Manitoba Hansard — 7 May 1968 (Sitting 68, 28th Legislature, 2nd Session)

28-2-68

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:.30 o'clock, Tuesday, May 7, 1968 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions Reading and Receiving Petitions Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees Notices of Motion Introduction of Bills 1681 I'd like to direct the attention of the honourable members to the galleries where we have 100 students of Grade 9 standing of the Louis Riel School. These students are under the dir ection of Mr. Lecuyer, Mr. Frechette, Mrs. Brunet, Mrs. Toupin, Miss Dorge and Miss Gaborieau.

This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for St. Boni face. On behalf of all the Honourable Members of the Legislative Assembly, I welcome you all here today. Orders of the Day. The Honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party. MR . RUSSELL PAULLEY (Leader of the New Democratic Party)( Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the other day there was an announcement contained in the Winnipeg Free B:ess and Tribune to the effect that the Civil Service of Manitoba after having completed negotiations were going to be awarded a seven percent increase in their wages.

My question would be directed to the Honoural:>le the Provincial Secretary. Is this a correct statement? HON. STEWART E. McLEAN (Provincial Secretary)(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, negotiations have been proceeding satisfactorily and I would hope to be able to make an announcement with in a few days. MR . PAULLEY: May I then address a supplementary question either to the Honourable the Provincial Secretary or to the Attorney-General. Is is true that the employees of the Manitoba Li·quor Commission Board have only been offered an increase of five percent in their wages by the Chairman of the Manitoba Liquor Commission?

HON. STERLING R. LYON, Q.C. (Attorney-General)(Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I have no direct knowledge of the negotiations being carried on by the Commission with its employees. They are outside of the inner service. I'll endeavour to find out what the situation is on those negotiations. MR . PAULLEY: May I offer a supplemental question to the Honourable the Attorney General.

Does he think it would be fair for part of the civil service under the direction of the Provincial Secretary to be awarded a seven percent increase, if this is arrived at, and those of the Manitoba Liquor Commission only offered an increase of five percent? MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, the question is hypothetical. The negotiations however are quite separate. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ethelbert Plains. MR . MICHAEL KAWCHUK (Ethelbert Plains): · Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.

In view of the fact that there has been a judgment brought down yesterday with respect to the vote taken on the Marketing Board and Mr. Justice Hunt has indicated there had been some alleged irregularities in the count of that vote, I was wondering what action the government intends to take with respect to that. HON. HARRY J. ENNS (Minister of Agriculture and Conservation)(Rockwood-Iberville): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the judgment referred to by the Honourable Member from Ethelbert Plains. I have asked the Manitoba Marketing Board to make further recommendat ions to me.

I don't anticipate taking any action at this time until I have these recommendations from the Manitoba Marketing Board on the matter. MR . PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplemental question on this matter. Would the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture consider authorizing a second vote in view of the judgment on the matter of marketing boards? MR . ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Honourable the Leader of the New Democratic Party is probably aware, or should be aware, of the statute which limits a second vote being held on the question for a two-year period.

This is part of the reason for the action taken on behalf of these growers to declare this vote null and void. These are all some of the consid erations that I have to take into care in arriving at a judgment. I trust to the good offices of the Manitoba Marketing Board to assist me in arriving at these judgments.

1682 May 7, 1968 MR. SPEAK ER: I wonder if I might interrupt proceedings for just a moment and apolo gize to the House. I overlooked one group of school children and I'm sure you would like me to recognize them. There are 28 students of Grade 5 standing from the Queenston School. These students are under the direction of Mr. Hughes. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce. On behalf of all the Honourable Mem bers of the Legislative Assembly, I welcome you here today too. The Honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party. MR. P AU LLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate very much the reply of the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture and I think basically he is correct, but I want to ask my honourable friend, in order that fairness may be accorded to those concerned with marketing boards, will the Minister consider, if the decision as arrived at is under the regulations, changing the regulations; if not, if it's under statute, will the Minister consider bringing in a change in the statute at this session in order to give to those concerned in the market producing boards an opportunity of establishing what they desired in the vote that was taken recently.

MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that all my considerations of judgments are based on fair treatment to the producers concerned. I would have to check specifically, but it is my understanding that if it were desirable to make a change of the kind that he suggests that this could possibly be done by regulation. My understanding is that this limitation is under the regulations of The Natural Products Marketing Act, in which case I'm empowered to do that if I am so advised. MR. SPEA KER: The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. ELMAN GUTTO RMSON (St. George): Mr.

Speaker, I have a question I'd like to direct to the Minister of Industry and Commerce. Has he an answer for the question I posed to him yesterday? HON. SIDNEY SPIVAK, Q. C. (Minister of Industry and Commerce)(River Heights): Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member from St. George asked whether it was correct that the Information Service Branch has been negotiating to establish direct lines from their offices to all radio stations in Metropolitan Winnipeg. The answer is no. While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to answer several questions asked by the honourable members.

The Honourable Leader of the Opposition on Friday asked the cost of composing the "Spirit of '70" song. The cost was $800, 00. There were no royalties; the province owns the song outright. The Honourable Member from Brokenhead asked whether the new fabric mill to be con structed in Selkirk was contingent on whether there was or was not availability of soft water in the town. The answer is no. The Honourable Member from Gladstone yesterday asked a question, or made reference to a Manitoba Busi ness Journal, October or November issue - I'm not sure of exactly when - referred to an

article on the Manitoba Development Fund where mention was made of several loans of the Fund. I've checked with the department officials and the officials of the Manitoba Development Fund and this information was not supplied from the government. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Hamiota. MR. EARL DAWSON (Hamiota): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Min ister of Industry and Commerce.

In the course of answering the questions you had taken as notice you forgot to reply to the one I asked you last week, where I had asked if your depart ment had supplied any information to either newspapers regarding Churchill Forest Products for the enclosure you had placed-- or the supplement you had placed in the newspapers. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice again. I'll get that inform ation. I'm sorry I haven't it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. GUT TORMSON: Mr. Speaker, a subsequent question to the Minister of Industry and Commerce.

Did the Information Services Branch have any consultations with the radio stations with respect to direct lines from the Information Services Branch? MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Honourable Member for St. George: are you referring to the individual radio stations? MR. GUTTO RMSON: I asked if the Information Services Branch had had any consulta tions with the radio stations in Metro Winnipeg to set up a direct line from the Information Services Branch. MR. SPIVAK: To the radio stations? I ,J

• I May 7, 1968 1683 MR . GUTTORMSON: Yes. MR . SPIVAK: The answer is no. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. John's. MR . SAUL M. CHERNIACK, Q. C. (St. John's): Mayl direct aq uestion to the House Leader. Is it still the intention of government to convene a meeting of the Committee on Statu tory Regulations during this session? MR . LYON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, when the material on the regulations is ready. It is not as yet ready. MR . CHERNIACK: Could the Honourable Minister indicate when it will be ready and the nature of the material? I thought it was all ready and before us. MR . LYON: No.

The prime purpose of the Statutory Orders Committee is to review regulations. The requirement, one of the requirements that we have had over the years is a review of these regulations by the staff of the Legislative Counsel in order to assist the mem bers of the committee to review the regulations. That material to assist the committee is not as yet ready. With respect to other matters that have previously been before that committee, there is still required, and there will be on the Order Paper I think shortly, a resolution con signing those matters to the Statutory Orders Committee for consideration. MR .

CHERNIACK: Then may I ask, Mr. Speaker, is it the intention then to present that resolution during this session in sufficient time that a meeting may be called to deal with the matters referred, not the regulations that have been passed? (' :MRo LYON: The resolution will be presented in due course, yes,. MR . GUTTORMSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a subsequent question to direct to the Minister of Industry and Commerce. Did anyone in the Information Services Branch have consultations with any officials in the Manitoba Telephone System about the possibility of establishing direct ·lines to the different radio stations?

MR . SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, l' ll take that question as notice. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR . GILDAS MOLGAT (Leader of the Opposition)(Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the Minister of Industry and Commerce and thank him for the informa tion he gave me regarding the song. Was there a contest held in Manitoba for the purpose of preparing this song? MR . SPIVAK: No, Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party. MR . PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Honourable the First Minister.

Were there any consultations this morning, or since the sitting of last evening, between the Manitoba Government, MMS or/and the Manitoba Medical Association in respect of provision of Medicare services to the people of Manitoba? HON. WALTER WEIB (Premier)(Minnedosa): No, Mr. Speaker. MR . PAULLEY: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Honourable the First Minister indicate as to whether or not consultations or negotiations will take pl ace within the next day or two in respect of this important matter? MR . WEIR: No, I'm not at liberty to say, Mr. Speaker. MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Gladstone. MR . NELSON SHOEMAKER (Gladstone): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to my honourable friend the Minister of Industry and Commerce. I understood him to say that the government did not supply the information that I referred to in the October-November issue of Manitoba Business Journal, but my question is: if the govern ment did not supply the information then it is quite evident that the Manitoba Development Fund did supply the information, because the whole ten-page

article lists Mr. Grose, the Chairman of the Board -the whole story is written by it -and it lists 31 different companies who have borrowed money from the Fund. Now my question is: who did supply the inform ation then? The heading of the

article says, "The Manitoba Development Fund- is this the coming way to attract industry and expand business? You bet it is. " 'I'he question is: who gave the information to the Manitoba Business Journal? MR . SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the Honourable Member for Gladstone ask the editors of the publication. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR . GORDON E. JOHNSTON (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the

1684 May 7, 1968 (:MR. JOHNSTON cont'd.) • • • • • Honourable Minister of Urban and Municipal Affairs. On April 22 I had Order No. 34 passed requesting certain information about the activities of the Boundaries Commission. When can I expect the Order to be tabled? HON. THELMA FORBES (Minister of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs)(Cypress): Shortly, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Hamiota. MR. DAWSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to request a correction in Hansard of last Friday afternoon on Page 1627, the twelfth line.

The remarks attributed to the Honourable Member for Roblin are the remarks that were made by myself. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, l' d like to address a question to the Honourable the Att orney-General. On Thursday of last week I asked him about a news report in which one of the judges in Manitoba had censured the Department of the Att orney-General for conduct entirely contrary to the principles of Canadian justice.

My honourable friend said that the matter was under study, that they had obtained a transcript in the department and he would have a report to make shortly. Is he in a position now to inform the House on this most serious charge? MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to have some information on that matter today. It is not yet available; possibly it will be here tomorrow. There were other transcripts that had to be obtained. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Seven Oaks. MR. SAUL MILLER (Seven Oaks): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the First Minister a question.

Have the MMS or MMA made any representation to the First Minister with regard to any specific proposals that they might have in mind? MR. WEIR: Mr. Speaker, many of the discussions that have been held with MMS have been related to proposals. That's a very indefinite type of question that I think can not bring a very definite reply. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Seven Oaks. MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, a supplemental question.

