Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 89 (30th Legislature, 1st Session)

30-1-89

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable Peter Fox Vol. XXI No. 89 8:00p.m., Monday, April 15th, 1974. First Session, 30th Legislature. Printed by R. S. Evans- Queen's Printer for Province of Manitoba

Electoral Division Name Political Address Postal Affiliation Code ARTHUR J. Douglas Watt P.C. Reston, Man. ROM 1XO ASSINIBOIA Steve Patrick Lib. 10 Red Robin PI., Winnipeg R3J 3LB Bl RTLE·RUSSELL Harry E. Graham P.C. Binscarth, Man. ROJ OGO BRANDON EAST Hon. Leonard S. Evans NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova BRAN DON WEST Edward McGill P.C. 222a PrinCess Ave., Brandon R7B OH9 BURROWS Hon.

Ben Hanuschak NDP Legislative.Bidg., Winnipeg R3C OVB CHARLESWOOD Arthur Moug P.C. 29 Willow Ridge Rd., Winnipeg R3R 1L5 CHURCHILL Les Osland NDP 66 Radisson Blvd., Churchill ROB OEO CRESCENTWOOD Harvey Patterson NDP 97a Garwood Ave., Winnipeg R3M 1N7 DAUPHIN Hon. Peter Burtniak NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova ELMWOOD Hon. Russell J. Doern NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova EMERSON Steve Derewianchuk NDP V ita, Manitoba ROA 2KO FLIN FLON Thomas Barrow NDP Cranberry Portage, Man. ROB OHO FORT GARRY L.R. (Bud) Sherman P.C. a6 Niagara St., Winnipeg R3N OT9 FORT ROUGE Lloyd Axworthy Lib. 132 Osborne St.

S., Winnipeg R3L 1Y5 GIMLI John C. Gottfried NDP 44- 3rd Ave., Gimli, Man. ROC 1BO GLADSTONE James R. Ferguson P.C. Gladstone, Man. ROJ OTO INKSTER Hon. Sidney Green, Q.C. NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova KILDONAN Hon. Peter Fox NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova LAC DU BONNET Hon. Sam Uskiw NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OVB LAKESIDE Harry J. Enns P.C. Woodlands, Man. ROC 3HO LA VERENDRYE Bob Banman P.C. Steinbach, Man. ROA 2AO LOGAN William Jenkins NDP 1294 Erin St., Winnipeg R3E 2S6 MINNEDOSA David Blake P.C. Minnedosa, Man. ROJ 1EO MORRIS Warner H. Jorgenson P.C. Morris, Man.

ROG 1KO OSBORNE Hon. I an Turnbull NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OVB PEMBINA George Henderson P.C. Manitou, Man. ROG 1GO POINT DOUGLAS Donald Malinowski NDP 23 Coral berry Ave., Winnipeg R2V 2P2 PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE Gordon E. Johnston Lib. 135 - 16th St. S.W., Portage la Prairie, Man. R1N 2W5 RADISSON Harry Shafransky NDP 4 Maplehurst Rd., Winnipeg R2J 1Wa RHINE LAND Arnold Brown P.C. Winkler, Man. ROG 2XO RI EL Donald W. Craik P.C. 3 River Lane, Winnipeg R2M 3Ya RIVER HEIGHTS Sidney Spivak, a. c. P.C. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OVB ROBLIN J. Wally McKenzie P.C. I nglis, Man. ROJ OXO ROCK LAKE Henry J.

Einarson P.C. Glenboro, Man. ROK OXO ROSSMERE Hon. Ed. Schreyer NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova RUPERTSLAND Harvey Bostrom NDP Manigotagan, Manitoba ROE 1EO ST. BONIFACE J. Paul Marion Lib. 394 Gaboury Place, Winnipeg R2H OL4 ST. GEORGE Hon. Bill Uruski NDP 10th fir., 330 Portage Ave.,Wpg. R3C OC4 ST. JAMES George M inaker P.C. 31a Ronald St., Winnipeg R3J 3Ja ST. JOHNS Hon. Saul Cherniack, Q.C. NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova ST. MATTHEWS Wally Johannson NDP 41a Home St., Winnipeg R3G 1X4 ST. VITAL D.J. Walding NUP 26 Hemlock Place, Winnipeg R2H 1L7 STE. ROSE A.R. (Pete) Adam NDP Ste.

Rose du Lac, Man. ROL 1SO SELKIRK Hon. Howard Pawley NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OVB SEVEN OAKS Hon. Saul A. Miller NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova SOURIS KILLARNEY Earl McKellar P.C. Nesbitt, Man. ROK 1PO SPRINGFIELD Hon. Rene E. Toupin NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova STURGEON CREEK J. Frank Johnston P.C. 310 Overdale St., Winnipeg R3J 2G3 SWAN RIVER James H. Bilton P.C. Swan River, Man. ROL 1ZO THE PAS Hon. Ron McBryde NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova THOMPSON Ken Dillen NDP 1171 Westwood Dr.,Thompson RaN OGa TRANSCONA Hon.

