Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 74 (30th Legislature, 4th Session)

30-4-74

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

TIME: 2:30 P.M. THE LEGIS LATIVE ASSEM BLY of MAN ITOBA Thursday, June 2, 19 77 OPEN ING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPE AKER, Honourable Peter Fox (Kildonan): Presenting Peti tions; Read ing and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Repo rts by St anding and Special Commi ttees; Ministerial Statements and Ta bling of Repor ts; Notices of Mot ion. IN TRODUC TION OF BI LLS HONO URABLE SAUL A. MI LLER, Minister of Finance {Seven Oaks) introduced Bill {No. 87) The Homeowners Tax and Insulation Assistance Act. (Recommended by His Honour, the Lieute nant-Governor) OR AL QUES TIONS MR.

SPEA KER: The Honour able Member for Wolseley. MR. ROB ERT G. WI LSON: I have a question to the Minis ter of Cor rectio ns. Several days ago, I raised a matter before the House here and I wondered if the Minister is now prepared to indicate if any further developments ha ve happened with regard to the Manitoba Youth Centre. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister for Corr ectio ns. HONOUR ABLE J. R. {Bud) BOYCE, Minister responsible for Corrections and Rehabilitation {Winnipeg Centre}: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned at the time, an investigation had been under way relative to the al lega tions in the first instance.

Subsequently, because of the act ions of the Member for Wolseley, other investig ations ha ve been initiated. lt was reported in the press that the member had made the remark that someone in the system had provided him with information. An investigation is taking pla ce to see whether this is in contravention with The Child Welfare Act betrayal of profess ional confidence to those people working in the syst em. An investigation has been taking pl ace to see whether The Juvenil e Deliquents Act has been transg ressed.

The police are carry ing out an independent investigation and, as I recorded at the time, I am carrying out my own investigat ion. And shou ld it prove necessary, I wil l carry out further investigations of everybody involved in it. MR. WILSON: A supp lementary questio n. Am I to gather from the Minister's commen ts that if a particular staff person comes forward to an MLA after 30 days asking me to raise questions in the House, that rather than receive a commenda tion or a promot ion, he is then subject to problems with his emplo yment? MR. BOYCE: Aren't I nice and calm today, Mr. Speaker? Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Wolseley can take anything from my remarks he wants. Wha t I said I was investigat ing , is whether someone within the system was ins tr ument al - and the Member for Wolseley going out in the hall and handing out names of children who were involved at the Youth Centre - and the reby in my judgm ent, publishing information. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. R. {Bud) SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Honour able the Minister of Lab our.

I wonder if he can report to the Ho use on the situa tion at Ch ristie's Biscu its with respect to the forthc oming cl osure and the termina tion of work for something in excess of 130 emplo yees. MR. SPE AKER: The Honour able Minister for Lab our. HONO URABLE RUSSELL PAULLEY {Transcona): Mr. Speaker, in conformi ty with the la ws of the Province of Manitoba, I want to say that Ch ristie's Biscuits have informed the Minister of Labo ur as to a mass term ination , and I am ha ppy to know that the y ha ve done so according to our legisla tion.

An agr eement has been made to me by the company concerned, that they would be prepared to enter into an agreement with myself as Minister of Labo ur, the Minister of Manpower at the federal level, the union, and them selves into sett ing up a co mmittee of manpower in our respective jurisdictions in an endeavour to soften the blow. Of course, Mr.

Speaker, I don't know whether I have to inform the Honour able, the Member for Fort Garry, as to the provisions of the The Indus trial Relations Act - it is a requirement of co mpanies where there is a mass reduction or termina tion or layoffs - sometimes we have a play on words as to numbers - to inform the Minister of Labo ur so that he may take appropriate act ion.

In this particula r case, the law has been fulfilled; a request has been made to the Minister of Labo ur for the estab li shme nt of a joint co mmittee to see whether or not we can bring about a softening of the blow - I am using those words really loosely - and I am· prepared to consult with the federal authorities as to the esta blish ment of a corn m ittee to see whether or not we can alle viate the suffering which may result. MR. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Minis ter for his informati on.

I'd like to ask a supp lement ary as to whether the company offered any reason as to why the closure and termina tion 3653

Thursday, June 2, 19 77 is taking pla ce and whether it was related to any view that the co mpany may have abou t the dep ress ed state of the Mani to ba econo my. MR. PAULLEY: No, Mr.

Speaker, there is no reference at all to any possible depressed positi on of the econo my of the Prov ince of Man ito ba, wh ich is on e ot the basti on s of prog ressive legis lati on and prog ressive indicati o ns and positive indicati on s tha t Mani tob a is a basti o n of all prov inces in the Mani to ba forward-loo king leg isla tion and the econom ic situa tion despite the purveyor s of doo m and gl oo m on the op posite side of the Ho use. MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, in the cont ext of tha t spi rited of basti o ns of prog ress, mig ht I ask the Min ister whether he has co mpleted dis cussi on s and ne go tiati on s to acc om modate the wide number of workers faced with the termin ation at Co -o p Impl ement s bef o re he gets now into the job of pursuin g the progress of the econom y and the interest of the workers laid oft at Chris tie's Biscu its. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, my hono urable friend has intr od uced ano ther fact o r' namely Co -op Implement s in my Con stitue nc y of Trans con a. There was an indicati on of con siderable terminati o n of services.

The last time I was ta lking to Co-o p Imple ment s and its management, there was an indicati on because there was a change in the clima tic co ndition prevaili ng in Manitob a, that there may be a reducti on of the nu mbers of employ ees who se services may be term inated. That was in the lap of th e go ds, no t in the lap of the Legisla tive Ass embly of Man itob a or the Minis ter of Labou r. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Member for Fo rt Garry, fina l questi on . MR. SHERMAN: A fina l suppleme nt ary, Mr. Speaker.

I'd just ask the Minister if he can advise the Ho use if there is any situati on that he can add to the lis t that he know s wil l be co ming in the next days to be added to Co -op Imp lements and Chris tie's Biscuits. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, because ot the efficienc y of this go vernment and its legi slati o n, there is a requirement that any firm that has a mass la y-of f, mus t infor m the go vernment and the Min ister as to the to tal nu mbers con cerne d so that we can take approp riate acti o n and we have taken approp riate acti on on every oc casi o n that has been indicated to the Min ister of Labou r and the go vernment. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Member for As siniboi a. MR. STEVE PATRICK: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to direct my questi on to the Min ister of Industry and Co mmerce or the Acti n g Min ister who ever he is, or maybe the Minister of Labo ur can take it because he migh t have so me co mmunicati on with it. it 's in view of the Ch ristie Biscuit s' cl os ing . ! understand that their reason for cl os ing was because of ne cessity of expans ion of the present facilit ies, and the pr ese n t fa cili ties were too ol d.

Has the Fi rst Minister or the Min ister of Indus try and Co mmerce had any com mun icati on with the mana gement in easter n Cana da to see if there is any way that the present faci lit ies co uld ha ve been re newed or expanded here in Winni peg in view of the fact that large sales are made in wester n Cana da and this Christie op eration in Winnipeg was an area that large ly wester n Canada prov inces were served from this area.

Has ther e been any co mmunicati on between the Fir st Min ister and the Min ister of Indus try and Co mmerce and the manage ment in eastern Canada to see it this very impor tant indus try can be maintained and kept in Winnipeg? And the on ly reason s that were gi ven were because of the ol d faci li ties and at the present time they were not prepared to ren ew? MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, from time to time, this administrati on is critici zed because of its involvement in the areas of private enterprise.

Wha t the Ho nourable Member for As sin iboi a has said, I bel ieve, is basic ally co rrect, that Ch ristie Brow n Bakery have found, in their free-enterprise judg ment , that it woul d be unecono mical for them to upgrade their plant in or der to carry on their facil ity here in Man itob a. And indeed, I woul d sug g est, Mr. Speaker, th is co ul d be the same in any ot her prov ince ot her tha n the Prov ince of Manitob a or as well as the Prov ince of Man ito ba.

As the present spo kesman for the Governm ent of Manitob a, I don 't kno w of any direct represent ation that have been made to the Man ito ba Develo pment Co rpo ration, or the Minister of Indus try. Al l 1 do know is I have been infor med tha t on e of the reason s that Ch ristie Brow n have felt that they would withd raw so me of their op eration s in the Prov ince of Manitob a, is based on the co st of upgrading their plant , no t ou rs, but their plant . lt co uld have oc cur red, Mr. Speaker, I would sugg est regardless or irrespective of wherever that plant was est abl ished.

Now the n, if it means that a represent ation will be made to the Government of Manitob a by Ch ristie Bro wn for assista nc e in upg rading their plant , no t a public plant , I am sure that my co ll eague, the Minister of Indus try and Co mmerce, my co ll eage, the Min ister of Mines and Natural Re so urces, who has under his ju risd icti on the Manitob a Develo pment Co rpo ratio n and Fund, that will be gi ven every cons ideration . But as far as I am aware at the present time, Mr. Speaker, no direct represen tati on has bee n made. MR. PATRICK: A suppleme nt ary, Mr. Speaker.

The questi on to the Minister is: Has has the go vern ment had any co mmuni ca tion ? I didn' t ask if the Ch ristie Bis cuits executives or Chr istie Biscuit mana gement approa ched the go vernment . Would the go vernment gi ve co nsider ation to approach ing Ch ristie Bis cu its, Nabis co, who have milli on doll ars of sales in wester n Canada, to see if they woul d be perhaps conv inced to have a plant in Winnipeg to serve western Cana da? Cana da? That's my first questi on . 3654

Thursday, June 2, 1977 Perhaps als o the Min ister can ascertai n and fin d ou t if they are cl os ing the plant here and the prod uc t will be suppl ied by easter n Cana da or are they moving to so me ot her prov ince? MR. PAULLEY: Acc or ding to the information tha t I have received, Mr. Speaker, Ch ristie Brow n ha ve decided to cl o se down a portion of their op eration here in the prov ince of Mani tob a and that the op eration will be con tin ued in that free enterprise basti on called Ontario .

If my ho nourable friend mean s, in his questi on to me, is the Govern ment of Mani tob a prepared to bail ou t Ch ristie Bro wn, I say to him that I don 't want th is to be ano ther area of debate in the Ho use wher e we have bailed ou t free enterpris e because of their inefficienc y to op erate in Man ito ba. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, a su pplement ary. I'm sure the Min ister mus t rea li ze and kno ws my questi on was quite to the point specific. I didn' t ask for any bailing ou t and I'm sure that Christie Biscu its doesn 't ne ed any bailing ou t.

I asked if the go ver nment in the fron t benches, the Minister of Indus try and Co mmerce, has any kind of co mmun icati on with indus try in this prov ince and perhaps maybe so me co mmun icati on with indus try may ho ld them in this prov ince. Th at was my questi on . MR. PAULLEY: Well, Mr. Speaker, may I answer in this way.

As far as I am aware, the Department of Indus try and Co mmerce, the Governm ent of the Prov ince of Man itob a have no t sugge sted to Ch ristie Bro wn that we will bail you ou t in the Prov ince of Mani tob a because we ha ve so me con sider ation despite the accusati on s levied at us tha t there is an on us on the lik es of Christie Bro wn and ot her co rp oration s to ask whether or no t we woul d be prepared to gi ve assista nc e to the con tin uation of their op eration here in the Prov ince of Mani tob a and we have don e this on a number of oc casi on s, includi ng bailing ou t the former admini strati on inso far as CFI is co ncerned.

MR. SPEAKER: Th e Hono urable Member for Rhi ne land . MR. ARNOLD BROWN: Th ank you, Mr. Speaker. My questi o n is to the Min is ter of Agricultu re. I won der if the Min ister is aware that because of the cl os ing of Ch ristie Biscu its that 200 to ns of sugar sales ann ually will be lo st to the prod ucers of suga r beets and to the Manitob a Sugar Co mpany. MR. SP EAKER: Th e Hono urable Min ister of Agricultur e. HONOURABLE SAM UEL USKIW (Lac du Bonnet): Wel l, Mr .

Speaker, I am no t at all aware as to the impli ca tion s that it may have on the sugar plant in Mani tob a and subs equent ly, of co urse, the prod uc ers of sugar beets. I do know that, at least I bel ieve, tha t the co mpany in questi on intends to main tain its present level of busine ss. Qu esti on of lo cati on of plant or wha tever is anot her matterand that to the exten t that they maint ain their prod uctivity, in esse n ce they will require the same amou nt of sugar input as they have in the past.

Now whether tha t has an impli cati on on Mani to ba sugar prod ucti on , is so meth ing yet to be dete rmine d. MR. SPEAKR SPEAKER: Th e Hono urable Member for Ro blin. MR. J. WALLY McKENZ IE: Mr. Speaker, I have a questi on for the Ho nourable, the Ho use Leader. Mr. Speaker, I won der if the Ho use Leader will assure the op pos ition tha t th o se Orders for Return whic h were submit ted in 1976 will be tabled befor e this sessi on ends? MR. SPEAKER: Th e Hono urable Min ister of Lbaou r. Labo ur. MR. PAULLEY: Prov iding we ha ve that infor mation available they will be tabled befo re the Ho use prorog ues.

