Manitoba Hansard — 7 April 1970 (Sitting 28, 29th Legislature, 2nd Session)

29-2-28

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Tuesday, April 7, 1970. Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS 637 MR. SPEAKER: At this point, I should like to direct the attention of the honourable mem bers to the gallery, where we have with us 60 students of Grade 5 standing, of the Lincoln School. These students are under the direction of Mr. Copland, Mrs. Graham and Mrs. Thimm. This school is located in the constituency ofthe Honourable Member for Assiniboia.

On behalf of all the honourable members of the Legislative Assembly, I welcome you here this afternoon. ADJOURNED DEBATES MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debated. The proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Osborne. The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. JAMES H. BILTON (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Honourable Member for Emerson, I wonder if the House would give leave to this matter standing. (Agreed.) MR. SPEAKER: The proposed motion of the Honourable Member for St. Matthews. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. JACOB M. FROESE (Rhineland): Mr.

Speaker, the report that is before us is the Report of the Standing Committee on Statutory Regulations and Orders which sat in between sessions and reviewed certain Acts, and had representation made to the committee by a large number of people and groups in connection with the Tenants' Act, and apparently the committee then went to work and set up certain guidelines, or made certain recommendations as to what changes should be made in the way of legislation. I was not a member of the committee and therefore did not witness these meetings.

It seems to me that in order to be speaking intelligently on the report, a member or any person should really have made a study of the Act so that one was conversant with all the details that the committee apparently went into. While I do not quarrel in general with the report, I think there's some valuable recom mendations made and contained in the report. There's also provision in the report for a new office, that of a Rentalsman. It seems to me that we're getting more and more of these one man offices into being.

We've just appointed an Ombudsman and he is now in office; now we have a second recommendation here of a Rentalsman, and while there are certain things that I'm sure such an office and such a man could do, and certainly could do valuable work in certain respects, I'm just wondering whether this would apply to all the various ideas and pro visions that the committee is recommending that this Rentalsman should look after. I think so much is dependent upon the type of man that will occupy that office and to which group he might lean towards.

I certainly am not one that would deny that there is wrongdoing at the present time, probably by either of the parties, the tenants or landlords, in this province from time to time. One has only to listen to some of these people and you hear a good deal of this. There are certain provisions which I do question. For on~>., I feel that the recom mendation 4 is rather a paradox, the way I understand it. It says here: "The landlord should be allowed to hold a maximum of one-half months' rent as security for rental arrears." Well, how can he hold money for arrears when he's already got them?

How can there be arrears if he already has the money? Maybe the mover or the chairman of the committee could explain just what is really meant in this case. Then, the next

section deals with the right of the tenant to sublet with the conseat of the landlord. I would not want to dispute this. Surely these things happen, that persons for some reason have to leave, vacate, and if there is a lengthy period to the lease, that there should be some provision for subletting. In my opinion, it revolves so much around the new tenant, whether he's acceptable to the landlord or not. We know that one tenant can live in a premise for years and there will be very Iittle deterioration,

whereas another tenant can abuse the premises so badly that within a short time there is a large depreciation to a certain premise. I would like a little more information on Item 7 in connection with the tradesmen making payments in exchange for exclusive access. I was not on the co~mittee and I'm therefore not really conversant just what is behind this particular section.

638 April 7, 1970. (MR. FROESE Cont'd). The next one deals with the landlords should not restrict canvassing during elections, be it municipal, federal or provincial, and it refers to orderly distribution of election liter ature. I think so much will deoend on distribution. Just how is "distribution" intetprete:l? Can walls be splattered with election material ? Is this part of distribution? I tliink these are probably some of the matters that landlords might object to.

No doubt the committee -has heard from these people and I don't know whether they did take exception to some of these recom mendations or whether they are aware of the final recommendations that were adopted by the committee. Under 12, it seems to me that under this provision two or three tenants could get to gether and certainly abuse what is recommended in Item 12 where it requires the landlord· to repair, provide heat and give quiet enjoyment.

I certainly would not object on the part of the tenant!! to have this, but if two or three tenants got together and one of them was abusive as far as making a lot of noise - and this could happen vice versa - and in this way they could certainly really make it troublesome for a landlord to comply with this particular section. · Under 15, a written notice is to be given in connection with privacy. Was the matter of telephoning considered? Would telephoning not be sufficient? Does there have to be written evidence in this case? It seems to ine that in general terms the report is, I think, favouring the tenant.

I'm not quite sure whether we're, in some of the provisions not going a little overboard on the side of the tenant, because the landlord is there; he has to provide the facilities. If he wants to keep them in order and make a profit and a reasonable one, which he should not be denied, I feel that we should also make sure that we will not be discouraging these people from providing good facilities for the tenants and that we should not lean too much on the side of the tenant, because we know that there can be very nagging tenants as well.

You can have good ones but there can also be those that are nagging about every little incident, and certainly if this is the type of people that a certain landlord gets in, he might want to have rights that are not presently or will not be available to him. Then also, in

Section 20, he is required to state the cause in case of quitting tenure. Is this really necessary, to give cause? Surely the committee in arriving on this recommendation must have discussed it and I would appreciate getting some of the reasoning behind some of the items that I have been bringing forward. MR. SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion. Iritroduction of Bills. Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. ANNOUNCEMENT MR. HENRY J. EINARSON (Rock Lake): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to ask the indulgence of the House to have leave to make a brief announcement. MR. SPEAKER: Has the honourable member leave? The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. EINARSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that it was my honour and privilege to have spent a portion of last Sunday afternoon honouring one of Canada's, and indeed Manitoba's, most distinguished citizens. Held in Baldur in the fine constituency of Rock Lake, citizens gathered to pay tribute to Mr.

Jon Petur Sigvaldason, who holds the distinction of being the first Canadian of Icelandic extraction to have been appointed to the high office of Ambassador. He served in this capacity in Indonesia, Norway and Iceland, and previous to this was_posted as Assistant Secretary to Canada House in London, England. He served six years in Ottawa and later was sent to Pakistan in the consular service. In 1958 he was re called to Ottawa to become Director of the Inspector Service of the Department of External Affairs. Mr.

Sigvaldason was born and received his early education in the Baldur district and is a graduate of the University of Manitoba. Among those present to honour Mr. Sigvaldason was Mr. Ivan Schultz, Manitoba's 1940 Minister of Education and another citizen who spent his formative years in the Argyle district. Mr. Sigvaldason's portrait now holds a place of prominence and importance in the elementary school in Baldur where all children will be prompted to remember a truly great Canadian. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few more words and, if I may, ask the page to deliver

April 7, 1970. 639 A Sunnudagin pann fimta April haf~ eg pa anogu oghe~r ail vera stoddur vilJ a:fhjupun og skemtis samsoti, acJ Baldur, ( mimnu kjordomi. Samsoti var haldr1 tilpess a'tf heit5ra Jon Petur Sigvaldason, vinur of Islenskum oturn, , sem var fyrverandi sendiherra Kanada til Indonesia, Island of Noregs; og sem par a undan pjdl"na~5i harm i Kanada House i London, ft Englandi of i Pakistan. Vi6 staddur var Herra Ivan Schultz, fyrverandi fylkis pingrna~ fyrir mitt kjordomi og siO'ar domsmalar raJherra og er nu yfir - rittar domari.

I Mindin sem var afhjupicJ var nylegw{ tikin of Joni Sigvaldasini og ver-"Ur latin hauga a heifuoa stad i Baldur Mentaskolanurn. Patr gaf mjer anogu a6 hugsa til pess ac1 Herra Sigvaldason, Herra Schultz of jig sjalfur, hafa aldir veriJ aldir up f Argylehygcf. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. sjalfur, hafa odlir veriot aldir up i Argylehygot. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. GORDON W. BEARD (Churchill): May I have permission to make this presentation in English? I would like to pass this question on to the Minister of Health.

I have just received a letter, and I'm not sure he has, of one who has a complaint in respect to the Rehab Centre in Winnipeg withdrawing the services for neck exercises for those who have broken their neck, and he points out that now there is no place to have this done under Medicare. While they can have it done in other hospitals, they would have to pay, but he does point out that this would be quite a cost if you had to come in and pay your own bills in the hospital. Could the Minister like to answer this? If he hasn't got the letter, I'd be glad to pass it on to him. HON. RENE E.

TOUPIN (Minister of Health and Social Services) (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, there's very little to add to the comments made by the Honourable Member for Churchill but to say that this iB something that is being looked upon by the officials of not only the Manitoba Hospital Commission but the staff in my office, and I do hope that we'll find a better solution for the near future. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. WARNER H. JORGENSON (Morris): Mr.

Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Honourable the Attorney-General and ask him, in the light of the fact that the Minister of Justice in Ottawa has referred the breathalyzer legislation to the Supreme Court, could he advise the House as to what course of action will be taken in the Pnwince of Manitoba with those people who are now before the courts on charges resulting from the use of the breathalyzer? HON. AL. MACKLING, Q. C. (Attorney-General) (St.

James): My department is study ing the legislation; insofar as making any change, we don't think that any change is warranted at this time until a final decision is made on that case. MR. JORGENSON: What I was asking the Minister was: what will happen to those cases that are before the courts now? Are these people going to be -- will action be proceeded or will they be deferred until the decision is taken by the Supreme Court? MR. MACKLING: I'm not aware of there being any cases strictly on this point before the courts presently, but I will enquire.

If there are, then some decision will have to be made in respect to either allowing them to continue or deferring them. MR. JORGENSON: ... then has not made a decision as to what the disposition of these cases will be at the present time? MR. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I've indicated, I don't know any specific cases that deal specifically with this point or not; and if there are, then some decision will have to be made. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR. STEVE PATRICK (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Honourable Attorney-General.

Can he tell me if the Liquor Commission, or the Board, has any standard requirements before they grant a licence to a new establishment or a restaurant for liquor? MR. MACKLING: Yes, I'm certain they have, Mr. Speaker.

640 April 7, 19'10. MR. :PATlUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Have you any changes in 1he liquor ..regulations been made in the last short while? MR. MACKLING: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. PATRICK:. A supplementary question,. Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the honourable minister is aware that just recently a licence has been taken away from one establishment in my constituency which they were given a permit -- I'll have to just say these remarks -- so he'd know what happened; they've been given a permit to operate with all approval of the Board and the Commission in respect to furniture and fixtures.

Two years later they come back and say you have to change your furniture and fixtures before you can continue your licence. I don't thj.nk this is correct. Can the honourable minister look into this situation? MR. MACKLING: Well I certainly can't accept responsibility for the operation two years ago, but I am aware of the fact that licences from time to time are reconsidered, particularly if there's been any diaiculty in the operation, and if the honourable member will give me specifics, I will certainly look into the matter. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. EINARSON: Mt.

Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Agri culture. In view of the fact that he's made his trip to Ottawa, I'm wondering if he presented a brief to the Minister while there. If so, is there a possibility of a copy being submitted to members in this House? HON. SAMUEL USKIW (Minister of Agriculture) (Lac Du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question on more than one occasion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. INEZ TRUEMAN (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Honourable Minister of Health and Social Services.