Can the First Minister tell us, if the word "proposal" is too vague, can he tell us whether they have come up with any con clusive proposals or has he come to any conclusions based on those proposals? MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if that subject has not been reasonably well discussed. The First Minister would appear to me to have been rather emphatic in his earlier replies and I wonder if it would be to any advantage to pursue it any further. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, on the point of order raised by Your Honour, may I respectfully suggest that this is one of the most important issues before the people of Manitoba and I would suggest that any member, in all deference to Your Honour, that any member of this Assembly has the right to ask of the First Minister or the Minister of Health or any other Minister of the Crown any question pertaining to this most important matter ••• MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. MR. PAULLEY: ••• and I suggest that my honourable friend is quite within his rights -- (Interjection) -- the order?

I was standing on a point of order and I reject the interference of my honourable friend the House Leader. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm sure the Honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party would not take away from me my position and responsibility to adjudicate to the best of my ability. MR. PAULLEY: With all due respect, Your Honour, may I respectfully suggest to you that the members of this Asse:nbly also have a responsibility and my honourable colleague from Seven Oaks was only fulfilling that responsibility. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, if I might •••• MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. I am quite prepared to call the honour able members as and when it is necessary, and no one else in the House. The Honourable Member for Seven Oaks may take the floor. MR, MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the First Minister tell this House what was the last proposal that he received from MMS or MMA? MR. WEIR: No, Mr. Speaker, I won't. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie.

I I May 7, 1968 1685 MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Honourable the First Minister. On April 1, I had an Order No. 29 with respect to the travels of Cabinet Ministers in Manitoba for the past year accepted by the House. I wonder when I can expect the information in this order. MR. WEIR: Soon, Mr. Speaker, as soon as the information has been tabulated. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party. MR. PAU LLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may address a question" of the Honourable Minister of Health. MR. SPEAKER: You are at liberty to do so. MR. PAU LLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the Honourable Minister of Health can indicate to the House when the last time he met with representatives of the Manitoba Medi cal Association or the Manitoba Medical Service respecting Medicare in Manitoba. HON. CHARLES H. WITNEY (Minister of Health)(Flin Flon): Oh, Mr. Speaker, that was a long time ago when we were formulating Bill 67 or 68. MR. PAULLEY: I take it from my honourable friend the Honourable Minister of Health that he has not held consultations with the Manitoba Medical Service or the Manitoba Medical Association since March of last year? Is this a correct

interpretation of the answer of my honourable friend? • • • • Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the honourable the Minister of Health is in a position to answer my question as to when he, as Minister responsible for health of Manitoba, had consultations with these two bodies? MR. SPEAKER: It is also his privilege to retain his seat if he so desires. MR. PAULLEY: Then may I ask another question of my honourable friend. Has my honourable friend the Minister of Health undertaken any consideration of meeting with the Manitoba Medical Society or the Manitoba Medical Service Association respecting Medicare in Manitoba? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. GUTTORMSON: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. Yesterday I directed a question to him with respect to the Portage Home for Mental Defectives. Could he give me an answer today? MR. WITNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker the answer is no, and at the present time all of our mental hospitals are burying people in the municipal cemeteries. MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry, I didn't hear the Minister's reply.

MR, WITNEY: The answer is no, and at the present time we are burying all of our people from the - those that we do have and we don't have very many, Mr. Speaker - from the mental facilities in the Province of Manitoba, we are burying them in municipal cemeteries. MR. GUTTORMSON: •••• no burials in the private cemetery since the Minister's state- ment last November. Is that correct? MR. WITNEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR. GUTTORMSON: Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. EDWARD I, DOW (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Treasury.

Until recently, air compressors for farm use was tax exempt from the sales tax. I understand the regulations have been changed and they are now taxable. Is there a reason for this? HON. GURNEY EVANS (Provincial Treasurer)(Fort Rouge): I'll take notice of the question; I think it requires a considered reply. MR, SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. John's. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Honourable the First Minister. Has any member of the Cabinet participated with you in discussions with the MMS and the MMA regarding Medicare services? MR. WEIR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, at various times. MR.

CHERNIACK: A supplementary question. Could the Honourable Minister indicate what Ministers of the Cabinet have been involved in these discussions? MR. WEIR: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. LAURENT DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): I wonder if the First Minister would answer this question. Why hasn't one of them been the Minister of Health? MR. WEIR: Mr. Speaker, I didn't say one of them wasn't the Minister of Health.

1686 May 7, 1968 MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health said he never met with them since last year when they prepared Bill 68. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Gladstone. MR. SHOEMAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to my respected friend the Minister of Health. On June 12th last, according to a propaganda sheet that I have before me, a six-man board was set up -seven-man, pardon me -to run the Manitoba Medi cal Service Insurance Corporation --(Interjection) --six? It says seven at the top.

Were they on the payroll and did they receive a full year's pay in 1967 or a half-year's pay in 1967 in consideration of the date of the propaganda sheet, dated June 12th, which says the board was set up. MR. LYON: On a point of order. That is really not a suitable question for Orders of the Day. It deals with a matter that requires some advice for the Minister from his depart ment. His estimates are before the House and the question, if it's worthwhile at all, can be asked during supply. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, may I speak on the point of order?

We have a board that has been named, set up, to do exactly this, to negotiate with the MMA and MMS, and I think that this question is - the point is we want to know who's negotiating. We want the people to be represented. This is what we want to know. It's a deep dark secret. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, I would like to direct a question to the Honourable the Minister of Labour. I would like to ask the Honourable Minister of Labour whether he has consulted, along with the First Minister, into the problems of MMS and MMA and Medicare in Manitoba? MR.

LYON: On a point of order, my honourable friend is asking about meetings of sub committees or groups .of the Executive Council. It's really not a matter - he could go along the whole front bench and he may, but I suggest that the que stions are all out of order. MR. PA ULLEY: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, the Honourable the First Minister informed the House that negotiations had been taking place between himself and members of the Cabinet, together with MMS and MMA.

I think that it is quite within the rules of the House for the Assembly to be informed as to who are undertaking these consultations and negotiations, and the Honourable the First Minister refused this information.

If the only way that we can elicit this information is by asking each individual member of the front bench whether they are involved, I suggest that it is within the rules of the House, and I want to re-direct my question to the Honourable Doctor of Chiropractic, the Minister of Labour, as to whether or not he, in concert with the First Minister, have been conducting negotiations with MMS and MMA respect ing Medicare in Manitoba and - (Interjection) --the Minister of Labour can refuse to answer if he likes without any interjections from the Attorney-General. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. HON.

GEORGE JOHNSON (Minister of Education)(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day, l' d like to advise the House that •.. A MEMBER: That you were not? MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce to the House the appointment of Dr. Peter Duncan Currie as the Seventh Chancellor of the University of Manitoba. I'm sure he's well-known to most members of the House. He is a prominent investment executive and former Chairman of the School Board. He begins a three-year term as Chancellor on June lst of this year. He succeeds Mr.

Justice Samuel Freedman who will retire from that office on the 31st of May, at his request, the end of his present term after serving for nine years. I'm sure all members of the House join me in extending on behalf of all of the people of Manitoba our sincere thanks for leadership and service in university life in this province that is I'm sure, a precedent in this province. W e1re all sorry to see him step down at his own request after this lengthy service, and, I'm sure, happy and wish Dr. Currie the very best in the coming years. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. JACOB M.

FROESE (Rhineland): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. Could he tell us how soon we can expect a reply to an Order for Return made by the Honourable Member for St. John's and myself? MR. SPIVAK: Shortly, Mr. Speaker.

I I • I May 7, 1968 1687 ORDERS OF THE DAY MR . SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Inkster and the proposed motion of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition in amendment thereto. The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR . DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't realize I had so many friends. MR. JOHNSON: Don't get carried away. MR . DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I stated clearly that - as clearly as I could anyway - that I favoured the resolution and the amendment so there's no point in repeat ing this again.

I would like to make it quite clear at this time though that I do not feel that the question of education, that is the school board should be tampered with or should be cover ed with this resolution. I think the matter of education should remain separate, divorced from the municipal services. Now, I read - with your permission, your co-operation, Mr. Speaker, last Friday I read my proposed sub-am endment so the members know what I have in mind. It might be better at this time if I were to say what I don't want, to eliminate some of the things that I feel I'm not after in this sub-amendment.

First of all, I want to make it quite clear that I'm not talking about the ordinary municipal services such as zoning, raising and collection of taxes, transit system, water sanitation, control of mosquitoes, garbage, fire and police protection, and what have you. I don't say that some of these things shouldn't be looked into, but this sub-amendment doesn't cover this. St. Boniface would have to take its chance like the rest of the municipalities in regards to this. I certainly don't intend to build a wall around St.

Boniface - mind you we'd like to see a r� taining wall between Provencher and Norwood Bridge - but this resolution doesn't cover this at all. I'm not after a little Quebec and I'm not preaching separatism. I'm not even after a little Vatican, and so I hope we will wait awhile before the anti-French or anti-Catholic el� ments start uniting to defeat this awful resolution. I think that if the members of this House tried to understand what I want to accomplish, I think that they will soon realize that all of us here can live with this sub-amendment.

I think that we will do more than live with it, I think that it will work towards the national unity, towards promoting national unity here in our country and in our province, and I can assure everyone that none of us will be committing political suicide by voting in favour of this resolution. This is something that we're a little afraid of. It seems that we were lax in these matters. When there are 99. 9 percent of the people of Manitoba that want something, then we give leadership.

I remember not so long ago, a few years ago, introducing a resolution - in fact it was a Bill - recommending that French become a teaching language. I remember at the time that the then First Minister - who is not in his seat as usual this afternoon - did not speak on this, did not take

part in the debate at all, although, as now, it was before an election and he was speaking in Quebec on these things, on national unity, but he did not take

part in this at all. And I remember that the Minister of Education, the same Minister that we have now, did not take

part in the debate at all. But after one of the parties decided to bring this as a platform of the party, well surprisingly there was no more political suicide. The government brought in this question of French as a teaching language and it passed 54 to 0 - 54 to 0 - and the year before this it was going to be policital suicide. The then Premier, of course, used that motion to go to Quebec and to say that his main platform, if he was elected the federal leader of his country, was to work for national unity. This is good; so you can see how things change, Mr. Speaker.

So I would suggest to the members that there is no more danger here at all, in fact there's probably less danger. I do hope that all the Leaders of the different parties will decide to make this a free vote. I have read the resolution; I've told you what I don't want; and I guess some of you are getting important - some of the members are getting impatient I should say - maybe they would like to know what I want with this resolution.

If the initial resolution is accepted, and the amendment and the sub-amendment, I would like to see a committee that would be set up to see exactly what would be needed to project this - I got my resolution (d) - the historic cultural and linguistic nature of St. Boniface and of Manitoba - and of Western Canada I should say. Now this committee would study the B and B Report, the recommendation of the B &B Repo rt, which I hope somebody will do anyway, and bring in proper recommendations. This, to my way of looking at it, Mr. Speaker, would be the time to bring in this kind of legislation

1688 May 7, 1968 (MR. DESJARDINS cont'd.) • • • • • and so on that would take into consideration the recom mendation of the B & B Report, and I think that as long as this is achieved, if this historic cultural and linguistic nature of St. Boniface is protected, I think that we'd be on the right track.