MR. McKENZ IE: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Min ister woul d elabo rate on this infor matio n being prov ided. Th at's why we subm itted the Order for Retur n, beca us e we don 't have the infor matio n, Mr. Speaker. I won der whether he woul d explain in more definite terms what he's ta lking ab ou t. MR. SPEAKER: Order ple ase. Order ple ase. Th e Member for Ch urc hill wis h the floo r? Th e Hono urable Min ister of Labou r. MR. PAULLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I'm prepared to indicate to my ho nourable friend, the Member for Ro blin, that this go vern ment on beco ming the go vernm ent, cha ng ed the who le proc edure insof ar as Orders for Retur n and the tab ling of such . MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the day. MR. PAULLEY: Just a moment , Mr. Speaker. I sat down because of the interje cti o ns of the hono urable members op posite. I was asked a defini te questi on of the Hono urable Member for Ro blin, that this go vernm ent cha ng e the proc edure insof ar as the tabli ng of Orders for Return are conc erne d with the previo us pr o ced ures.

Th at when the Co nservative Government decided to diso lve the Ho use, all ou tsta n ding Orders for Return died. We, in this go vernm ent said that they will no t die, that we will gi ve the information to my hono urable friend . An d if he will be but patient, under ou r admin ist ration and ou r basic phil os op hy of freedo m of infor matio n, he will get a reply to his Orders for Re turn whic h we ne ver go t when I was in op positi on . ! MR. SPEAKER: Th e Hono urable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. GORDON E. JOHNSTO N: Mr. Speaker, I address this questi on to the Ho nourable the · Mini ster of Labou r.

Befo re I begin , I woul d lik e to co mpliment him on his new suit and his ol d sty le. I mean his sty le in the Ho use, not his suit. Mr. Speak er, my questi on to the Minister is: With respect to the decisi on of Ch ristie Biscu its to cl os e down and phase ou t their Man itob a op eration , does the Mini ster no t bel ieve that the time and th ree-quarter rate of ov ertime that he is propos ing, has a lo t to do with pl acing this co mpany in an unco mpetitive positi on ? Th ese woul d be co mpanies that do the 3655

Thursday, June 2, 19 77 si milar type of work in ot her prov inces where they pay time and a half on ov ertime oc casi on s. MR; SPEA KER: Th e Hono urable Min ister of La bour. MR. PAULLEV: Mr. Speaker, my answer to my hono urable friend, and I can say my hono urable friend to the Member for Portage la Prairie - so metimes I questi on with ot her members of the Assem bly. I ca n say to my hono urable friend that as far as I am aware the decisi on of Ch ristie Biscu its was arrived at so me con siderable period of time ago , and that has been indicated to me.

Insof ar as Bill 65 is conc erne d, and the pro vision for a possible increase in ov ertime rates, it is sti ll bef ore this As sem bly, it has not been passed . If my hono urable friend the Member for Portage la Prairie, can ge t su fficient supp o rt to have amend ment s made to Bill 65 to cha ng e that pro vision , the n of co urse th o se cha ng es will be made. But insof ar as Ch ristie Bro wn is con cerne d, at no stage tha t I'm aware of , that that co rpo ration has indicated to me that their decisi on was based on any prov ision s of Bill 65. MR. G. JOH NSTON: Well , Mr.

Speaker, I ha ve ano ther questi on for the Mini ster and I welc om e his sig ns of bein g reason able with respect to on e and thr ee-q uart er ov erti me rate. I gather by his remarks that he's willing to entertai n an amend ment and I'd make th is questi on to the Min ister.

Is the Min ister aware that the man agement of Cam pbell' s Soup in Portage, a co mpany that employ s abo ut 300 peop le, have sen t a te legram to hi s Premier, and to ot her mem bers of th is Cabine t, indicati ng if th is propos al go es thr ough - the on e and th ree-quarter ov ertime rate - it will place the Campbell Soup Plant which suppli es most of Wester n Cana da, in an uncom petitive positi on with th eir co mpetit o rs who are lo cated in ot her prov inces? MR. PAULLEV: I want to indicate, Mr. Speaker, to my hono urable friend I have recei ved a teleg ram from Campb ell Soup.

I do apprecia te the rece ipt of the telegram. I do appreci ate the fact that the hono urable the Member for Portage la Prairie has drawn this to my atte nt ion . lt is my intent ion , Mr. Speaker, to cl o se the debate on Bill 65 this afternoon , and I will at that particular sta ge of t heg ame if we ca ll this a ga me - make referen ce to a nu mber of represent ation s that ha ve been made in respect of the effect of Bill 65 . I ho pe at that particular time to fully answer the telegram sent t o me by Ca mpbell Soups, and ot hers who are no t kno wledgeable of the intent of the Bill 65.

An d I als o, in reply to my hono urable friend - I say tha t affecti on at ely - that I want to say to my hono urabl e friend , the Member for Portage la Prairie, tha t it will be my inten tion as the Ho use Leader to call a meetin g of the Indus trial Relati on s Co mmittee for Saturday afternoon at 2:30 when Camp bel l' s Soup and any ot her or gan ization s will have thei r demo cratic right under this go vernm ent to make represent ation s.

So, I say to my hono urable friend in direct answer, "Yes, I have received a tele gr am and on Saturda y, the Gene ral Mana ger of Cam pbel l' s Soup will ha ve an op por tun ity of formal ly present ing their op pos ition to propos als." An d in addition to that, I would won der whether after my remarks this afternoon, whether Campb ell's Soup or a heck of a lo t of ot her or gani zation s will appear. -(I n terjecti on )- Oh, I igno re you, you're ou t of the Ho use. You're no t eve n in the Ho use as far as I'm conc erne d. But, I do want to say, Mr.

Speaker, that they will have th eir oppo rtun ity of mak ing th eir represent ation Saturday afternoon at 2:30. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, a fin al questi on to the Mini ster and I thank him for the state ment he has jus t made. This is for the purpos e of the co mpani es who may be interested in appearing - is it at 2:30 or 1 :30 or 2:00? MR. PAULLEV: lt will be on Saturday afternoon . lt may be co mpuls or y ov ertime, but that's when it will be. MR. SPE AKER: The Hono urable Member for Fo rt Garry. MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I would lik e to ask the Mini ster of Labou r ano ther questi on related to the Ch ristie Bis cuit si tuati on and in the cont ext of his answer to the Member for As sin iboi a abo ut the difficult ies or his unwilli ngn ess to bail ou t Chris tie's in their present situati on . Co uld I ask the Min ister if he co uld no t bring in a co mpa nion bill to Bill 18, in which he bails ou t the majo r groc ery chai ns . MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mini ster of Labou r. MR. PAULLEY: You kno w,Mr.

Speaker, so metime s the Min ister of Labou r is pla ced in a most embarrassi ng positi on , after having been here as lon g as I have, to really ha ve the li kes of the questi on s posed by the Hono urable Member for Fo rt Garry, because the debate has been con clud ed and I th ink that he is sti ll att emptin g to use pol itics insof ar as Bill 18 is con cerne d. The bill wil l be up this afternoon , I ho pe, Mr.

Speaker, for th ird reading , and I woul d sug ge st that the Hono urable Member for Fo rt Garry, or any ot her member of this Assem bly, will ha ve the op portun ity of making th eir co mment s on thi rd reading . An d I am go ing to have the op portun ity of replying to the asin ine co mment s of the Oppos ition . MR. SPEAKER: Th e Hono urable Member for Morris. MR. WARNER H. JORGENSO N: Do we take it from the Min ister's respon se no w tha t he will no t impos e cl os ure on the debate as he did in the Co mmittee the ot her ni ght? MR. SPEAKER: Th e Hono urabl e Mini ster of Labou r. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, for the purpos es of the reco rd, the Min ister of Labo ur, the tempo rary Ho use Leader, did no t impos e cl os ure on the Co mmittee con sidering Bill 18. The Oppos ition had 3656

Thursday, June 2, 19 77 every opportunity. As a matter of fact they exceeded the normal opportunities gi ven to members of this Legi sla tur e, and ther e was no closu re then, there will be no closure now. MR. SPEAKER : The Honou rable Member for Fort Rouge . PF MR. LLOYD AXWORTHY: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a question rela ted to Ch ristie Biscuits, althou gh I do express my anxieties to know whether we will be able to sti ll have a fresh supply of choco la te puffs in the province as a res ult of that. I do ha ve a questi on' Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Cu ltural Relations.

I woul d lik e to know ifthe provinc e is planning any special celebrations on Canada Day in view of the steps taken by the Federal Government and other provinces to provide for a special commemoration and celeb ration on that particular day? MR. SPEAKER: Th e Ho nourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. HENRY J. EINARS ON: I would raise this question to the Minister of Lab our.

Despit e Bi11 65, and I am full y cogn izant of the fact that rega rdless of amendments the go vernment has the majo rity, I woul d li ke to ask the Minister if he could indic ate how many months it has been known by he andthe officials of his departm ent that time and thr ee-q uarters would be co ming forth before this House and before the industries of this province? MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, in answer to my honour able friend, I indicated to the Assembly that I will be closin g the debate on the

part icular bill this afte rnoon. ! think it woul d be more appropriate for my honour able friend, the Member for Rock Lake, to await that particula r time to hear the answerto a legi tima te questi on, and I don't discount the legi ti macy of his ques tion. I will be answering then, as indeed I will be answering the lab our critic of the Conser vative Party. And further, Mr. Speaker, my honour able friend will have an opportun ity to raise that particular question when Bill 65 go es into the Indus trial Relations Comm ittee.

I am not sur e whether my honou rabl e friend is a member of that Comm ittee or not, but all members of the Asse mbly have the righ t to attend the Com mittee meetings to raise wh atever ques tions - the only barrier is the rig ht of voting on any particular

section of the bil l. He has the democr atic rig ht and I sugg est that that is when he sho ul d us e it. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minister for To urism , Recreation and Con tin uin g Education. MR. BEN HANUSCHAK: Mr. Chair man, in response to the question from the Honour able Member from Fort Rouge , ther e is no doubt tha t the Province of Manitoba will be involved in the promotion and the assistance and encourage ment of the observa tio n of Canada Day, as it has in the past.

I know that my department is working on it at the present time. lt is now the first week of June and no doubt with in the next few days there will be an announc ement co ming from me or from my department as to wh atever further details there may be with respectto the province's involvement in the observance of Canada Day and its participation and assistanc e offered to others in the observance of tha t particular function . MR. AXWORTHY: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the cancellation of the prog ram that was normally held on the Leg islative gr ounds on Victoria Day, can the Minister indic ate whether there is any plans to be providing for a major celebration on the Leg isla tive gr ounds during Canada Day? MR. HANUSCHAK: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any cancellation of any prog ram on Victoria Day. That cert ainly was not any prog ram in wh ich my department was involv ed in; it was not cancelled by me and ther efore I cannot respond to the hon ourable member's question. MR. AXWORTHY : Mr. Speaker, a supp lementary.

Can the Minister indic ate whether hi s department or other departments in the go vernment tha t may be involved have been in cont act with any of the different civic or cu ltu ral orga nizations in the province to see if they are prepared to partici pate or become involv ed in a special Canada Day celebr ation? MR. HANUSCHAK: Mr.

Speaker, you know, as the name of the day itself indicates, I would think that the Dominion of Canada itself and the Government of Canada woul d take the primary initiative and concern about the observance of that day and would play a much gr eater role in seeing to it that that day is obser ved than the provinces, althou g h I would hasten to ad d, Mr. Speaker, that we, as a province of the Dominion of Canada, would do wha tever we can to assist in the proper obser vance of that particu lar day. But the prime res ponsi bili ty reall y, Mr. Speaker, oug ht to rest with the Federal Government. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Flin Flon. MR. THOMAS BARROW: On a point of order or privilege , or wh atever it is, Mr. Speaker, they accuse the Minister of closur e on Bill 18. I woul d li ke to go on record- he had no knowledge of closure. I made that motion and if you want to know the reason why I made the motion to put the question, the debate was sinking to a very low lev el. The members on tha t side of the House, the Free · Press were there, all wanted to ge t th eir names in the paper, so to cut a long story shor t and end it, the only th ing to do, 1 made that motion .

The Minister of Labo ur had nothin g to do with it, Mr. Speaker, than k you. ORDERS OF THE DAY 3657

Thursday, June 2, 19 77 MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Minis te r of La bour. MR. PAULLEY : I wonde r, Mr. Speaker, whether I could indicate to the Ho use the proced urethat I int end to foll ow. MR. SPEAKER: Before we do so, can we take the Order for Return ? MR. PAULLEY: Yes. ORDER FOR RETURN MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourabl e Member for La Verendrye. ORDER NO. 41: On Motion of Mr. Banman Order for Return : THAT an Order of the Hous e do issue for a return showin g the fo ll owing information rega rding Manit oba Hydro: 1. The total number of Nelson Ri ver to urs arrang ed by Manit oba Hydr o in 1976 and in 1977. 2. For each of those fligh ts, a det ailing of: · (

a) number of people on the fligh t and their gr oup affil iation, if any; (

b) total cost to Manitoba Hydro for the fligh t, gr ound transpo rta tion, food and provisions and other costs, includin g salaries and wag es; (

c) total revenue to Manitoba Hydro from ti cket receipts for the tour; and (

d) profit or loss incu rred by Manitoba Hydro. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: We ha ve no obje ctions, Mr. Speaker. MOTION carried. BUSINE SS OF THE HOU SE MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of La bour. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I do want to indicate to the House what I have in mind at the present time as to the order of proced ur e. I understand that the Hono ur able, th e Leader ofthe Op position, is eng ag ed on a private matter at the present time and so ther efore I would defer the cal ling of Bill No. 40 unti l hi s retur n to the House. You know, Mr.