I note that a grant from the Winnipeg Foundation has now placed the Stella Avenue Day Nursery closer to the goal, the financial goal, that would enable them to replace this facility. Could they anticipate a favourable res ponse from the Provincial Government soon so that they could go ahead with this project? MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Speaker, I thought that there-- well there was definitely something in today's paper regarding Stella Day Nursery. There was a grant made by the province of $40, 000. There was equally a grant from the Foundation, the Winnipeg Foundation for $40, 000.

They anticipate to sell the existing building at $10, 000; they have to raise the other $10, 000 themselves. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOUGLAS WATT (Arthur): Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Conservation and/ or the Minister of Agriculture. My question: is it the intention of either or both ministers to meet with the Turtle Mountain Resources Conservation Corporation to discuss the reasoning that prompted the withdrawal of the government support to that corporation? MR. USKIW: I presume, Mr. Speaker, that the honourable member is referring to a request for a meeting.

I haven't had time to reply at this stage. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can he indicate whether the consultants' report with respect to Southern Indian Lake or the Churchill River is now in the government's possession, and if we can receive it? HON. SAUL CHERNIACK Q C. (Minister of Finance) (St. Johns): 1 have not yet received it; when I do, 1 intend to inform the House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE (Roblin): Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. I may have been out of the H.luse the day that he answered in reply to the Member for Rock Lake. Are we going to get a copy of his submission to the Federal Minister of Agriculture, or are we not? MR. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to repeat what I said any more than I have to. I indicated during the estimates the position that the Government of Manitoba took at Ottawa with respect to their program, and I don't see any point in accommodating my honourable friend. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR.

HARRY ENNS (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. The House Leader may wish to rule this out of order but I assure you that there

April 7, 1970. ·:.:~'-"<:C";:;z~:>''-:· :· '"::h .$}-: 641 (MR. ENNS Cont'd) ... is some interest expressed on the part of the farmer. Has the Minister any firsthand information as to whether or not the government of Canada is referring a recent provincial magistrate's decision with respect to the Wheat Board to the Supreme Court? I'm referring to the decision of several months ago that Magistrate Enns brought down with regard to the Wheat Board. Is the department aware of any action on the part of the Federal Government to refer this to the Supreme Court? MR. USKIW: Well, I'm as much aware, Mr.

Speaker, as my honourable: friends opposite are. It has been indicated by federal authority that they are going to appeal that ruling. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I agree that that was what the press stated at that time, but you have no further information that this step is being taken at this time? MR. USKIW: No. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. BUD SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Honourable the Attorney-General and ask him whether he has been petitioned by a Winnipeg couple, Mr. and Mrs.

William Adams, with respect to the circumstances surrounding a fatal shooting that took place in Winnipeg last May 21st involving one of Mrs. Adams' relatives. MR. MACKLING: Such a petition has not come to my attention. MR. SHERMAN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the Attorney General if he recalls whether the case as such has been disposed of. Has there been any disposition of the case? It's my understanding that an individual was taken into custody at the ti~e and subsequent to the shooting. MR.

MACKLING: It's my understanding that the case involved a juvenile and that the case was heard by the Juvenile Court. I understand there was representation by the Crown for transfer ofthe juvenile to Adult Court, but the Juvenile Court judge rejected that and the juvenile was tried in Juvenile Court. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I may be out of order in asking this question- I uk your direction, Sir. Can the Attorney-General advise this House as to the charge that was laid against the juvenile and the sentence that was imposed on him ? MR. MACKLING: I'm not so sure whether I can answer that.

I think if it's a matter of public record, I can and will do. I'll take that as notice and if I'm at liberty to give that sort of information in the House, I will. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SIDNEY SPIVAK. Q .C. (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry and Commerce. I wonder- some time ago a question was asked whether the government was supporting Frontier Airlines trans border crossing application.

I wonder if he is in a position to inform the House as to the government's position in connection with this application. HON. LEONARD S. EVANS (Minister of Industry and Commerce) (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I regret that I'm not in a position to give the information at this time but I will under take to do so in the near future. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, another question directed to the Minister. Approximately a year ago, negotiations were commenced with Northwest Airlines for a terminal attachment to the Winnipeg terminal between their aircraft and the terminal, someti.mes referred to as an airwall.

I wonder if he could indicate to the House - I beg your pardon? Wind tunnel, I'm sorry, also -- I wonder if he could indicate to the House whether those negotiations have been completed and whether Northwest is going to comply in this respect. MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, we have been working on this matter but I'm unable to give a definitive answer at this time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for The Pas. MR.

RON McBRYDE (The Pas): In light of the announcement by the federal Minister yesterday in regards to compensating fishermen in Ontario, I wonder if the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources could let us know if the Province of Manitoba is presently negotiating with the Federal Government to continue compensating the fishermen in the Cedar Lake Easterville area. HON. SIDNEY GREEN, Q • C . (Minister of Mines and Natural Resource s)(Inkster): Mr . Speaker, we're presently involved with the entire problem and I hope to be able to make a statement on

ApTil 7, 1976. (MR. GREEN Cont'd) . . . . the question either tomorrow or the next day. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. GORDON JOHNSTON (Portage La Prairie): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minlater of Industry and Commerce. Now that the government has announced the purchase of the Winnipeg Auditorium, Ia it the government's intention still to go ahead and make a finan cial input into the proposed convention centre ? HON. ED. SCHREYER (Premier) (Rossmere): Mr.

Speaker, I can advise the Honourable Member for Portage that acquisition of the Auditorium does not directly affect any decision that we may take with respect to a provincial cost-sharing of a convention centre. It will not change the decision. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Honourable Member for Lakeside? --(Interjection) -- the Honourable Member for The Pas asked a question of his Minister --(Interjection) --how is your mother-in-law? MR. SPEAKER: If the Honourable Member for Lakeside is a minister, than the honourable member may.

The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary question to the Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party. I wonder if the Premier-- For the benefit of the House Leader, my question is directed and is a supplementary question to the question that was al ready asked by the House Leader of the Liberal Party.

In connection with the Winnipeg Auditorium, could the First Minister c,r the Finance Minister indicate whether the Land Appraisal Board did any evaluation for the government before negotiations were finalized in connection with the purchase of the Auditorium 1 MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, that is the advice I received that the Land Acquisition Branch did give such an opinion to the Minister of Labour, who was Minister in charge of the negotiation. MR. SPIVAK: A supplementary question. Then I can take it, Mr. Speaker, that the procedures followed were the procedures outlined in the Act. Is that correct? MR.

SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I repeat to my honourable friend that the Minister did receive the views and opinion and advice of officials within his department relative to the acquisition. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health and Social Services. MR. TOUPIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to table the report, the annual report of the Manitoba Hospital Commission for the year 1969, and to bring to the attention of the honourable members of this House the correction on the last page of the financial statement where we give the results of the operating deficit at the end of December 1969.

Net operating deficit from January 1, 1959 to December 31, 1968, and in the report it's indicated to December 31, 1958. There's only two copies here now. We should get additional copies within an hour. ORAL QUESl'ION PERIOD (Cont'd.) MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, I realize, of course, it's not in order for someone on this side to ask a question of someone sitting opposite so I will not ask the question but simply request that my honourable friend the Member for River Heights, if he really wants an answer to his question as to whether or not this government is supporting the application of Frontier for trans-border rights that he should be a little more specific, whether he wishes to know if this government is supporting the application as part of a reciprocal agreement whereby a Manitoba-based regional carrier receives trans-border rights in return, or whether we are purely and simply supporting Frontier's application without any consideration of other matters.

MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the question was asked of me and I'm entitled to answer. I know this is a rather unusual case. Frankly, I'm --(Interjection)-- No, no. I'm not asking a specific question. I'm answering the question that was posed tome by the First Minister ... MR. SCHREYER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know full well that it's not possible to ask a question of someone opposite.

I simply took advantage of the opportunity to advise my honourable friend that if he wishes a specific reply to the question of Frontier's appli cation for trans-border rights, that he should take advantage of an opportunity either today or

April 7, 1970. (MR. SCHREYER Cont'd). . . tomorrow to give more specific, more specification in his question to the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. 643 MR. SPIVAK: Well, Mr. Speaker, then, may I pose the question to the First Minister or the Minister of Industry and Commerce? In a rather decisive manner, I would like the govern ment to tell us what they intend to do in connection with Frontier's application for trans-border crossing. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR.

BEARD: While the First Minister is considering this last question, I'd ask him to move a little further north to the 60th j}arallel and perhaps he could advise me what has taken place in respect to the resolution last year calling for a Tourist Information Bureau, and P->rt Authority at Churchill on a year-round basis. HEl undertook to look into it some time ago. I don't need the answer today. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, the reason there some hesitation is because the question asked by the Honourable Member for Churchill relates to two departments, the Department of Tourism and the Department of Industry and Commerce, and I would undertake to take the question as notice on behalf of the two ministers and the reply will be forthcoming. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I wish to pursue the matter of the appraisal of the Auditorium with a supplementary question.

Could the First Minister advise the House, either from memory or could he undertake to do so later of the amount of money that the Land Appraisal Commission set as value to the Auditorium? MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I prefer to take that as notice and refer the question to my colleague the Minister of Labour. I simply take the moment now to say that all advice that I have received is that it was a good deal for both parties. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Vital. MR. JACK HARDY (St. Vital): Mr.

Speaker, in the absence of the Honourable Minister of Government Services, I direct this question to the Honourable the First Minister. Can the First Minister advise this House if in fact the Auditorium is to be utilized to house personnel to administer a proposed Auto Insurance program? MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, pol:lcy with respect to the use of the Auditorium -.ffil be determined by events, as they eventuate. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR.

FROESE: A supplementary question to the one just posed by the previous speaker. aa.theNationalFarmers Union requested the Provincial Government to retain the Auditorium in its present state so that it could be used for public meetings? This is the statement that was made at that particular Farmers Union meeting last Saturday. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, the idea sounds as though it's a good one, and will be considered. If the Honourable Member for Rhineland is suggesting that his constituents may wish to rally at the Auditorium from time to time in his support it would be available. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: I'd like to direct a question to the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce and ask hlm if he is aware of the fairly rapid transfer of Air Canada Overhaul Base personnel at thls time from Winnipeg to Montreal, and ask him if he can confirm to this Chamber that Air Canada is living up to its commitment to keep that base in operationtill1971. MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this question as notice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. CRAll(: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Youth and Education.