Russell Paulley NDP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova VIR DEN Morris McGregor P.C. Kenton, Man. ROM OZO WELLINGTON Philip M. Petursson NDP 6a1 Banning St., Winnipeg R3G 2G3 WINNIPEG CENTRE J.R. (Bud) Boyce NDP 777 Winnipeg Ave., Winnipeg R3E OR5 WOLSELEY I.H. Asper Lib. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova

THE LEGISLAT IVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 o'clock, Monday, April 15, 197 4 CAPITAL SUPPLY 2439 MR . CHAIRMAN: At adjournment at 5:30 the Honourable Member for St. Matthews had five minutes. Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation $20 million--passed. Manitoba Development Corporation $39, 900, 000--passed. Communities Economic Development Fund $1 million--passed. Leaf Rapids Corporation, nil--passed. Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $622, 230, 000 for capital expenditur es.

Schedule A--passed.

Schedule B Direct Government Programs, Churchill Townsite redevelopment $6, 390, 000- passed. Educational purposes (

a) Frontier School Division $3, 030, 000 . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Riel. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, maybe at this point the Minister of Finance could indicate where the Regional Schools and the Colleges borrowing shows up, I think it was either he or the First Minister indicated that when we got to that point that there would be indication.

Schedule A showed public schools finance but there's no inclusion here anywhere that's indi cated for the regional schools or for the colleges. Do you want to wait till second reading ? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I do recall we had that .. . we did have the question raised, I thought then that I had the answer but I won't consider that I had it. I'll have Hansard checked. Now I want to just clarify.

The question asked was: "How are regional schools finan ced in their construction ?" The question was whether there is specific federal financing available for that or whether that's done under, I suppose general purposes of the province. Those would be two of the alterna tives. Unless, as the honourab le member I think suggested, it might be through the public schools finance board which I didn't think was correct. If that is the question that 's being asked, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I do believe that I should have had the answer because I do recognize that we didn't really present the answer properly.

I'll try and check it . I don't know whether the Minister of Education was going to get it or I was but I confess I didn't and if the Member for Riel is willing, then I will attempt to have it ready for second reading. MR. CHAIRMAN: Educational purposes (

a) Frontier School Division $3, 030, 000--passed. (

b) Universities $6 million--passed. Frontier and Resource Roads $10 million--passed. The Pas Area Agreement nil--passed. Grants re municipal sewer and water $3, 100, 000 ... The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. JA MES H. BILTON (Swan River) : Mr. Chairman, I have a query. Mr.

Chairman, around the province, particularly in rural Manitoba, some of the villages and town s have taken advantage of assistance from the government and put in water and sewer systems and the wat er resources department have picked up the tab for the laying of it in and then it 's paid back over a number of years in general terms, and my question is simply this: that in this amount could the Minister tell me whether or not $750, 000 is included in there in order to keep the cost of the water to the consumers under this program at a stable level? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR.

CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I be lieve that the Minister of Agricul ture was prepared to deal with this and not unexpectedly - he did not expect that we would collie to that item this quickly. He is in the building I'm sure and I think that we can get him and he would be much better able to deal with the question than I would pretend to do. We are now dealing with the item on grant s. Honourable members recognize that they had already passed under

Schedule A the item dealing with the loans and I would have thought that the question would have been dealt with under the loan

section which has already come. So that since it's the same program all I can suggest is that if the honourable member wishes we can set this item aside and leave it for the Minister of Agriculture and possibly he can be located in the building. He's probably in his office now. MR .

BILTON: ... the Minister's edification, this came to me over the weekend by the fact that the water and sewer system in Swan River is to be extended to the cost of closer to a million dollars and I believe that they are going to be borrowing a considerable amount of money under this plan through the water resources; but at the same time compatible with this government 's efforts the water for three months now instead of being $15 has gone up $5 more, making $20, and my constituents are asking me if the municipality or the town council is

2440 April 15, 1974 CAPITAL SUPPLY (MR. BILTON cont'd) .. ... increasing the water and at the same time-- (Interjection) - increasing the cost of wa ter, and at the same time getting a grant through this fun d, you know, so that's the reason for my question. MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, I'm sure my colleagues on this side of the Hous e are pre pared to raise,you know, one or two matters that are of particular interest, just as the matter raised by the Member for Swan River, prepared perhaps to have them responded to at second reading of this bill at which time maybe the appropriate Minister would be in the House but not unduly delay the passage of this aspect of the capital bi ll before usJ namely the Resolution of Supply. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, under the circumstances then of course I will under take to see to it that all the Hansard on this evening 's discussion will be distributed to what ever ministers are directly involved so that answers will be available during second reading. I am reminded by my colleague the Minister of Health that water rates apparently are sub ject to the public utility board.

I didn 't know that, but if indeed they are then that would be another safeguard for the residents of the Swan River valley to make sure that there is not what he suggests a possibility of and actually a profit being made on the basis that there will be grants that will override the actual cost of the water to the extent that the new rates of water charged to the residents would exceed the total cost after the grants have been paid. As I understand it that is the point made.