Speaker, sometimes ... I won't say it.

Other s often are desirous of speak ing but, anyway, I gi ve to the Honour able, the Leader of the Opp osition, an opportun ity to speak today but unfortunately he has another private enga ge ment th at I recog nize so I woul d defer until his return later thi s aft ernoon, as I understand he will do, consideration of Bill No. 40. lt would be my intention to ca ll Bill No. 56 for the Honourable Member for Pembina and the n go on to Bill No. 67, sta nding in the name of the Honourable the Member for Rh inela nd, and then following the other bil ls, to go back to the debate on Bill No. 65 sta nding in my name and then we will proceed with the busi ness of the House.

Th ere had been an indication made to me that the Honour able Memberfor Brandon West, is it -1 ge t confused -w anted to proceed with the bill deal ing with Publi c Schools Act. I had indica ted to the House Leader of the Conser vative Party that we may proceed with that thi s aftern oon. Information has come to me that it may be advisable to leave it unti l tomo rrow because of the absence of the Honourable the Minister of Education. So if my friend, the Memberfor Brand on West does not obje ct, we will defer that for today.

Then , foll owing that, if the busi ness of the Ho use is con cl uded in a reason able time, before 5:30, then it would be my intention to go into Law Amendme nts Com mit tee to consider some bill s maybe not contr oversial - in La w Amend ments Comm ittee until 5:30. The Comm ittee on Statutory Regu lations will be meeting to nigh t. lt is conceivable that they will not hear all of the represe ntations that are before the Commit tee in a reas onable time tonig ht and I would sugg est to the Ass embly ' Mr.

Speaker, that we do not convene tomorrow morning at ten o'clock if the Commit tee - and I don't think that the y will -o n Statutory Regu lations have not concluded their representa tions. We will meet at 2:30 tomo rrow afternoon in a regu lar session of the House and then, as I indic ated a moment or two ag o, the Comm ittee on Indus trial Relations will meet at 2:30 on Saturday after noon. lt is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to sugg est a meeting of the House for ten o'clock on Saturday morning . MR. SPE AKER: Bill No. 56. The Honour able Member for Pembina.

The Honou rable Member for Morris on a matter of proced ure. MR. JORGENS ON: Mr. Speaker, I hesi tate to ask the Minister another question because I don't want to delay the ending of the session that much but he did not indic ate what we wereg oing to do on Fr iday nigh t. MR. PAULLEY: I appreciate tha t and the Minister of Fina nce drew that to my atte ntion, Mr. Speaker . I would sugg est that we pla y it by ear now. There are, as I understand from the Chai rman of the Co mm it tee on Statuto ry-R ul es and Regu l ations, a considerable number of representat ions. lt 3658

Thursday, June 2, 19 77 may be advisable, we will onl y know that really tomorr ow morning as to whether or not ther e will be a formal meeting of the Hous e Frida y evening . So, I ask my honour able friend, the Hous e Leader of the Conser vative Party, ple ase forg ive me for my non-reference to tomo rrow evening . We will be meeting thou gh , Mr. Speaker, let me put this clearly, that we will be meeting tomorrow nig ht, eit her in Com mittee on Statutory Regu l ations, Law Amendments, or in the House, but we will ha ve to pla y it by ear at this particu lar time. MR. JORG ENSON: Mr.

Speaker, I will wait until Ha nsard comes out and see if I can't deci phe r tha t unintel ligi ble explana tion . ADJOURNE D DEBATES ON SECOND READING BI LL (NO. 56) - THE FARM LANDS PRO TECTION ACT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. GE ORGE HENDERS ON : Mr. Speaker, I would lik e to make some remarks about Bill 56 and ever sinc e this bill has appeared on print, I ha ve been worried about it. I ha ve been puzzled. I think I, lik e many people in the House, have realize d that it is a more co mplic ated and important bill than we had orig inally thou gh t.

I know that we had hearings by the Ag ricu ltural Commit tee and, at that time, we were discus sing ownership of land. Natur all y, we go t the impression from the farm people that wha t they favoured most of all was private ownership of land. We know that this is really the best of all, there is no question about that, but we do know that it's not always poss ibl e.

We also know that land pric es have incr eased a gr eat deal in the last number of years, but really it isn't just foreig n buyers al one wh ich must be bla med for that because pric es of everyth i ng in Manitoba has go ne up a gr eat deal , whether it's land, or whether it's buildings , or what have you. In fact, land pric es were so low in the th irties, because of the depress ion, tha t there had to be large incr eases in farm prices which was only a natural thin g. I can go back to the days when a half

section with a ho use and a barn on it sold for $3,500, with a hou se that people were living in. So land prices were at a very low lev el. In fact, I remember of one time , and it was myself involv ed, I bought a half

section for $1 ,200. I boug ht a half

section for $1 ,200 and I debated a long time before I boug ht it, and when I bough t it I went to the Municip al Office, I wanted to talk to the clerk there about some other th ings , and I to ld him I boug ht that. He said to me' "I f you want some more land ," he says, "the half sect ion next to it," he says "the Municip al ity owns it and you can ge t it for a dol lar an acre." And bel ieve it or not, tha t's the way the land prices were. A MEMB ER: Did you buy it? MR. HENDERS ON: No, I didn't buy it. I thou gh t probably tha t I had overpaid on one and maybe the other one was no go od at all.

So tha t's just the way it was. In fact, whenever you're buying or sel ling anythin g -(I nterjec tion)- So much for my busi ness judg ment. Well I will admit I have made a lot of mistakes. I'll te ll you about some of them later. But anyway, when you' re involved in buying or se lling, if you' re se lling the price seems, you know, you don't seem to think you' re ge ttin g too much, but if you' re buying , wel l you naturally think the price is high . But I don't really th ink land prices, even thou gh they have go ne up a gr eat deal, are really, you know, too high . Now let's jus t think about it for a minute.

Land, the best land in Manitoba is sel ling for around $300 to $500 an acre and that seems lik e an awful lot because most of us are goin g back to the days when it was so cheap, when it was awful cheap . When you compare it to other thin gs and even when we compare it to the price we' re ge tt ing for rape, corn , and fla x and potatoes and suga r beets and other special crops. If we ha ve a go od year there's a pretty go od profit in it. Tha t's the reason why we not only find foreig ners, we find other farmers trying to ge t more land and willing to pay a go od price for it.

If thin gs continue lik e they are in pric es, I th ink you'r e really go ing to see land pric es even hi gher. ! wou Id say that land pric es will even be high er in ten years time, whether we restrict foreig n ownersh ip or not. Because you've go t to th ink about land in this way, they aren't making any more of it these days. You can make machinery, or buses, any of these airplanes or anythin g you lik e, they may cost a lot, but you at least can make them. They aren' t making more land. The world popu la tion is gr owing and it's go ing to co ntinue gr owing.

We ha ve expensive la nd to the so uth of us in the States, they're paying six or seven hundr ed dol lars an acre for land to farm. Land is high in Al berta, it's high in Ont ario. lt 's high in Eng land and in the European countries. I really think tha t we have a pocket of land in Canada, Manitoba and Saskatchewan in

part icula r, wh ich is really low in price, and it's really go ing to become hig her. Wha t should we do about it? This is the thin g that comes to our mind. Possibly foreig n ownership and other thin gs are push ing the price · up. What should we do about it? I th ink tha t a go vernment cou ld go in the way of exten ding credit for people to buy it, so they co ul d own it and work l t. They aren' t too much in favour of that. But I th ink they cou ld, because what 's the difference between the go vernment puttin g up the money and him bec oming the buyer with a mortga ge back, than the go vernment buying it in the first place and 3659

Thursday, June 2, 1977 renting it? Sure, it's better for everybody to own the ir la nd, but that's not possi b le, and ther e are some people lo oking to rent land. I say that they may as well re n t it fro m an indiv idual as from th e go vernment. Th ey've had regu l ations that controlled the use of land and the price of la nd, and who you can se ll it to in other provinces, but reall y . this hasn't stopped the price of land from go ing up in price. Ther e really isn't anyth ing wrong with land go ing up in price, in my opinion at least, there cert ainly isn't, and I th ink maybe it's even a go od sign .

If people are having prob lems with passin g it on or sel lin g to the ir child re n, I th ink ther e cou ld be someth ing more done even yet, in the way of gi ft taxes and suc cess ion duties to make it more pos sible. Th ere ha ve been some chan g es made, which I believe will be a help. In this way people cou ld pass it on to some of their child ren, and if they didn't sell it to foreig ners, at least they'd ha ve more money out of it in their own estate. So we come back to it then , what are we concerned about in th is land bill? Are we concerned really, about other Canad ian citizens havi n g the land?

I reall y don't th ink we should be, because in Canada we don't restrict people who buy ho uses, or apartments, hot els, or buy in to mining companies, or into anyth ing else. So why sh ou ld we restr i ct any Canadi an, whether he's within Manit oba or even Canada, I would say, and in parti cula r a man in Manitoba. I look at it li ke this, as the Member for St urge on Creek said . A farmer can come into Winnipeg and he can buy an apartment hous e if he wants to, and he can stay out on hi s farm, there's no res triction on him. He can buy one hous e or he can buy six houses. Ther e's no rest r ictions on him.

When you look at it the other way, why cou ldn' t the man, who is in St urge on Creek, if he want ed to buy up some land and rent it out? Wha t's the big difference? I'm really ag ains t any restric tion , in

part icular, on a person in Manit oba not being able to buy la nd. A person may choose to put his money into land, and if he does he's really not go ing to ge t too bi g of an interest on his investment. In fact, the go vernment's own fig ures show that he ge ts a smal l amount of interest on his investment. He's hoping for capital ga in. There's noth ing wrong with him doing that. Ther e's nothin g wrong with him hoping for capital ga in. Ev eryboc;ly does it, whether it's in hous es or whether it's in other thin gs we buy. They're hoping they can sel l it for more. lf he doesn't, he takes a loss.

And if he does he adds it to his inc ome and pays a tax on it. At least if he's doing this and he's a rural person, or a person with a rural backgr ound, he knows what he's in vestin g in. I can see many people, in different occupations, not wanting to do the ir invest ing, we'll say, thr ough oil companies, or mining companie s, or even put money into Western Savings and Loan, or anyth i ng of these thin gs , because they haven't proved to be a very go od investment at all. .

I can rel ate some of my own personal experiences in this thin g, because I was doing fa i rly well farming, and I thou gh t at one time I'd put some money into a machine company. You know, I lost the whole darn thin g that I put in there. Later on ther e was a person around ta lking about a finance company. He wanted to start a finance company, there was a gr oup star ting . Well, I thou g ht, people are always borrowing money, you shouldn' t lose by startin g up a finance company, ther e will al ways be people borrowing money, as long as it's manage d rig ht you should do all righ t.

Wel l, that turned out to be a loss, too. I even bough t sh ares in an oil com pany. -(I nterje ction)- Yes, I'll come to that. That's iron mines. But the point I'm making is, we've been ripped off in so many of our other investments. So I tried the oil wells, and you know, that comp any turned out to be a bit of a fake' I think. The final story was' they ran out of hole s. As they dril led down, they said they go t into some sandy mate rial' it was alw ays closin g in, they could n't keep it open and so it cl osed in and they cou ldn' t go any further.

So I thou g ht, you know, I'd put some money into Western Savings and Loan . Wel l, at that time they were only paying about 3 and 4 percent on certificates. They had you lock ed in; they reta ined $ 47.50 for every thousand you subscrib ed for. So after a number of years, interest rates went up and I was only ge ttin g 3 percent on my Western Savings and Loan money so I said, the heck with that, and I took my to ss and go t out. I was sti ll further ahead to take it. And they kept the $ 47.50 for every thous and I subscribed. We started up a Regi onal Development Corporation that was go ing to buil d homes.

I thou gh t, well, this will be a go od thin g maybe to help the com munity and make a few bucks. I go t bac k 33 percent on the dol lar that I put into that. I tried mutual funds -(I nterje ct ion)- Yes, I've tried a lot of thin gs . l tried mut ual funds and at that time we thou gh t ther e was a certa in capital ga in feature in them, a certain amount that we didn't have to .. . At that time, it had a li ttle bit of an incentive as far as income taxes were concerned, too, so I put money into there. Wel l, in 1969 the shar es wer e worth $9.00.

