently than what they operated when they were in the government. Mr. Speaker, I don't know how I can elaborate on what I have said other than to repeat that we will interpret the resolution for what it means and not for what my honourable friend says that it should mean, and that's the way we propose to proceed. MR. WEm: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister permit a question? Are you going to sup port the resolution? MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, I indicated that the position that the government will take on the resolution will be made by other persons during the debate. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Would the Minister permit another question, Mr. Speaker? Could the last speaker tell us why the government, after having considered this very carefully, de cided to reject it? MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, I didn't indicate that the government rejected it and I indicated that the government position vis-a-vis the resolution and vis-a-vis our consideration would be made during debate and during other proceedings that will take place during the House such as the budget speech debate and the estimates. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I really hadn't intended to speak on the motion at this time but I honestly believe that having heard the ulto sotto tone of the lawyer opposite, my learned friend -- I don't know whether he hails from Pennsylvania but there is a reference to the legal language as being Pennsylvanian from time to time when you can't really understand it. Now the masterful approach, Mr.

Speaker, the masterful approach that my honourable friend took in this particular case, was his language was in fact so simple and on the surface so understand ing by all of us that really, really the message, the true message that he was in fact portraying, I'm afraid was lost upon some of us. And what in fact was the true message, Mr. Speaker? Mr.

Speaker, the message was that that government on that side, astute as they have shown us lately to be in things political - and let me assure my honest friend that I'm a political animal and I'm proud of being a political animal and I take no objections or make no apologies for being a politician -- (Interjection) --No adjectives necessary. However, I appreciate what's going on in this little interplay right now.

What he is es sentially saying, and I don't have to make any long speech about this, is that they want to reserve for .themselves the right to be onside with the angels at all times with all resolutions that come

March 20, 1970 175 (MR. ENNS cont'd.) .... into this House. If my learned friend from Roblin will introduce in the House tomorrow guaranteeing the farmers $3.00 per bushel of wheat and an open quota tomorrow, they'll vote for it.

Certainly the Minister of Agriculture would be because I'm sure he would like to "consider the advisability of." And if the Member from 8\van River, you know, votes for a resolution for a $5.00 minimum wage I'm sure we'll all vote for it, because after all there are people, you know, people in the gallery, and there's too few of them, there are people outside this Chamber reported to by the news media, who honestly believe, Mr.

Speaker -- you know we haven't arrived at that stage of irony although we're getting close to it and that stage of cynicism in our society -- that there are people that believe that when we do or take certain actions in this Chamber, that in fact we perhaps are serious about them or that in fact we are serious about carrying them out.

I haven't in this short time taken any attempt to research the number of resolutions that have been unanimously passed in this session that have been acted upon, usually of the nature of investigating or initiating an advisory group, I think of some of the initial studies that the House unanimously agreed to for instance to perhaps investigate the hog marketing situation in Manitoba. This was unanimously agreed to; a com mittee was set up and the government of the day accepted it and action flowed forth from that particular point. A MEMBER: Tell us about the potato market, Harry. MR.

ENNS: There were resolutions of that kind too that the government of the day either accepted or rejected. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is very callous, a very deceitful approach that my learned friend the Honourable Member for Inkster is proposing to this House. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, does my honourable friend really want to use the word "deceitful"? MR. ENNS: Well, Mr. Speaker, .... MR. JORGENSON: That's about as mild as he can get. MR. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I withdraw the word because I have mellowed in the intervening stage of our last getting together, living as I have a peaceful life of semi-retirement in the Hidden Valley Ranch north of Woodlands with nothing_ but a few hogs and a few cattle to keep my mind busy, and of course looking after my c mstituency to the best of my ability. The relief of the burden of office is no longer on my shoulders, so that while perhaps in the last session I was a little up tight about certain things I enjoy this coming session, I'm going to enjoy all of it; and I gladly withdraw the word "deceitful".

Distasteful is not too far wrong in that case either if it meets with the honourable member's approval. A MEMBER: Still pretty salty. MR. ENNS: Still pretty salty. But I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the situa tion, consider the advisability of the fact that it brings so much of the debates that we would be holding and having on private mem'Jers' resolutions to naught.