Can he indicate, verify or otherwise, that the bursary program for the universities is no longer in the hands of the University but has been taken over by the provincial government.? HON. SAUL A. MILLER (Minister of Youth and Education) (Seven Oaks): No, Mr. Speaker, that statement isn't entirely correct. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, a subsequent question. Could the Minister indicate what portion of it is correct? MR. MILLER: To the extent that three bodies are involved

whereas in the past there was only two. To that extent it's not correct. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, the speakers aren't on here and we can't hear. MR. MILLER: Oh I'm sorry. There are changes in the bursary program. Some were referred to by my colleague the Minister of Health and Social Development, when he announced

644 April 7' 1970 (MR. MILLER Cont'd) . . . that his department be involved in student aid, but the bursary program of the Province of Manitoba is going forward as it has in the past and you will hear abOut lt in a few days. The university is stlll involved ih the bursary program. · .MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. McKENZIE: ... Mr. Speaker, should direct the question to the Minister of Youth and Education. Should questions of student aid be directed to the Minister Clf Education or the Minister of Health and Social Services as of today? · MR. MILLER: Take your choice. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. M&.PIV AK: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Industry and Commerce. I wonder if he can inform the House whether it's the government's intention to introduce legislation compelling industry to comply with new anti-pollution devices . . MR. EVANS: Well, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is asking me to state govern ment policy and I don't think that this is the appropriate time to make such statements. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR. PATRICK: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Honourable Minister of Transportation. Will he be tabling any legislation to licensing and operation of snowmobiles this session? HON. JOSEPH P. BOROWSKI (Minister of Transportation) (Thompson); .Mr. Speaker, did he ask are we going to be bringing in legislation to license snowmobiles? Well I think we should know that in about two weeks' time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to reply to a question that was asked by the Honour able the Leader of the Liberal Party relative to the cutting of trees up to road allowances by Churchill Forest Industries. My advice is that cutting regulations generally would not permit the Churchill Forest Industries to engage in this type of operations, either close to a road allowance or to a lake that is used for recreational purposes or may be used for recreational purposes. The provisions don't apply to winter roads, logging roads and others not normally used by the public.

My honourable friend says that he knows of such cutting having taken place and I would ask my honourable friend to bring this to my attention so that if there is anything we can do about it we will do so. I also want to reply to a question that was raised by the Honourable Member for Assiniboia some time ago relative to recent convictions of hunters using automobiles. I'm advised that there have been no convictions this year for any such violations although there have been warn ings given out on several occasions. There have been some snowmobile convictions, I believe, but not for hunters using automobiles. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. BEARD:. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address this to the Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs. There are two questions. Has the advisory council of Churchill the right to pass resolutions to spend the $100, 000 that are in trust for them? And secondly, rather than spend $20, ooo-odd for a house for the administrator, can they apply to CMHC for the usual type housing under that program? HO:t'. HOWARD R. PAWLEY (Minister of Municipal Affairs) (Selkirk): Well first, Mr.

Speaker, as I'm sure the honourable member knows, the advisory council is simply that- an advisory council, with no powers insofar as passing resolutions to authorize expenditure. In sofar as the advisory council as such applying to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for funds to build a home for the admlnlstrator, this too, of course, would be out of the area of ability of an advisory council.

I have been made aware in my trip, as the honourable member knows, last Thursday and Friday, of the feelings of the advisory council in respect to the use of any of the monies on hand for the residential home, and I am now taking this entire matter under review. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I'm advised by several constituents today that the department of propaganda has issued a story of a new variety of rapeseed, and I think the question maybe should be directed to the Minister of Agriculture.

A new variety of rapeseed has been introduced; can I ask the Minister does this propaganda go to the Parkland Develop ment Corporation, to their office? MR. USKIW: If my honourable friend was listening some weeks ago, the propaganda

April 7_, 1970. 645 (MR. USKIW Cont'd) ... would have hit his ears in this House, Mr. Chairman. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell. MR. HARRY E. GRAHAM (Birtle-Graham): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to direct this question to the Minister of Industry and Commerce. Could the Minister inform this House if it is true that West Germany is negotiating for the use of the facilities at Churchill? MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the honourable member would elaborate on his question. Specifically, what facilities? MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Speaker, this was a report that was in a newspaper today.

If the Minister does not have a chance to read the newspaper, I would be glad to provide him with the copy. MR. EVANS: That's fine. I should take a leaf out of my honourable colleague the Minister of Labour and tell you that we've been so busy engaged in carrying out the province's business that we have simply not had the time to read the newspaper this morning. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, late last week the Honourable Member from Rhineland enquired as to the provision of legal aid for certain persons and I gave him some information which I find is substantially correct with some slight variation. He asked in respect to whether or not legal aid had been granted to those persons who had been charged with an, offence involving a police constable who was fatally injured, Constable Shakespeare. I indicated that as far as I knew some of them had received legal aid.

My understanding is that initially two of the accused persons did not require legal aid and two did, but during the course of representation on their behalf, all four of them were handled by legal aid. In respect to the information I gave him in connection with Mr. Hart, the information I gave him was correct. MR.. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, a supplementary question. How many lawyers were engaged in the prosecution and how much was spent in total? MR. MACKLING: I'd have to take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps I can take that as notice, or if you want to file an Order for Return-- it's a detailed question. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer if he took this as notice so that it would speed up ... MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Well, Mr. Speaker, my·rp! tlouis to the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, and this deals with the Fish Marketing Board who would come under his ministry but with which he indicated he was not that familiar or not in a position to answer.

But I wonder, because ~epresentation has been made to me and I think to other members of our caucus, whether he can confirm the fact that Manitoba fishermen, as a result of the operations of the Board, are in fact subsidizing out of their earnings the fishermen in Saskatchewan and Alberta. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't care to answer that question. The honourable member knows how a fish marketing board works. MR. SPIVAK: A supplementary question.

I wonder if the Honourable Minister could indicate to the House whether he has had an opportunity to review the operations of the Board recently, and to determine whether the statement I made is correct or not. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't care to do that. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Minister of Health tabled the Manitoba Hospital Commission Report just a little while ago. When can we expect copies for all members? Wfil they be distributed today? MR. TOUPIN: Mr.

Speaker, when I tabled the report I mentioned that I was hoping to have the other copies of the report tabled in the House in about an hour. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General. MR. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I would like clarification from the Honourable Member from Rhineland as to the nature of his question because, as he is probably aware, there's an automatic appeal provision in respect to those sentenced in the case and perhaps he wants this information after all the legal proceedings have been completed, I don't know.

Perhaps he'd like to defer his question and make it when everything has been completed. MR. FROESE: Well, if the Honourable the Attorney-General can provide the cost figures for the first case that will be all right for the present and I can put questions later on for the

646 April 7, 1970 (MR. FROESE Cont'd) ... appeal case. MR. MACKLING: I understand you want the cost to the Crown of the prosecution. All right. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. BR.TON: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may direct a question to the Honourable the First .Minister. I wonder if he could tell the House as to whether or not a deed has been signed with the City of Wlrullpeg for the Civic Auditorium, a deed of sale? MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, there's been an exchange of letters of intent. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. Private Members' Resolutions.

Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Assiniboia. The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. PETER FOX (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I adjourned this resolution for the Honour able Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Minister of Labour) (Transcona): Orders for Return, Mr. Speaker. MOTIONS FOR PAPERS MR. SPEAKER: My apologies. Orders for Return. On the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Roblin and the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for St. Boniface in amendment thereto.

The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was most concerned when I heard your remarks because, first of all, I didn't anticipate that I would get a second amendment to my resolution. I've already had one from the Honourable,Memberfor St. Boniface, and of course I voice the sentiments of the Honourable Member from Morris who spoke the other day briefly on a similar type of Order, in that it's not fair to stand up and debate in the House when the member who adjourned or amended my resolution is not in his chair today, and it's unfortunate that the Honourable Member for St.

Boniface is not in his chair. I would think, if the Speaker would permit me, that I would like to get the information as quickly as possible. I would refer back to the speech which the Honourable Minister of Finance spoke in the House the other day, and I think it reiterated loud and clear that if we delay this type of resolution much longer we may not get the information that is required. Every day is most important to me and those that I represent, and if in fact the Honourable Member for St.

Boniface can't be here he knew my resolution was on the Order Paper; he knew that I would likely speak on it today, and it's most unfortunate that he's not in his chair. I'm here every day so I can't apologize for him in his absence. I think this is a fair resolution, Mr. Speaker, and I have no concerns about the fact that I put it on the Order Paper. I wasn't here in 1966, the date that the Honourable Minister of Finance referred to that a similar resolution was on the Order Paper, and I'm not one of those that are willing to go back and deal with the past. I'm looking to the future and I always will.

I think the past, let it be where it may. If he wants to drag the past history of government in Manitoba into this Chamber, let that be his day and his debate, but I'm not one of those. I'm looking forward for the direction I'm going to get from this new, this open type of government, who said that they're going to give us all the information that we require, so I just ask, Mr. Speaker, that they don't give this Order for Return a six-months hoist, which I think they're trying to do. I don't know why, but in the back of my mind I think I'm getting the heave-ho on behalf of those that I represent.

I don't know why this Liberal Democrat over here wants to amend my resolution. He may have had a --(Interjection) --An opportunist, or maybe he can't speak with this govern ment or on bebalf of them, so he has to attack our private members' resolutions. So, with great reservation, I ask the Minister to take a good hard look and I'm willing to wait as long as it takes for him to get me this information, but I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that I shall get all that I asked of this resolution from this new, this open type government that Manitoba has got today. MR.

SPEAKER put the question on the amendment and after a voice vote declared the amendment carried.

April 7, 1970. . '647 MR. SPEAKER put the question on the motion as amended, and after a voice vote de clared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Orders for Return. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Rock Lake, that an Order of the House do issue for a Return showing: 1. The number of applications received each month from doctors and dentists for pro- fessional loans pertaining to their possible location in rural Manitoba. 2. The number of approved loans each month. 3. The gross amount loaned to date. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR.

GREEN: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to fulfilling the requests of this Order. MR. SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye, that an Order of the House do issue for a Return showing the following information with respect to land purchased by the Government for the Portage By- Pass and the Portage Diversion: 1. Names and addresses of owners. 2. Names and addresses of previous owners. 3.

Date land changed hands prior to this date. 4. Amount paid per acre. 5. Original offer per acre and any subsequent offers per acre. 6. Number of acres in each case. 7. Amount paid for buildings in each case. 8. The original offer for buildings and any subsequent offers in each case. 9. Amount paid for damages in each case. 10. The original offer for damages and any subsequent offers in each case. 11. To whom the money was paid in each case. 12. Whether the purchase was achieved by negotiation or expropriation in each case. 13. When was the approval given by the Land Value Appraisal Commission in each case. MR.

SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I was prompted to re-submit this resolution with a few more questions. I had submitted a similar resolution in 1964 and again in 1968, but be cause of many complaints I've had from affected. parties, I felt that further information should be extracted from the Land Appraisal Commission by way of a motion in this House.

Some minutes ago, during the question period, the Premier assured the members of this House that the government bad made a good deal for the City of Winnipeg and the people of Manitoba with respect to the proposed purchase of the Auditorium by the province.

I'd like to remind him although he's not in the House, I see- I'd like to remind him of a supposedly good deal that went through government back in 1964 when a firm by the name of Octave Enterprises had quickly acquired the former Bain estate and then proceeded to sell it to government for lan.d needed for the Portage Diversion, and at that time I believe the Minister of Agriculture, who was responsible, in whose department it was, assured this House of what a good deal the people of Manitoba had made when they acquired this land, and to perhaps tell the story to the newer members.