Now if, as I said first of all, we passed the resolution and the amendment, well before going to the people of Manitoba with this referendum they would receive all the information and it would be taken for granted -- it would be assured that the recommendation of this committee would be accepted if the referendum carried. Now I feel that - and of course if the referendum is not accepted and if only the motion is accepted, well then - the government before bringing in legislation would study the recommendation of this committee.

For instance, I don't intend to start doing the work of this committee at this time but I think I would be wise to give you an example, to give you an idea of what I want. I would like to see St. Boniface remain as a city. Now before that scares anybody, because we've talked about total amalgamation, I would say that maybe the borders would remain where they are now of the city and this city would have very limited powers and responsibility, and the powers and responsibi lity will be all in the field of historic, cultural and linguistic nature. This is all that I'm asking for.

I think that they would probably promote bilingualism and I think that it would, for certain things, keep the French names on the streets and maybe erect other bilingual signs and so on, to make a model of St. Boniface, a model that the rest of Manitoba and Canada can look to. I think that St. Boniface should retain a Mayor, not certainly at the same salary that he receives now - I don't care if he doesn't get any salary at all.

One of the requirements would be for this Mayor to be bilingual and it would be more of an honorific ceremonial post, and when you have somebody, some visitors in this province, in this part of Canada, when we are dealing with matters such as this of culture, French culture, or that when we want to bring out the fact that Canada is a bilingual country and so on, and when we have these visitors come in to this, instead of having somebody that doesn't know the language we would have the Mayor of St. Boniface that would welcome them.

I think that this is done, I understand - I tried to get some information - in a part of London. I think that the City of London, there's a part of London that is affected like this but I didn't have enough information to start explaining this or using this as an example. But I want to make it quite clear that this post would be mostly an honorific post but it would deal, and certainly the duties and the power of the Mayor would be in the nature of promoting this biculturalism - bilingualism, - because I don't really believe in biculture, I believe in multiculture - but to promote multiculture also.

I.think that there should be a small council and that council would more or less do the work of a committee that would do this kind of work also. Then they would - I think that this committee, as I said before, would be promoting national unity, bilingualism, and I think it would help the French-speaking people of Manitoba who certainly want to be fluent in English - I'm sure of that, they've said that many times - but they would like to keep their French lan guage; they would like to improve it; they would like their children to speak correctly and they are worried of losing this.

I would say that probably the only thing that I can see in the department, in the services now, I could see that the Police Chief of St. Boniface probably could be designated as one of the deputy chiefs. I certainly would recommend that if this was done fairly soon, if we go ahead with total amalgamation, that we keep the same chief, but in the future there again one of the requirements would be that this person be bilingual, though I can't see anything in any of the other services. Now I hesitate - I don't·want to say that St.

Boniface has become the capital of French Canada because then you might believe that I'm talking about special status, that I'm talking about separatism and so on, and this is not what I want at all. But it would become the centre of French, or the French centre, not only of Manitoba but of all western Canada, and I think that certainly the other ethnic groups, all of them, would be welcome, they would live the same way in harmony as they've been doing in St. Boniface now, and I think that probably the City of St. Boniface has more different groups represented in the city than any other

section of Manitoba. We have a Ukrainian group, a Polish group, Belgian, we have French, we have English, we have Jewish people, we have everything and they live and work together in harmony. I think that this would be a good thing, not only protecting something but it would be

I I I May 7 • 1968 1689 (:MR. DESJARDINS cont'd.) . . . . • creative. I think that we're finally doing away with a lot of this prejudice and I think that we would be developing what we want for Canada. I'm sure that there would be - St. Boniface. as such. there would be no clash with the other munici palities. It would be governed, as I say, in all the services that they receive the same as any other municipalities, but that area and this aspect of Manitoba life would certainly live as a model for the rest of Canada, and I think that this is important.

I think that we have the chance to remind the Province of Quebec, the Province of Ontario and also the separatists, all the separatists from one side or the other, that it is possible to remain united -united, even if you don't keep everything uniform. I think that the people of Canada have matured and I think that they realize that we don't want separation, but something has to be done to recognize the rights of all the people of Manitoba. So these few words, Mr . Speaker, I hope will give you an idea of what I want.

I don't intend to solve all the problems right now, but I think that a committee could very well do that and could come in with a re commendation acceptable to all the members of this House. And with this few words of explanation, Sir, I would like to move, seconded by the hon ourable member for Assiniboia, that the motion be further amended by adding at the end thereof the following words: "And Be it Further Resolved that in the process of amalgamation, specific pro vision be made in keeping with the principles of Canadian unity for the protection of the historic, cultural and linguistic nature of St.

Boniface." MR . CHERNIACK: On a point of order, I am wondering whether Your Honor would not consider whether or not this amendment to the amendment is in order at this time since it brings in other matter unrelated to the amendment itself. I suggest that possibly it ought to be brought after the present amendment either passes or fails, because it's a different subject matter and it may be difficult for someone to vote for this amendment to the amendment if the original amendment is not satisfactory. MR . DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speaker, on this same point of order, I look at it the other way, that this is the only way, with this protection, this is the only way that I could support the amendment and the resolution. I feel that it is completely in order and I think that it has to come now, because I certainly would be guided and a lot of other people I imagine would have to be guided by the way this sub-amendment is accepted or rejected. If it's accepted, I can go for the motion and the amendment; if not, I'd have no alternative but to vote against it. MR . P AULLEY: Mr .

Speaker, on a point of order, may I respec1fully suggest that you take a look at the amendment -or the sub-amendment as proposed by the Honourable Member fo r St. Boniface, bearing and note Page 116(9), Annotation 202 as contained in Beauchesne. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, there's no objection of course if you wish to take the matter under consideration, but I believe that the amendment is in order. It follows I think logically on the sub-amendment --or the amendment that was already proposed, and I think that the sub-amendment follows along in sequence and from my checking it it seems to me to be in order.

However, I leave that to your good judgment. MR . SIDNEY GREEN (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I want to give you some further food for thought. Let us assume that I was in favor of my honourable friend's sub-amendment with regard to St. Boniface but was not in favor of the re ferendum. By pasir ing the sub-amendment I could only vote on the amendment as amended, which would then put me in a position of voting against the sub-amendment because it amends the question of refer endum. I think that the point that the Honourable Member for St. John's is making does not preclude the member for St.

Boniface from rejecting the entire proposal if his sub-amendment is not included, but does it have to be included as part of the question of referendum. The way it is now put in it would appear that way. MR . DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, if I may clarify this again on a point of order.

It certainly isn't my intention on something such as this especially to try to trap anybody, and this is why I said in my speech that if the amendment, that is the amendment of my Leader is accepted, the people before voting would certainly have to know all this; and if it isn't, if the motion is accepted but not the amendment, well then the government would just take this into consideration when they would bring in legislation, because I feel that I would be the same way, I can not - I can accept both.

I can understand and I think it would be easy for the people that believe such as the last speaker that if he wants to favor this, that he thinks he should but he definitely is against the referendum, I don't think that •• •• MR . SPEAKER: I acknowledge the several opinions, and in view of the remarks that

1690 May 7, 1968 (MR. SPEAKER cont'd. ) •••.. have been made, it seems to me that I would be well advised to take this matter under advisement which I intend to do, and will report at the next appear ance of the Order Paper. MR. JAMES COWAN, Q. C. (Winnipeg Centre): Mr. Speaker, before we leave this question, would the Honourable Member from St. Boniface permit a question? Does the Hon ourable Member for St. Boniface propose that this St. Boniface council that he suggests would have the power to make any laws? MR. DESJARDINS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think I tried to explain that.

First of all, as I say, I don't intend to make the rules now, but I think that they would have powers as far as protecting the linguistic and the culture. This would be the main thing I think in regards to th is, which would concern them and the French people only. I think that if they want to pass a law that they will change the name of a street and put a name of Louis Riel or anything like this, definitely I think they should have the right, but nothing else; no rights about financial matters or about any other services, and I went through all the services. This amendment is a principle.

You can understand - I mean it's not up to me to make the laws. I'm sure that this amendment could be supported and still that you make sure that they'd be protected, that this council doesn't bring in any legislation or any laws as far as any municipal services are concerned. MR. SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Virden and the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Rhineland in amendment thereto standing in my name. I'd like to advise the House that I have considered the amendment of the Honourable Member for Rhineland.

I have noticed that it is in long hand and it lacks the normal terminology in its opening phases. This I am prepared to overlook, and go on to say that the substance of the amendment to the main motion is in my opinion acceptable and therefore in order. MR. FROESE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would now like to say a few words in support of the motion because I think under our rules if I do not speak at this particular time we are not able to close debate on amendments, and therefore I take the opportunity of presenting smre facts in support of the amendment as is proposed. MR.

LYON: ••••• because my memory is certainly not accurate on this point, as to whether or not my honourable friend did in fact speak before he presented the amendment or not. I really don't recall. MR. FROESE: I spoke on the main motion before I presented the amendment. MR. LYON: Well that being the case, I'm afraid my honourable friend would be debarred from speaking on the amendment, if - I have no recollection on the matter. I would have to refer to Your Honor. MR.

SPEAKER: That matter that the Honourable Leader of the House brought forward, it is my feelings that the honourable gentleman spoke to the main motion, and having completed his remarks he moved an amendment which I took under advisement and he never had an opportunity to follow up in that regard. I am informed that it is true that the honourable gentleman did speak to the main motion, and that having presented his amendment, in doing so he is considered to have spoken. The amendment of course is before the House for other members to speak to if they so desire before I put the question.

The Honourable Member for Russell. MR. RODNEY S. CLEMENT (Birtle-Russell): Mr. Speaker, I want to just speak as usual very briefly on this amendment. I want to point out at the beginning that basically I agree with it. I think that the agricultural situation as it stands today, particularly in western Canada and in Manitoba, is in a most grave situation. We have had-- fortunately enough last year we were blessed with a very good crop, which a great majority of it is stl.11 in the bins.

The farmers are faced this spring with the operation of putting in a new crop which is very costly, particularly with fertilizer, and this is one of the points that many people are unde cided. They've been unable to make up their mind whether they should spend more money for fertilizer to grow more grain, to build more granaries to store it. I would like to point out that in many cases they have had to borrow money, go to the bank to borrow money in order to put this crop in the ground.

They have a long summer's work ahead of them; this is very expensive; and the outlook I must say right now is extremely bright for another very successful crop this fall. In the area that I represent, I would think that it would be fair to say that at least half the wheat is in the ground now, and last year very

' May 7, 1968 1691 (MR. CLEMENT cont'd.) • • • • • little work had began at this time of the season. So with the cost-price squeeze that the farmers are having this is bad enough, but the greatest worry facing the farmer today is is he going to be able to sell the produce that he's going to be able to grow? I would like to beg the Mi nister of Agriculture - if I may use those terms, it's not often I beg anybody - but I would like to see this resolution go to committee.