It would be really a sham exer cise that we would be going through because after all if the resolution hasn't got some kernel of responsibility in it in terms of its feasibility of being carried out' or not, the government of the day has to have the guts, Mr. Speaker -- and that's the only word I can say -- they have to have the guts to say no, I'm sorry at this stage of our development or this day and age we can not accept that resolution.

On the other hand, one would hope, which is something that we never got when these honourable gentlemen were on this side, that they had some responsibility in the manner in which the kind of resolutions that they brought forward, that they recognized what was possible, what was in the realms of possibility, within the financial framework, with in the economic framework, within the social framework of our province. A MEMBER: You're dead right, boy. MR. ENNS: Now, I can assure you, Mr.

Speaker, and I want to assure the Honourable House Leader of the New Democratic Party, of this administration, that he will not be getting irresponsible resolutions from this side of the House.

The kind of resolutions that he will be getting from this side of the House are the ones that we, as you refer to yourself in addressing our Leader, we have had some recent experience in the responsibilities of having to choose priorities, having to do those things that can be done, that we will certainly exercise every restraint or every degree of responsibility in our framing, in our thinking of resolutions, that these be the kind of resolutions that we honestly and sincerely believe can be put forward before this Chamber, and then can be either accepted or rejected by yourselves. But, Mr.

Speaker, if all we're going to go through is an exercise of them, if they think the resolution is good and if it's got a little bit of political schmaltz in it, that they're going to be with us, well forget it. We might as well be spending our time on the hustings, Mr. Speaker.

176 A MEMBER: When do you want to go? MR. ENNS: Tomorrow. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. March 20, 1970 MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we're not debating the resolution itself, we're just debating the matter of implementation of the resolution. I do not have any intention of debating the resolution over again, one that has already been passed and accepted by this House; but it seems to me that there are one or two points that I should raise regardless, and that is that the resolution as it is contains a double means test for those that will be getting it.

First of all a person has to be in receipt of old age security pension or old age supplementary aid; and secondly they then have to own property and find it difficult to maintain it. So why not just go ahead and give a tax rebate to all the people of Manitoba, all the homeowners. This would be a lot more sensible; this is what some of the western provinces are doing at the present time -- (Interjection) -- No, I think Saskatchewan and Alberta are both in it now. --(Interjection) -- Oh yah, British Columbia for sure. They're the leaders.

In fact they're increasing their homeowner grant by $10.00 and making it $160.00 this year. And apparently from what the honourable member introducing this resolution says that this would roughly be $100.00 per homeowner, to those homeowners that would be applicable under the resolution. I for one will not hesitate to support the resolution again but I feel that it could be im proved upon. MR. SPEAKER put the question. MR. FOX: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre, debate be adjourned. MR.

SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. . . . . continued on next page

March 20, 1970 177 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party. stand, MR. BARKMAN: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my Leader, could we have this matter and the rest in his name if it's possible? MR. SPEAKER: (Agreed). Proposed resolution. The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. GILDAS MOLGAT (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye,

WHEREAS economic development must have the highest priority in Manitoba to provide job opportunities for our people, improve our standard of living and broaden the provincial tax base, and

WHEREAS the Report of the Commission on Targets for Economic Development analyzed the Manitoba economy and established objectives to be reached by 1980, and

WHEREAS the four main recommendations in the

chapter entitled "Organization for Development" were: 1. Creation of a new Standing Committee on Economic Development in the Manitoba Legislature. 2. Appointment of a high level Advisory Council on Economic Development drawn from the private sector. 3. Establishment in Ottawa of an office of Manitoba Economic Affairs. 4. Development of an applied technical and economic research capability for industry in a new institute. AND

WHEREAS the government has acted only on the first recommendation, THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that given the urgent need for development in Manitoba this House urge the government to consider the advisability of implementing the remaining three recommendations of the TED Commission. MR. SPEAKER: Moved by the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose, seconded by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye,

WHEREAS economic development must have the highest priority in Manitoba . . . Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, when the report of the Commission on Targets for Economic Development was tabled in this House some two years ago, we asked the then gov ernment for a statement of policy as to whether or not they adopted this report, and whether or not they were prepared to proceed on it. At that time I urged the government to move on these four points.

Because these are the ones recommended by the TED Commission as the basis for organizing ourselves to reach the targets of 1980. If we are going to reach those targets-- and they are ambitious targets, lets face it. They were targets that, as was indicated by the Minister of the day, were beyond just what we would reach by following a straight line projection. They were really targets that involve an even greater effort. Now if you are going to reach these type of targets, then I think that the first thing you have to do is organize yourself to hit those targets.