I would like to relate some of that deal that Manitoba paid for. There were 219 acres of land in the purchase. Campbell·Soup Company in 1964 had appraised and made an offer for the land of $29, 000 and I believe the land was listed with a real estate firm for $32, 000. 00. A MEMBER: How much per acre? MR. G. JOHNSTON: Well, this was 219 acres. The land consisted of about 80 acres of sandy soU that was not conducive to growing very good crops; it had about 30 or 40 acres of swamp that wouldn't grow anything- it was full of water most of the year; and the remainder of the land was average farm land. Well, Mr.

Speaker, by the time the Land Appraisal Commission gave their approval to this purchase, on September 24th, 1964, the government paid in the neighbourhood of $70, 000. 00. So that was called a "good deal". I would like now to refer members to the position that two farmers find themselves in at the present time. One, Mr. McClary, has 230 acres, roughly, to sell to the government and

648 April 7, 1970. (MR. G. JOHNSTON Cont'd) . his land is presently under expropriation. This land is prime root crop or market garden land next to the Assinlboine River; the land on either side of it is being used for root crops and is yielding a very high return. It's a type of farming that we are trying to encourage tho•e who have thla sort of land to go into, and land of this quality is presently selling or being offered for $1, 000 an acre, it's such )Ugh yield and such good soU, as well as available to irrigation from the river. Mr. McClary has been offered $88 , 500 for 230 acres of this land.

Now, to someone who is used to grain farming, I suppose this seems like a lot of money. In fact, when you work it out to a price per acre it is a considerable sum of money - I think it's up around $400. 00 an acre. A MEMB ER: What's the assessment? MR. G. JOHNSTON: I don't have the assessment; I would like to give it to you. Another gentleman, Mr. steve Chuckry has 192 acres of land which is being acquired by the government although negotiations are still going on. This land is the same type of land exactly, the f�.?est land in the Assinlboine Valley, that will grow all types of root crops and yield abundantly.

His offer is for $97, 000 for 192 acres, but when they take the 192 acres they've put him out of business as a registered potato farmer. He has a building, a storage building that is used for year- round storage, valued at $29, 000. 00. This building will be useless when the land is taken, yet our friends in the Land Appraisal Commission don't seem to think that they should offer anything for disturbance or damages, indeed they make no offer whatsoever to buy the building.

So, while it appears again upon the face of it that a good price is being offered, I say again that the same type of land is selling and is for sale for $1, 000 an acre within a half a mile or a mile of this property. I would like now to refer members to a deal that has been completed by the Land Appraisal Commission and this was land that belonged to A A. Kroeker and Sons Limited of Winkler. The approval was given by the Land Appraisal Commission on March 15, 1967. There's 558 acres involved and the government's board paid an average price of $390 . 68 per acre for the land.

Now, if one works this out, I think it's around -- well, it is $390. 00 an acre, but on top of that, Mr. Speaker, and here is a disparity that I wish to drawto the attention of members: in the case of Mr. Chuckry who was going to have a useless storage building on h1a hands when his land was taken from him , and he received nothing whatsoever for the disturbance or for the damage, in the case of Kroeker and Sons they received $56, 000 for reduction in value of buildings and the buildings still belong to them. Now I think that this is very unfair.

There has been two types of treatment meted out to individuals and I think something should be done by the Minister who is responsible for the Land Appraisal Commission's actions.

The two farmers that I have spoken to have told me time arid again that they don't want any more than anyone else is receiving; they do not wish to unduly hold up the taxpayers by way of asking more than they' re entitled to; but these men are in the middle age of life; they have many productive years ahead of them, and they want to re establish; they want to stay in the line that they're in and they want to re-e stablish on similar types of soil, similar types of land, and with the offers that they are being forced to take there's no way that they can re -establish with that type of soil. Mr.

Chuckry, the registered potato grower, has presently shelter, isolation, which is required when one is growingacertain a registered crop seed so that contamination will not come in either by wind or by other carrier. He originally pioneered this type of growing in the area. He was one of the ones that showed the way for others to come, and he was one of the ones that has helped to increase the land values in that area. I might no&., Mr. Clwckry haa.beeLift.tW d1etrtet.lar.aJ:IQui.�5 years and has pioneered that type of work

whereas the Kroekers came in after the industry was well established; they came in 1962 and ruid their land for approximately five years. So I think that not only should the public be aware of the methods at.government to expropriate, but I think the Minister concerned should take a look at this and should examine the methods and means and the quality of personnel on the Land Appraisal Commission. As I understand, some of the gentlemen on that commission, they are used to grain farming only.

They have no idea of other methods of farming in the province, and I think that people who are making judgments which most people feel are almost quasi-ju dicial judgments, and who are hesitant to challenge these judgments in the higher courts, I think the quality of personnel on the Land Appraisal Com mission should be re-examined. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Lakeside.

April 7, 1970 649 MR. ENNS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was not at my desk during the full COIJTSe of the Honourable the House Leader of the Liberal Party's statements on this matter, but I did get his latter comments and I feel impelled to say a few words on the general subject of land pur chase by government; and again, I may be ruled out of order, Sir, but then I would take it that you would be the first one to correct me, if not the House Leader opposite.

I feel that the remarks of the Honourable the House Leader of the Liberal Party cannot be left to stand completely as they are insofar as this would appear to ca&t-&Qme degree of insinuation of the capability of the personnel on the Land Appraisal Board.

I would not particu larly take challenge with him on his statement that perhaps they do not have the full range of experience in the various forms of agriculture that he referred to, but I would like to point out and take this opportunity to suggest to you, Sir, and to the government, that far more important - it would be for a consolidation of all lands purchased by government or their agencies under one Crown agency or under one department, and that this in itself would greatly improve the manner and the way in which private lands are purchased from time to time by government or their agencies.

I have had a great deal of concern in this particular area, particularly as it affected my constituency in the last few years. My constituency is dissected with transmission lines, with highways and with drainage, as is every other constituency but perhaps a bit more concentrated in the constituency of Lakeside. and it's always been a concern to me that we have different arms of government approaching the private individual all too often on a different set of terms, even though the being of the Land Appraisal Board should prevent this.

Just the mere personnel involved in the various different departments and agencies, such as Hydro or Telephones, brings this about, so that in attaching my general comments to those made by the House Leader, I would like to say and suggest, and had some very active discussions under way during the time that I was still a member of the Treasury Bench, to see that this would come about.

My understanding is that this was the intention at the time some changes were made in this general area, but that at that time two agencies, or one agency in particular, namely Manitoba Hydro, felt that they wished to continue with the right to acquire property on their own.

So it's my judgment, it's my contribution to this debate, to recommend most highly to the House and to the government opposite to make it a more understandable approach with respect to the private citizen, who regards all agencies as government whether it's Hydro or Telephone or whether it's the Department of Water Control for drainage projects, or for pro jects such as this under discussion, the major project of the Portage Diversion, or any other such project as might be undertaken, construction of dams, conservation projects. The govern ment is always on the hook.

There is no getting away from the responsibility of the fact that perhaps from a technical point of view, it could be a person from Manitoba Hydro that's pur chasing the land or it could be a person from Manitoba Telephones purchasing the land - the general understanding as far as the individual is concerned, it's government.

And I feel very strongly that it's time that all purchases of land on behalf of government and their various agencies should be under the jurisdiction of a single board or commission directly under the further jurisdiction of an individual Minister or responsible person in government duly elected, and in that way the individuals have a clear source of access to those who are in fact respon sible for expropriating or purchasing or making the arrangements to buy this land. These, Mr. Speaker, are just a few comments that I add to the general tenor of this debate.

I think it's an opportunity that should not go by without expressing a general concern about the manner and way in which land is being purchased. I quite frankly was not happy with the way it was being purchased lluring the time that I was in government. I felt that one of the major reasons for that was this diversion - pardon me, Mr.

Speaker, I keep stumbling on that word- this multi-approach on the part of so many agencies involved that added to some of the confusion in the pricing of the land, some of the confusion as to who exactly the personnel was that should be contacted if legitimate grievances arose, and it's a move that I would strongly recommend to the present government to consider, to bring into one area and one board the purchasing powers of land that may be required for any future government purposes. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member forRhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr.

Chairman, I had originally not intended to speak on this Order for Return but I recall when a similar order was made, and I have a copy of that return here, on land acquired for the Portage Diversion as of April 8, 1969, and if you go through this report the variations in the amount that is being paid per acre are astonishing, and I would like to

:000 April 7, 1970 (MR. FROESE cont'd) ..•.. quote a few from this report. There's one here for $275.00 an acre and the number of acres - 95 acres. Another one for $173. 27 an acre - approximately 28.aeres. About $100. 00 difference. Then you come to the next one here, at $15. 00 an acre - 1:1 acres involved. But mind you, $15. 00 an acre! A large variance. Then there's another one for $239. 00 an acre and a further one for $31. 00 an acre; the amount involved in that one ·is 13 acres. So that you have such a large variance.

No doubt there would be different types of land, as has been pointed out by the Member for Portage; some of it is for special crops, for root crops such as potatoes, and others, as the Member for Lakeside just mentioned, mig~ be swamp land, so there can be great variance, but to me it seems really too wide a variance because if you then go on to the ones that were mentioned by the Member for Portage of $390. 00 an acre and involving 558 acres, on top of that the amount for damage is $56, 000 which means another $100. 00 an acre, so it comes to $-i90. 00 an acre, and some of it was sold for $15. 00, so you have such a great variance in the amount being paid and evidently negotiated.

But just how do these negotiations take place? Are they fair and just in all occasions or are certain people scared . . . when it comes to these negotiations? I think it has a lot to do with the people employed by the department or representing the department and who are acquir ing this land. I know some of them can be -- well, maybe I should not use the word "nasty" but some of them can be pretty direct, and I've heard some of these people. Others are very good and I would have nothing to say against them. Maybe making a statement of this type in the.

House is making a broad accusation but I think there is too much variance in the way these negotiations take place, and I am wondering whether we should not be using the courts more than we have up until the present time for this very matter so that more of these negotiations could be judged and be done in public. MR. SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. PRIVATE MEMBERS' RESOLUTIONS MR. SPEAKER: Private Members' Resolutions.

The adjourned debate-- for the information of members, there was a sheet distributed, a loose sheet which honourable mem bers will find on their desks, correcting some errors which, I must apologize for, appear in the Orc;lers of the Day as to order in which some resolutions appear. So the order would be as shown on the loose sheet. Adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Assiniboia. The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. FOX: I'm sorry to disappoint all of you. I'm just indicating I wanted to-- I reserved this question for the Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is certainly an admirable one, full of generous and humane intention, and in principle is one that is certainly very difficult, if not nigh impossible, to debate. However, unfortunately, the tendency that is addressed throughout the motion is one which suggests that certain problems and difficulties can be best dealt with my means of patchwork policies. and I'm sure thi& is not the intention of the honour able member.