Some time here, I didn't check it ju st now, but I know it was only wor th around $6. 00 a whil e ag o. That 's from 1969 to 1977, eig ht years, and it dropped from $9.00 to $6 .00, that dropped 50 percent. On top of that, if I had hid my money ju st anypla ce else ... -( Interje cti on)- So in that lengt h of ti me my money should ha ve been up to $18. 00 ; al l I can se ll my shar es for is $6 .00. -(I nterjec tio n)- I kind of think that some time when I'm not in this Leg islature, I'm go ing to make a bit of a study about these mutual companies.

I belie ve that they are a bunch of manipulators or crooks, I think I would put it tha t way and whenever you see one 3660

Thursday, June 2, 19 77 company amalga mating with another, or taki ng them over, wel l, you ha d bette r ge t your money out quic k or else ... I also told you about the co- op farm that I started in one ti me. I'm not go ing to te ll you that story ag ain but I put money in to that. I was gl ad to ge t it out. I lo st money too, a li ttle, but I was gl ad to ge t it out. I don't want to th i nk anymore about that, I'd just as soon forge t it. Lastly -(I nterjec ti on)- I hope it 's the last one. I tr i ed the ir on mine that the Member for Thom pson was mentio n ing .

I thou gh t, wel l, ge e whiz , they need iron with all the machi nery and everyth i ng tha t's needed in the years to come, maybe tha t .. . He was tel ling us, he said, ther e's no use of go ing ahead and mining over ther e because it's so far undergr ound that it's not profitable. An yway, I decid ed from my experie nces, and they haven't been all go od by any means, that I would put my mone y in the top si x in ches of soil and I would manage it and be the boss and the ge neral manage r myself.

And then if I lost, it would be me that would be doing it, and I don't thi nk it would be any worse than any of these other in vestments tha t I was tryi ng where other people were running them . And I th ink that there must be other people lik e me. I th i nk ther e are other people li ke me, that maybe in some thin gs they have been suc cess fu l and they invested in other thin gs lik e, we'll say, any of these th i ng s I mentio ned but they go t took.

The Member for Virden had a bad experie nce with an iron mine too - a go ld mine, tha t was go ld and with go ld go ing up in pric e, he should ha ve made a fortune. So they want to put the ir money in land. I really don't blame them.

In fact, if I knew a dentis t or a doctor who was doi ng pretty well and he wanted to in vest in la nd, I think I woul d te ll him to go ahead and do it . l th i nk, you know, that there is really noth i ng wrong with anybody, whether he's in Winnipe g or any other part, whether he's li v ing in a town, if he would choose to put hi s money into farming , I don't see anythin g wrong with hi m buyi ng that land. He's go ing to rent it back to other people who need to rent it and he's go ing to ha ve to compete with the other people.

Cha nces are, as I sa id, he's not go i ng to ge t too big of a return on his in vestm ent but he'd lik e to take a chance on capital ga in. My main concern with the bill is probably foreig n non-residen ts and this is the thin g that probably is the most undesirable feature about the bill. But the Member for La Verendrye when he was speak ing , and I th in k he was making a very go od poin t, when he was statin g tha t these other co untrie s are able to borrow money at a very low interest rate.

Even across the li ne, I think they borrow at about six and I hear that in the European countr ie s, they can borrow it for less. So if some financial corporation sets up and buys land out here, they ha ve go t an advantage over us because as long as they rece ive 4 or 5 percent, they are well away. So I th in k probably if the go vernment would se riously cons id er some type of a restr ic ti on on this, it woul d help a lot.

I don't know how they would do it , but I th i nk probably some way in the way of making them make up the balance of the int erest so it would be fa irc ompetit on to the people who are in this area, whether it 's a private individual or whether it's a local company, or whether it's even ag ain st the go vernment itself. Because if the go vernment has to gi ve this land back, somebody has to make up that money because it's cost i ng the Provincia l Government about 9 percent every ti me they borrow money too.

So I would say that th i s is one way we co uld do some thin g about restrictin g the foreig n non resident person and in th i s way you would put some restr iction on them and you would ha ve equal compet it io n between the farmers and equal competit io n with the local go vernment who are, shall we say, subs i dizing the in terests.

You know, I wonder somet im es if maybe the worst of the problem hasn't passed because land has rais ed quit e a bit in pri ce and I bel ieve it was low all rig ht, and I'm begi nning to wonder now if by the ti me we bri ng out a bill - and maybe we won't make some mistakes in it and maybe we won't have such a go od th i ng after all. You know that these foreig n investors ha ve invested in Canada before.

I can remember read ing about where they boug ht up large tracts of land down around Morris and I know that they boug ht up a lot around Sperli ng and Snowflake and you know that those people ended up by havi ng to se ll thos e farms for an awfu I lot less than they paid. That happened before. And it cou ld happen ag ain . In fact, I would th in k it would happen because a corporation-type farm or a non- resid ent bunch of financiers who ha ve hi red manage ment over here, there's jus t no way that they can com pete with what we call a farm unit where it 's the hus band and wife and fami ly th at's farming .

So event ually what will ha ppen to these people is tha t they will lose the ir land. The y will ha ve to se ll it for a lesser pric e because they can't com pete with the fello w tha t's righ t there attendin g to his work. If they are payi ng manage ment fees and dependi ng on people to look after the ir in terests when they are over in Europe, they are go ing to find they are not go ing to make it . But I th in k, in looki ng at the whole bill, I th i nk it's one of the more im portant bills that we ha ve hand led this session.

In fact, I th ink it 's - we ll, maybe it's not more im porta nt than this one about The Marriage Act - but it is a very im portant bill and I hope tha t the go vernment wouldn' t jus t jump into it too quic kly and make some bad mis takes on this. I ho pe tha t it really wouldn' t be just used as a pol itical th i ng because I know we even sent out a questio nnair e ourselves and we go t the resu lt that 3661

Thursday, June 2, 19 77 peop le were ag ain st non- resident foreig n ownership. But I mean, that was ju st ask ing one question onl y Without gi ving anybody a chance to think about it and put down their remarks or what they would th ink should be done. Because it's no t just as simple as answering that . I want to make myself clear that as far as I am concerned pers onally, I bel ieve that there should be some type of a res triction pla ced ag ainst the non-resident foreig n owner, the one who doesn't intend to come her e .

I don't presume the go vernment on that side is so st upid as to try to bring in a bill that would rest rict foreig ners from co ming her e ... A MEMB ER: Do you want to bet? MR. HENDERSON: Wel l, I woul d cert ainl y hope tha t they are not. I woul d violently oppose that because as far as I'm concerned, anybody that is go ing to buy land over her e and co me over and become a resident farmer, has every rig ht to do it. Th is is wha t Canada is all about bec ause the y came from all over Europe and they settled in her e and they have been welcomed as Canad ians and this is wha t I am in favour of.

I th ink there sh oul d be some type of rest riction worked out as to the foreig n non-resident owner. As far as other Canadians, I'm not wanting to see res trictions pla ced on them. Now, it may be that the go vernment over ther e is go ing to go to that extr eme, I don't know, but there is one class of people in particular that I don't want to see any rest riction pl aced on, and that is people righ t within Manit oba because this is our province, they are working under our tax rules and everyt hing else and it would cert ainly be an awful mistake for a go vernment to do some thin g li ke that.

In fact, if the go vernment does some thin g li ke that, it will just look as if they were trying to cut off all other ownerships so as to, shall we say, promote their own scheme of buying up the land and renting it back. Th is is ju st what it woul d seem lik e because if they stop people in Winnipe g or in the local towns around, buying up la nd and renting it back to people, this will ju st look as if they want the go vernment to do all the buying and leasing it back and of course, the people don't want this at all.

So I say to you people over there, you ha ve go t a very important bill to deal with and I hop e that you gi ve a reaso nable amount of time between second reading and Law Ame ndments on this because I feel that ther e are probably other people, now that they have thou gh t about this bill, that will want to make representat ion on it. Sinc e it is such an important bill to the rural people, I hope that they do have as much time as poss ibl e to prepare thems elves to come in to Law Ame ndments. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER : Th e Honour abl e Minis ter of Ag ricultur e will be closin g debate.

The Honour abl e Minister of Ag ricul tur e. MR. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, it's a long time si nce I introduced this parti cu lar piece of legi slation for debate into the Assem b ly and I simply make that point because I don't want it to be mentioned wh atever from the benche s of the Opp os ition, that the public woul d not have the opportun ity to appear and I simply make tha t point because I don't want it to be mentione d from the benches of the Opposition that the publi c will have not had the oppor tuni ty to appear before co mmittee, or that notice woul d not ha ve been long enoug h, as they often do' Mr.

Speaker, at least if one is go ing to take the his torical past into acco unt. This bill was introduc ed some time well in advance of the Budge t and was stood for all of that period of time up unti l very recent days, at which time we had an opportun ity to hear the views of the members of the Opp osition . Apri l 15th was the date of the introduction of this bill, Mr. Speaker. I simply put that on the record because I know members opposit e, some of them, may be tem pted to sugg est that we migh t be unf air to the public at large if we go to co mmit tee on shor t notice. MR.

HE NDERSON: I'm not saying the bill hasn't been before the House is a long time. What l,m ta lking about between second reading and the time it go es to the Law Amend ments Commit tee, what is the required time of notice? MR. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sur e what the rules say about the time.

I don't bel ieve ther e is a required time lt is not a discr iminatory piece of leg islatio n, because it does allow, and does provide that anyone who wishes to particip ate in the ag ricu ltur al indus try, of course, would have no res tric tion, no matter wher e they are from they onc e you're in spee d-up. lt 's a matter of com mon sense, I sup pose, that's go ing to have to prevail. Mr.

Speaker, in the opening debate for sec o nd reading , I empha sized to this House the purpose of this legi slation, the importance of this legi slat ion, and that mainly was to stren g then the owner operated famil y farm structur e in Manitoba. Bill 56 is not desig ned to be ag ainst anyone, not ag ainst foreig ners, not ag ainst corpora tions, Mr. Speaker, but rather it is for farmers who farm the land. That is the way in which I view this piece of legi sla tion. There's no doubt in my mind, Mr.

Speaker, that to the extent that we reduce the pressure on the market, external pressure on the market, it will be easier for local farmers to ac quire additional land holdin gs , or indeed, the fi rst land holdin gs in their farming career. So it is really for farmers that we are legi sla ting, not ag ainst corporations or ag ainst foreign ers, or ag ainst anyone. lt is not a discr iminatory piece of legi slati on, because it does al low, and does provide that anyone who wishes to partici pate in the ag ricu ltur al in dustry, of cou rse, woul d ha ve no res tric tion, no matter 3662

Thursday, June 2, 19 77 wher e they are from, providin g they come here to operate the land, to till the soi l. So it is non discr iminatory in that sense, Mr. Speaker. I'm also pl eased , Mr. Speaker, with some of the sugg esti ons that ha ve been made by members opposite.

As I said in the introdu ctory remarks, we are prepared to make reas onable amendments, amendment s that of cou rse will not jeopardize the main intent of the legi slati on . lt als o gives me an opportun ity to more fully respond to the mem bers of the Opp ositi on, in particu lar, and to more full y explain to the people of Manitoba what is involv ed . I welcome the criticism that has been levelled on this bill by members opposite, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opp ositi on, and indeed the Members for Lakeside and Morris too k so me time to try to persuade us that ther e is a distinction between foreig n ownership and ownersh ip of land by corporations and by Canad ians who are not farmers. Mr. Speaker, we took the positi o n, and I've stated it before, that in terms of the land question in Manit oba, the questi o n of absentee ow nership, that the impact of absent ee ownership is the same rega rdless of who the owner is, ifth at o wneris not the owner-o perator.

Whether it's a person who li ves in another co untry or whether it's a person who li ves in another part of Canada, or in any city or town of Manit oba, but who does not op erate as a farmer, the impact of absen tee ownership is very muc h the same, in terms of the farmer or the tenant, the tenant-farmer. The Leader of the Opp osition tried to point out to us tha t after 107 years- he's tal king abo ut since Confeder ation - 91 percent of all farm land is owned by local residents in rural co mmunities. That is true, sta tistically speaking , Mr.

Speaker, but what one has to remember is another impo rtant sta tistic and I refer to the 1971 Statistics Canada Report with respect to the amount of land that is farmed under a tenancy arrang ement in Manitoba. In 1971 we had 26 percent of all land farmed in Manitob a under some sort of a rental arrang ement. That represents % of the total farming op eratio n in Manitoba. If one wants to draw an analogy , one would obviously refer to the fact that in the same year, 34 percent of our dwel ling unit s in the province were also rented, Mr. Speaker.

I think it's impo rtant to draw tha t analogy , because what have we done with respect to the arrang ement as between la ndlo rds and tenants, in terms of housin g acc ommodat ion, by law, by statute, in the last five or six years. Not only we in this province, Mr. Speaker, but in every province of Canada, we ha ve introd uced an operational landl ord and tenant legi slation whi ch pretty well spel ls out the kind of relatio nsh ip that will exist, pursuant to those statutes as between a la ndlor d and hi s tenant. Of co urse a year or so ag o, Mr. Speaker, we even went beyo nd that.