Now that I have repeated what I think I heard, therefore I think that Hansard will show the question and we can deal with it then although members will note that the Minister of Agriculture has already come in and seems to be being appraised of the question. If honourable members wish to wait a moment we can see if he can deal with it then. MR. BILTON: ... I'm quite prepared to take care of it at second reading, I'll have more inf ormation. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, if the Honourable Member for Swan River will have more information shortly, then it would be helpful I'm sure, if he supplied us - I don't mean in the House, but he could write a note to the Minister of Agriculture or to me, with any addi tional information which will make our response more helpful. MR. CHAIRMAN: (

b) Pass, is that agreed? Grants re municipal sewer and water $3, 100, 000--passed. Winter works and emergency programs $7, 25 0, 000--pass. Beef Cattle Stocker Program nil--passed; General development agreement $7 million .. . the Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. McGILL: Yes, I wonder if the Minister of Finance would just given an explanation of what this general development agreement covers and if possible any breakdown of the amount of $7 , 685, 000 ? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to do that from my brief notes.

The General Development Agreement actually has been fairly newly negotiated with the Federal Government and has been broken in my notes, has been broken down into Manitoba northlands, Highways construction some $6-1/4 million; High pre-engineering and design, three quarters of a million dollars; Upgrading of existing housing, 400 thousand dollars, for a total of $7 , 400, 000. The other item is in Angro-Manitoba for water supply dams of $285, 000, therefore bei ng a total authority request of $7, 685 , 000. Of this amount, Mr.

Chairman, $4, 611, 000 will be recovered from the Federal Government as part of this GDA Agreement. I might point out that these amounts that I've just given are in addition to amounts included in General Purposes Capital of $208, 000, Supplementary Supply 1974 of 6, 848, 500, and in Main Supply 1974 $4, 283, 200. That is the information I have.

If there's any more detail required then either the Ministers responsible who are present may be able to expand on it, or if there are questions being asked without answers being sought today then of course we can make a note of the ques tions and have them available for later report. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. McGILL: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister of Finance could tell us is this a new cost-sharing program; I understand that 's what it is, and if so, what sort of a formula is involved in the percentage participation of the Federal Government ?

April 15, 197 4 2441 CAPITAL SUPPLY MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, it 's like ARDA was and FRED where there are dif ferent percentage contributions from the Federal for dif ferent types of programs. Now these details I don 't have, but it's not a flat formula over-all. It 's a variable formula which as I recall it can range up to 90 percent federal and down to a very much smaller proportion federal, but if there is more detail required we'd have to call on the ministers involved for that addi tional information.

The Minister of Mines has just come in and said to me well it usually comes down to 50/50. Actually on the figur es I've just given1honourable members will note that it 's more than 50 percent federal, because I indicated close to 7. 7 million authority as against 4. 6 mil lion in amounts to be received from the Federal Government. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR . McGILL: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to prolong this but is there some point in the proceedings where we will receive some detail on the program and the cost-sharing ? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR.

CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, it has been pointed out to me that the agreements when concluded will be available to be filed and they will show, but I must say in my own opinion the time for detail on this would be in the estimates review. We've already dealt with the Minister of Northern Aff airs, the bulk of whose money is involved here, so that I don't want to mislead the honourab le member into thinking there will be another specific occasion for a committee type discussion other than in the estimates process. So that all I can say is that the agreements themselves I'm sure will be available for public review. MR.

CHAIRMAN: ... Passed. General Development Agreement $7, 635, 000 .. . The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. ASPER : Mr. Chairman, the Liberal party position has been stated at the beginning of this debate and that is . . . MR. CHERNIACK: .. . on a point of order. MR. CHAffiMAN: The Hono urable Minister of Financ e on a point of order. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I twice now, I recall, read Hansard's reporting on a speech by the Lea der of the Liberal Party on the general aspect of estimates review and the fact that he hasn't been given enough time to say what he wants to say.

Therefore in consider ing the possibility that he wants to make that kind of a speech I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that we are now on the GDA and I would trust, Mr. Chairman, that the Leader will confine himself to that. I may have misunderstood his opening remarks but I thought I'd make my point when I thought I had understood what he said. If I didn 't then he'll clarify it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. ASPER : Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance likes to pre-empt what he thinks someone else is going to say and rebut it in advance of what he thinks it is.

The position we take, and we will say it when we're talking about $7 million or $30 million or $29 million or any item on supply. I'm speaking for the Liberal party in the House when I say that the Liberal party will debate these issues in very much greater detail when they come before us in a bill, and to record again, it is the position of the Liberal party that we will vote against supply, we will vote against it now and in the interests of saving time for fur ther estimate debate, we will debate the issues in to tal detail when they come before us in a bill.