But before a policy is formulated it must be insured that that policy is one which is geared towards the removal of need wherever that need in fact exists. The type of policy that is advanced in the motion could very well create more inequity than the inequity which it with good intention is attempting to remove.

The fact is obvious to all, and I'm certain to my honourable friend, particularly when he makes reference in paragraph 1 that the present Property Tax is imposing great financial hardship on many of our citizens, that in fact this Property Tax is a burden in many different areas, and as my honourable friend knows, the young married people within our society who are attempting to begin a life of some social success, economic success, are burdened, and in fact in some respects, because of financial difficulty, are deterred from further progress throughout their lives.

He is certainly aware of the fact that the resolution does not deal with many of the age that in fact requires most assistance. There is no reference to the tenants within the motion, to roomers, and I think if analysis was· attempted - and I'm sure it will be done - that it will be seen that many of those in most need among the aged are in fact those that are attempting to make a go of it in a rooming house or in some other senior citizen home.

So the criticism that can be directed to this motion is not that the motion in itself is too extravagant, too radical, but that in fact the motion is one that is too restrictive, too patchwork,

April 7, 1970 651 (MR. PAWLEY cont'd) ..... and in fact 1 must admit, Mr. Speaker, takes me back to the days of 1957 when the Federal Government of that day- which 1 believe, Mr. Speaker, was Liberal, if I recall correctly - was challenged effectively as being the party of sill bucks, a ~ patchwork party. And therefore, Mr. Speaker, that before any policy is enunciated, it must' be insured that the policy is going to be universal, a policy that is going to have social and economic effects that will uplift all those within society that in fact are in need.

Now, accepting that principle and directing that important area of consideration to the matter at hand, that of Property Tax, first it is generally recognized that something must be done at an early date in order to remove this hardship, as the honourable member makes reference to, to all those on low and fixed incomes and people who are receiving Old Age Security pensions. I would have been much happier if the honourable member, after making reference to such people in his

preamble as "all those on low and fixed incomes" went on to suggest that there should be some form of Property Tax alleviation for all those on fixed in come or low income variety, but instead he leaves that grouping aside, though mentioning it and recognizing it as a real need, and isolates a particular group within the Manitoba commun ity. However, I think that it would be unfortunate, Mr.

Speaker, if what in fact is a sensible and a worthwhile resolution, a resolution that certainly points to one isolated problem within a general pool of difficulty, if we were to reject such a resolution out of hand, and as the hon ourable member knows, the entire area of assessment and taxation is being dealt with at the present time. It will be dealt with hopefully this session, before the conclusion of this session; there'll be reviews, there'll be representations, there'll be hearings from the public.

I think it's important that we do consider the very worthwhile suggestions made by the Honourable Member for Assiniboia in this resolution, and it is in that light, Mr.

Speaker, not with enthus iasm because of the restrictiveness of the motion, but with support because it does point to an area of certain and very grave need, that I suggest that we are prepared to accept this motion and we'll be considering -- in reference to the consideration of the advisability, and the motion will be dealt with, the thought, theme of it will be dealt with within the committee dealing with assessment and taxation, the Municipal Affairs Committee. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, I'm not closing the debate.

I wish to have a question posed to the Honourable Minister. Would the Minister agree or not that at the present time some of our senior citizens are forced out of their homes because they cannot pay the tax? MR. PAWLEY: Some of all our citizens in Manitoba are being forced-- could be- but included in many factors - high costs - are being compelled to undergo changes in their standards that they should not be required to undergo.

It's not a matter, however- and this is the theme- it's not a matter restricted to the aged; it's a problem of our young people, the middle-aged and others in need, and certainly in looking at this entire question of assessment we must not restrict ourselves but must be prepared to look at the entire problem of need in relationship to assessment. MR. PATRICK: One more question. Would he not agree, would the Minister not agree then that the tax review would probably take somewhere in the neighbourhood of a couple of years while this requires immediate attention, and I mean it - immediate attention?

Would the Minister agree with that? MR. PAWLEY: No, I would be most disappointed, Mr. Speaker, if tax assessment review took two years. I rest confident and certain that with the usual splendid CQGPeration from the Honourable Member from Assiniboia and the other members in the opposition that we'll be able to certainly do much better than that. MR.

SPEAKER: May I remind honourable members that the Chair is rather reluctant to accept questions of the type just posed to the Honourable Minister because it's not really a question for clarification, for the purpose of seeking clarification of a point made by a previous speaker, but rather it's an attempt, an indirect attempt to extend one's participation in debate, and the Honourable Member for Assiniboia will have ample opportunity to present his views at a later time. Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR.

GABRIEL GIRARD (Emerson): I wonder if the Minister would accept another question. I just wonder if it would be fair to expect that possibly at a fall session legislation could be introduced with the idea of changing the taxation by assessment, at this fall session coming in the . .

~652 April 7, 1970 MR. PAWLEY: I think it would be very haphazard for me to forecast now just what the feelings of all the committee members of all parties will feel in relation to this problem. It would .. be very presumptuous for me to suggest there would be a fall session arising out of our dlecussions in the committee on assessment . .MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a short

part in the debate. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, I was prompted to by the soft.and purring, smooth tone of my honourable friend, and he is my friend, .from Selkirk, the Minister of Municipal Affairs. -- (Interjection) -- Yes, that kind of ran through my head because what did he call the resolution? A noble patchwork?

I'm wondering whether or not he would not-- how he distinguished between a noble patchwork promise at election time, because I and many of us certainly that bad to face that kind of a patchwork election promise program, is one that I was hoping that my colleagues in the back row would have an actual copy of, and I assure you that before the debate is ad journed we will be reminding them of it in actual fact, because it was very plain and very clear in the material put out by the NDP candidates in the last election-- (Interjection) -- Oh, yes.

Printed in bold letters that they would, that they would immediately, should they form the government, take the first $2, 000 off of all assessment - off of all assessment. Now the Minister, and he is a compassionate man, he doesn't take issue with my friend the Member from Assiniboia that this particular group that the Member for Assiniboia ex presses concern for, namely the persons on Old Age Security or Old Age Supplement-- we're already defining or narrowing down the field of need.

In other words, he's not really prepared to simply ask you to do what you indicated to the voters you would do on June 25th, you know, because while you said you would do that, he's a responsihle person and we're.responsible people on this side. We were prepared to say, "Look, they can't do it all at once; they may want to do it sooner or later when there is a general reassessment, " but you said you would do it and you said you would do it very boldly and very clearly on your literature.

Now, I find the syrupy smoothness of the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs sounds very much like the kind of standard reply that he may have felt he was getting from other ministers on another day should he have been in the House, when in fact they were not in a position, for one reason or other, to comply with a resolution that had a lot of appeal, that certainly there was an indication, a wanting to do something about it, but for one reason or other, mainly because I suggest the Honourable Minister knows full well that it's not an easy thing to meddle in a patchworky manner with the whole matter of assessment, the whole matter of property taxes.

I agree with him that the need is there and the sensible approach is to restructure our approach to property taxes, and that we can in fact in many instances be doing harm or impeding real progress at a later date if we put a patch here and put a patch there and then find ourselves in a very difficult position to bring about that kind of reform, but that didn't hold any of my honourable friends of principle on that side back from worrying about it at election time. Absolutely not. At election time, as we've already been told by their First Minister, it's a different ball game. The question is to get elected.

I think that's what he said in front of the whole Assembly of NDP delegates just recently. Of course, I express a further concern because early in the session of the House we have a new defined way of looking at resolutions, as the House Leader indicated to us; that it's your intention not to turn down any resolution. You remember that, fellows. "We're going to accept all resolutions and in fact consider the advisability of." So now we are really lost on this side, Mr. Speaker.

There was a time when you had a government sitting on the treasury benches, that if they knew that something could not be done we were man enough, or we had the guts enough, to accept the difficult position sometimes politically, and reject or refuse that resolution, but with the new rule stated by the House Leader that they're the most reason able fellows over there, they're going to consider the advisability of everything and anything - of anything and everything. Now this is fine, you know, this is very great except that, you know, the difficulty, Mr.

Speaker, is it really-- and I pointed it out at the time, that it leaves us on this side feeling a little bit like winning the odd hollow victory or blowing into paper bags for an afternoon's enjoyment. We have no particular feeling of satisfaction on this side, and it's not my resolution, it's the Member for Assiniboia's resolution, but we have no particular satisfaction of having made a point with the government.

We recognize that we don't make legislation or make laws on this side, but one of the only reasons or one of the few tidbits of satl.8faction that private members have on Private Members' Day is to be able to ...

April 7, 1970 653 MR. BILTON: Advise the government. MR. ENNS: No, is to be able to successfully, through force of argument, through forces of logic and reason, convince the government on the other side to accept a certain course of action, and latterly this has been the approach that we have taken with private resolutions. 'BUt this has been taken away from us now, Mr. Speaker. And so really, Mr. Speaker, and I sug gest to the members of the press, that if on Private Members' Day you find the benches emptier than they've even been before, this is partly the reason, because we now see. you know, that ... MR.

PAWLEY: Would the honourable member submit to a question? MR. ENNS: Certainly. MR. PAWLEY: Would the honourable member be happier or more content if certain sections of assessment were taken away from the committee dealing with municipal affairs, dealing with assessment and taxation? MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to identify this particular area of need, as has been identified by the Member for Assiniboia, as one that cannot wait or cannot tolerate any delay.

The assessments are rising right now, and in any event the Minister, I agree that, and I said so earlier in my speech, that the approach to restructuring the property taxes and the assessment generally is not one that you can easily undertake. All the more reason, I would believe, that when the Member for Assiniboia says it may be two or three years, or a year and a half, in all good conscience you say no it won't be that long, it'll be what? Six months? Eighteen months? The Member for Emerson, my friend Mr.

Girard tried to in his shrewd way attempt, for the edification of all of us in the House, to find out whether or not we were having a fall session this afternoon, but the Minister was too shrewd to rise to that bait, and of course quite legitimately he refused to answer that question, so that obviously, then, we have no knowledge of a fall session, so at best we're looking at a full year, we're looking at a full year that the people on Old Age Security and the Old Age Supplement are going to be faci.Dg this assessment- and the assessment is rising right now. Now all this is said, Mr. Speaker, because, Mr.

Speaker, we didn't initiate what's in this resolution. No, we may have had the same feelings about some of the thi.Dgs, we had . . to do. But Mr. Speaker, they initiated it. They initiated on June 25th. Mr. Speaker, I will deliver to your office the bold handbill printed, the promises that were made, with respect to this government, so I find it rather, you know, just a little-- and particularly coming from that Minister.

You notice, I haven't been able to get into any real swing of the debate because the Minister is a responsible Minister, a hard-working Minister and a fine fellow- and he comes from the Interlake. Here we have it, I think. "A New Democratic Government will give you" - it doesn't make any exclusions - "tax exemptions on the first $2, 000 assessment of your resi dential property. " That leaves out the big business as we of course WGUld assume that they would, but that's fine. Let me read it again: "A New Democratic Government"- they had an inclination that they were going to be government, Mr. Speaker.