I can't understand why the government, with the IIllmbers of agricultural representatives they have, why they have turned down at least one or two amendments; why they will not let this go to committee; because I am sure that if it went to the Agricultural Commit tee we could have representatives here from the Farmers' Union, the MFAC, the United Grain Growers, the Manitoba Pool, the Wheat Board, and this thing could be aired.

It's very important, and I really am an optimist in the agriculture world, because I believe that right now we are going through a trying situation, this is right, there's always been ups and downs in agriculture, but surely with half the world reportedly starving to death, grain, or the selling of grain, or enough money for farmers to operate should be the least of our worries. I have one more suggestion to put forward. I'm not bringing in an amendment, but I'm going to suggest - and I would like to see this come to the Agricultural Committee.

If in the fall there is another good crop and we have to look forward to this, what is the farmer today going to do if he is unable to market his grain? I have a suggestion that I have put forward before at one or two organizations.

I would like to see a farmer, when he has completed his harvesting, be able to go to the elevator agents of his choice and say, I have 10, OOO bushels of wheat - we'll use the figure of 10, OOO bushels of wheat - I would like him to be able to sell at least somewhere between 50 and 75 percent of his crop to the Wheat Board right there and then, be able to get his money, be able to go back and pay his taxes, pay his fuel bill, all his expenses, so he would be able to sleep at nights and not be worrying about the next morning who was going to be the first man out trying to collect the money from him.

This, to me, would be an extremely fair way. Some people will say, "Oh, but where's all the money going to come, where's all the money going to come from ?11 Well, if we go and build a lot of inland storage, this is going to cost a lot of money. Mr. Speaker, there is no argument at all that both the provincial governments and the federal governments are going to have to take a very very close look at this this fall unless something unforeseen turns up.

So I request the Minister of Agriculture to please let this resolution, or some other amendment if it comes up, so that this particular thing can get to the floor of the Agricultural Committee. MR. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to briefly enter the debate on this resolution at this point perhaps to draw to the attention of the honourable members of the House that there have been some very good ideas come forward, that the resolution as p1�esented by my col league the Honourable Member from Virden, as it stands, seemed to generate in this House, and I can't really find a great deal of fault with many of the recommendations or the amend ments thereto that have been attached to it. I question the advisability of attaching it to this particular resolution.

If we're to deal with the present amendment by the Honourable Member from Rhineland having to do with the construction of storage facilities, inland terminals, and so forth, a great deal of consideration has to precede this development. There has to be a pretty dramatic change in our transporta tion system that will make the economics of moving grain in larger volumes than we now presently handle. We talked in terms of tanker cars in our railway system to make the move ment of wheat and grains possible from large terminals, prairie-centered elevators.

At this particular point, this kind of development is still on the horizon. It's very difficult for us to deny the validity of some of the sentiments expressed in this amendment and I don't propose to do so. I can't help but remind the honourable member though that I have still some diffi culty in reconciling with my own mind the storage capability and the sales C'..apability as neces sarily, you know, of bringing about an improved economic situation in terms of our grain crop. But I'd like to come back to the main resolution as put by the Honourable Member from Virden.

What he has expressed in this resolution - the Honourable Member for Virden - is simply a clear and worthwhile thought that the farmer is constantly being told by own people in the Department of Agriculture as well as other people in our society that he has to become more businesslike and he has to operate his farm in a businesslike way in order to get the best economic benefits from his farming venture. We know that particularly in these current years he is very often dealing with large amounts of outside capital, credit and what have you. He is

1692 May 7, 1968 (MR. ENNS cont' d. ) . • • . • very often faced - when he is making arrangements for the use of capital or credit to meet specific deadlines and dates, the financial or business community expects payments to be made on specific dates and the sentiment behind the Honourable Mem ber for Virden' s resolnticm here is simply that is it then not in order that the farmer also have a firm date as to the payments received for goods that he's sold.

We're quite aware - we listened with interest to the fact that under the present arrange ment, the pooling arrangement, as the Honourable Member for Birtle-Russellpointed out, these can vary. We have otlrselves made investigations and contacts, as I know other mem bers have, with members of the Wheat Board and the Board of Grain Commis sioners who have indicated to us that at this particular time it may not be quite feasible for them to do so, al though itts interesting to note that none of them indicated to us that it was impossible for them to do so.

It's a question that I raised earlier in some of the debates in this House when I questioned whether or not the Wheat Board or the Grain Commis sioners haven't to some extent - and I qualify that very much though - to some extent not always taken the primary producer' s, the farmer's consideration uppermost or foremost in their dealings. It may be very convenient in the matter and the way the grain trade is handling the grain to do it this way and they may point out to us at subsequent hearings , to which we would have to agree, that it is to our interests as well that this is not possible.

I find nothing wrong with supporting the resolution as put forward by the Member for Virden, that is , that it would be in the interests of the farmers of Manitoba to have a fixed and firm date for their final payments on their grains already sold and delivered. Now the different members have suggested that the whole question of grain and the pro blems that we're facing with the outlook for grain should be ventilated and aired at the Agri cultural Committee. Again I certainly agree with him.

I would suggest to him, and to all other members, that I would hope, or I would think the prerogative of the Agricultural Committee is to call upon these honourable gentlemen, these learned gentlemen in the grain trade, at any time to come to us, to explain to us certain areas of operations. I would think that a Commit tee of this House, Mr.

Speaker, certainly would command that respect, that if we as a com mittee decided to ask members of the Wheat Board or members of the Grain Commiss ioners to speak to us, to explain to us different phases of the operations, to examine with us some of the problems as we see them as legislators and as they see them as admini strators, this is in no way a problem to me. I think that this is something that we should do. I don't necessarily see it hindering or necessarily see it having to be attached to this particular resolution.

I think the honourable members opposite probably recognize that my astute colleague from Virden has touched on a sentiment that farmers of Manitoba are very much aware of. He has expressed it very capably in the form of this resolution and I think that we've really pro bably exhausted the subject.

I would ask the honourable members to support the resolution as it stands, and indicate to the farmers of Manitoba that this would in fact be a desirable thing, that is that the farmers should have a firm date for their payments, and allow and ask the members of the Wheat Board or the members of the Grain Commiss ioners to come to us at committee, or otherwise, and tell us why this cannot be done. MR. PAULLEY: I wonder if my hcmourable friend would permit a question. What is your position in respect of the amendment proposed by the Honourable Member for Rhineland? MR . EN NS: Mr.

Speaker, my position with respect to the Honourable Member from Rhineland's amendment is that if he wishes to make this a resolution of his own, I would suggest that he do so. It is muddying up the water of this particular resolution, I suggest. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, apart from muddying up, I would still like to know what my honourable friend's position is on the amendment because that is the motion that is before the House at the present time. MR. EN NS: Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against it for the reasons already stated. I want to support the Honourable Member fur Virden's main resolution. MR.

FROESE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Honourable Minister a question? Doesn't he feel that just by supporting the main motion that this is still restricting ? This would enable the farmers to deliver more grain and thus enable them to sell it. MR. EN NS: Mr. Speaker, I feel that in the proposing of these resolutions, and particul arly those that come from government side of the House, that we have to be cognizant with the dollars that attach to them. I feel that before I will support a resolution calling for the

I May 7 • 1968 1693 (MR.

ENNS cont' d. ) . • • . • building of inland terminals. of which I know very little of at this particular time; before I support the resolution which would call for a massive movement of a completely different kind of grain from the prairies to our seaports, which I still don't know enough about, we have transportation studies that are involved here; before I have some assurances from the railway companies that they are prepared to move irito this area of super tanker grain carriers or what have you; these are the kind of things that I would want to know about supporting a resolution that would call for what I see considerable financial outlay in the building of terminal elevators, large terminal storage facilities here on the prairies.

I'd be quite prepared to debate these particular issues and look into it, and perhaps support it on its individual merit if it was presented in that way. I don't see that its attach ment to the main resolution has any particular bearing though. We're suggesting in the main amendment that this is some thing that can be done, can be looked at right now without any great input of new programs, without any great expenditures of new tax dollars which are pretty scarce, pretty hard to find these days.

This is a pure and simple request of those who administrate our wheat sales, or who administrate our grairi marketings, whether or not they cannot re-examine their position with respect to the manner in which payments are made so as to facilitate the farmer in attempting to help him organize his financ:ial house in better order, and this could be done if this resolution was supported. MR . FROESE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like to clarify some things in the motion that he is completely misinterpreting in my opinion.

The motion as it reads cert ainly just - (Interjec tion) - Well he claims that -- (Interjection) - I never spoke on the amendment. He thinks that this involves large terminals. I'm not speaking of terminals at all; I' m speaking of inland storage only• a very cheap storage for that matter, and save the farmers a lot of money. Certainly just a roof and a slab floor doesn't mean large expenses for the Canadian Government, or if the Manitoba Government so desire to step in it would be a very small expense.

This in turn would enable farmers to make deliveries and therefore get the cash, the necessary cash in their hands so that they could pay their bills, and in turn it would save them interest costs which they all have to contend with. MR . LYON: I wonder if I could interrupt my honourable friend to ask whether he is speaking on a point of order or what, because I thought we had already had a ruling from the Chair that unfortunately prohibits him from speaking on the amendment. MR. SPEAKER: I believe the honourable gentleman intended to say that he was speaking on a point of privilege.

With that thought in mind, I anticipated that he would probably be questioning the remarks of the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture, but thus far he doesn't seem to be doing that. I wondered if he had that in mind. MR . FROESE: Mr. Speaker, this was my - I didn't get to my question because he interprets this as building costly storage facilities and this is not what I had in mind. I would think that we should provide cheap storage, and can this not be done? MR . CLEMEN T: Mr.

Speaker, I was just going to point out that the Minister of Agri culture spoke for ten minutes and he never had anything to do with the amendment at all. He spoke about the main motion, and I think the honourable member should have a word to say here. MR . SPEAKER: I think he probably attempted the same habit of many speakers that he did mention the amendment from time to time, or at least I heard him say so, whether he spoke to it or not. However, we are now at the point of putting the question. Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Morris. MR . HARRY P.

SHEWMAN (Morris): I was unavoidably out of the House for a moment or two, and do I understand that the amendment to this motion was ruled out of order? - (Interjection) -- In order. Well, I would like to speak to the amendment. We have had the farmers of Manitoba, that I am speaking of, who spent a good many thousand dollars in creating storage of their own, and I'm thinking of tlile Manitoba Pool Eleva tors Association. They have built storage of the best. I am also thinking of the United Grain Growers who have built storage of the best.

And when you mention the Wheat Board, Grain Commiss ioners• they want a certain type of wheat or grain that they can move at a certain time, and I understand that there is time and the farmers are notified of what types of grain they'll be required to deliver through the quota system, and to ask the farmers to go out and spend more money for the type of storage that the Honourable Member from Rhineland asks for• I think the loss would be very great.