We went as far as determ ining the amo unt of rent that may be char ge d for a dwelling unit. So ther e is quite an analogy . I make that point, Mr. Speaker, because I know that if we co ntinue the way in which we have in the past, and as more and more land falls into the cate go ry of absent ee ownership, ther e is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that we will ha ve to some day bring in legi slation go verning the relat ionship between the landlor d and the tenant, in terms of our ag ricultural areas of the province.

The re's no doubt in my mind whatever. lt's my ho pe that th is legi slation will render that an unnecessary advent on the part of the Legislatur e here in Manitoba' some time in the future. it's my hope tha t we can avoid that kind of leg islati o n. Cert ainl y that is the direction that we are go ing, and if we don't ha ve these kinds of laws go verning ownersh ip, then we will ha ve to ha ve laws go verning the relati onsh ips between landl ords and their tenant farmers. I don't th ink that is someth ing that is far away, in the absence of ownership legis lati on , Mr.

Speaker, because one has onl y to look at what has al ready, for so metime, for a lo ng time, oc cu rred in Europe. In Europe they have very severe res trictions on land owners with respect to things lik e securit y of tenure, minimum leng th of lease, maximum rents tha t may be charged, all of these considerations are biased in favour of the tenant-operator.

If you look at the leg isla tio n in so me European countries, the legi slation is bi ased in favour of the operato r of the land as op posed to the owner of the land , and that is someth ing that hope fully will not become a necessary feature of ou r lif esty le in Manitoba. The Le ader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker - and I want to quote a parag raph ou t of his speech. The Leader of the Opposition said the fol lo wing, Mr.

Speaker, and I quot e: "The term, absentee land lor d, is appl ied with equal opprobrium by the Minister to al iens and to residents alik e, while disrega rding the fundamental distinction between the two. I sug gest to you, Mr. Speaker, that a reti red farmer from my constituency of Sou ris-K il larney, li ving now in Winnipeg or li ving in Brandon or li ving in Souris, and renting hi s land to a local young farmer, hard ly deserves to be treated with the same impl ied Soci alis tic disd ain and contempt as alien owners." . Wel l , Mr.

Speaker, I have never had and I do not have any disdain or contempt nor so cialistic disd ain - wha tever that is suppos ed to mean, Mr. Speaker - for ali ens or for lan dl ords. I have never expressed contempt for landowners or for aliens, a term wh ich I dislik e very muc h because it smacks of what the Honour able Leader of the Opp osition calls opprobrium. lt would seem from his remarks, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Op position has opprobrium, .disd ain and contempt for aliens. 3663

Thursd�y, June 2, 19 77 That becomes very obvious because he seems to sugg est tha t it is quite all right applie d to aliens. I ha ve ne ver sug gested that the persons who now own land in Mani toba, no ma tter where the y liv ed, have done anyth ing cul pabl e, Mr. Speaker. The Honoura ble Leader of the Opposition seems to imply, in his remark that I try to bunc h togethe r absent ee landl ords and apply them to the same kind of nig gl ing contempt that I wou Id apply to a foreign landowner, se. ems to impl y tha t it is all righ t to have contempt for foreig ners. Now, Mr.

Speaker, unlik e the Leader of the Opposi ti on, 1 have no contempt for foreig ners and I have no cont empt for landowners. This is not a bill against anybody. as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, it is a bill for farmers. lt is a measur e desig n e.d to prevent problems from oc curring in the future. I ha ve not, and I do not, use the term absentee land lord in the pejorative sense to Canad ians or to others as the Leader of the Oppositio n accuses me of doing. The Leader of the Opposition says that there has been a natural and evolution ary trend, Mr.

Speaker, of land owne rsh ip from an origi nal state, back even before Con federati on. That's a very interesti ng observatio n , Mr. Speaker, because it gi ves us an opportun ity to remind ourselves as to wher e we were and it is a very intere sting revelation. Most of the land at that time, of cour se, was owned by the Cr own but, you know, I would lik e to ask the Honour able Member, the Leader of the Oppositi on, and members opposite, to explain to me whe the r the Huds o n Bay Company obtained the land as a result of a natural evolu tion ary trend that he refers to .

Perhaps he will explain to me by wha t rig hts the King of England could donate hal f a continent he had never seen to a company of adventu rers trad ing in Huds on Bay. Was that a natural tren d, Mr. Speaker, in the righ ts of people with respect to land ownership? Whi le he is at it, he migh t furthe r explain by what natural and evolution ary trend the ownersh ip of 30 mil li on acres of prairie land became vested in the CPR. That migh t be an interesti ng revelati on, Mr. Speaker. An d what, Mr.

Speaker, did the free market have to do with the Home stead Act, the set tlement of immig rant s on the lands and, of course, the Indians on reserva tions, wh ich to this day, ... the land they do not own , Mr. Speaker. Al l of thos .e th ings the Leader of the Qpposition woul d lik e to have us believe were sort of the natural tr ends in terms of the disposition ot our lands and the ownership of our land s thr ough out our l;li story. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is nothin g natural about them.

These lands were acquir ed either by gi fts or by conq uest and ce rt ainl y by actions of go vernments, either foreign or Canad ian, but cert ainl y not by any natural trend that my hono urable friend, the Leader of the Opposi tion , allud ed to in hi s remarks. -( Int erjec tion )- The Home stead Act was not a natural trend, it was

an Act of the state. lt wasn't a natural trend . lt had nothing to do with the market-p lace, Mr. Speaker. Th e his tory of land owne rsh ip in this part of the world, Mr. Speaker, goes back far beyond 107 years. The tr ouble is - and I am sur e that the Honour able Leader of the Opposition is also awa re of it, Mr. Speaker - that our cl aim to ownership rests on very shaky gr ound. If the ownersh ip of land is an unaliena ble rig ht of man, then the King of Engl and cl early had no righ t to al ienate the land from the Indians.

Nor did the Governme nt of Canada have that righ t in 1868 thr ough the Ruper tsland Act or in 1870 by sup pressin g the Metis uprising in Mani toba. If tha t is a rig ht, that the Honou rable Member allu des that it is a righ t, and I don 't know under wha t kind of description or what kind of interpr eta tion he makes it a right , but cert ainly it is obvious it isn't the kind of right that I would would want to assu m e to be the case. There mus t be quite a difference between the rig hts that he prescribes and the rig hts that we would want to prescribe and li ve by here. The plain fact is, Mr.

Speaker, that the ownership of land is as a result of co nquest which, if it were eng a ge d in by individuals, woul d be called in today's te rms "armed robbery." -(I nt erjec tion)- Of course, you may ask me. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourabl e Member for Morris. MR. JORGENS ON: Is he sugg esting now that the 90 percent of the farm land in this Province of Manitoba has been obtained by conque sts or by armed robbery? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Agriculture. MR. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, I don 't th ink that I have to tell the Member for Morris the history of the world.

Many of us are full y aware of what took place in the world and what took pla ce in North America with the disposition of North American lands and the his tory, Mr. Speaker, is not a pure one. lt is cqvere.d in blood, Mr. Speaker, it is covered with blo od. -(In terjecti on)- Yes, and and gu npowder. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. USKIW: No one has sugg ested that, Mr. Speaker, no one has sugg ested that the farmers who have ac quired the land go t it in tha t way. I merely point to our early his tory in North America, Mr. Speaker. -(I nterjection )- That's correct.

In a good part of North America, the fastest gu n was able to dete.rmine the owner ship of property for a .long period of time . -(I nterje ct ion)- The Member for Portag� la Prairie says, "Taxpayers' blood, too ." Well, thafs correct too, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it is go od to remember that the power to set the rule s on land ownership was consid ered to be so important by the Government of Canada that tha t power was not passed on to the 3664

Thursday, June 2, 19 77 provinc es until the 1930s . -( Int erjection )- Tha t' s correct, th ese provinces. So, Mr. Speaker, when you ta lk about natural and evolutionary trends in land ownership, the fact is that go vernments ha ve had a lot to do, go vernments have had a lot to do with the disposition of land rig hts throu gh out our hi story, cert ainly in th e hi story of the world .

I am sur e that even members of the Opposition will ag ree that when we speak of the rig ht of Canad ians to ac quire and own la nd, we use the word "righ t" to denote privilege est abl ished thr ough law, cus to m and tr adition, Mr. Speaker, rather than a rig ht in natu ral law that can be, and ough t to be, exte nded equally to all. I would, therefore, sugg est that the expression "righ t to acq uire and own land" be used with prudence because in th e 107 years of hi story that the Honour able Leader of the Opposi t ion referred to , we have not exte nded th at righ t equally to all.

Basically, we have extended the privilege onl y to those who co ul d pay for it and would sugg est that ther e is a big difference, Mr. Speaker, between a natural hum an rig ht and the abili ty to pay for a title of land . The Leader of th e Opposition also went on to com plain about unnecessary int erference in the li festy le. I want to quote, Mr. Speaker.

"Why is it that because of this bill, a man who has a so n, a man who li ves in Winnipeg who is not a farmer but has a son who is taki n g Ag ricu lture, for instance, at the University or taking a diploma course at the Un iversity and he wants to estab li sh tha t son on a farm and he is restrict ed under this particular bill, because he is not a farmer, to purchasin g 640 acres. Now, he may want to be a rancher and he is go ing to need, as my honourable friend from Lakeside can te ll you , some thin g considerably more than 640 acres if he is go ing into the ranchin g business." Mr.

Speaker, I don't know whether th e Leader of the Op position didn't want to understand or couldn't read well, but it is obvious that if the father was entitled to 640 acres, presu mably he had a wife or the mother of the son who woul d be entitled to 640 acres and presuma bly if the son was at University, he woul d be of ag e of majority and would be entit led to own 640 acres. I don't know wher e my honourable friend the Leader of th e Opposition sees a problem. We are talkin g about th ree secti ons of land , capa bil ity under that sort of arrange ment without any encu mberance wh atever by legi slat ion.

The Leader of th e Opp osition finds this an impos si ble thin g for our young farmers who want to ge t estab li shed in ag ricultur e, Mr. Speaker. The average farm size in Manitoba is ju st over a sect ion of land but even in th is ins tance, th ree sections seems to be a hand icap. In another part of his comments, the Leader of the Opp osition had the following to say, and I quote, Mr. Speaker.

"We are not talkin g about German indus trial ists; we are not talkin g about Italians trying to escape th e left-w ing influe nce in Italy; we are not ta lking about Frenchmen who are trying to ge t th eir money away from the kis sing cousins of my honour able friends in France." Well tha t's very int erestin g , Mr. Speaker, that's very inte rest ing because let's examine the situation over in that part of the world, Mr. Speaker. This is quit e a pric eless piece of logi c emanating from the Leader of the Conser vat ive Party. You know, the Government of Germany' of course, who are the Government of Germany?

The Social ist go vernment happens to have one of the stron g est cu rrencies in the world at the present time. Let's take a loo k at Italy, Mr. Speaker. Italy has a Con servative go vernment; Italy has a Conser vative go vernment with a social ist in opposition . -(I nterject ion)- The Leader of the Opposition says, "The Com munists are in opposit ion." So be it. France has a Cons ervative go vernment with so cialis ts in oppositi on. MR. LYON: Mostly Com munis t. MR. USKIW: And the Leader of the Opposition says mostly Co mmunis t. Wel l, you know, Mr.

Speaker, Manit oba has what the Leader of the Opp osition del i g hts in cal ling a Soc ialis t go vernment. MR. LYON: Mostly Co mmunist. MR. USKIW: Mostly Co mmunists. All rig ht, let it be, Mr. Speaker. But he is sugg est ing that the Frenchmen and the Germans and the Ital ians are running away from their countries in order to come to the secur e position of a soc ial ist provinc e in Canada. -(I nte rject ion)- And a socialist federal go vernment as far as the Lead er of the Oppos ition is concerned. All these free enterpriser s are leaving Europe for the comfo rts of so cialis t Manitoba, Mr. Speaker.

Th at's wha t the Leader of the Opposition is sugg estin g . Tha t's wha t the Lead er of the Opp osition is sugg estin g , Mr. Speaker. They are leaving Cons ervative go vernments, running away from socialis t oppositions in order that they can invest all of their money in a so cialis t province in Canada. Tha t's the import of hi s remarks, Mr. Speaker. And then, of course, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition talks about an abridge ment of free rig hts of farmers and other landowners. Wel l, Mr.

Speaker, th e only chan ge that is tak ing place here is a chan ge that restri cts people from purchasin g . lt doesn' t restrict people from se lling. Farmers are not prevented from se lling their la nd. Certain gr oups of people, of cou rse, are prevented from buying land unless they wish to be farmers and that cert ainly is not a very serious imposition in terms of the legi sla tion on land ownersh ip and purcha ses in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker. Next, the Honour able Leader of the Opposition said th at he is baffled . I want to quote, Mr. Speaker.