Well, obviously you can't be wrong all the time; you were dead right on that one. The biggest problem, Mr. Speaker, is that they have, even to this day, some difficulty in accepting the fact that they are government, the way they're handling resolutions here and the way they're certainly carrying out their promises. For the record, again, Mr. Speaker: "A New Democratic Government will give you a tax exemption on the first $2, 000 assessment of your residential property." Now there is no qualification here, no exemptions.

They go on to indicate some of the other things that they are going to do and some of the things that they have done, but that was the one that we're currently debating- and Mr.

Speaker, I don't want to be ruled out of order for having swayed from the resolution before us, but I just want to check and make sure that I'm not being in any way unfair to my honourable friends opposite because I'd like to see here somewhere some qualification that says "after we have had an opportunity to review the situation" or "after the Committee on Municipal Affairs has had a chance to look into the matter" or that perhaps some other-- you know there should be, but there isn't, Mr. Speaker. It's a $2, 000 exemption across the board. -- (Interjection) -- No there isn't, Mr. Leader.

I've looked- A MEMBER: It didn't say when. No, it didn't say when. A MEMBER: It says, "The New Democratic Government will" ... MR. ENNS: Yes. Well, it says the New Democratic Government will give you a tax exemption on the first $2, 000. Well okay, I think that particular point is made. Now I just want to indicate to you wbat kind of Christian charity we approach you fellows there. The Member for Assiniboia is not

April 7, 1970 (MR. ENNS cont'd) . . . . . asking you to keep that promise. He realizes - he's been in politics for a little while too, in fact a little longer than some of you - he realizes that there are occasions, there are the odd occasions when, in the heat of an election campaign, promises are in fact made and not kept. t can remember another one of those - what was the other one about- "free university education"? Free university education? I think a lot of us signed, I think the . . . Minister signed that little document. All right, let's come down to basics.

There are occasions when, no matter who they are and on what side -- and you've shown yourselves to be human; in fact I think there were the odd occasions that I would have to say as a Conserva tive that not all our election promises were kept, and perhaps even the members in a confes sional moment they would admit that too. You've only indicated to us now that you are brothers with us in that respect. But we knew that you would have difficulty in doing this. I shouldn't say "we" but the Member for Assiniboia, he knew that you'd have difficulty, so he was going to make it easier for you.

He was going to make it easier for you. He said, "This is what you said you'd do; you said you'd take $2, 000 off the assessment off of everybody, but all we're asking for you now to do is $2, 000 assessment of those over age 65 on the Old Age Security pension. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I've made the point very clear that what was regarded in the House now as a Minister that's responsible for his department, what he now chooses to call "noble patchwork" was quite noble election promises at the time he was on the hustings. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. RUSSELL DOERN (Elmwood): You're up for an Academy Award, Harry.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I certainly was not intending to enter into this debate, but after the weak proposition put forward by the Minister, I could hardly believe that he belongs to the New Democratic Party. I understood him to say that the Member for Assiniboia's resolution was rather weak and didn't go quite far enough and patchwork and what not, but I understood him to say that he was rather disappointed that he didn't make mention of the fact that this should be for people on fixed incomes, or low incomes.

Did I understand you to say that, Sir? I wrote it down just as you said it. MR. PAWLEY: You wish a clarification? I indicated quite clearly- it's unfortunate that my honourable friend wasn't listening at the time- that reference was made to such people, but when it comes to doing anything about it, the honourable member had deleted from the active part of his resolution any attempt to deal with this problem. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the Minister confirmed what I thought I had heard. This means that he is on a fixed income of $22, 000 a year.

I don't know how long it's going to be fixed there but he's on a fixed income. This means that you are suggesting that those people should get a tax exemption? I hardly think that this is the intention of the Member for Assiniboia. -- (Interjection) -- The Minister said it a few minutes ago. MR. PAWLEY: Read the resolution. MR. G. JOHNSTON: ... and he's re-confirmed it. Now low income certainly, low income can mean $5, 000 to some people; it can mean 10, 000 to some people. So I'm rather surprised at the defence or the lack of defence that the Minister has made. MR.

PAWLEY: Why don't you read paragraph 2 to the House? MR. G. JOHNSTON: I'm talking about what you said when you were up in the debate. MR. PAWLEY: Read Paragraph 2. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Now, members on the other side have said, Well give us some time and they intend to implement the solemn promise - I presume it was a solemn promise - made to give a $2, 000 assessment on your residential property, rich or poor, $100, 000 mansion or a $5, 000 home. It's going to be flat across the board as I understand that election promise. Yet they say, Mr.

Speaker, "Give us time; we haven't been here that long and we intend to imple ment our promises". I believe at the first session it was almost a desperate plea: Well wait till next session for some of these promises that we've made. Mr. Speaker, I'd ask members to follow me when I quote from the back page of this pamphlet, and I quote: "There are other New Democratic policies just as reasoned, practical and necessary to improvement of life for Manitobans as the policies listed here." There's no suggestion that this is a very difficult thing to introduce or something that's going to take quite a period of time.

It's called "reasoned, practical and necessary" Well, if it's reasoned, practical and necessary, why don't you do it? MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Minister of Transporta- tion.

April 7, 1970 61)5 MR. BOROWSKI: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to say a couple of words on this resolution. I don't think the Minister here needs any defence but I'm really amazed to hear the speeches- or shocked and usually from you it's shocked - they stand here and they're haranguing this side and saying that the reason you should do it, the number one reason is because you made an election promise. That's important. Do you think that's important? -- (Interjection)-- Well fine, I'm glad you said it because I'd like to remind you of what happened in this House a couple of days ago when we raised the minimum wage.

That was an election promise. Did anybody see the Leader of the <:pposition get up? He never said a word. Sat there like a walrus. Never said a word. The Member for Lakeside got up and he was complaining about it. He didn't talk about that this \Vas an election promise and we applaud you for keeping this. This is one party that can keep their election promises. He got up and he made a weak wishy-washy defence on behalf of the establishment, that we didn't make a study of who it was going to affect and how it was going to affect them. And I'll tell you another thing.

Auto insurance was an election promise, just as important . . . MR. McKENZIE: Is this man speaking to the resolution or is he talking election ·' promises? MR. BOROWSKI: We're talking about election promises. We promised auto insurance. What has the other side been saying about auto insurance, all across the province. This was an election promise. Instead of getting up here and saying, we demand you bring in auto insur ance, you are demanding we bring in this- and it's a good resolution and we're going to vote for it, nobody in his right mind would vote against something like this.

And this is one of the reasons it's on that pamphlet, because we think,as the Minister has indicated, this is something that's going to help the people that need help desperately. And I know you'll support it. But 1f we're going to be hypocrites - and I think we are when we are saying keep this promise and don't keep this one- let's at least be consistent in our hypocrisy. We got a whole list of-- (Interjection) -- Consistent. You don't know the meaning of the word but you'lllearn if you are around here long enough.

But if we are going to talk about election promises, then let you fellows get up on that side and say: Look, here's your plat form, 10 or 15 promises and tell us- don't ask us- tell us to keep these promises. And this refers to northern roads - which I've been condemned by people on that side - this is one of our election promises, more roads for the north. How many of you fellows get up here and praise the government- you're going to keep your promise and bulld more roads. And auto insurance is one of the most important.

I've seen some of the things that you fellows have said outside this House and wlll be saying inside the House when the Blll is brought in here introduc ing some type of auto insurance, which I can't say which type but there wlll be something coming ... A MEMBER: Tell us more. MR. BOROWSKI: Like the Member for Lakeside, I speak too much sometimes and I stick my foot in it, but the Blll wlll be around and you fellows wlll have a chance to get up and be as indignant as you are today, and say: You rascals, you bring in that Blll because you promised; this is one of your election promises.

I'm waiting, very anxiously ... MR. G. JOHNSTON: Would the Minister permit a question? Would you inform the House as to when you intend to keep that election promise about the $2, 000 assessment? MR. PAULLEY: In due course. MR. BOROWSKI: It's a policy that'll come out- I can't say when. I'll use the expert's words, "In due course". MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Official <:pposition. MR. WALTER WEm (Leader of the <:pposition)(Minnedosa): The time-honoured phrase is that "I really hadn't intended to take part," and may I start on that base- may I start on that base.

This is the first indication that I've had from fellows on that side of the House that we're responsible for their election promises, that we should be prepared to stand and vote neces sarily for the things that they promised in an election campaign. Mr.

Speaker, if there's any body who has a responsibility for the election promises of the NDP Party, it's the fellows sitting on that side of the House, and the fellows on this side of the House have a right to vote for them if they think they're right and they have a right to vote against them 1f they think they're wrong, and to identify to the people of Manitoba their views. We're not responsible for stand ing up and asking the Government of Manitoba, the present socialists- social-democrats, pardon me, Mr.

Mackling, I saw the program the other night - the socialists sitting over there- we don't have to scream at them to implement their policies even though we disagree

656 April 7, 1970 (MR. WEIR cont'd) ..... with them. We may ask them where they are, whether they're stlll standing in the same place that they were at the time they wer.e elected or whether they've moved over, whether it was a straw man they put UP at the election campaign or whether it was a real man. But, Mr. Speaker, I reject out of hand any responsibility on this side of the House to ask these people to necessarily introduce all of their election program.

But there's no reason why we can't on a selective basis, if we desire, to call them to task on the promises that they made that were in our opinion good for the people of Manitoba, not a reason in the world, and the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Transportation knows that as he sits in his seat. He didn't appear to know it when he was standing on his feet, but as he sits in his seat I'm sure that the Minister of Transportation recognizes that that's the facts of life. --(Interjection) -- Yes, he even talks better sitting in his seat and we hear more of him, more of him.

He puts his feet in his mouth oftener sitting down than he has standing UP· MR. BOROWSKI: I plead guilty. MR. WEIR: Mr. Speaker, I may be accused of straying a little bit from the subject that's under discussion, but not any further than the previous speaker. All I can say is you can't look at taxation in its straight application in terms of mlll rate or anything else.

You've got the totality of the tax picture, and I've said in many places across Manitoba and I repeat it here, that one of the problems that we have is that we have a Federal Government who is attempting to keep order in their own house, they're attempting to balance their budget, they're attempting to control their costs, and some of the things that they're doing are making it difficult for our friends opposite because they have a government to operate, and the government would appear and thank goodness they would appear to be wanting to try to do the same thing in that sphere, which really comes as a bit of a surprise - but nevertheless, this is what they appear to be doing.

The result of what both of them are doing is that they're transferring the deficit of the things that the people need from the two higher levels of government to the municipalities, who can't avoid establishing their level of costs in terms of school districts, can't avoid the costs that are necessary in terms of servicing property, and they have to apply .it against real property, to the only area of taxation that they have. And it's the one tax, it's the one tax that carries with it, Mr. Speaker, the expropriation, the expropriation of the property if there is an inability ot pay - over a period of time.