That is the position of the party and it is for that reason that we will no longer debate this issue. MR. CHAIRMAN: General Development Agreement $7, 685, 000 - passed; General Purposes . . . The Honourable Member for St. Bonif ace. MR. MARION: Well I wonder if the Minister could give us some kind of information on the $33. 65 million that 's entailed in General Purposes. It's certainly a non-descript kind of classification of expense for such a huge amount. Could he provide us with a little bit of breakdown on this. . . ? MR. CHAffiMAN: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, I'm happy that a member of the Liberal party is interested in greater detail in regard to the matters before us. Not that I can visualize a palace revolutio n taking place just yet . A MEMBER: We have no palace.

2442 April 15 , 1974 CAPITAL SUPPLY MR. CHERNIACK: The General Purposes I must tell the Honourable Member for St. Boniface, he may consider it non-desc ript but that's becaus e it is all-descript and takes in many many items of government operation. And I might tell the Honourable Member for St. Boniface, who I believe is really interested in the estimates before us, that in the past the items that would be brought in would be brought in under specific department s, either current or capital, and would be assigned for specifically described construction purposes and would lapse if not used if they were current.

And as I recall it in the time that I've been in this Legislature on the opposition side, I remember that almost every year we had for example the Juvenile Correction Centre, which I think we passed year after year after year because it was always expected that the government would get to work on it.

And I'm not saying that in any sense of criticism but in a recognition of the fact - no, I'm serious - in a recognition of the fact that priorities may well change, that the Juvenile Correction Centre, which everybody agreed was needed, yet in the sense of priorities of the Public Works Program or of the engineering or of the capital raising authority or of the social assistance needs of the province would apparently fall back in comparison with other needs.

And when we came into government we found that there had been a previous occasions - at least one I can recall knowing about - where general purposes were brought in that did not tie the specific items to money amounts, so that the flexib ility was available to set priorities as the year 's program developed. And now the sense in which we are being presented with General Purposes of $33, 650, 000, does have speci fic numbers opposite specific items and they are quite extensive and I can give them to honour able members. But I want the Honourable Member for St.

Boniface to know, because this is his first session, that the General Purposes are there with a recognition that a sense of priority may change the expected use and therefore the government is not bound to spend the requisite number of dollars put opposite the name of the requisite expected item and tha t's why it 's called general purposes and it is an expectation, and honourable members will know that in the past most of what we said we thought we would be able to do was done and then other programs were undertaken for which moneys were used that were unfo reseen at the time of the plan. --(Inter jection) -- The Honourable Member for Roblin seems to want to interrupt me, so by all means . . . oh, sorry.

Well then I have, under the Department of Agriculture there are items of Community Pastures, Veterinary Clinics and Development at Lake St. Martin which is I believe an ongoing program. Does the honourab le member want specific numbers or just tota ls? Totals. The Member for Wolseley seems to be wanting to say something. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member of the Liberal Party. MR. ASPER: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance could save an awful lot of time if he would distribute the list rather than taking the time of the House reading it into the record. MR.

CHERNIACK: The Member for Wolseley is very helpful to me, but I will give the information as I want to present it, glad to help honourable members. So I was saying to the Member for St. Boniface, the Agriculture Department is proposing close to $600, 000 for these three items. There is a small item for equipment purchases in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affa irs. There is a million dollar item in Co-operative Development for further loan guaranteed to Indian and Metis Co-operativ es.

There is under Health and Social Development a total of about just over $1. 2 million, and these are repair programs in the Adult Correctional facilities, Juvenile Correctional facil ities, community residences, Ninette Centre, Society for Crippled Children and Adults, and that type of program ming. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. James on a point of order. MR. MINAKER: Yes. It's not a point of order. I just wondered if possibly in order to expedite this part, I wonder if the Honourable Minister of Finance would table the document that he's reading from. MR.

CHERNIACK: I appreciate also the Member for St. James making his contribution but I have documents that are my briefing notes and I intend to tab le only that which I feel I should tab le. On the other hand, I am sure that the Member for St. James would much rather have all this in Hansard so he could refer to it rather than on pieces of paper which he might well lose on the way out of the Chamber. However, if honourable members--No, I'm really responding to the Honourable Member for St. Boniface and I'll continue to do so.

April 15, 1974 2443 CAPITAL SUPPLY (MR. CHERNIACK cont'

d) In the highway construction program for various items, most of which involves an item dealing with construction for pre-tendering purposes, there is some $12-1/2 million. The Department of Industry and Commerce has a program dealing with the Manitoba Export Corporation of $400, 000. In Mines, Resources and Environmental Management there is $2, 300, 000 being set aside, and much of this I think is an interesting program which the Minister would no doubt be prepared to enlarge on. Land Access Program, and Urban Peripheral Property Program, and Environmental Management Laboratory are the three items involved.

Under Northern Affairs there is something over $3 million, mainly involved in airport development and in major infrastructure projects. Under Public Works, I have something in the neighbourhood of $10 million, mainly dealing with parking garage and office facilities and regional accommodation, and the contribution which honourable members know about to the Winnipeg Convention Centre.