1694 May 7, 1968 (MR. SHEWMAN cont'd. ) In my experience we have seen grain that has been stored that way where some animal, birds or such like, will get on top of a pile of grain and there's a big loss to it. I feel this way, that I would have to vote against the amendment on account of the money that the farmers of Manitoba have put in to create their own storage, and if I understand the situation the way it should be understood, that they're satisfied fairly well with the storage facilities that they have in Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Broken head. MR.

SAMUEL USKIW (Brokenhead): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Kildonan, that the debate be adjourned. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for St. James. The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. PETER FOX (Kildonan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we have here before us a resolution by the Honourable Member for St. James and it suggests that municipal councils be encouraged to give leadership and direction in this essential service to the public.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, that's putting the cart before the horse. Here we have people that have been doing this work, and I know in my own constituency that we have gone and assessed ourselves one mill expressly for this purpose. I know that we have people in there continually on a voluntary basis doing the work with limited funds. They go from door to door trying to solicit memberships and participation, and we are saying, "Let's get them and encourage them. " Well they are already doing it; they don't need the encouraging. They need help in another manner, Mr.

Speaker, and this resolution, in my estimation, is just a little too vague. Mr. Speaker, last year in this Chamber we had a request by the City of Winnipeg for a Charter amendment so that it would make it possible for them to have joint development of existing facilities with the School Board and with the community centres so that more recreat ional facilities could be utilized and in a more efficient manner. That government, of which the Member for St. James is a member , turned that down; and now he comes in here with a resolution that we should help and make these people and encourage them.

Well , I don't think that we are doing it by just giving them a pat on the back and tying their hands behind their backs. This is not the kind of thing that will move the recreational into a more enj oyable atmosphere in the municipalities , Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am awar e that in most of the community centres and in the recreational areas that are necessary, they have cookie drives, they have bottle drives , paper drives, all kinds of voluntary work. They organize recreational facilities, the likes of which wruld astonish most of the members.

There is everything from bingo to square dancing, to hockey, to baseball, to lacrosse. All of these things are being done on a voluntary basis today and now we are saying "Let's encourage them". I think this is kind of slapping them in the face. What they need is a little assis tance, and the provincial government could provide this by allocating a little bit of resources, because the municipalities at the present time are just not in the position to tax their members any more.

As I said, on a voluntary basis, on a referendum basis they have agreed in many of the municipalities already to contribute towards community centres and towards recreational establishments. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Member for Logan, that we amend this resolution and put it in its right perspective, and the amendment is that the resolution be amended by deleting the words "encouraged to give" in the penultimate line there of and substituting therefore the words "c ommended for giving". And then the resolution would read, Mr. Speaker: Therefore

Be It Resolved that Municipal Councils be commended for giving leadership and direction in this essential service to the public. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, just before yru put the question, I'd like to make a commen t or two. What started out to be a relatively simple resolution proposed by the Honourable Member for St. James has been given a great deal of attention by the House. I'm sure that my honourable friend the Member for St.

James did want to recognize that within our municipal councils, and indeed other bodies, a considerable degree of activity is taking place in the area of recreation. I've listened with a great deal of interest to my honourable

May 7, 1968 1695 (MR. PAULLEY cont' d.) • • • • • friend, and while there had been one or two previous amend ments suggested which would give strength to his contention, the same were rejec ted of course in the due process of democracy. I think now that my honourable friend the Member for St. James is in a position where he can subscribe to and support his amended resolution, because it does give to the municipal councils commendation for the job that they have endeavoured to do in the field of recreation and the co-ordination of recreational facilities.

In esse nce now , the proposition that members of the Hous e have to consider is whether the Honourable Member for St. James will say to his municipal council of his great City of St. James, "Thank you, Mr. Mayor and council for the good job that you are doing; we compli ment you and commend you for the job that you have done, for the leadership and the direction that you have given to your community. " This is slightly different, I respectfully suggest, Mr.

Speaker , to the original motion which said simply, ''We give encouragement" - of course dur ing the process of debate we considered that encouragement was there -· now we say, "We commend you for what you have done; we commend you for the leadership that you are giving." I think that my honourable friend the Member for St. James will join with us in this corner of the House in saying to Mayor Bill Hanks and the Council of St. James; to Mayor Harry Fuller and the Council of Transcona; Mayor Saul Miller and the Council for West Kil donan, etc, and say, "Thank you boys, thank you very much boys.

We commend you for the job that you are doing; we commend you for the leadership that you are giving, and are giving, to your community. " I'm sure that the Member for St. James will be prepared to accept the amendment as proposed by my colleague from Kildonan and give this motion, as amended, the unanimous consent of this Asse mbly to those municipal corporations which are the creation of this Assembly. MR. DOUGLAS M. STANES (St. James): Mr . Speaker , may I thankthe Honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party for his kind words, which are absolutely true. It is a good work.

As I explained originally, it is the good work that the St. James Council and their various community enterprises have done , and the methods they've used to achieve what they have done , that really gave me the thought of bringing in this resolution. As I pointed out at that time, they have a good organization working there. They' re on the road, I think , to where we should be, and I would like to see more municipalities on that same road. This was the purpose for which I brought in the resolution in the first place, that it is working very well.

As the Honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party stated, I could not of course oppose such an amendment because it's true, but I would still like to see a great improvement everywhere, including St. James , because I think it's becoming so important in our com munity today. So I support it, but I also support the resolution originally because I want to see more progress, not in condemnation of what is being done , thank those, congratulate those for what they have done, but let us continue to improve it, be cause as the years go by it becomes more and more important to our society. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that even without discussing this with the members of our party we certainly will support this amendment. There is no doubt that the New Democratic Party are having a little bit of fun at the expense of the Member from St. James but I think that he deserves it. When there' s so much to be done and a member of the government comes in with a frivolous motion such as this, the original motion - they have so many things to do - and if the Member from St.

James wanted to say what he just finished saying, that he thinks that we should always improve, that we should keep on going, he should have -- well, first of all I say that there was certainly no reason for a resolution on this. This could have been discussed in the estimates. There' s so many other things that we can talk about - or at least when he saw that we didn't go for the bait in his original motion and when he said that he wants to see improvement, all he had to do was support the original amendment because that was real improvement - real improvement.

Now , if it' s just window dressing that he wan ts, he' s caught now. He can not say to his municipality "you're not doing the work, " and this is what he was doing with the original motion. So maybe we will have a vote now and finish this once and for all. I know it must be awful for the backbenchers in the government side to just follow, espedally when they get so little - well so much lack of leadership, I could say, from their elders in the front bench. It must be quite difficult, and I think that they would like to express their views once in a while. But they can in many instances.

They can on the ques tion of Medicare and they can on a lot of

1696 May 7, 1968 (MR. DESJARDINS cont'd. ) ••. other things. But nevertheless, I think we've lost enough time on this. We certainly will support it and I hope that we'll end this once and for all , the mem ber will learn his lesson, and everybody will be happy. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question on the amendment? MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. PAULLEY: Yeas and Nays please, Mr. Speaker. MR. LYON: There were no nays. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, as Leader of my group, I can call for a vote at any time I so desire.

I desire a vote on the amendment as proposed by my colleague from Kildonan. MR. LYON: We just heard something, Mr. Speaker - on the point of order - about frivo lous matters. I'm sure my honourable friend well realizes that ••. MR . PA ULLEY: There is nobody that is more frivolous in this House than the Attorney- General. MR4 LYON: You'll live to eat that. MR . SPEAKER� Call in the members. A STA_NDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS: Messrs.

Baizley, Barkman, Beard, Bjornson, Campbell, Carroll, Cherniack, Clement, Cowan, Craik, Dawson, Desjardins, Dow, Doern, Einarson, Enns, Evans, Fox, Froese, Green, Guttormson, Hamilton, Harris, Hillhouse, Jeannotte, Johnson, Johnston, Kawchuk, Klym, Lis saman, Lyon, McGregor, McKellar, McKenzie, McLean, Masniuk, Miller, Molgat, Patrick, Paulley, Roblin, Shewman, Shoemaker, Spivak, Stanes, Steen, Tanchak, Uskiw , Vielfaure, Watt, Weir and Witney and Mesdames Forbes and Morrison. MR. SPEAKER: I didn't think that was necessary, but however I see one vacant chair. Those opposed please say nay •. MR.

CLERK: Yeas, 54; Nays , nil. MR. SPEAKER: I declare the amendment carried. Are you ready for the question on the main motion as amended? MR. SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Mem ber for St. Boniface. The honourable Member for St. James. MR . STANES: Mr. Speaker, may I request the indulgence of the House to allow this mat ter to stand. MR. SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Mem ber for Gladstone. The Honourable Member for Hamiota. MR . DAWSON: Mr.

Speaker, I feel that this resolution as so presented by the Honour able Member for Gladstone is an excellent one and we are supporting it in this group. We feel that there are so many inconsistencies in the present structure of what is taxable and what is not that there should be such a commi ttee constituted so that the public may appear as suggest ed in this resolution. I have some examples. The first one I would like to discuss is the fact that we have coin. op car washes. If one investigates, you may purchase a coin-op portable washing machine and there is no tax involved.

The coin collector only takes 25-cent pieces, so there is no tax in volved there as well. Now it was my understanding that if a piece of machinery is purchased to produce a tax, that there was no tax to the public; but if a piece of machinery was not taxable, therefore the money it would produce would be taxable. So I'm a little confused in this and I'm sure that many of the people that are in the business are wondering what is going on too.

If you realize that in most instances it's almost impossible to wash a car for a 25- cent piece, one must place the extra <JJ.arter at least, therefore this is 50 cents in one operation yet we have no tax on it. And then many of these same operations have a dispenser for towels. I think the charge is 10 cents for a package of towels with three in it. There' s no tax on this of course because it' s a 10-cent purchase, but yet on the other hand the machine is taxable and so are the towels.

So you can understand that there is some confusion in this area and I am sure that a commi ttee so suggested by the Honourable Member for Gladstone might make some sense out of this par ticular area. And then we have carpenters and mechanics. They purchase tools to do a job either on a home or to make repairs on automobiles, etc. Their services are taxed. Therefore, accord ing to the Act these tools that these people purchase should not be taxed. So there' s no

I I •• I May 7, 1968 1697 (MR, DAWS ON cont'd. ) ••• consistency once again. And then we go into the business of sealer s, which practically everyone that is trying to save some money• and particularly the peopl e that are on farms and have the opportunity to have gardens, they must purchase these sealers for their preserves. These sealer s are tax - able; yet on the other hand if you go out and buy the produce already packaged in a sealer there' s no tax on the sealer nor is there any tax on the produce, which of course is proper, there should not be any tax on food.

But the point I'm trying to make here is that this is one of the esse ntials on most low income families that they do a lot of pres erving to save money, therefore I fe el that this should be looke d into. The same goes with the farm people that the sealers are tax able and that in all probability they shouldn't be. And then when one has children and is pur� chasing scribblers and writing pads and crayons and water colors, you find that these items for school children are taxable and it's an extra expense to any parents that have children attending school.