"Co rporations ... from the definition sec tion but corporations controlled by farmers whether resident or foreig n or ali en, no res trictions on them at all provided it is a farm corpo rati on, Mr. Speaker, and this is on advice tha t we have had from a number of counsel provided in the present 3665

Thursday, June 2, 19 77 definition of the Act. Ther e seems to be a situation whereby the bill woul d actua:ly permit alien farm owned co rporations to purchase unrest ric ted amounts of land in Manitoba." Wel l, Mr. Speaker, 1 am puzzled too because I do not know how the honour able member arrives at that co nclusion.

The bill defines a corporation as "one which is not primaril y engaged in farming and of which 40 percent or more of all issued shar es are owned by persons who are not farmers." The bill also defines a farmer as"a res ident Canad ian who is actively and sub stant ially engaged in farming in Manitoba and whose princi ple occu pation is farming. " That clearly rules out farming corporations owned by persons who are not resident Cana dians. I may add, Mr.

Speaker, that in addition an amendment has been prepared and we will be pres enting this to Com mittee, to the definition of resident Canad ian to incl ude corporations and ho pefull y tha t will tidy up tha t particular aspect of it. lhe Leader of the Oppo sition als o quarrels with the idea that individuals and corporations are not treated alike. He cal ls it an inc ons istency. Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that there is anything wrong, ther e is no inc onsis tency and different trea tment wha tever because that indeed is the objective of the leg isla tion . You know, Mr.

Speaker, one should reflect , one shou ld reflect on the difference between an individual and his rig hts, or her rights, and the rig hts of a corporation because they are very important differences. Members maywantt o remind themselves that, you know, it takes only a brief moment of pleasure, Mr. Speaker, and nine months of discomfort for the expectant mother and 18 years of sacrifice for the parents as wel l as a lot of public expense to create a citizen of Manitoba. That is the formul a in the crea tion of a citizen of Manitoba. lt takes a lawyer, Mr.

Speaker, only a few moments and an issue of the Man itoba Gazette to cr eate a corpora tion . A very very simpl e proced ure, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opp osition would have us equ ate the rig hts of a corporation to that of a citizen of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker. Tha t kind of logic, Mr. Speaker, is not accept able on this side of the Ho use. Ther e should be no co nsid eration wha tever in terms of the equal ity as between corporations and individuals because the individual right s are supr eme. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Oppo sition . MR.

STERLING LYON (Souris-Killarney): Would my honour able friend permit a question of clarification? He was ta lking about the abil ity of a lawyer to cr eate a corpora tion. Is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, that the lawyer must first have the cl ient who wis hes the corporation to be created and that cl ient mus t be an individual, a person, who may be doing it for tax purposes or for some equal ly unreprehensible purpose. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, reg ardless of the fact tha t the lawyer mus t have his cl ient, the fact of the matter is that ther e is a gr eat difference between rig hts for an individual and rights for a corporation and we do not want to detract from that. A MEMB ER: Don't be smart, Red . MR. USKIW: lt is obvious that lawyers are not resp onsi ble for the corpora tions that they cr eate. They do it under legislation that is provided for them by either provincial or federal statute, Mr. Speaker.

They do it pursuant to legislation and ther efore ther e is not hin g wrong with what they are doing. lt merely points out that you can make a company and undo a company every ho uro ft he day but cert ainly that is not the same with respect to the citizens of the land . One also has to respect the fact that ther e is a lim itation of land resou rces and so the two thin gs mus t be cons idered in ta ndem. Corpor ati ons, als o, Mr.

Speaker, are entities which have lim ited liabil ities and that sometimes is not to the advantage. lt is not always to the advantage of the co mmunity at large when liabilit ies are so lim ited. Anyone who is involv ed in the various bankruptcie s over the years - and ther e are many every year - would know what we are tal king about. The dif ference between the resp onsibili ty of an individual to society and that of a corporation is quite different, if ther e is a lim ited liabil ity situation . The th ird point raised by the Honour able Leader of the Opposi tion , Mr.

Speaker, tha t the definition of 'farmer', appl ies to persons but not to farm compan ies will, I hope be taken care of by an amendment mentioned earl ier. The fourth point raised by the Honour able Leader of the Opp osition is really a resta tement of hi s first point, both of whic h are based on a mis concep tion. Hi s consensus, however, will be taken car e of by amendment in any event. The other major objection that the Lea der of the Opp osition raises has to do with the autho rity of the Lie utenant-Governor -in-C ounci l. Mr. Speaker, I happen to sympathize with that posi tion.

But I don't know how it could be, I don't know how we could place into statute the necessary wording that woul d foiesee all kinds of different situa ti ons. I jus t don't think that it is prac tical ly possible. I don't think that there is a practical way of achie ving it by sta tute, and so we are not int ending to change the powers vested in the Lieut enant-Governor -in-C ounc i l by this legisla tion . I might take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to remind members opposite tha t in Al berta the Act is a very simple docu ment.

I want to read into the record jus t what the Al berta legisla tion provides in tha t regard . Under Section (2) of the Agricultur al and Recrea tional Land Ownership Act, I quote, Mr. Speaker; to Section (3): "The Lieutenan t-Gov ernor-in-C ouncil may make reg ula tions within the Leg is lative autho rity of the province and complemen tary to any reg ula tions that he makes pursuant to Section (33) of the Ci tizen ship Act Canada, for the purpose of Proh ibiting , annul ling, or in any 3666

Thursday, June 2, 19 77 manner restri cting the ta king of acq uis ition directly or indirectly of, or the succession to any interest in controlled land . Reg ul ations made under

Section {2) do not operate so as to prohib it, annul, or in any manner restrict the ownership by a person of interest in controlled land consisting of not more than two parcels contai ning in the agg regate not more than 20 acres. Reg ul ations made under

Section {2) may provide for the exclusion from the operation of all, or any part of those reg ula tions of {

a) any person or cl ass of persons, any transaction of class of tran saction involving controlled la nd, any inter ests or class of int erest in controlled land , any use or class of use of contr ol led land, and all or any part of the land within the boundaries of a ham let as defined in the Munici pal Government Ac t." ' The whole operational part of the Al berta legislation is going to be by regula tion , by reg ulat ion, Mr. Speaker. And, Mr. Speaker, I don't have to remind members opposite that that is a Cons ervative Government.

Another point the Leader of the Opp osition raised was the question of a person or a corporation being able to acq uire 160 acres of shor el ine, and he may subdi vide for his own uses. In tha t particu lar area, I think I should remind members opposite that under the Planning Act there is provision to provide for a public int erest in any pla n of sub division, wh ere dedication may be required and so on. So ther e is a mechanism to deal with tha t kind of situa tion invol ving recrea tional areas. With respect to the powers of the Minister, Mr.

Speaker, I I ag ree with members opposite. lt is real ly not my preference to undertake or to make all of these decisions. Wh il e federal legi slation reads that way in most ins tances I have no problem with introd ucing an amendment tha t would set up a Board to make the decisions, that we will do in Comm ittee. With respect to the definition of a farmer - again, that is a very difficult thing to write into the Statute. We, of necessity, mus t leave it within the confines of reg ula tions, Mr. Speaker, because they will have to be changed from time to time.

Ther e will be situations that arise that we cannot foresee at thi s point in time. And to be fair to the people of Manitoba, I think that it is best le ft in the area of regu lations. Whoever the government is, they will be more able to respo nd to the needs of the moment, and not be hamstrung by a Statute which could only be changed or altered by another bill being introduced. The Leader of the Opposition made a major point of a

section dealing with corpora tions. I am not going to quote all of that. I am not going to deal with it at length, except to point out to him that corpora tions are privileged in that the provinc ial gover nments' legislatur es and the national gove rnment ha ve passed laws al lo wing for the inc orporation of com panies and gi ving them certain privileges. Ther efore, I don't accept at all his theory tha t somehow we should th ink in terms of giving them additional privileges, and that somehow tha t this interferes with their leg itima te operations as farming corpora tions, because it cert ainl y does not.

No thing changes in that regard. Farm ing corpora tions are corporations wher e 60 percent of the sh ares are owned by farmers, who are not wh atever affected by this leg islatio n. The Leader of the Opposition makes a point tha t sometimes people inc orporate in order to dodge taxa tion . Well, you know, I am somewhat disappoi nted -{ Interjec tion)- Wel l, take advantage of, or dodge, or wha tever you want to call it, Mr. Speaker. I don'tthink ther e is much dif ference. The fact is, Mr.

Speaker, that the Leader of the Opp osition impli es someho w tha t governments are not of the people, that governments are some thing tha t we should resist and that we should not allow them the right shall we say, to impose levels of taxa tion from time to tim e as is necessary for the public affairs of the province or the country. And as a person aspiring to become the Fir st Minister of this province, I can' t understand his logic wh atever, Mr. Speaker. A ME MBER: He's got no log ic. MR.

USKIW: If one was to take a look at the privile ge now extended to corpora tions as com pared to individuals, one would realize very quickly, Mr. Speaker, that that individual, who carries a lunch can and punch es a time clock, and get a pay cheque is in a tax straitjacket. Hi s options aie next to zero. He has about $1 50 a year of options or expenses tha t he may deduct for hi s busine ss.

But unlik e corpora tions, which my honour able friend seems to be preferring that we gi ve additional li berties to or privileges for, they are able to do all sorts of th ings in order to put themselves in a more favourable tax positi on. I have yet to hear the Leader of the Opp osit ion say anything that would befavourable to those thousands, tens of thousan ds of people, who don't have those option s, but who sim ply receive a pay cheq ue with all the deductions taken off.

The Leader of the Opp osition also took time to further question , the need for the provincial Land Lease Progr am. lt is not my intent, Mr. Speaker, to take time her e to convince hi m of the need of it. I know that his philo sophy is based on the marketplace determ ining the righ ts of people, wha t people · are able to do, what they are able to ow n, and the refore I don't expect anyth ing more from him. I simply point out to him that he refers to our phil osophy in that regard as an ideological bent.

I don't mind acce pti ng that because I bel ieve there is need, there is gr eat need, for the state to be involved in areas which would gi ve more equal opp ortun ity to people dis reg arding their financial abil ity. I think that we have to be judged upon on the bas is of how we look after people that ha ve the least of 3667

Thursday, June 2, 19 77 resou rces, rather than how we treat those who already ha ve so muc h. And this legis lati on, Mr. Speaker, provides an opportu nity for young sters, who are unable to raise mortgage capit al, no matter what the int erest rate. Thousands of our young farmers are unable to raise mortgage capital and the only way they can get into agr icultur e is thr ough some initial leasing arrangement. lt could be that some day they will become owners of the property, but at least they have an opportu nit y of entry under that particular prog ram.

Ano ther point the Leader ot the Opp osition raised with respect to this Bill, has to do with the mortgage ca pit al, the private ca pit al , tha t he says will dry up, because of the requirement that a company tha t forecloses must divest of its properties wit hin two years. The Leader of the Op position sugge sts that that will dry up all of the mortgage capital and that will be some hand icap to Manitoba farmers. I would lik e to point out to him, Mr. Speaker ... Wel l, the Member for Rock Lake sugg ests the same. I would lik e to point out that that is really a phoney issue to say the least, Mr. Speaker.

Land purcha ses are typ ically financed on a lon g-term basis, and loans over a period of ten years or more in 1974, the latest year for wh ich we have data, long- term credit out st anding totalled $2.463 billion. None of this credit was from banks and only $29 mil li on, Mr. Speaker, just over one percent was provided by insur ance, trust and loan compan ies; $84 million was provided by private individuals. In other words, 95 percent of all lon g-term farm cred it out st anding was provided by government agencies. So you know, it is very hard to dry someth ing up that isn' t there.

You know, it never was there, and ther efore this legisl ation will have no impact in that respect. In respect to the penalty sect ion, the Leader of the Opp osition sug gests that the penalty sections are too Drac onian as he suggests. I think it should be remembered tha t it is not int ended to impose penalties on people who innocently err in any transact ion, but rather to appl y thos e wher e ther e is obvious int ent to get around the legislati on. I don't bel ieve that those penalties are too onerous, Mr. Speaker. In fact they have to be sever e enough to provide a deterrent. Mr.

Speaker, I didn't mention , but I want to take a few moments, to draw to the atte ntion of members opposite the fact that they were unable to resist the temptation to draw into this debate matters of a personal nature, as it involv es my own particular land transac tion . Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the House that the particular story that the Member for Morris introduced in that regard, it is really nothing new, it was on the shelf of the Winnipeg Free Press sinc e last year, and I had knowledge of it sinc e last year, that ther e was some thin g put together there. Mr.

Speaker, it is very inter es ting to note that ther e is obviously an all iance between the Cons ervative Party and the Winnipeg Free Press for obvious reasons, and that is, Mr. Speaker, an all iance that has been there for some time. After eigh t years, Mr. Speaker, - it is a credit to this govern ment. They ha ve tried , they have looked , and they have not been able to unc over anyth ing unt oward in terms of the behaviour of the members of the government. They have tried desper ately and the best they cou ld come up with, Mr. Speaker, in those eight years, the bes tt hey co uld come up with is innuendo.