This is the thing that is very difficult about the real property tax. It's the thing that convinced us at the last session that we were in power to take some steps which we hoped, and I think it did, help in terms of real property. It was the thing that I think convinced the NDP that they should include in their program the exemption that we're talking about. I don't think, I'm not naive enough to think that they did it just because they thought it was politically sound. I think that they thought there was a need.--. Interjection) -- . . . . . Continued on next page

Aprll 7,1970 6.57 MR. GREEN: I just want to ask my honourable friend, not because there's anything ~at he says that is wrong, but is it not a case that any tax which ultimately is not paid can be uSed in execution of any kind of property including real property? That would be the truth with the income tax, any other tax. MR. WEffi: Mr. Speaker, I accept the Minister's question. Even though he didn't ask my permission, I accept his question, and I'll do my best to answer it.

That's true, it's abso lutely true, but in most other types of taxation the bill is related to the person's ability to pay it, his ability to pay it, or if there is an inability there, this is something that is spread over the whole community and it's applied holus bolus across every piece of property and the indi vidual has no right to say yes I'd like to spend the money or no, I wouldn't like to spend the money. It can apply to people whose family has been grown up. It can apply to bachelors that never had a kid; that didn't educate anybody; it's all the way across the board. So that, Mr.

Speaker, in terms of that question, the Minister- he's absolutely right, but it has a completely different, completely different application than real property tax. -- (Interjection) -- I hear comments from my friend on the other side, and while if I had it to do over again, I'd do some things differently, they wouldn'tbethewaymyfriendsdidit.

We'dhaveprobabl:ydonethingsearlier that we thought over a period of time we'd be able to do better by waiting, but I think that it's probably fair to say if hindsight was available to a person at the time he was making his original decision, we might very well have done things slightly diffewnt. Not different in a big way but slightly different in terms of some people at the lower end of the scale.

I admit to having said right along like other members of the party I belong to, we're concerned about it, but we weren't sure of how to establish the regulations and we said on many occasions that a little bit of time was required enable to develop the regulations and to know it. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I have really again, for the second time at this session, entered into a debate which was fully carried out at the last Session of the Legislature, and I think one of the things that we wasted more of our time at than anything else in this Legislature, is that of being repetitive. But, Mr.

Speaker, I don't know how we can get around it,becaaaeu long as we got people like the Minister of Transportation that provoke members on this side and I don't suppose that there's any possibility that he might have been provoked to have risen to his seat by somebody on this side- it's one of the difficulties that we face in the Chamber. It had been my intention to say that our position on this Resolution would have been found in Hansard of last year and to have voted for it with any changes that we might have had in posi tion in the meantime; but I must say, Mr.

Speaker, that I support the Resolution by the Honour able Member for Assiniboia and I don't accept in any way, shape or form many of the comments that were made by my honourable friend the Minister of Transportation. And I haven't entered, Mr. Speaker, into the minimum wage debate and the variety of other debates that I very well could have. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Minister of Labour) (Transcona): Mr.

Speaker, I haven't entered into many debates in this House during this Session; I have preferred to sit back quietly and listen to my honourable friends opposite tighten the noose around their necks. I think that that is a fact that is very very evident here this afternoon. That my honourable friend, the Leader of the Opposition has tightened the noose once again or a little bit tighter on the Conservative Party in Manitoba.

I listened with great interest to his remarks and I find myself agreeing with him in many respects, because it seems to me that essentially what he said in this debate just a few moments ago, is what we call confession.

Confession because of the lack of approach of the previous administration; the lack of understanding of the Conservative Party in Manitoba in the past; and a realization that the reason that my honourable friend and his col leagues are sitting on that side of the House is because they knew not where they were going, what they stood for, and it is only because of the change of government in Manitoba that they are now seeing the error of their ways.

I ani more than happy to hear from my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition that he is going to support this resolution. -- (Interjec tion) -- That's right, the resolution of the Member for Assiniboia, which was rejected over the last 10 years, in principle, by the Conservative administration in Manitoba. MR. WEffi: We rejected it because we couldn't afford it. You people said you could. MR. PAULLEY: You couldn't afford it? But you could afford a heck of a lot of other.bmo vations that were detrimental to the common wheel in the Province of Manitoba, and that is why you're sitting where you are.

And I doubt very much whether you will be sitting there, if there

658 April '7, 1970 (MR. PAULLEY cont'd.) . . . . . is another provincial election, I think you'll be sitting somewhere out in the corridors looking in . . . MR. WEIR: You're probably right, ... MR. PAULLEY: . . . because of the fact, that if there were any failings of the Con servative administration in the Province of Manitoba was the failing to recognize the facts and the conditions of life. It is really revealing to me to hear what my honourable friend had to say this afternoon. At long last, my honourable friend says to this Assembly, we have a con cern for the property taxpayer of Manitoba.

We, when we were on that side of the House attempted to indicate ... MR. WEill: We just asked you to put your money where your mouth was. MR. PAULLEY: That's right and I'm putting it now; I'm putting it now that we are giving consideration to this proposition that my honourable friend, Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend Mr. speaker, who just has got up on this proposition, rejected our contention ... MR. WEill: Ten million ... MR. PAULLEY: Ten milli<m? Yes that's right.

And I will frankly confess that at the present time we may not be able to do all that is desired on behalf of the property owner in Manitoba to relieve all of their problems, we at least are prepared to consider it and the Con servative government rejected even the consideration of the plight. MR. WEill: Baloney ... MR. PAULLEY: Baloney? Of course it's not baloney and my honourable friend know it. (Interjection) -- That's right. Balderdash! Poppycock!

I used to enunciate those words from that side to the former administration because what they were giving to this House was balderdash, was poppycock; they rejected completely any consideration and that's why they are there temporarily until they move overt<> a single seat -- (Interjection) -- that's right to a single seat in this Assembly, if one of you happen to be fortunate in the succeeding election in this province. -- (Interjection) -- And my honourable friend, the Member for Lakeside would be more than fortunate I am sure if in a subsequent election he was returned to this of fice, this House.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, that this government is preparing to act. But my honourable friend, my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition is talking with forked tongue. Here his Federal leader is criticizing the policies federally, criticizing expansion at a time when the Conservative Party feels that there should be retraction in so far as fiscal expansion is concerned.

And here my honourable friend who didn't have the intestinal fortitude -- (Interjection) -- he didn't even have the intelligence, but didn't have the intestinal forti tude to even consider such resolutions as is before us at the present time, now stands up and says to this House, that we will be giving support to the resolution of consideration.

Prior to May 22nd last year complete rejection, when they had opportunity on this side of the House to consider relieving the local taxpayer, and now they're on that side without the responsibility· of government - and deservedly so - are saying . . . -- (Interjection) -- . . . sure we will consider the matter. 'What a farce. What hypocrisy. There is no stronger word that I am permitted to use in this House but I would love to, because this is a fact. -- (Interjection) No. No. I didn't forget gobbledygook at all. MRS. TRUEMAN: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister permit a question? MR.

PAULLEY: My honourable friend though has learned, and learned well, and it's too bad, too bad for the taxpayer at the local level in Manitoba, too bad for the taxpayer in Manitoba that my honourable friend who had the opportunity in his party for 10 years didn't learn. And that is why you are there. Because you had no heart, you had no gumption, you had no consid eration for the taxpayer in Manitoba. And this goes for the whole caboodle of you. MRS. TRUEMAN: Would the Minister permit a question? MR. PAULLEY: I beg your pardon? MRS. TRUEMAN: Would the Minister permit a question please? MR.

PAULLEY: Just for you, because I do think that at times you do exhibit far more intelligence than the male members of your caucus. MRS. TRUEMAN: I wanted to ask the Minister whether he has forgotten the additional $5. 00 per capita unconditional grant that was made by the previous government to the munid palities last year? MR. PAULLEY: Oh no, Mr. Speaker, I haven't fogotten that at all. Oh, Heaven's to Betsy, the Liberal Party did this just prior to an election and the same thing happened to them as happened to the Conservatives with their intrigue. Now maybe my honourable friend from

April7,1970 659 (MR. PAULLEY cont'd.) . . • • . Fort Rouge hasn't dug into the history of political parti¢s in Manitoba to really realize that the people of Manitoba are less susceptible to such buffonery as the Conservatives attempted to pull off on the people of Manitoba, as indeed the Li~ral Party did in 1958. So I suggest to my honourable friend, I am aware of it, I was aware of it of what hap pened previously, and the results were the same. The Liberal Party on its way to oblivion as indeed is the Conservative Party today.

In all due respect, I would suggest to my honour able friend, I do know a little of the political history of the Province of Manitoba over the last few years. Now what does this Resolution suggest? Actually it suggests a transfer of the burden of taxation. MR. ENNS: It's asking you to keep your promises ... MR. PAULLEY: That's right. -- (Interjection) -- That's right. It's asking us to do something that you wouldn't even consider. MR. SHERMAN: You promised it •.. MR. PAULLEY: That is not true. And I say to my honourable friend the Member for Fort Garry, if you want to talk stand up, and after I'm finished. MR.

PAULLEY: I just said you're asking your brains something you never intended to do. And if you want to air your brains just stand up for awhile. MR. SHERMAN: Me thinks the Minister doth protest too much. MR. PAULLEY: Ah! This Minister has been protesting in this House longer than any of the rest of you; and the reason that the Minister is on this side of the House, he protested well -- (Interjection) -- That's right, he's still protesting because the Minister of Labour and Government Services is not satisfied with what is happening in Manitoba.

But when I see and listen to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition in this House, as the representative of a party in Manitoba that for too doggone long held the reins of power, when I hear my honourable friend criticizing this government for not doing what they could have done. - (Interjection) - That's right. And we have promised. Mr. Speaker, the exact Resolutjon proposed by the Honourable Menber for Assiniboia was proposed by us when we were on that side of the House that the government -- (Interjection) -- just a minute -- that the government give consi~ eration to the advisability of doing something.

And we're doing it. One thing I do like about my honourable friend, the Member for Assiniboia, and the House Leader of the Liberal Party, I give them credit for going back over the Journals, going back over Hansard, and digging out the resolutions that the New Democratic Party proposed when we were on that side of the House.

When one looks over the years ·at the resolutions that we proposed, and now we find the third party -- yes, they're still a party by the skin of their teeth; they're still a party in this House by the skin of their teeth -- digging back over the Journals and Hansard and. resurrecting resolutions that we proposed on that side. I don't fault them for it because we were right when we were there, and we're right while we are here, and all that we are asking, all that we are asking, and we're accepting -- we're not rejecting this resolution as indeed my honourable friends opposite did.

I would suggest to my honourable friend, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, it means far more for Manitoba that we will accept this . . . MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, point of order. MR. PAULLEY: . . . than the rejection of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition when he was the Premier of the Province of Manitoba, and we will . • . MR. PATRICK: Point of order. Mr. Speaker, I object. The Honourable Minister is giving false information to the members of this House.