At that time we had some difficulty in getting a com mitment from the then government as to whether or not they agreed. However, since then we've had a change of government.

At the last session, we de bated this partly, and I was not at that point overly insistent that the government declare it's policy because it had been newly elected, and while some of the members have had the opportunity of seeing the report and reading it, I don't think we could have expected the admin istration to arrive at a final conclusion as to their view of the TED report, their view of its practibility, and what policy the government was going to follow.

I think, however, that the time has now come where we must have from the government a elear-cut statement whether or not they support the TED goals as being realistic and achieveable; and if so, then what steps they will take to see to it that our economy does reach those goals. The government has moved on one of the recommendations, and that is the establish ment of a Standing Committee of this House on Economic Affairs and the committee has met. I commend the government for that.

I suppose the Minister will tell me that they have acted on the second one, and that's the appointment of a high level advisory council on economic development. I suspect that that will be the Minister's answer. I submit though, Mr. Speaker, that the committee that was established is not exactly what was recommended by the TED Report, because one of the vital factors there is drawn from the private sector; and as I recall the establishment of the committee by the government the key individual is a govern ment civil servant, the Special Assistant to the Premier, and hence not at arms length from

178 March 20, 1970 (MR. MOLGAT cont'd) .•••• the government. And I think that the purpose of tb.e TED recommendation was really to have a body outside of government. Not under the thumb of any Minister; not under the thumb of the Premier or anyone in the Cabinet or government itself, but an outside body able to judge independently the performance of government and able to make recommendation free from any government interference. I think that this was the purpose of the TED recommendation in this regard. And I know, Mr.

Speaker, I know full well how govern ments are hesitant to establish those sort of bodies, because you're always concerned as to what they are going to come out with; when they are an independent group without any control from the government what might they say. We even had one here some time ago, Mr. Speaker, the Economic Council of Manitoba which came out and said some nasty things about the then government. It even said at one stage what the government was saying about our development was really matched by the actual facts and this commission pretty soon disappeared.

The first steps taken by the then govern ment was to first of all decide that the report was to be no longer published before the House met or during the House sessions. -- (Interjection) - Oh that was the administration that precaded you. They then decided the report be published sometime in July. They made sure 1hat the members of the House wouldn't have 1t available for debates in the House and for real analysis in depth of what was going on. And then the next step was to completely disband the body.

The Chairman was shipped off to Africa, I think, and the remainder of the group never met again. --(Interjection)-- yes he's come back-- (Interjection)-- he's come back and he's reappointed now with the government and I have high regard for the gentleman. I think he's a very capable msn. But I think that lf this committee is going to do its job, that it must be at arms length from the government. And I repeat, I know how dlfflcult it is for the Minister to accept that, because you never know what they might say. But surely, if we're going to have a useful body, then I think they must have that independence.

I think that the members of the House, lrregardiess of what side they sit on, would like to have knowledge that the record of 1he government, the work of the admlnlstration is being looked at independently by someone from an economic standpoint; and that what comes into us is not in any way subject to govern ment interference. So I submit that point number two really has not been acted upon by the government. Insofar as the other two, I know of no direct action taken either to fulfill them or to pretend that they are being fulfilled. So, Mr.

Speaker, I come back to my opening point, that is that the government has now had time to assess the TED Report. Development in Manitoba is a crying need from many standpoints. The provision of jobs for our people, first of all. To stop the outflow of our trained people to other provinces. To build up our province; to provide us with a tax base to proceed with the reforms that we want to see to make a better life for people in Manitoba. And so in this area, the Minister has a major responsibility, seeing to it that development proceeds. Mr.

Speaker, I think that the Mlnlster now must tell the House exactly what is the government's position on the TED Report. Does it accept it or does it reject it? If it accepts it, how is the government proposing to proceed to hit these goals? The TED Report said these are the four basic steps required for 1he organization -- not to achieve this but just to org:mize to achieve it. I'd like to hear from the Mlnlster whether he is now prepared to proceed on these four steps or whether he rejects what the TED Commission recommended and what he then proposes as an alternatl ve. MR.

SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I would move that the debate be adjourned, seconded by the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: It was drawn to my attention at a moment when I was unable to bring 1h1s matter to the attention of the House that we had with us in the Speaker's loge, the Honour able Mr. Drury, President of the Treasury Board, and I'm quite certain that Mr. Drury would like to hear, that he was certainly most welcome in our chamber th1s afternoon.

The Honour able Member for La Verendrye. MR. BARKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the indulgence of the House to have th1s one and number twelve stand . . . please. MR. SPEAKER: Could we deal with eight? MR. BARKMAN: Eight and number twelve. MR. SPEAKER: (Agreed). The proposed resolution. The Honourable Member for Assinlboia.

March 20, 1970 179 MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Indulgence of the House to have this matter stand. MR. SPEAKER: (Agreed). The proposed resolution. The Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party. That is Number 10. MR. G. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Assinlboia,

WHEREAS the Provincial Governmeflt recently decided to withdraw financial assistance which allowed children of families receiving welfare to attend universities and technical schools, AND

WHEREAS this decision will effectively halt any means to obtain higher education for these children, AND

WHEREAS education is the key to breaking the generation-to-generation welfare cycle, AND

WHEREAS it has long been held by all that no child should be denied an education because of the financial inability of the parents, THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of Manitoba consider the advisa bility of reinstituting l!lld expanding financial assistance to those families requiring this type of assistance. MR. SPEAKER: Moved by the Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party, seconded by the Honourable Member for Assiniboia,

Whereas the Provincial Government • • . Are you ready for the question? MR. GREEN: On a point of order. I would ask that this resolution be ruled out of order in that it anticipates government action as outlined in the Speech from the Throne.

And I refer Your Honour to that portion of the Speech from the Throne which I am reading from in Votes and Proceedings on Page 7: "Larger appropriations will be sought for education gener ally, including specific provision including student financial aid, technical training assistance, and for those who require special effort to overcome basic literacy skills and orientation handicaps." And then more specifically, the next paragraph: "Steps will be taken to provide students 18 years or over with an equitable assistance program for the vocational and or post secondary education. MR.

SPEAKER: I wish to thank the Honourable the House Leader for drawing to the attention of the House the contents of the Speech from the Throne, and on that basis, I would rule ... MR. GREEN: Just before the matter is ruled out of order, I believe in the past there has been a practice that perhaps the resolution stands on the Order Paper until we come to this area, and I would have no objection to that taking place. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Indulgence of the House to have this matter stand. MR. SPEAKER: (Agreed). The proposed resolution. The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. MOLGAT: Mr.

Speaker, I am not prepared this afternoon to speak an this one, but I would be prepared to go back and introduce the resolution regarding the Estate Tax if the House is so Inclined. MR. GREEN: I would ask the honourable member to note that the Minister of Finance, who I'm sure he would want to hear his submission is not here. He would have wanted to hear you if. .. MR. MOLGAT: Then maybe I will stand both, Mr. Speaker, in that case. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member wishes this to stand. (Agreed). Proposed Resolution, The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. BARKMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I'm mixing up the numbers here. I imagine .•• MR. SPEAKER: Resolution No. 12. MR. BARKMAN: Oh, I'm sorry. Could I have the indulgence of the House to have that matter stand? (Agreed). MR. SPEAKER: Proposed Resolution. The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, I ask to have this matter stand? (Agreed). MR. SPEAKER: Proposed Resolution of the Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party. Resolution No. 14. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I was prepared for two other resolutions today which I was unable to proceed with.

I would ask the indulgence of the House to have this matter stand. (Agreed).

180 March 20, 1970 (MR. G. JOHNSTON cont'

d) WHEREAS under the present Municipal Act in Manitoba every village having a popula- . tion of 500 or more persons must appoint a constable, and

WHEREAS the cost of such police protection is beyond the financial ability of many such small communities, THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the government consider the advisability of pro viding financial assistance to such communities. MR. SPEAKER: Moved by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye, seconded by the Honourable Member for ste. Rose . • . Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. BARKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm endeavouring to present a resolution to relieve, or release, possibly better said relieve some of the iniquities, if that word is a little bit too positive, to relieve a rather heavy load of taxation on many small communities.