The question was, a gr eat big questi on mark, head li ned in the Free Press - "Did the Minister of Agricultur e reali ze a gain on his land because of a road being built?" ltdidn' ts ayhe did, it just put the question there. That's the most they cou ld come up with, Mr. Speaker, is innuendo, and they had the participation of my friends opposite. That is a pretty empty position on the part of the pol itical oppositi on, Mr. Speaker, to have to resort to innuendo as their basis for an attem ptto topple the government. And, Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time, this is not the first time.

The same char acters emplo yed by the Mafia-oriented Press have been att empti ng th is for some period of ti me, have been- Mafia-orient ed or Mafia-sty le Press in Manit oba. They ha ve atte mpted this many times before and will ag ain in the future. We are not surpri sed. We have been fighting battles with the Winnipeg Fr ee Press for a good number of years and we'll conti nue to do so . Notwiths tand ing their editorials and mis ch ievous press reporti ng, we have been able to sustain our cred ibil ity, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Mr.

Ward from the Winnipeg Free Press ha ppens to spend a lot of time in my own parti cular neighb ourhood, hoping to unc over someth ing, hoping to uncover someth ing. And what he does uncover, Mr. Speaker, he doesn't print, or at least he doesn't print it in full co nt ext - he even gets the cooperation of the Member for Morris, who raised the question - so that the story he put togeth er, he can at tribut e to somebody else as ha ving raised . And then he goes out into the co mmunit y and at tribut es stat ements to my neigh bours, who claim they have not made such state ment s on the other media.

That is the kind of nons ense we are involv ed in. That is the kind of muckr aking that members opposit e are att empting, Mr. Sp eaker, and it isn't going to wash. 1 want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that with respect to the Member for Morris, and hi s su ggestion that 1 pers onally would be involv ed in land spe cula ti on ... You know, I would lik e to tell him that at least my interp reta tion or definition of land spec ula ti on would mean that one buys and sells on a conti nuing basis, not that one dis poses of a landhold ing period. There is quite a difference, quite a difference.

The other thing the Member for Morris would lik e to sugge st, that there was some thing unt oward about the value of property. He would somehow think that it is a contr adiction for a person who bel ieves that land is overpriced and that people become ec onomic sla ves thr oug h overpricing in the 3668

Thursday, June 2, 19 77 marketplace, that somehow one would want to, in hi s own personal way, donate his piece of property to such a corrupt instit ution . So that perhaps the Mem ber for Morris would be the recipient of such a donation on which he woul d then make his capital ga in. He is kind of lud icrous, Mr. Speaker. Just lud icrious, Mr. Speaker. Because the Member knows that wha t he is really sugges ting, Mr.

Speaker, is that the Minister of Agriculture in his private affairs, sho uld really operate on the basis of his philosophy regard less of what the rules of the game are, wh ich woul d then gi ve hi m a set of loaded dice, Mr. Speaker. it's a crap game with a set of loaded dice in favour of my friend opposite, the Member for Morris. That's what he is real ly sugge sti ng. Now, with respect to his Mafia co ll eag ue, Mr. Speaker, the Mafia-like operation over in the Winnipeg Free Press, it's interes ting that they went overto the Rur al Municipal ity of St. Clements ... A MEM BER: Who? MR.

US KIW: Oh, my Mafia-like friends over at the Winnipeg Fr ee Press- (l nterjec tion)- Mike Ward - and you know, they wanted to know certa in things tha t they have carried a story on for thr ee or four days and you know what they neg lected to print, Mr. Speaker? They neg lected to print that on July 8, 1969, the R.M. of St. Clemen ts passed the fol lo wing mot ion: "The Hi ghw ays Department, Province of Manitoba, be reques ted to take over as a provincial road, the road known as St.

Peter's Road com mencing at intersec tion of Col vill e Road , PR 212 at East Selkirk, thence northerly to River Lot 117, Parish of St. Pet er's, then easterly along southern limi t of

Section 10-1 1-15 -5E, then south along west limi t of Sect ion 115-5E, then easterly along south boundary of

Section 115 -5E and south of

Section 16-1 5-6E." This was July 8, 1969. Where does this emanate from, Mr. Speaker? How did this get started? You know, melll bers opposite probably don't know, but when thei r friends were the Government of Canada, when John Diefenbaker was Prime Minister, I had a neighb our who was Member of Parliament, Mr. Speaker-! had a neighbour and a friend who was a Member of Parlia ment in tha t gov ernment who came around between 1959 and 1962 and he sa id, you know, we've got to get a road into this area because we've got St.

Peter's, the hi storic chur ch , and somehow un der the Hi storic Sites thing, we're goi ng to get th is road into this area. That's wher e it started , Mr. Speaker. But you know, they never del ivered, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, they never del ivered, and when the gov ernment in Manitoba changed hands, and I don't knowwhether they received reso lu tions from St. Clements, I have no idea, Mr. Speaker, because when I walked into my office, the Department of Agricu lture, in 1969, there wasn't one sh red of paper there.

There were no files, so I don't know what kind of represent ati ons that were made to my friends opposite when they were the government because they took it all wit h them. When I asked the Member for Lakeside privately - and I'm sur e he won't mind admitti ng to it, Mr. Speaker - I said, to the Member for Lakeside, "Why is it that ther e are no files in the Department of Agricultu re? Didn't people have any problems? Wasn't there anything ongoing that we should know about?

Surely there must have been briefs and presenta tions and corr espo ndence, unfin ished busi ness?" And the Member for Lakeside said to me, "When we were the govern ment, everything was well ; ther e were no problems, that's why the cupb oards are empty." So, Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the R.M. of St. Cl ements had sent in reso lu tions lik e this one when they were the government. I have no way of knowing it. I know that they were bragging about going to do it - not th em, but their Federal cou nterparts, under a Hi storic Sites arrangeme nt but never got it done, Mr. Speaker.

And one of the reasons they perhaps didn't get it done is because they started backstab bing amongst themselves and destroyed their own government in Ott awa. Tha t's perhaps one of the reaso ns they never got it done. MR. SPEAKER: Order pl ease. MR. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, the road that was being proposed by the R.M. of St. Clements took its path past the property, Mr. Speaker, that I ha ve just entered ag reement of sale on. But Mr. Speaker, the investigative reporter from the Fr ee Press - if you can cal l him tha t- didn't report, Mr.

Speaker, that it was the Minis ter of Ag ricultur e, the local representative there who said , "No, we don't ag ree with that proposal. The road should n't go tha t far. We'll take it past the popu la ted area and no further." An d ther efore, it never got to the point, Mr. Speaker, of the property in ques tion. But that was not reported, Mr. Speaker, by the inquisitive reporter from the Winnipeg Fr ee Press. The property that is involved co nt inues to be on a munici pal gr avel road, Mr.

Speaker. lt's a half -mile away from th is particular road. · lt was my own int ervention and persuasion on Council to change their reso lution for a shorter route to 59 Hig hway that really too k away from my own parti cular land area, or reduc ed the benefits to my own land in ques tion , Mr. Speaker.

My own actions, in an effort to con vinc e Cou ncil that the y were asking for too much, tha t it made sense to go to a certa in point and after tha t- and by the way, the area that they were as king this road to be buil t into, if we follo wed the res olu tion, would have taken it into the flo odway which was su bseq uently bough t up by the Crown in any event. We knew that this was happ ening and we enc ouraged them to co mpromise their positio n. We rec ogniz ed the 3669

Thursday, June 2, 19 77 hi sto ric site at old St. Peter's and we recog nized that the road should be connec ted to 59 Highway, at least it should be taken beyond the popula ted area, and at that point we woul d go no further. So the Member for Morris and his friend at the Winnipeg Free Press cou ld indulge in all sorts of fun and games, Mr. Speaker, but when the local people there hear these stories, they wonder where it comes from. How cou ld it be so when we know that it is not so? That is the kind of question that aris es in the local com munity. So it's not an att empt, Mr.

Speaker, to embarrass the Minis ter of Agricultur e in his own neighbour hood because the neighbour hood knows the story. it's an attem pt to try to te ll the people of Manit oba tha t there is someth ing wrong with the Government of Manitoba. lt is the people that don't know that they are hoping to infl uence. Mr. Speaker, I have been used to rumours emanati ng from Cons ervative cir cles for quite some time. This isn't the first one. A year ago, more than a year ago, Conser vative cir cles in the com munity, and ther e are a few Cons ervativ es in the area, Mr.

Speaker, have it that I happen to have an int erest in a concr ete pla nt. They tried to use that on Gary Scherbai n, who then su bseq uently - by the way, he used to be an assistant to I bel ieve it was the Honour abl e Member for The Pas at tha t time, Mr. Carr ell, as I rec all it - tried to use that on his radio program with a gr eat big a question mark.

"Does this Minister have an inter est in th is co ncr ete pl ant?" Tha t was the rumour going about the area- and I'm sti ll asked about it by people in the co mmunity, you know - tying that in with the sat ell ite city, tha t if we only get these hous es buil t, the Minister will se ll all the concr ete to the govern ment to build these hous es . That's another one of thei r rumours, Mr. Speaker, in the area. Mr. Speaker, I can te ll you - (I nter jec tion) - Oh that's not a new one, that was on the Gary Scherb ain prog ram ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, that was on the Scherbain progr am, over whic h he sent a letter of apology the very next day, after having checked it out. Mr. Speaker, I will te ll the honour able members op posite tha t they even have my land tied in with the satell ite city, that is, as far as the Fr ee Press story is concerned. The Member for Morris raised it in the House when he spoke on this bill: "Is ther e some connection? Is the Minis ter going to sel l his land to the Crown?" He knows it's several miles apart but he knows that in terms of the public of Manitoba, they don't know that it's several mil es apart.

And that is the kind of cam paign that they are launc hing, Mr. Sp eaker, in the hopes of estab lishing some cre dibili ty on th eir side. And Mr. Speaker, if that is all they have to offer the people of Manitoba, it is nothing. lt is less than not hing, Mr. Sp eaker, it is demeaning of themselves. Mr. Speaker, I want to -(I nterjecti on)- Wel l, I don't know what Order in Co uncil the Member for Morris allu des to. But anyway, Mr. Speaker, in any event I want to point out in my closing remarks on this bill, that we will look forward, Mr.

Speaker, to the cont ribut ionso ft he public in the Co mmittee on Ag ricu ltu re - (I nte rject ion) - Is it Law Amend ments? All right, Law Amendme nts, and that hopefu lly we will be able to come up with a final docu ment that is going to be more acceptable to the people of Manitoba. QUE STI ON put, MOTION carried. BILL (No. 40) -

AN ACT FOR GRA NTING TO HER MAJESTY CERTAIN SUMS OF MO NEY FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE OF THE PROVINCE FOR THE FI SCAL YEAR ENDING THE 31S T DAY OF MARCH, 19 78 MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: Bill No. 40 please, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: On the Proposed Motion of the Honour able Minister of Fina nce. The Honou rable Member for Gl adstone has it for the Honour able Leader of the Oppositi on. MR. LYON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker ... MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, just on that point, it has been raised before by the Honourable, the House Leader of the Conser vative Party, I bel ieve, as to a member taking an adjournment for somebody else. I ha ve no dis agreement with this but I do just want to est abl ish the point that was raised , I bel ieve by the ... He did not? MR. JORGENSON: No. MR. PAULLEY: Then I'm raising no objecti ons at all. MR.

JORG ENSON : All I want to point out to the Minister is that the objection that I raised, that a Member on the Government side cou ld take the adjournment ost ensibly for the purpose of closing debate, not jus t ta king it for somebody else. MR. PAULLEY: Okay, that's acceptable to me, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order pl ease. Neither point of order really is cogent at the moment because as I pointed out when the Honour able Member for Morris raised that point, the Chair al ways takes precautions to inform that debate shall be closed by the last pers on. The Hon ourable Leader of the Oppos ition . MR.

LYON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the sake of the record, I am ta king the debate which 3670

Thursday, June 2, 19 77 stood in the name of the Hono urable Member for Gl adstone on this bill. Mr.

Speaker, this second reading of suppl y, whil e by some regarded as a routine measure, does afford an opportun ity to review to some extent the spend ing Esti mates of the Government opposite and some of the ideas and the philoso ph ies whic h animate th eir pol ici es, their outlooks, their at titudes and th eir tendencies. lt's my purpose in making these few remarks today to try to gi ve some kind of an overview of the situation of the government vis-a-v is its supply expenditu res vis-a- vis the position of the government in relation to the people of Manit oba, and perhaps a few words on what the future migh t hold for all of us.

I would lik e first of all to make a few commen ts about the general economy against the bac kgr ound of which we base these spe nding Es tima tes wh ich are in excess of $1 .3 billio n I know immediately the Minister of Fi nance is going to say, "Ah , but that isn' t the figur e," and rather than get involved in the exchange of stat istics that we saw in the Public Accounts Com mit tee, I merely sugg est to him again that the fact that he has deduc ted from expenditur es tax rebates, cost -of-l iving credits, municip al taxation and so on, does not relieve him or his govern ment of the burden of collecting that amount of money from the people of Manitoba.