Yet on the other hand you can go into any news stand and buy a comic book for 10 cents or 15 cents, or whatever the cost may be, and there's no tax. There's no tax, not because it's only a 15-cent item, it's because books are not taxable, and of course we have many question able books that are on the newsstands and these are not taxable as well. So there' s no consist ency there as well , insomuch as we might say that part of the necessary items for school chil dren are taxable, yet on the other hand the things that are unnecess ary such as the comic books are not taxable.

And then we have so many service charges which were instituted. I recall reading the Honourable Provincial Treasurer 's opinions on the Carter Report , and in his opinion, I gather ed from the little pamphlet that he put out, that he was oppo sed to many things in the Carter Re port; yet on the other hand, anything that he thought was good to increase revenue for the prov ince he adopted from the Carter Commission, and of course this was the service charges.

We have car repair s, dry cleaning, and mos t of these are neces sities of life nowadays which af fects all income groups and in particular the low income group • This 1situation should be re assessed as well. It's an unfair tax, and of course you could almost say it's an oppressive tax. We have the grain storage bins which are a neces sity for our farm people.

When we went through the Sales Tax Bill last year we were told that anything that was esse ntial to a farmer v.ould not be taxed, and of course the grain bins we have found out since are taxed and of course this increases the farmers' costs and adds to more trouble and expense. Then when we go into building material, we find that this situation could most certainly be reassesse d.

If one wants to buy soire material for a farm item, if you're going to build a hog trough or a well, you can go to one lumber yard and they say it's not taxable because it's for the farm; you walk up the street in the next block and you'll find tluLt the other chap is tax ing this particular material. More inconsistency again, I feel that in building materials that this governm ent should encourage our young people who are married to pur chase homes , and this could easily be done by exempting them from the five percen t income tax -- this is not income tax, pardon me, it is sales tax.

On a new home this could save up to three to five hundred dollars for young peopl e. The same could apply to many of our older peopl e too who are trying to purchase a home. I think that the government could also encourage the Federal Government to do the same on the 12 ]percent sales tax. All in all , there are many examples and I've touched briefly on some of them, only to try and show those on the other side that the res olution as suggested by the member for Glad stone is an excellent one and should most certainly receive support from all members of the House. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question ?

MR. CLEMENT: Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Emerson, that the debate be adjourned. MR. SPEAKER pre sented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the pro posed motion of the Honourable Mem ber for Ham.iota. The Honourable Member for Brandon. MR. LISS AMAN: Mr. Speak er , I beg the indulgel).ce of the House to let this matter stand today. MR. SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the proposed res olution of the Honourable Mem ber for Inkster and the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Kildonan in amendment thereto.

The Honourable Member for Roblin •

1698 May 7, 1968 MR. WALLY McKENZIE (Roblin): Mr. Speaker, I have fo llowed with great interest the debate of this particular resolution which was proposed by the Honourable Member from lnkster and amended by the Honourable Member from Kildonan , and I find it very difficult to ass ociate my feelings with the amendm ent, especially the last six or seven words of the amend ment wherein he says: "as they in their discretion deem advisable. " May I refer, Mr. Speaker, to an

article from Time Magazine, the issue of April 19th on newscas ting. The

article says in the aftermath: "Despite incidents of sensationalism, inaccu racies and distortion, newspapers, radio and television on the whole make a real effort to give a balanced factual account of the 1967 di sorders. De spite this effort, the overall effect was , we believe, an exaggeration of both mood and intent. The President' s Commissio n on Civil Disorders. " The remark in the

article goes on, Mr. Speaker, goes on to say: "This back handed slap coming just a few weeks before the assas sination of Martin Luther King was a sharp reminder of television' s great and grave responsibility in times of national crisis. Thus when the explosive news event occurred, TV's mood and intent were one -cool it. " I think, Mr. Speaker that this House is well served by the med ium of the press, by the medium of radio and by the medium of television. This morning I picked up the Globe and Mail in the St.

Regis and notic ed the Prime Minister of Canada , this exciting man Trudeau , his remarks where he spoke to the broadcasters in Montreal, on I believe Monday night, and I'll quote you some of his remarks, Mr. Spea ker, wherein he says, "On televising Parliament•; he said "too extensive exposure might encourage oratory at the expense of constructive discus sions of legislation." To his mind, the most popular orators are among the least useful mem bers; conversely, many consci entious and effective members are not brilliant orators.

There is a widespread impress ion that in the House of Commons is a continuous show and that the members are paid to be entertaining. In fact, much of the business of a Legislature is nec essarily routine and often tedious. Would such coverage be to the advantage of the House or to the television spectators ? He goes on to say, "To sustain spectator interests, the taped re cord of debates would probably have to be edited. The editor , no matter how impartial, would wield considerable political power and undoubtedly many members in all parties would feel that the editor was dealing unfairly with them.

" May I deal briefly with some of the problems that I as a back bencher and a new MLA would experience if we were exposed to the medium of television in this room , and I think be ing a newcomer in the Ass embly I could asso ciate myself with many of the viewers who would be viewing the proceedings of the Asse mbly. The first thing that would be drawn to my atten tion, Mr.

Speaker, would be some of the dry speeches, that coTIE across in this particular room, speeches where I here in my short term I think I'v e heard some ten times from the same membe rs , old speeches, some of the things that have been repeated many times over , that I think to the viewing public or to the listening public would be very hard to give the cor rect image of our As sembly as it performs the business of this province. I recall the incident of the other afternoon where the Honourable the Leader of the New Democratic Party rose and adjourned the House due to the absence of certain mem bers.

Were a television camera to view that particular scene and then come back and review the scene some 25 minutes later, he would have seen that on the bench over there , there was only two members there 25 minutes after that resolution was --(Interjection)--only two were on the bench - (Interjection)--on the front bench at the moment that I looked over there were none , on the se cond bench there were none , and on the back bench there were two. One incident, one minute, and it changed completely. How would the television camera analyze that and bring the messa ge back to the people that were viewing.

Or would the television camera ex plain the absence of the members of the New Demo cratic Party, because at that particular moment if my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Speaker, we were reviewing the estimates of the Tr easury Department, one of the more important departments of government -(Inter je ction)- about Duff? Well, I'll come to that. I recall, Mr.

Speaker, another incident of television which to me I think gave the view ers of that particular day a chance to see democracy at work on the television screen , and may I refer to the debate of that day, a black day when the Arab and the Israel problem was on the sc reens I think of everybody's television around the world, and many parts of that particular debate appeared to me, Mr. Speaker, as a sort of a sporting event.

Commen tators who would come in and fill in when the show became sort of dull, and then all of a sud den you would get your interest in some particular event and the camera would shoot over and

I May 7, 1968 1699 (MR. McKenzie cont' d. ). • • take a look at so:rrebody with a particular costume on, or some event that to me had no bearing whatsoever on the dramatic events that were taking place in that Ass embly at that particular time. And yet - yet, Mr. Speak er , in some commenta tor's mind, the cameraman in this partic ular case, events which he saw were more imp ortant to him than the ones that I saw. I was concerned about the problem that was trying to be settled by those around the tab le; he had oth er things in mind. And this in my personal opinion, Mr.

Speaker , that intervention, that per sonal intervention destroyed in my mind the decision-making process which seemed very urgent at that particular dramatic moment in our history. That meeting televised around the world, in my mind, Mr. Speaker , it was impossible to reach a decision as long as the television screens were viewing the events of the day, because there is no way that I know of, Mr. Speaker , that either side could change the decision of his government while all the world was standing there or viewing him on the screen.

The eyes of the world would brand anybody who back tra cked on that particular day as a traitor to his people and to his government. Let us briefly compare the television coverage of our As sembly with the coverage that we have from the press, or as the honourable member of the New Democratic Party described as the "fourth estate". May I say, Mr . Speaker, that Manito ba , I think has a very fair , unbiased and good press.

I like the feeling of my constituents where the articles that are wrote arrive in Roblin or Grandview or Gilbert Plains or those towns some 12 to 24 hours after the events take place in this particular room, and with the ba ckground of the events, Mr . Speaker, that are included in the newspaper art icles, one does not have to be assoc iated with the debat es in this House possibly to know what is referred to in the

article because the reporter gives a little background of his report and then fills in the proceedings of that particular day, and that to me, Mr. Speaker , is well acce pted in my constituency. It is also said, Mr . Spea ker, that TV debate s are said by some as those debate s which can not be resolved. And this I think is where I should draw to your atten tion, Mr. Speak er , the problem of being misunderstood, which I think would be one of the real challenges of this particular room on television.

I don't think there is a member of this As sembly, Mr: Speaker , who can stand up and make a speech and won't be misunderstood or misquoted through circum sta nces which are no fault of the indivichlal who make s the statement or the one who writes it, and I'll cite you an example of a man of the cloth who spoke in my church last Sunday morning at great length on a subject, and I thought the sermon was an excellent presentation by this man.

And when I came down to the door after the service was over to shake hlls hand and congra tulate him , he said, "McKenzie, what did you get from the sermon?" And I went on in glowing terms and tried to describe the messa ge that I got, and it was entirely different than he was trying to put across to me. This , Mr. Speaker , I think would be one of the real problems of television in this particular Ass embly room. And then let us move into the field, the problems, Mr. Speak er, that we would encounter with commercials.

Could you imagine the Leader of the New Democratic Party last night when he was all fired up there, having to sit down for a "soap jingle" ? Would the Honourable Member for Wellington have to take a breather for a beer commercial or a beer jingle ? Could you im agine the Honourable Member from St. Boniface, all fired up, having to take a recess like they do now in the football games while they run a commercial or the referees blow a whistle or something? Could you imagine , Mr.

Speak er, how television would take complete control of this House and take, I think, the Orders of the Day right out of your hands so that you would have no control over the proceedings of this House. -(Interjection)--Hallucina tions. I would say, Mr. Speak er, that possibly there is room for experimentation in the field of electronic viewing.

I think radio if - my experience and the only one I have that I can relate to, is the Province of Sa skatchewan where they've had radio for many y•ear s, and I can't say that as I listened this past session that the quality of the debate has improved any over those years even though they've had that great background of experience in radio. I don't think radio will solve the problems of this province, Mr. Speaker , at a level such as I maybe could say im proved the democratic process.

I'm not here as an actor; I'm not here as an announc er; I'm not here as a commentator ; I'm here to perform the chlties as a legislator for Roblin constit uency and to assist the government and the members opposite to make Manitoba a better pla ce to live. And if television shows and radio shows have to be brought into this room so that they can expose the big guns of our As sembly, how many viewers or how much interest would we have in our Ass embly? Could you imagine the housewife giving up her normal chlties of the day,

1700 May 7• 1968 (:MR. McKenzie cont'd.) ••• her washing duties, to listen to me speak ? Or some of the mem bers opposite? I can't see it, Mr. Speaker . I don't think that any of our Manit obans would change their viewing habits in any shape or form to watch the proceedings of this As sembly. And in my opinion, Mr. Speaker , I would suggest that we vote agains t this amendm ent and that we also vote against the resolution. . •. Continued on next page.