I think perhaps its also in order at this time to see at least some of the ministers in the House while private members day perhaps gives them a little bit of a chance to do some of their own work, but I know not too many months ago where some of the members were quite skeptical about the ather government members not being present, so I'm happy we have as many as we have. I would like to Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think there's no question in the minds of anyone here today that this law exists. It is definitely in the Municipal Act, and I am rather inclined to think that it is a good law. I think also, Mr.

Speaker, it doesn't really matter if it was the former government, which I don't think it was, or the one previous to that one, makes any law, very often we find that laws are being made, but it's pretty hard to tell mun icipalities, tell communities that you should go out and spend X number of dollars when the provincial government is not ready to provide these dollars. And while this is a bad philos ophy, I must admit that I still like to see the fact that this law does exist, that communities of 500 or more shall have a constable or a policeman. But, Mr.

Speaker, some of the com munities are hardly in a position to do some of the things that governments ask municipalities or communities to do. And I think, Mr. Speaker, it bolls down to plain dollars and cents; it also bolls down to, are many of our communities really able to do this even if they know they should and perhaps must do just that. And also, Mr. Speaker, it bolls down to communities or municipalities not having the right material or the type of people qualified to do a good policeman or constable's job, because again there aren't even facilities leave alone that monies are not available.

I think perhaps this is something that does not necessarily go with the resolution but to some extent it does, because even if a municipality or a community would have the money to spend to have some of their policemen trained, the training facilities are just not available in Manitoba.

I realize that the City of Winnipeg has done a lot of municipalities favours by training some of their policemen and done a good job, but I think the type of training needed for some of the real rural policemen can be a little bit different, although I'm sure that all the municipalities are indeed grateful for the help that the City of Winnipeg has given. In the last six months or so the federal government has provided some financial help to some of the police training; I believe the location is at Lethbridge, Alberta. I know that some of the policemen that have gone down received some fine training.

But even if the money were available, it seems that we have not the facilities and it's perhaps hard to understand, Mr. Speaker, to some of the urban MLA's here of the type of communities I am speaking of- speaking of communities, many of them having perhaps a half million or a million dollar assessment and not any great amount, but they're more or less in the quarter million to a million dollar assessment bracket, and this could quite easily mean in quite a few cases that a singular taxpayer is paying up to 10 and even up to 15 and over - up to 15 mills for police protection.

Surely we ali realize that police protection becomes very expensive and a very high cost of the total amount of taxes paid. But with the same breath I'd like to suggest these same small communities have to have good protection; we all know this. This is perhaps the thing that's so very important, so very vital to many of our small communities. It seems to be a battle of who is going to get the home for the aged centre or who is going to get that certain school or recreational centre or whichever it may be, and 1t becomes a battle of who is going to exist amongst the smaller communities.

I think we're all very much aware that the police are very essential to the growth of any community especially that size and I'm sure we could talk of any size. We've seen that in

March 20, 1970 181 (MR. BARKMAN cont'd) ..... Montreal, New York and other places; there is no question as far as that is concerned. But if they aren't, especially in these small communities, it doesn't take long for shady events such as theft and drugs, sex and many other things that one could mention, it doesn't take long that they just get to a point where they're out of control, and surely, surely these towns and these villages and communities that are battling to hang on to that status quo . . . HON. AL MACKLING, Q. C. (Attorney-General)(St. James): Would the honourable member yield to a question? in this.

MR. BARKMAN: Yes, go ahead. MR. MACKIJNG: It seems to me I heard that there was great sex problems involved MR. BARKMAN: That was your main question, Mr. Speaker? MR. MACKIJNG: No, I have many more. A MEMBER: He's against it. MR. BARKMAN: This, of course, is a matter of how you would like to read it between the lines, Mr. Minister. But it is important that these villages would like to keep their status quo or their so-called stature if you will and this battle becomes quite a battle as many of the rural members know.

I think I could mention here that I have about four or five villages in my constituency that come under this category of half a million to a million dollars assessment and it really becomes an expensive part as far as their tax dollars are concerned. Protection is becoming just too expensive to really have the type of protection that you wish and many of them have at this time perhaps a constable working a couple of hours a day, and this is just not good enough because some of the professional thieves that operate are prone to go to these small cum:rmmlties. They know that this is easy pickings.

These cnmmunities just can't afford to have a constable on duty a couple of hours a day, and surely nobody would expect that a constable can work around the clock, can work twenty-four hours a day; but this just seems to be the case in many instances.