I know he does not argue the point because really it's a method of presenta tion of the Estima tes whi ch is admitted ly fol lowed in some other provinces but wh ic h I have sug gested, and I think he and perhaps hi s Deputy Minis ter of Finance, ha ve agreed can perhaps be improved by displa ying it in a slig htly different way. I have never sugge sted and do not sug gest now tha t the Minis ter or his officials are trying to conceal anyth ing from the publi c of Manitoba, it's rather the method of expositio n.

So when I speak of the fig ure of $1 .3 billi on the Minis ter will know the means by which I arrive at that figur e. Tha t is the total amount that is col lected ; the total amount that is going to be spent will be somewhat in excess of the amount that is going to be raised through the various sou rces in Manitoba. We have a situation in the province today where we ha ve an indeterm inate deficit.

The deficit is not as it was stated when the Minister broug ht down his Budget because he immediately proceeded to bring in Supp lementary Estima tes and then the Work Program of $33.5 mill ion, part of which we real ize is under Capital Suppl y and the other part under Curr ent Spending Estimates. For that matter, Mr. Speaker, we do not know at th is date - and I expect the Minis ter will be gi ving us the figur es very shortly - as to how the books of the province tot alled up at the end of the year on March 31 , 1977.

I would hope that in the cou rse of closing the debate or perhaps sooner, the Minister could indic ate to us what the actual deficit was last year in terms of the expenditu res of the Province of Manit oba and how this relates to the forecast of deficit that was made by the Minister of Fin ance in the Budge t Add ress of 1976. Wha t we do know for sure, Mr.

Speaker, and this is a matter of co nc ern and it's not a matter to be taken too ligh tly by the people of Manitoba or by this government or by the Opposition, is that we have a report of the Provincial Aud itor to the Legis lative Asse mbly in wh ich he finds it impossible to certif y the ac .cou nts of the Province of Manitoba, except sub ject to at least two serious reservati ons. One has to do of cou rse with the method of presenta tion of Expenditure and Revenues with in our acc ounting system in Manit oba.

More and more provinces have adopted the Federal system which is to co mbine the two so that you end up with a system wh ich a Provinc ial Auditor or a Federal Auditor can certify. Wha t the Provinc ial Au dit or has said for the first time in the his tory of this province, to my knowledge, is that he cannot certify the ac count s of the Province of Manitoba because he cannot certify as between revenue and expenditur e items.

He has no judgm ent to make with respect to what the government ca lls "Capital" and with respect to wha t the government cal ls "Expenditur e." Now, immediat ely, my honour able friend can come back and say, "Well, of cou rse that situation has gone on for a number of years and previous government s at previous ti mes would declare certa in items to be capital one year and then they would be cu rrent expenditur e items another year." But I th ink that the Provinci al Auditor hi mself in his own care fully chosen words in Commit tee, shot that argu ment down in co mpl ete flames when he said, "Yes, that did used to go on," and remember that this man has been in the public service of this province for well over30 years that I am aware of.

He sai d, "That was true, but here we are today with governments sp ending money in excess of $1 .3 bill ion and I think it's a seri ous problem in Manitoba and tha t's why I can't put my certification on the accounts of the Province of Manitoba without specifically menti oning that item ." And it flows in turn, Mr. Speaker, from the oft-repeated rec ommendation that the Provincial Aud itor has made, about how the accounts of Manitoba should be managed .

So I sug gest at the outset, that we have a se rious management problem that has emanated largely because of the presence of the NDP Party in gov ernment in Manitoba. They are not managers. They do not pretend to be managers. They are oc cupying positions of power on a tempo rary basis, and the y feel that anyth ing goes. But part of a resp onsibi lit y of go vernment, as my honour able friends I would have thought would have learned over the past eight years, is to gi ve an acc ounting to the people of Manitoba as to how you're running th eir busine ss.

Because what is happen ing - the Government of Manit oba is not the busine ss of the New Democratic Party . The Government of Manitoba is the busi ness of all of the people of Manitoba. 3671

Thursday, June 2, 19 77 The Government of Manitoba is the busi ness of all of the people of Manitoba. I repeat it ag ain. lt is not the private preserve of the Minister of Fina nce, or of the Fi rst Minister, or of the Minister of Labour, or any of their colleagues, or any of the members of their back bench , it's the busi ness of all people in Manitoba.

What we do, through the ins trumental ity of the Provincial Aud itor, is to make that man responsible to the Leg is la tiv e Ass embly of Manitoba, to put him above and beyond the control of the Executive Branch of government, and say to him, in statutory terms, "You certify the books of the Province of Manit oba, you tell the people of Manitoba, without fear or favour from the government, from the Executive Branch, as to how th eir busine ss is being run." And Mr.

Speaker, I suggestto you that it's a worse condemnation than any partisan or rhetorical cond emnation that we co uld make from this side of the Ho use. The worst co ndemnation that could be made of the mismanagement of this govern ment, is made by the report of the Provincial Aud itor.

I hope that thousands of people across Manitoba will come to read tha t report, and will come to read the areas of mismanagement that he has point ed out; will come to read that he can't certify the books of the Province of Manitoba for last year - heaven knows wha t he's going to be able to say for the year that just clos ed , March 31 , 19 77. This is an extremely serious matter. Compounde d , may I say, Mr.

Speaker, by the fact that when we were in Public Acco unt s Comm ittee - and I mention as an aside - that the Public Account s Comm ittee of this Legisl atu re has not comple ted its work, all we have done so far is to comp lete the report of the Provincial Aud itor. We have not co mpl eted the review of the Public Accounts of Manitoba, or of the Supp lement to the Public Accounts of Manitoba, and I sug gest that this House cannot prorogue until it has co mple ted its busine ss, and one of its pieces of busine ss is to co mplete the review of The Public Accounts of Manitoba, which has not yet been done.

In the commit tee hearings thus far we were treated to what I consider one of the most unusual displ ays that I ha ve ever seen in this Leg isla tive Assem bl y.

I've been in and around this Assem bly si nce prior to the time when I was first elected to it in 1958, and oneofthe most unus ual things that we obse rved was to see the Parl iament ary Secretary, or wha tever the term is, Leg isl ative Assistant, the former Minis ter of Financ e of this province, the Leg isla tive Assistant to the present Minis ter of Fi nance - may I say not the Minis ter of Fi nance who fol lowed this tactic, but the Leg isla tive Assistant - berating the Provincial Audit or of Manitoba, ques tion ing the Provincial Aud itor of Manitoba, cross-e xamining the Provincial Auditor of Manitoba, tr ying to say to the Provincial Auditor of Manitoba, by impl ication to the Provincial Aud itor of Manitoba, that somehow or other, he was really wrong in the suggestions that he was making, or the comments that he had made, or "Why did you ment ion that?" The transcript is ther e for one and all to see, and for the Leader of the Opposition and for other members of the Opposition party to be in the pos ition merely of asking questions of the Provinc ial Aud itor.

Now, the Provincial Aud itor is an independent officer of this Hous e. And for an independent officer of this House to be cr oss-ex amined, I won't use the word "berated" but I will say, har assed , in the Public Accounts Com mit tee, by the Legislative Assistant to the Minister of Finance, sug gests that ther e is an extr emely sensitive and touchy area on behalf of at le ast that member, the Member for St. Johns, in his protective sensitiv ity, may I say his overweani ng sensitivity, with respect to the recor d of mismanagement of this govern ment.

I woul d hope that the Minister of Fina nce might ha ve some comment to make about that particular displa y that went on in Public Accounts Comm ittee, and I would hope that, not only for the reco rd, but I would hope that the Minis ter would be able to say that he suppor ts, that he, the Minister of the department, if not his Leg isla tive Assistant, supports and encou rages the work of the Provincial Aud itor of this province to carry on his statutory oblig at ions as he should, without harassment, and without the kind of cross-ex amination that he was subjected to by the Leg isla tive Assistant, who should be an Assistant to the Minister.

I point out ag ain, it was not the Minister who was the antag onist of the Provincial Audi tor, it was the Leg isla tive Assistant who was the antagonist. We want a Provincial Aud itor who will te ll the sto ry, we have a Provincial Auditor who is tel li ng the story, it may not pl ease the Honou rable Member for St. Johns, it may not please him one bit, but nonetheless, the story will be to ld, with or without the kind of innuendo and and the kind of harassment that went on in the Public Accounts Comm ittee. Mr.

Speaker, I say to the Minister of Financ e, that in the time that is leftto hi m in th is govern ment and that may not be long - I say that he should gi ve urgent consideration to the provision of quarterly reports on the financial underta kings of th is government as is done in other province s , more particularly in recent times by the Province of British Columbia.

There is no reason why the bigge st busi ness in Manitoba, that is the Province of Manitoba, ther e is no reason why the Province of Manitoba should not be reporting to its taxpayers, especi ally when it has a govern ment whose record of mismanagement is so patent th roug hout the leng th and breadth of this province. So quarterly reports ar e required .

They'r e required , not only when you have a government that's a bad manager, as was the case in British Columbia up until they got rid of them , quarterly reports have a purpose in governments that are being well managed, in order that the public will know, on a quarterly basis, how the ir own tax dollar s are being spent. 3672

Thu rsday, June 2, 19 77

(1) We should ha ve those quarterly reports; we should have them immediately.

(2) The Provincial Aud it or said, in the cou rse of his remarks, before the Public Acco unts Comm ittee, he was cross-ex amined ag ain by the Member for St.

Joh ns, but the Provincial Auditor said that the preparation of t he Public Accounts is comp leted some time in mid-year, and that with the suppl ement ary material that would be necessary, my reco ll ection - and I'm onl y going by recoll ection at thi s stage, it's in Hans ard however, - is tha t the Public Accounts Comm ittee of this House could be sitting as early - to use this year as an example - as early as September of 1977, to start considering the books of acco unt of the Province as at March 31 , for the year ended March 31 , 1977. Now, Mr.

Speaker, if the Provincial Aud itor is prepared to undertake that kin d of a review, as he has enco uraged in his reco mmendati ons that are contained in his report -(l nterjectio- Yes, a non-partisan review of the Publi c Ac counts, non-partisan, you can argue over the term non-partisan, I would myself.

The important thing is tha t the Public Accounts Commiot eee of the Province have immediate access to the Public Accounts so that the y can beg in their review in a meaningful way, in order that they can return to the taxpayers of Manitoba some system of acc ount abil ity of the massiv e amounts of money that are now being expended on their behalf, after having been extracted from them by way of taxa tio n . If the Provincial Aud itor of Manitoba says it can be done I would lik e to hear the Minister of Finance suggest to us what the pol icy of the government is going to be.

The Provinc ial Aud itor said that this would be one way in wh ich one could carry out some of the rec ommendations that he has made about more acc ount abil ity to the Leg isla tur e and to the members of the House, and ther eby to the publi c.

(3) I think we should proceed immediately, Mr. Speaker, to adopt the subs tantive recommen dations that were made by the Provincial Aud itor in his report to the Leg isla tive Assembly of this province, contained in the Bl ue Book for the year ended March 31 , 1976. And remember this report, Mr. speaker, when we were considering it back in the month of Apri l, ! belie ve it was, or May, was alr eady 15 months old, tha t is the year under consideration was 15 months old.

So the recommendations that the Provincial Auditor has been making, the recommendations that we ha ve been making , on this side of the Hous e, have to do with a speed ing up of the acco unt abil ity of the Government of Manitoba for the obli gations wh ich they undertake when they become members of the Executiv e Council subsequently members of the Cabi net of Manitoba, charged with the res ponsi bil ity of carr ying on publi c affairs in a prudent way. Mr.

Speaker, I was ta lking about the background of the economy against wh ic h these Estima tes mus t be considerecl; against wh ic h the report of the Provincial Auditor mus t be considered, and I woul d lik e for a moment to digr ess and to read some commen ts tha t I th ink most reaso nable people would endorse, with respect to where we, as a cou ntry, whe re we as a province, are going, having regard to government's role, government in the co lle ctive sense, Federal, Provincial and Municipal, where we, as a people are oeing taken by the overintrusiveness of govern ment th is day, and where iri particula r, this Government of Manitoba is probably breaking al most all of the rules of economic logic tha t are being laid down by the respected and though tful comment ators and economi sts in every part of the western world .

I su ppose it's a fact of li fe to everyone except my hono urable friends opposite and some of th eir ideolog ical brethren, tha t the doctrine of Mr. Keynes ha ve pretty wel l, of Lord Keynes, have pretty well been washed down the drain now and are co nsi dered to be part of the ec onomic his tory of the world. I suppo se it's an acknowledged fact of li fe to most people in the western world that the doctrines expounded by John Kenneth Gal braith are really not terri bly sound when it comes to running a cou ntry, or a government of any sort.

I've made the comment before, and I repeat it, that John Kenneth Galbr aith is one of the most int eres ting writers that I've ever run across, but !l is problem is tha t he also has pr et entions of being an ec onomis t, and while my honou rable friend, the Fir st Minis ter of this province - I think he's sti ll the Fir st Minister of

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-4-74
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 4th hansardpdf 74.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0c6b08f6f5c3c0eb1dc294edb11c1e59763b39a8

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