And finally, under the item of Tourism, Recreation and Cultural Affairs, there's land acquisition of a million dollars, there's park development of $2. 3 million, and then there are a few hundred thousand dollars in smaller items, providing a gross requirement of $35. 6 million--(Interjection)--Well, if the honourable chairman would listen he will recall that I said a gross requirement of $35. 6 million, less an uncommitted authority of close to, very close to $2 million which has not yet been committed, therefore providing for a net requirement of $33 , 65 0, 000. MR. CHAIRMAN: General Purposes.

The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. CRAIK: I wonder if the Minister would indicate the size included in the Convention Centre he mentioned. MR. CHERNIACK: The amount set aside for this year for the Convention Centre is $2-1/2 million which is a third of the $7-1/2 million which was the commitment by the Provincial Government to the Convention Centre. --(Interjection)--No, there's been no change. No change of the contribution of one-half of the estimated capital cost of $15 million.

Members will recall, although those who were members of the City Council may not have known, that after consider able discussion and assurance by the city that the total cost would be 15 million and no more, the province said that we would be willing to put up one-half of that estimate, but since we did not believe that they could build what they planned to build for $15 million, we said at this stage we are not going beyond one-half of the estimated 15 million and every amount beyond that would then have to be a City of Winnipeg program, and at that time the City of Winnipeg then took over the total responsibility rather than on a partnership basis with the province which had insisted on keeping the cost to 15 million.

So that the 2-1/2 million is one-third of the 7-1/2 million which was the provincial commitment for the capital portion of the Convention Centre. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. MARION: I have no quarrel with what the Minister of Finance has said but I would like to make one correction. It was not the City of Winnipeg who gave assurance that the Convention Centre could be built for $15 million, it was the former Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg that gave that assurance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, I must insist on making an even more important correction, and that is that although the original preliminary discussions and figures were with and given by representatives of the Metro Corporation, the province refused to enter into any agreement whatsoever until the new council--the council of the new City of Winnipeg was elected and the final discussions, negotiations and arrangements were made with the new council of the new City of Winnipeg, and the responsibility was left squarely on the shoulders of those who were elected for the purpose so to do. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR.

CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, is there a suggestion in all this that the cost will go beyond 15 million? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would answer that question by "yes". MR. CHAIRMAN: General Purposes. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to really ask a question on the total amount. It relates to the question I asked during the question period today as to whether or not the

2444 April 15, 197 4 CAPITAL SUPPLY (MR.

CRAIK cont'd) ..... government will be tailoring its capital spending program as a result of the efforts by the Federal Government to slow down expansion rate and slow down the inflation rate, and I think the Minister has indicated here pretty strongly that every year there is authority asked for that isn't utilized and I assume that there's in total here a fair amount of flexibility that we're approving and which he'll undoubtedly get the approval for, for spending, but a lot of it does turn out to be discretionary, and he cited for example the case of the Juvenile Detention Home or some other projects.

Since there is a fairly large amount here, it would probably fall into that category, that is new starts on new programs, as to whether or not, in view of the efforts to cool down the economy, the government will cut back on construction or secondly, whether the interest rates that the government may experience in borrowing as a result of the upping of the prime rate by a full one percent, whether or not it may be advan tageous for the government to delay some of its borrowing, actual borrowing, aside from its authority for the present time, and I think the Minister indicated during the question period that he might be willing to comment on this when we got to the proper item on the Capital Estimates, and now would appear to be the time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell. MR. GRAHAM: Just to give the Minister a little more chance to gather his thoughts on this, I just want to ask the Minister one question, and in this General Purposes or some place else in the Capital Supply, is there any place there where the government has allocated some capital money for the establishment of a detention centre in this province? MR. CHERNlACK: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell suggesting that he would give me a little time to prepare my answer.

I am now prepared to give him an equal amount of time for him to understand his question so he can repeat it to us in a way where we can respond, because he asked specifically, as I heard it, is there any money in the Estimates for a detention centre in Manitoba? And I'll let him mull that question and see if he has a specific--if he wants to elaborate so that we can understand more clearly what he means. Mr. Chairman, the question or the point raised by the Honourable Member for Riel deals with a number of conflicting problems.

One is that we said some years ago that in our debate with the Federal Government about the causes of inflation and the methods whereby one fights inflation that we were not prepared to tell the man on the street in Manitoba that he now has to become a statistic and an unemployed person in order to make it possible for us to be able to fight inflation by reducing the incomes and the purchasing power of the individual in Manitoba.

And I know that this opinion that we had is not shared by everybody in this Chamber, but being the government with the responsibility of framing programs, we took that position and we said and we said it openly both in this House and at meetings of the Federal-Provincial Governments that we were not prepared to accept the federal approach to fighting inflation by the creation of unemployment, by making dollars cost more so that capital construction would be less.

Now honourable members will recall that we opposed special concessions to industry which was prepared to invest money in capital construction, and we said that was wrong, and Mr. Turner and the federal finance people said, oh no, that's the way to do it.

And, you know, that's the argument that has been advanced by the Liberal Party here, that once you give concessions to the manufacturing sector, for example, in order to stimulate construction- well we ourselves said that we would, if the time showed that it was right so to do, we would advance capital construction at a time when unemployment appeared to be growing so that we could help curb unemployment and thus put purchasing power back in the hands of the people who would be spending it, and much of our program is along that line.