I have another village in my constituency, and I'm sure that I'm talking of communities similar to what many of you have in your constituencies, one with a population of about 800 people, has fortunately a little higher assessment, about three-quarter million dollars, but they find it very hard to try and pay the cost of maintenance of a car and the cost of a policeman. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that perhaps there are some thoughts, some of you thinking, well what about the revenues? Surely there must be some income.

Well I don't think that the revenues of these small communities are large enough to even mention.

I think that we all know that most of these revenues are provincial revenues that come under the Highway Traffic Act, or perhaps I should mention ~orne others, but I don't think it's necessary; although I did appreciate, I think it was last Tuesday night when I heard the Honourable Minis ter, the Attorney-General, concerning some of the narcotics problems that have arisen in Manitoba, when he mentioned- I think it was on Channel 7 last Tuesday and I'm sure he'll remember - when he said to the news media that the question of prosecution of narcotics came up he said that he felt that it was the duty of the federal government to pay these costs involved as far as the narcotics situation, or at least part of these costs he mentioned.

And I certainly -- legal costs the Honourable Member for Swan Lake Says-- Swan River-- it could be, I forget just what the matter was on. But the principle established is this: naturally the reve nues here go to the federal government where many of the revenues, or the few revenues I should say from the communities, derived from fines and the like, well they're not very big and I don't think the province's are very big either but certainly a lot more than those that these communities receive.

So I woold like to just let the Minister know that I certainly agree with the principle that when you are told to -- or when the monies go to a different government than the local government or the provincial government in this case, the principle that if you tell somebody and if you work with a certain law that surely you don't mind that the one that is receiving the revenue should be looking after, and I think it's the case with communities. Mr.

Speaker, I think I should not go into a long wording or array of trying to convince this Assembly that our juvenile delinquency or adult crime is increasing; I think we're all aware of this. I just don't feel that I want to speak at length on any of that because I think a lot of things sometimes should not be sald about crime because some of the people that are involved in it seem to take a pride in being criminals and I certainly don't want to encourage any of

182 March 20, 1970- (MR. BARKMAN cont'd) •••. those. But I would like to say that I think we're all aware that not only juvenile delinquency- and I could mention juvenile delinquency as far as the increase. I just took the last D. B.S. figures of 1967. They were on the increase from 5. 2 percent over 1966 and I don't know the exact percentage of adult crime, but I know this, there was a report not too long ago from the City of Winnipeg that nine percent of juveniles involved yearly with law; and ano1her

article out of the Free Press on the same date......: this one happened to be the Tribune -- "High Delinquency Rate Seen Here." And while we might want to brag in the country that we don't have so much of this, we have enough of it and per haps the percentage isn't that much smaller than they have in the city. I think that these are things that we should take into consideration, especially a lot of this petty crime that's going on and does certainly employ a lot of time either by a constable or a policeman. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I think it boils down to where we fiild out that a lot of these com munities are just not in a financial position to really afford the type of police protection that they should have. I don't wish to say, nor don't believe for a minute or claim that helping the communities with financial aid will do everything, but I certainly think it is a step in the right direction. Because, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in anyone's mind, I'm sure in this whole Legislature, that we know that crime is increasing both with adults and juveniles and I think that we've got to take a serious look at this.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I have tried to bring out a few points. I think to conclude with I'd just like to repeat again that the communities of 500 or over population must have a constable, must have a policeman, regardless who pays for it. I think I'd also bring out again, I believe it is a good law, I'm not saying it's not a good law, I just say that a lot of them can't afford it.

I've tried to bring this out that good police protection is the lifeblood of nearly every community; and when you think of the high cost of up to 10 and 15 mills that it will cost some of the communities this is a very high rate of protection; and I think I've perhaps made this clear enough that most of the revenues do not go to the communities and there just isn't any money.

And when we know that crime is on the increase as it is and these communities need financial aid or financial help, not only perhaps in just the financial help, even maybe setting up certain facilities for training, I hope that this resolution will get support from all the mem bers in this House and especially from those members that are on the government side. And my last plea is if this government, even including the Member for Elmwood, I hope I can also have his support on this resolution •.• MR. DO ERN: How many tanks would you like? MR.