May 7, 1968 17 01 MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a grea ter demons�ration of misundersta nd ing that can arise even without television or radio but from a person who is directly in the House and people who have been here when the resolution was put and heard what was said, I haven't heard one. Because surely the honoura ble member who has just spoken has either mis understood or he wasn't be ing serious in what he has just said.

Nobody, nobody suggested that any televisio n pr oducer or company would be stupid enough to try to attract the attention of the public generally to the ongoing proceed ings of this House, and I really, Mr. Speaker, dealt with that in putting this reso lution and I thought that at least having done that, people would direct themselves to what the reso lution said. Apparently members of the Liberal Party for some reason felt that possibly the wording could permit that type of

interpretation, and though we didn't agree with it, we amended the resolution so that there would then be no question that this is not what was intended by the original reso lution and we spe cifically excluded any. type of

interpretation in the amendment that we put. Every single argument that was used by the honoura ble member who has just spoken could be used against the press generally. Isn't it a fact that the press can misinterpret what goes on in this Assem bly? Isn't it a fact that the press can sometimes, as the honourable member has said (and I didn't say it) that they could sometimes convey a different atmosphere than that which should be conveye d. But if, Mr.

Speaker, we believe in freedom of the press, and what is more impo rtant if we understand it - and I'm not sure that the honourable member does by what he has said - then we know that this is a very, very important part of the legis lative proce ss, and just as they can err members on the floor can err, members of the gove rn ment can err, and all of those things are part and parcel of the ongoing process of democracy and the adding to the media of the press can't do anything to hurt that situation, it can only do something to help it.

Isn't it a fact that if there were only one newspaper that was reporting what was going on here, or still worse, let us assume that the only media that gave an ongoing account to citizens as to what occurs in the Asse mbly was the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce 's media, the Information Branch, even the honourable member would agree that that would be the worst possible situation, that the news should be dissem inated through a government agency and a government agency only.

The honourable member would agree that if there were only one newspaper doing it that this would be at least a little better situation but it would not be the best situation. And we're never going to arrive at the best situation; all we can do is move to wards a better situation.

So the honourable member would agree then if one newspaper is better than his department doing it, then surely two newspapers insures or at least halves the opportunity - and I suggest to you more than halves it, because once you have one watching the other, both are trying to avoid the criticism of mis interpreting the news - that two newspapers is a better situation than one newspaper. And surely three would be better than two. And that's why we in this Assem bly have at all times tried to give the grea test opportunity for the press to come in.

But that doesn't mean that the press can't misinterpret what was :said, can't convey it in a light other than what was intended - and can't, by the way, Mr. Speaker, intersperse it with commercia ls. Because if you look at your daily newspaper you will see all the news inter spersed with commercials, but the honoura ble member seri ously suggests that what is intended in this res olution is that at let us say five minute s from now, I am to stop speaking and there is to be time for a televis ion commerci al, and I am to wait for that commerci al to be over and then to start again.

Is that what was conveyed to the honoura ble membe r? Because then I would suggest that he read the res olution again. All that was suggested is that the media who are not now able to do so be permitted to take their equipment into the Assem bly, record such things as they wish to, edit it just with the same discret ionary authority that it is now being edited by the press, and show whatever parts of it they see fit. And, Mr. Speaker, I'm not saying that that will be the best situation. Possibly the best situation would be for anybody who wants the news to appear continually in the galleries of the Assembly.

That's what the galler ies are for. But that' s not going to happen. Not even the members are' going to get the best situation bec ause they won't be here continually in the Assembly. And by the way, I'm not suggesting that they have to be or that they are doing their job best if they are here every minute , because I know it's not so. But we're not looking for a perfect situation; we 'r e looking for a situation which is better than the one we have now, and the member surely will agree that if the dissem ination of

17 02 May 7, 19 68 (MR. GREEN cont'd ) ..... information to the public is done on a greater basis than it's pres ently being done, that can't do any harm; that can only help the legislative process; and any suggestion that this results in some sort of censorship or some sort of selection of what will be produced and what will not be produced. doesn't mean anything because that's what the media are doing now and that's what they have to do. They have to be selective. They can't regard every address as being of equal importance, and the honourable member knows that they can't, and the only way that we can make sure that at least there will be as broad as possi ble an

interpretation of the news, is to permit as many media as are possi ble to make use of that news. And, Mr. Speaker, I've suggested that there are better ways· of communi cating informa tion. If television is a better way or if it's a different way which some people are attracted to rather than others, then televis ion should be able to come in here and record what the honour able member has just said.

They can if they want to - and I would think that this would be rare- they can announce that tomorrow at 3:00 o'c lock they are going to broadcast live, although I don 't think they would do so - but they can if they want to. And if somebody wants to watch it then he will. My inclination is to believe that from time to time they would record what is happening because it's important, or they would record parts of what is happening, or they would take film and show clips on the television news just as they now comment on what people have said.

Surely a clip of what a person has said is a better way of communicating it than a comment on what a person has said. So when my honourable friend says that he's not here to be an actor and he's not here to entertain, I agree with him. But he's being watched all the time whether he likes it or not, and that is in fact one of the essential ingredients of the proper function of democracy - that the people who are ostensibly the people's representatives are continually being surveyed.

And I know that the honourable member sometimes forgets that there are people in the gallery, but the gallery is there as a symbol of that, and as I said in my initial remarks, I merely want to say that the gallery will be extended to the extent that we are able to do so with modern equipment so that parts of the process that we are engaged in, as selected by the media themselves not as selected by the Minister of Industry and Commerce who now selects what he will give them and which people will be on the radio and what will be said and what will appear in the newspapers, but that part that they (that is, the Fourth Est ate) feel that they would like to convey are conveyed in exactly the same manner as they are now conveying it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, either my honourable friend doesn't believe in freedom of the press, and I don't make that type of criticism because I think he does believe in it, but I suggest to him that he doesn't understand it, because if he understood it he couldn't, he couldn't possi bly make the remarks that he has just made. And I'm not suggesting either, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Manitoba will judge their representatives by the appearances that may be conveyed to them through the media either of the press or of the television or of the radio. Legislators have different ways of making themselves felt.

Some. people's forte is to be able to help con stituencies ; it' s to be able to deal with local problems ; and those people will be able to gain whatever respect of the electorate that that type of service does, and may be elected time after time although they never make a speech in the House and I think the public will still elect them. Other people are able to serve their constituents by addressi ng the Assem bly, and I think that the public is smart enough and objective enough to choose people on the basis of the work that they are doing and there are different ways of doing this work. Mr.

Speaker, I suggest that the inhibitions that various members seem to feel with re gard to this resolution are totally unfounded. Nobody is going to try to entertain as a result of the media being forced on them. They don't do it now with the gallery. Or if they do, then there's not going to be any change. And if they do wish to play the game of being the fool, then I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it's good that the public should see that that's what they're doing and next time they'll use their disc retion to return som ebody who won't do it.

The public is interested in serious and dignified repres entation and I don't think the ad vent of the media into this House which can convey in perhaps a different form how the repre sentatives act, are going to change the public 's good sense in that regard. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the honourable member would permit a question. MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPIVAK: I would like the honourable member to point out in what way the Depart ment of Industry and Commerce prevents the media, whether it be TV, radio or newspaper,

May 7, 1968 1703 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd. ) • . . . . preventing them from speaking to any member in this House. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, does my honourable friend say that I suggested that the department does that? Because I didn't. The honourable member came in a little bit late and I was addressing the Member for Roblin and I said, surely you wouldn 't agree that the Depart ment of Industry and Commerce should be the only one to disseminate information; that that wouldn't be a good situation.

And then I suggested that the Department would then say what was in the papers, what was in the newspapers, what was on television, but that would not be a good situation. I don't suggest that the department is now doing that, but they're involved in that type of program. I would suggest that if the honourable member would pe rhaps read my speech and di rect me to where I did say that, perhaps he can correct me if I'm wrong. MR. DAWSON: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for St. Boniface, that the debate be adjourned if no one else wishes to speak. MR. GORDON W.

BEARD (Churchill) : If you don't mind, I'd like to say a few -- (Inter jection) -- First of all, I'm against it because I think the Honourable Member for St. Boniface would hog the screen. -- (Interjection) -- Well maybe we'd get cinemascope, Mr. Speaker. I think there are several things that come to mind in my respect, in my thinking. First of all, so you are going to get action-on-the-floor type of news, and I wonder if this would be fair in respect to newspapers who have to wait for 24 hours or twelve hours to produce the news.

Now the Honourable Member for Inkster throws up his hands and he's greatly perturbed about this, but if he's going to be so fair then maybe he 'd better think about it for a little while.

Granted that you can go back and report the news on the hour during the day, but I think it' s unfair in one respect to give one type of news media a jum p on the others, but on the other hand I agree with him that if you look up in the bal cony I just don 't know what the average attendance is up there, but outside of the bureaucrats I believe there is approximately six or ten average per day, and out of a population of five or six hundred thousand, with many visitors in this com munity, I don't think there's too much interest in what is actually going on in this House.

It is the legislation that comes out of this House and the reporting in the news media itself that people are interested in, but up to this time they certainly have not shown any interest in re spect to coming down to listen to what we as politicians have to say from hour after hour, and I don't blame them. I don't blame them one bit nor does, I think, anyb ody else. They usually go away very discouraged and wondering just why elections take place from time to time, and I think that as we visit around to different provinces we find that it's not an exception in Manitoba.

In fact, I might say that the one or two provinces I have visited, I find that this House has quite a bit more dignity than some of the others that I have visited. The TV coverage, I can't see as how it really could be considered fair, because first of all it is not going to be able to cover all sides of the debate, and it is not going to stay with you for many hours during the day.

When we debate an issue for two or three hours a day, when we're in estimates from 2:30 till 10:00 o'c lock at night, then if the TV chose half an hour of that day to give live TV coverage, then it could have quite well picked the wrong period, or it could pick only one phase of the debate in those estimates. So, it would be in itself depicting the wrong story, or the wrong side, or just one side.

The newspapers aLre usually sitting there most of the time; they indulge in coffee breaks just as the rest of 1US do; but they give what they feel is the fair side because they have listened to the whole story and then they make their decision as to what is right and what is wrong. They at least give an opportunity for re buttal between parties so that they are giving both sides, but if you have half-hour or 20 minute coverage, then you're only going to be able to give one side of the TV.

And what does bother me, frankly, is of course the other side of it, that here in the House as we become veterans we get less hesitant in standing up and debating amongst ourselves, but you could find a reluctance, particularly in new members coming in, when they are for the first time in front of a camera before thousands of people. So mayb e they would be reluctant in case they got on TV. Now, this is rather peculiar. I suppose all of 111s like to get on TV as much as possible but I don't think that it would really give any added coverage. How would it help ? is what I'm concerned about.