But here we are where we've asked for authority to spend money on capital programs and, at the same time, we are faced with the threat of high interest rates which, as we agreed earlier today, is a real con cern for the future development of certain projects. On the other hand, or on the third hand I should say, we know that the longer you delay with a capital construction program, that history has shown that the more inflation is likely to bump up the price, the cost of construction.

There's been much debate in this House in which I have not participated too much because I haven't been that knowledgeable but the Member for Riel has participated considerably, in the question of the escalating costs of hydro, and I think there's no denying anywhere that costs have been escalating for various reasons, some of which have been unacceptable to the oppo sition and others of which were understood to be inflationary costs. Well we know that we have a program in northern Manitoba for the production of hydro-electric energy. We know that it's

April 15, 1974 2445 CAPITAL SUPPLY (MR. CHERNIACK cont'd) ..... going to be in greater and greater need. We know that it's a renewable resource and every drop of water, if you want to be dramatic, or many tons of water that go down the spillway without being used to turn the turbines are lost in that sense, and therefore we know that the sooner we can go ahead with the hydro-electric project the better it will be, not only for Manitoba's economy but for the whole energy-hungry continent.

So we will be faced with these problems of balancing the high cost of money, the desire to advance in programs such as the hydro-electric program, the desire to get in ahead of inflation, and yet the other desire not to pay too high a price for money. Now the hydro-electric program, which is by far the largest individual one, of course is exceptional and I would think that all members would urge that we go ahead with - how do they say? all due haste to go ahead with it. Then there are others that could be delayed.

I suppose hospital construction could be slowed up, school construction could be slowed up, highway construction could be slowed up; there are many items that could be delayed and postponed, and, Mr. Chairman, to that extent I think I can assure the Honourable Member for Riel that we are constantly reviewing the priorities and the pace with which we do it. And that was really what the Member for Riel was most interested in. Are we indeed carrying on an ongoing review of what it is that we have in mind? And I have to say, yes we are.

It does not mean that because we will have the authority passed that the departments are off and running with each project. They still have to come back and go through the Management Committee process, the estimating process, and the priority process - and there is where we come into the question of money availability. Of course I should tell honourable members that if we take too long with Capital Supply we won't have a problem with high interest rates because we won't be able to borrow at any interest rate unless we get the authority, you know, in a reasonable period of time. --(Inter jection)--How much?

Well, the banker friend opposite is using figures that are frightening but they are possible; we must admit that. When he says ten and a half he's not more than one percent out as of today, and there is a danger of going up, and I would say, yes, there is a problem. As a matter of fact I was told that by today sixteen major U. S. companies have pulled out of the market after having entered the market, and have pulled out their issues because of the uncertainty that exists today.

So that I should report that my deputy and I spend a fair amount of time, almost daily, discussing the very question and we have been able to do certain advantageous borrowing at some times when we didn't even need the money but we thought that the time was right, and we did borrow and we have reinvested the money on short term. But that is an important factor, the item mentioned by the Member for Riel.

So that I can only say that we do study it; we hope we make the right decisions; there have been times when we have been disappointed by decisions we've made but - I've said this before - we have a pretty good record of borrowing and I don't take away any of the credit from the Department of Finance, the Deputy Minister of Finance, who seems to have such a good knack for judging time - that doesn't mean he's always going to be right, but there was one occasion when a lender said to me, "I know now I've got to stay away from that man because he is so right that I always know I'd be better off if I loaned it two or three or four days later to the next borrower rather than this one, because he is so right on the market.

" It doesn't mean--(Interjection)--Right. It does not mean that we can always be right but we do try our best to maintain that equilibrium or that balance that we need. I think I've said a lot of generalities without meaning to say so, but isn't that really the field we're in when we're dealing with looking ahead to the future and trying to guess borrowing needs, availability of money, interest rates charged, as against ability to construct or delay, and all I can say is that it's part of our ongoing consideration.

I have a feeling I didn't answer the question as well as the honourable member would have wanted me to do but I'll try and do better if he wants to be more specific. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell. MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the Minister for thinking one word and speaking another. I meant "remand centre" rather than a "detention centre". MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: I appreciate it. Now we know why I didn't quite follow. I am not aware that there is any money for a remand centre.

Does the honourable member mean within the City of Winnipeg itself? Or does he mean for some point outside of Winnipeg in the regions

2446 April 15, 197 4 CAPITAL SUPPLY (MR. CHERNIACK cont'd ) ..... of Manitoba ?--(Interjection)--Oh, the smaller areas. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware of them. I can only say that one of the reasons for General Purposes is exactly that. If the need is shown and a priority ahead of others, then it could be done and I would urge the honourable member, who seems to have an interest in that, to speak up on those matters and suggest that they be advanced if indeed they aren't. That's what gives us an opportunity to exchange points of view. MR. GRAHAM: I will speak on the issue when it comes to second reading. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: Well, Mr. Chairman, just in summarizing the Offi cial Opposition's position at the resolution stage of Capital Supply Bill, let me take this issue just as the Leader of the Liberal Party took just a few moments ago to state his party's position, namely one that the Opposition will support the Capital Supply Bill.