BARKMAN: • . . and I would like to make a last plea just in case the government should not see fit to take immediate action. I do hope though that they will begin by at least giving a $5.00 or $10. 00 grant per capita to these people to help uphold this law and order because we all know it is badly needed. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a qtiestion of the member please? How come you arrived at 500? MR. BABY~: That's under the Municipal Act, it's 500 and over. I'm not sure, is it

section 363? I'm not sure of the section. This is the Municipal Act. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. BILTON: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the comments of the Honourable Member for La Verendrye and I compliment him for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. Unfortunately for society today we do have a serious problem. It's serious enough in the City of Winnipeg as each and every one knows, but I'm sorry to say that it's becoming much more prevalent than it has been in the past in our rural communities.

I notice that our court every week has a full roster of cases covering a whole 500 mile area. And whilst we have something in the neighbourhood of around 16 mounted policemen located in Swan River, four of them are assigned to the community, which costs a community of 4, 000 people, if you believe it, Mr. Speaker, something in the neighbourhood of $25, 000 to $30, 000 a year. And this is a great deal more than that community can afford, but nevertheless those men must be there. The other eight or ten are provided for policing in the rural parts of the constituency and are paid for by the province.

Throughout that constituency are some five or six communities and as and when a call comes from a plac.e such as Birch River, which is some 40 miles from Swan River, the policemen must go from Swan River to Birch River and then beyond that, Mr. Speaker, to Mafeking, and then we have the Indian Reserve at Shoal River or Pelican Rapids

March 20, 1970 183 (MR. BILTON cont'd) •...• which is a further 20 miles, some 80 miles before he gets to the scene of the crime on call, and that area without a telephone other than the radio communi cation which has in the past not proved readily available. So I say there is a problem and crime is on the upswing. The Attorney-General doesn't require any comments from me in that direction. Our area is being plagued. It's nothing new to have in the community businesses four and five break-ins a week, and this, Sir, is becoming quite prevalent. What the answer is I don't know.

Ten miles to Minltonas they hire a constable at a great deal of expense to a community of 300 people. And, Sir, I can assure you that those people can ill afford to pay for that policeman under the present circum stances; and he's only an ordinary type of fellow who doesn't know his rights and privileges as a peace officer. In other words, they are very limited and quite often, more often than not, when he gets into difficulty he calls for the mounted police, which is as he should do, and they have to come ten miles to his ald, and I don't have to tell you what might happen in the mean time.

So I'm glad this resolution is before the House and I would hope that the Attorney General will give it the serious thought, as I am sure he will, in bringing some relief to these communities in order to bring some semblance of order in rural Manitoba which he knows as well as I do, crime is on the increase. In days gone by or when police forces commenced, years and years and years ago, communities would choose one of their men and give him the necessary authority and when trouble broke they would gather around him and help to correct that situation. Maybe we're going to have to get back to that.

Maybe the public purse cannot meet the commitments that may be required or desired to curb this unfortunate situation that is developing throughout the province. I don't know what the answer is but maybe the Attorney General having given it some thought may give us some confidence in the future and certainly financial help, if financial help is the answer, to communities such as outlined by the Honour able Member for La Verendrye which stretch from north to south and east to west throughout this province. MR. SPEAKER put the question. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR.

MACKLING: I would move that the debate on this motion be adjourned. MR. SPEAKER: Seconded by? MR. MACKLING: Seconded by the Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried, MR. SPEAKER: I believe we have reached the end of the Order Paper. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, the Order Paper has been exhausted. Perhaps, since we do have a moment I would confirm informal arrangements which might make next week a little people can plan a little more in advance.

It seems to be the consensus that we meet next Thursday all day, that is not in the evening, morning and afternoon, and that we take off Friday and come back on Monday. I take that to be the unanimous disposition of the House and I'm suggesting that I make the announcement now so that people can make their arrange ments for next weekend. It appears to be agreed, Mr. Speaker; otherwise we've exhausted the Order Paper and I would •.. MR. SPEAKER: For the information of the House may I ask the House Leader what would be the order of business on the Thursday? MR. GREEN: It would be a government day.

That's my understanding with the hon ourable members opposite. -- (Interjection) -- No, no, it would be a government day all day, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Labour, that the House do now adjourn. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House adjourned until 2:30 Monday afternoon.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-2-9
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 2nd hansardpdf 9.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	01e15cc251fb962183ae608579a63bf7c5cf05ee

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