I thin k we 're getting good coverage now. Certainly none of us agree with the press at all times; in fact we feel that they're wrong most of the time, probably in one respect or another, but that is one man's view, and this is the only point that I can come to agreement with on this Bill, is the fact that the general public would then be al lowed to possibly have a better chance to come to some conclusion in respect to a debate be cause they would be allowed to make their own decision rather than one of the reporters making

1704 May 7, 19 68 (MR. BEARD cont'd. ) • • • • . a decision. I would agree on the strength of this point. I think it's a very strong one because sometimes I feel that in many respects people are li able to try to make news rather than to report news. But I can't see how we could do it on a half-hour basis a day. I think that in some way, shape or form, you would have to come to some agree ment whe re the TV people would try to bring across to the public the real story that went on, not the small unimpor tant thing that was taken out of context and blown up and become a big issue.

So, I'm at a mind, I realize that there is the value of peo ple seei ng it for themselves and making their decisions, and granted, the shows that were put on down East this last fall gave people an insight into the diff erent confe rence s.

So there is a point where it can become . . • but until you arrived at a principle that was a li ttle more confining than this broad aspect of it where again they may choose it just for entertainment rather than newsworthy comments and the proper type of perspective, I think that we should mayb e vote it down this time and let's come back with a better res olution that would assure that what we are doing, we 'r e not crea ting a monster but we are giving the public the opportunity to see a fair view of what we as legis lators try to do. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER prese nted the motion that debate be adjourned, and af ter a voice vote de clared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the proposed res olution of the Honourabl e Member for Em erson, and the proposed motion of the Honoura ble Mem ber for Burrows in amendment thereto. The Honoura ble Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOUGLAS WATT (Arthur): Could I have this matter stand, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: The adjourned debate of the Honourabl e Member from Portage, and the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for ·w ellington in amendment thereto.

The Honour able the Leader of the New Democratic Party. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this one of the types of resolu tion that has been given a considerable degree of interest in the House. It is a matter that was raised, if I recall corre ctly, originally by a request of myself for an Order for Return dealing with the Informational Branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce, and it has expanded from that rather innocent request for info rmation into a number of fu ll-s cale debates, and I think resulted in the res olution as proposed by the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie.

I think it has been a most interes ting debate. I think that the Honourabl e the Minister of Industry and Commerce has been called upon on a number of occasions to come to the defen ce of his department and of the government respecting informational services. I doubt very much whether I can make any further contribution to the debate at this time bec ause I really think that most aspects have been considered.

I merely want to point out that so far as this group is con cerned, in our opinion the Informational Services of the Department of Industry and Commerce, acting on behalf of the government, have been used, as suggested in the amendment proposed by my colleague from Wellington , for the political uses of the Conser vative Party of Manitoba.

We have stated on a number of occa si ons that we have no obje ctions to an informational service providing that that informatio nal ser vice is used for the purpose of giving information to the taxpayer of Manitoba, and also used to publicize Manitoba outside of our province, in deed outside of our Dominion. So I say that we have no obje ctions to the use of the funds of Manitoba for these purposes, but again I say, and I pinpoint and want to emphas ize, that we do not feel that this is the purpose or the sole purpose of the Department of Industry and Commerce and its Informational Services.

But I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is not something new. This si tuation is rather historic here in Manitoba.

Even before the present government took over the reins of office in Manitoba this si tuation prevailed, and it might be - it might be - that someone can properly point the finger at me and say, "Well, the only obje ction that you may have as Leader of the New Democratic Party is because of the fact that you hav en't had your finger in the pie and been able to use the taxpayer's dollar for propag anda purposes of your particular party. 11 And I would say that if anyone were to point their finger towards me in that regard, I would have to confess that my party, up until the next election at least, has not had the opportunity of govern ing the affa irs of state in Manitoba.

I would suggest, however, in all deference, that the si tu ation will change whene ver the next election is held. But I spent some considerable time the other day going back over jo urnals of the past number of years of the Ass embly, the last 15 or 20 years. I'm sorry that I have to rely on my

I I May 7 • 19 68 1705 (MR. PAULLEY cont'd. ) .•.•• information -- rely on the journals. You know, Mr. Speak er, up until the presen t administration took over, we didn't have Hansards that I could go back over the .speeches of the House, and while we did have a system in the old days, or the other days, of having recordings of the proceedings in the House, I'm sorry to have to say that I haven't got any of the recordings of a debate which took place in this Assem bly to which I want to make reference at this time.

To indicate substantiation of what I am saying by the fact of the use of public fund s for propaganda by the government of the day, is not something that is new. And I want to refer back to the journals of the ses sion of 1956, where it is recorded that on March 28th of 1956, when the Assem bly was dealing with concurrences of the estimates of the day, the following items are recorded in the journals.

"A motion was prese nted for concurrence of Resolution 111, which stated: Reso lved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $200, 375 for Industry and Commerce, Bureau of Travel and Publicity; " $200, 375 for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1957, where upon a debate ensued and Mr. Roblin who was a Member of the Conservative Party and !believe the Leader at that particular time, moved the following resolution: "That while concurring in Res olution No. 111, this House regrets that the government has made use of public funds for the distribution of Liberal Party propaganda.

" There was a debate at that particular time and the Conservatives of that day joined with the CCF in protesting the use by the Liberal Party of the finances of Manitoba for the purpose of propagating Liberal Party propaganda. Needless to say, at that particular time the govern ment in power - the Liberal Party - had sufficient strength to defeat the res olution and I sup pose the expenditure carried on, even though it was objected to by those of us in oppo sition.

And here we have today, here we have today a similar proposition by a substantive reso lution proposed by the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie that the government be con demned for using the finances of the province for the purpose of propagating Conse rvative in formation and propaganda. So I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that had we had a Hansard back :in 1956, all that would have been necessa ry for myself or any of my colleagues to have done , would be to read ver batim what took place at that particular time and establish that it doesn't really matter, does it, as far as Manitoba is concerned with the type of government that we've had, whichever of the two old-line parties are in power, they would use the funds of Manitoba for the self-same pur pose to which we object. So therefore, Mr.

Speak er, I suggest that we will recei ve the support of the Liberal Party insofar as our amendment to the main resolution is concerned, that we do condemn the government and censure the government for misusing the administration of the Branch to further the political interest of the Conservative Party, and I heartily recommend support for the amendment as proposed by my colleague from Wellington to this Assem bly. MR. SPEA KER: Are you ready for the que stion? MR. GUTTORMSON: Mr. Speaker, I move, se conded by the Member for Lakeside, that debate be adjourned. MR.

SPEAKER pres ented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The adjourned debate of the Honourable Member for Ass iniboia. The Honourable the Attorney-General . MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I adjourned this debate for the Honourable Member from Wellington - St. Matthews, pardon me. MR. ROBERT STEEN (St. Matthews): Mr. Speak er, I have a little difficulty in this House separ ating myself from my good friend from Wellington.

There i:s one street that divides our seats but sooner or later maybe we'll find the difference with my seat being a holy one and his not being. -- (Interje ction) -- No, we've had all those fixed up. Mr. Speaker, I commend the Honourable Member from Assi niboia in introducing the question of breathalyzers into this Legislature.

As members realize, the whole question of liquor on our highways and drinking and driving is a very serious one, is becoming even more serious year by year, and people and all forms of legislative bodies throughout the world are starting to take a very serious look at this matter and trying to work out systems in which the misuse of al cohol by drivers and potential killers on our highways can be curtailed effectively.

My main complaint with the resolution as introduced by the Honourable Member from Ass iniboia is that it is not specific enough as to what could be done by this Legislature and what should be done by the Parliament of Canada in order to attack this particular problem.

17 06 May 7, 19 68 (MR.

STEEN cont'd. ) . . • • • In my contribution in the Throne Speech, I mentioned the legisla tion that was proposed by the Minister of Justice and now the Prime Ministe r of this country, which he has very specifically done in amendments to the Criminal Code and which I think he should be commended for, with one single exception; and tli.at is, he has placed too high a per- mitted level of alcohol content in relation to blood for potential drivers, and I think that we I should, as a Legislature, urge him and urge him with one strong voice, to amend his proposed legislation or in the new Parliament introduce the same legislation but amend the figure of .1 0 to • 08 as the level at which in essence a crime would be committed if anyone was found in care or control or driving a motor vehicle with that percentage or greater percentage of alcohol in his blood stream.

And I was hoping that since the Legislature of the Province in Manitoba has absolutely no authority whatsoever in creating a crime of drinking and driving and specifying the alcohol content in blood, that we as a Legislature could specify our desire for the introduc- tion of this legislation in Ottawa with the • 08 figure.

As a Legislature, we have very limited powers as to what we can do in this whole field, but the Province of Saskatchewan have introduced in amendments to their equivalent of our Highway Traffic Act, a procedure in which the li cences of drivers may be suspended if they refuse to submit to a breathalyzer test.

I am hoping that the Legisla ture or the Government of this province will give very serious consideration to this matter and that we follow the Saskatchewan legislation, because this legislation has been tested in the courts of our land, it has been tested in the Suprem� Court, which has come to the conclusion that it is within the powers of the Legislative Ass embly of that province and therefore in any other province, to legi slate on, and I would hope that we would take this step too, because this is the limit to what we as a province can do.

Now there is a great public feeling on the whole question of breathalyzers and the intro duction of breathalyzer legislation, but I am afraid the general public do not realize the limita tions that we as a Legislature have in this field, and I'm also afraid that they're expecting miraculous results from the introduction of any form of breathalyzer legislation. However, I would submit that when we do have breathalyzers introduced into the Province of Manitoba, I hope and pray that nothing but good will come out of such legislation. Before I close, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to introduce a small amendment to this par ticular legislation which I think will get us onside both as a provincial Legisl ature in as far as what we can do, and maybe with the one strong voice will also speak to our Mother government at Ottawa as to what we would like them to do.

Therefore I would move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Fisher, that the reso lution be amended by deleting all the words after the word "a" in the first line thereof and sub stituting therefor the following: "factor in a number of fatal traffic acci dents in Canada; and "W hereas the use of breathalyzers is one method of determining cases in which a driver of a motor vehicle has consumed alcohol to an extent which may impair his ability to drive safely; "T herefore

Be It Resolved that this Legislature request the Parliament of Canada to amend the Criminal Code of Canada

(1) To authorize the law enforcement agencies to require drivers to submit to a breatha lyzer test where (

a) the peace officer has reasonable and probabl"e grounds for believi ng a person to have consumed alcohol; or (

b) a person who is involved in a traffic acci dent or is observed by a peace officer committing a moving traffic violation;

(2) To provide that anyone who has the care or control of a motor vehicle and who has consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the proportion thereof exceeds 80 milligrams of alco

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	28-2-68
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	28th 2nd hansardpdf 68.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	28e59e98fbcc2272433548478c1e74724c92ab78

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