That does not mean, Sir, that we will in any way fail in our responsibility to point out to this government how they should be spending this money, how they should be using this money, and how it has been misspent and misused in our opinion ; how we feel that this government has not taken and essentially refuses to take an anti inflat ionary position in its whole approach to capital spending. However, it's always a pleasure for me to disassociate myselffrom the Liberal Party's position, which is one of high irres ponsibility.

It's a position that can only be taken by a party that never assumes to power or to the reins of government in this province because, of course, Sir, to deny any government the need, the necessary capital to maintain the building of hospitals, to maintain the Agricultural Credit Corporation, to maintain the hydro projects already alluded to by the Minister of Finance, no matter how wrong we think they are in certain aspects, or certain planning stages that they have developed, the fact of the matter is that we have an ongoing commitment and that commitment has to be met.

And, Sir, the Of ficial Opposition takes I think a responsible posi tion in this regard . . I say this and I take this occasion particularly in view of the position that we took on Interim Supply, which for some reason or other the honourable members opposite, the government, chose to blur as being an irresponsible position.

We took that position on Interim Supply for reasons, for parliamentary reasons well-known to those who are familiar with parliamentary rules and procedures, and it should not be confused that we would take that kind of a position with respect to granting the necessary capital supply to this or any other government. Mr.

Chairman, we will take advantage of second reading of the bill, as we have already indicated in the questioning on the resolution stage of the bill, to point out to the government where this government in our judgment is making major and basic, very costly errors to the taxpaye rs of the Province of Manitoba.

But having said that, we will rely and hope that our contribution pe rhaps will have some effect on having this government try to remedy some of its mistakes, but we can hardly take the position, Sir, that the necessary capital dollars that are required to the building of hospitals, to the building of a housing program in this province, to the continuing development of Manitoba Hydro and the major energy industry that we have in this province, should come to a standst ill, which is of course what would happen if the Liberal position were adopted.

So without in any way preempting the rights of any members of the Official Opposition from making the kind of speeches that I know they will be want ing to make in severe criticism of the Capital bill before us, and the single major criticism that has to be made time and time again is the fact that this government, like their partners in ottawa and like the Liberal Party in ottawa, refuses, adamantly refuses to take any consideration of the rampant inflation in this country, refuses to take an anti-i nfla tionary position in this pro vince and indeed in this country, to that extent, Sir, we will make our voices heard.

But, Sir, having said that, I want to indicate to the Honourable Minister of Finance that his Capital Supply Bill will pass with our concurrence. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. ASPER: Well, Mr. Chairman, as I said when the debate began several days ago and began again a few moments ago, there is a distinction between the position of the Progressive Conservative Party and that of the Liberal Party in this Chamber. Our position is very simply this: This government has demonstrated a callous disregard for what money is all about.

The events of the past 12 weeks have unfolded one of the most shocking, one of the most distressing stories of squandering, mismanagement, abuse of the public purse, a disregard for the trust that government entails, and an incapacity to use money voted to it with

April 15, 1974 2447 CAPITAL SUPPLY (MR. ASPER cont 'd) ..... discretion, with wisdom, and with honour for that matter, Mr. Chairman. And so it is the position of the Liberal Party that to vote supply to this government of any kind is to vote more tens of millions of dollars down into the sewers, down into the abyss, the bottomless pit of waste and extravagance and mismanagement that has characterized the past five years of money management by the NDP. Mr.

Chairman, to vote supply to this government, to vote this capital bill, or the reso lution, would be a er ime against fiscal responsibility on the part of the opposition. It doesn't surprise me that the Official Opposition is willing to vote supply, the Progressive Conservatives are willing to vote supply, because many of the programs, many of the techniques of spending are those which they instituted when they were government and, Mr.

Chairman, any person in this Chamber who stands to vote when it comes to the supply of more funds to the Manitoba Development Corporation, for example, is voting for waste, is voting for mismanagement, is voting for political use of fun ds, partisan use of funds- -(Interjection) --Well, Mr. Chairman, I hear the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party making noises. Mr. Chairman, I recall during the recent provincial election that his Leader went out to the town and the constituency of Gimli and he said, "Rest assured, good folk of Gimli.