I would like to tell him that I never look through journals for any of his resolutions, and I've never introduced in this House a resolution that's ever been introduced by another member. The same year, the same session that that party, the Member for Kildonan, introduced a resolution, exemption for 2, 000 for all people of Manitoba, for all residents. which would have cost $24 million, that's the same session that I had a similar resolution, which I had no chance to look in the journals, to exempt, which was a reasonable resolution, only for the people that were in need. MR. SPEAKER: Order, order, please. MR.

PATRICK: I want to correct the Minister. MR. SPEAKER: Order. I doubt whether the Honourable Member for Assiniboia had a point of order.

660 AprU 7, 1970 MR. PATRICK: Sure. The Honourable Member was making false statements and I --wante(Ho correct him. MR. SPEAKER: I believe that our rules provide other ways of handling situations of that type. MR. PAULLEY: .•. thank the Honourable Member fpr Assiniboia for supporting and proving what I said was correct that we had introduced this resolution, and if my honourable friend cries now because we beat him to the gun then I have to accept. And this is exactly what he has said. He couldn't present it because we had done it before him and this is exactly what I am saying. So I say to my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition that

whereas the previous government rejected by voting against a similar resolution, objected to even considering the proposition, this government is going to consider the application of this by legislation. But I'm sure that my honourable friend will agree with me, I'm sure that my honourable friend will agree with me despite some of the rabble in the second row, he will agree with me that we can't do everything at once. My Premier and also the Minister of Finance has suggested to this :House that there has to be a lead time due to the present economic situation prevailing in Canada. MR. McKENZIE: Ah come on Russ.

MR. PAULLEY: That's right. My honourable friend from Roblin says "ah come on, Russ," and I want to suggest to my honourable friend, I want to suggest to my honourable friend, that the basic reason that we're in the predicament here in Canada economically at the present time, and particularly here in Manitoba, is because of a succession of Liberal and Conservative governments that haven't established the climate and particularly, particularly here in the Province of Manitoba we have been misgoverned, misdirected . . . MR. JORGEN!DN: Since June 25th. MR.

PAULLEY: ... to the degree that we are in the position -- and my honourable friend from Morris now says "since June 25th. " Well my honourable friend should know because he's been kicked out so often of representation and he will assuredly be kicked out at any subsequent provincial election as he was indeed as a representative at Ottawa where he was such an abject failure. So in conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, I do want to say to my honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition, thank you for your support. -- (Interjection) -- And indeed if the Honourable Member for Fort Garry is going to support the resolution as well . . MR. SHERMAN: I just said you're my choice for best supporting actor tonight, that's all. MR. PAULLEY: There is one rule in this House that if my honourable friend wants to speak he's got to get up off his brains so we can hear him, officially according to the rules of the House. I would suggest that to my honourable friend. Mr.

Speaker, I do want to say that as one who has had the opportunity of serving Manitoba ineffectually possibly over a number of years, I am so happy to hear the Conserva tive Party of Manitoba say, through their Leader in this House, that they are going to support consideration for the alleviation of many of the financial trials that prevail insofar as the local property taxpayer is concerned. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Official Opposition. MR. WEill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if for a matter of clarification if the Minister would permit a question. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister that the government, hav ing presented for many years and having "agreed to consider" at the last session of the Legis lature, what conclusion they've arrived at? MR. PAULLEY: We've arrived at the conclusion that we're going to consider the propo sition that's before us. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, would the Honourable Minister permit a question? After listening, Mr. Speaker, at great length to this NDP jumble of espousing at great length can I ask the Minister is he in favour of the resolution or is he against it. MR.

PAULLEY: We have indicated our support to consider the plight of the local tax payer. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Yes or no? MR. PAULLEY: I'm having difficulty penetrating the area in between my honourable friend's two ears, but the answer is "yes".

April 7, 1970 661 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few remarks to what has already been said this afternoon. My honourable friend the Minister of Labour was very forceful in his delivery and I hope that he will consider what I will have to say.

I'm just wondering when the government is giving support to the resolution whether they're considering this in the light of ability-to-pay, because we have other groups in this province who find difficulty in meeting their taxes and so on and I would not exclude a large part of our farm group at the present time. They are in a very precarious situation where they do not have the ready cash to pay their taxes because of the increase in taxes on farm land. I feel that we should concern our selves with those people just as well when we consider the matter of alleviating the taxes for certain groups.

That does not mean that I do not have sympathy for the older citizens of the province, especially those that are in receipt of old age supplementary assistance. I feel that this would be a very welcome gesture on our part as an Assembly here in providing some assistance to them. I certainly have no qualms about this, I am in full support of the resolu tion. But it seems to me, Mr.

Speaker, that when we started off discussing this matter this afternoon that the government is going to agree to all the resolutions being submitted where we have the phrase inserted "consider the advisability of'', that certainly they can go along and give consideration to all these resolutions and thus by agreeing to them on this basis that this does not necessarily mean that they will consider implementing these programs or these resolutions once they have been adopted in this fashion.

I think this is where we find we will have to probably amend all the resolutions that are on the Order Paper from hereon in order to find out whether they really mean business, whether they really concur in the subject mat ter that is being voted on and not just whether they concur in the advisability of considering them. So I intend to propose an amendment to the resolution before us in the following way: And, Mr.

Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye, that the resolution be amended (1) by deleting the period after the word "exemptions" in the last line thereof; and (2) by adding the following words after $e word "exemptions" in the last line thereof "and implement the program within the current fiscal year." MR. GREEN: Nice try, Jake. Mr. Speaker, I just wish to raise a point of order on the amendment, submit that it's out of order on the grounds that it is a resolution which would call for the expenditure of public monies out of the Consolidated Fund.

My honourable friend knows full well that he can't propose such a resolution. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. The government has the right to vote down the amendment, it doesn't change the intent of the original request of the resolu tion. A MEMBER: Out of order, Mr. Speaker. A MEMBER: Jacob, you know better than that. MR. WATT: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. I want to ask the Honourable Minister does the reduction of taxes constitute an expenditure of money? MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If my honourable friend doesn't know, yes it does. MR.

SPEAKER: The Chair will take the amendment under advisement and give a deci sion later. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, there's just one point that I'd like you to consider, is that this is a directive for bringing into effect something at this session .. If aqoptecl.by the House then it becomes mandatory for the House to do it. I know you will take this into con sideration when you're considering the matter; I just raise that ... MR. SPEAKER: I thank all honourable members for their comments. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order.

I want to remind the Honour able Speaker that we're not removing the phrase or the item "to consider the advisability of'' from the resolution at all, it's still contained. MR. SPEAKER: As I have indicated a moment ago, I'll take the amendment under ad visement and give my decision thereon when this matter next appears on the Order Paper. Resolution No. 7. The proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. MR. EVANS: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry that the Honourable Member from Ste.

Rose is not now in the House to listen and ~articipate in the debate or at least to

662 April 7, 1970 (MR. EVANS cont'd.) . . . . . ask questions if necessary. I think the resolution by and large is a worthwhile resolution which we are inclined to accept. Of the four main recommend ations referred to in tho TED Report the resolution points out that the first one, namely the creation of a new standing committee on economic development in the Manitoba Legislature, has been accomplished. This has been done.

The second point, the second main recommendation, the appointment of a high level ad visory council on economic development drawn from the private sector, I would beg to differ wUh the Honourable Member from Ste. Rose with respect to action taken on this. He points out that really we have not acted on it in recognition or in compliance with the specific recom mendation of the TED Report. And indeed it isn't the advisory committee, the Economic Development Advisory Board which has been set up is not set up precisely the way that the TED Report recommended.

It hasn't got the exact number that the TED Report suggested, the Chairman is a renowned economi.st, a long term public service, a man of experience and capability and not an outside chairman drawn from the private sector as suggested in the TED Report recommendation on this matter.

However, when you refer to the TED Report and its description of terms of reference of this advisory council on economic development, and if you look at the terms of reference of the board which this government has established, you will see that to a large degree we have in corporated the suggestions of the TED Report; that the council, for example, should be drawn from the private sector with the implication that we bring in capable people.

I am sure hon ourable members in the House would agree that we have some very successful and capable community-minded, community-spirited businessmen who have agreed to serve on the Eco nomic Development Advisory Board, businessmen representing .large business and small business. We have a co-operative representative, we have a representative from a union, or representing labour, rather, I would suggest.

There are a number of other suggestions in the TED Report pertaining to this particular board- that it should not become involved in administrative detail but rather should be engaged in general studies of economic development programs. It suggests that logistic support could be provided by the Department of Industry and Commerce and of course this can be done. It suggests that the council, or as we now call it, the Economic Development Advisory Board, report on the activities and performance of the Manitoba Development Fund. In effect, the Economic Development Advisory Board has this authority.

It's also suggested in the TED Report that this council or that the Economic Development Advisory Board review the Depart ment of Industry and Commerce and other government departments affecting economic develop ment, to report on their activities and their performance. And this, too, is in the terms of reference c:i the Economic Development Advisory Board. If we want to use an abbreviation I suppose we can refer to it as EDAB, provide economy of words, but EDAB is essentially meant to perform those suggestions, that course of action which is laid down in the TED Re port.

So on this score I would differ with my friend, the Member from Ste. Rose. With respect to the other suggestion, Number 3, establishment in Ottawa of an office of Manitoba economic affairs, this is a matter that we are now considering. I think there are pros and cons involved here.

The Manitoba Government did at one time have a London office, representing Manitoba in the U, K, We had one very capable public servant staffing that office and while not taking anything away from what was performed at that time, it was decided by the previous administration that such an office should be closed because it could not as effec tively represent the interests of Manitoba pertaining to economic matters as could individual Ministers,individualDeputyMinistersor public servants who could travel to London, travel to England, travel to other parts of Europe from time to time on specific matters with specific problems and talk to the individuals responsible, and therefore it was closed.

In many ways, the suggestion in the TED Report, the establishment of an Ottawa office pertaining to Manitoba economic affairs, there's a great parallel here; so really, while the suggestion has merit and indeed should be seriously considered, and is being seriously considered at this very time, I would suggest that in this day and age of modern communication, not only Telex, but tele phones, the airplane takes us to Ottawa ina matter of a couple hours, that in many ways we may be able to perform the intent of the suggestion more effectively by sending individual public servants to discuss the problems at hand with their counterparts in the .Federal Govern ment.

And, of course, I would refer to recent visits of members of this government; the Minister of Agriculture was down not long ago on an important matter; there are officials of

Aprll 7, 1970 (MR. EVANS eont'd.) ....• my department who have been on various visitstoOttawa pertaining to important matters involving details of economic development in this province; a large percentage of the Cabinet was in Ottawa early in the New Year, early in 1970 and has a face-t<rface meeting with about a third of the Federal Government on the whole concept of regional ec

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-2-28
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 2nd hansardpdf 28.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0ca060e6216688c1c6526f16cd485e692faf992b

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