If we Conservatives form a government, Saunders Aircraft will be continued to be supported. It will fl ourish with a Conservative Government. " Now, Mr. Chairman, that is why we take the posi tion that to vote supply to this government is to vote wast e and misuse of money. That is why we see the Conservative Party unable to stand up and vote, as it should, to deprive this govern ment of further Capital Supply to waste. Now, Mr. Chairman, I won't take up any further time at this stage, because when the bill comes in we will detail for honourable members, we will detail for honourable members in

chapter and verse the tens of millions of this Capital Supply which will go to keep company with the other tens of millions of our dollars, our tax paid dollars, that have been lost, unaccounted for, misused, and the Progressive Conservative Party can have it on its conscil'mce that it supports this Capital Supply Bill. Mr. Chairman, it has become self-evident in every category of capital spending that is part of

Schedule A and

Schedule B, that this government has not the capacity to wisely handle the purse. It is for that reason that we do not trust them with our money, it is for that reason that the indictment is so ove rwhelming in the incapacity to rea sonably handle money, that reasonable men in this Chamber will vote against this bill. MR. CHAIRMAN: General Purposes, $33, 650, 000. Passed. Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $77, 105, 000 for Capital Expenditures,

Schedule B, passed? The Honourable House Leader. · MR. GREEN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to see if I can catch the mood of the House. We could now go to the Estimates of the Minister of Labour or we could come out of committee and go through the usual process of going into Committee of Ways and Means. That would probably, or--well, tradition has been that it takes just a few minutes. There will still be votes - and then go into Private Members. Or else we'd have just a few minutes left for the Estimates. Do you prefer to go--you don't wish to go to Ways and Means ? MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Well, Mr. Chairman, as far as the suggestion that for five minutes it's hardly worth the problem of getting the Minister with his assistants into the House, so we concur with the suggestion . . . . . . continued on next page

2448 April 15, 1974 CAPITAL SUPPLY MR. GREEN: What I am suggesting is that committee rise, just so that we understand, that we come out, then we go into the Ways and Means Committee, come out, and then we'll be in Private Members' Hour. MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee rise. Call in the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has passed certain resolutions, has directed me to report same, and asks leave to sit again. IN SESSION MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Radisson. MR. SHAFRANSKY: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Churchill, that report of the committee be received.

MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. MR. CHERNIACK: I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, that the resolutions reported from Committee of Supply be now read a second time and concurred in. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Mines, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Commit tee to consider of Ways and Means for raising of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

MOTION presented and carried, and the House resolved itself into Committee of Ways and Means with the Honourable Member for Radisson in the chair. COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolved that towards making good certain sums of money for Capital purposes the sum of $699, 335, 000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund. Passed? (Passed) Committee rise. Call in the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Ways and Means has considered certain resolutions, has directed me to· report same, and asks leave to sit again. IN SESSION MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Radisson. MR.

SHAFRANSKY: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Flin Flon, that the report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Labour, that the resolutions reported from Committee of Ways and Means be now read a second time and concurred in. MOTION presented and carried. INTRODUCTION OF BILL 8 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK introduced Bill No. 8,

an Act to authorize the Expenditure of Moneys for Capital Purposes and to authorize the borrowing of the same. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe that we can now move into Private Members' resolutions with the unanimous concurrence of the House. PRIVATE MEMBERS ' HOUR- RESOLUTION 16 MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Private Members Hour. The first resolution is No. 16. The Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre was up. The honourable member has 11 minutes left. MR� J. R. (BUD) BOYCE (Winnipeg Centre): Mr.

Speaker, in checking bp.ck on my pearls of wisdom that I contributed to this debate on my birthday, I find that I have nothing else to add. I would just vote against the amendment, Mr. Speaker.

April 15, 1974 2449 RE SOL UTI ON 16 MR. SPEAKER put the question on the amendment and declared the amendment lost. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question on the motion? The Honourable Member for Radisson. MR. SHAFRANSKY: Mr.

Speaker, last time I was speaking on this resolution I had in tended to make an amendment to the resolution of the Honourable Member for Roblin and, as I stated before, the Honourable Member for Lakeside wasn't here last time,! mentioned the fact that if you make sensible resolutions that make sense they don't require amendments so there fore I'm called upon to correct them and to bring in the proper resolution. (Applause) Mr. Speaker, I've used up considerable time the last day on March 6th.

However, not to disappoint the Honourable Member for Lakeside, I wish to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Churchill, that the resolution of the Honourable Member for Roblin be amended by deleting the word "excessive" after the first

WHEREAS; to delete "excessive" from the second

WHEREAS; (3) delete "to rescind the 12 percent sales tax on building material" and replace "to adopt policies designed to lower mortgage interest rates to six percent; to increase the funds made available to low income earners through CMHC; to assist the provinces and muni cipalities in ensuring an adequate supply of serviced land at reasonable prices; and to insulate Canadians from the impact of international price increases in basic building materials." MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell state his point of order. MR. GRAHAM: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that there's been a speaker speak since the Member for Radisson spoke last time in debate and he can no longer speak again. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member -- order please. Order please. The honour able member has not spoken on the main resolution, therefore I recognize him, if that• s the point of order the Honourable Member for Birtle-R ussell is making. The Honourable Member for Radisson. MR. SHAFRANSKY: The amendment that I just moved is found in Votes and Proceedings No. 25. MR.

SPEAKER: I don't know whether the Honourable Member for Radisson is playing games with me, but I have a whole sheet here. I don't know whether that's all of the amendment or not. There is no cut-off after he read what he is doing. Now, I have no objection to members being in a hurry making amendments, but all it would take would be a scissor to cut off what he needs; but I assume, and I hope I'm right. • . MR. SHAFRANSKY: Mr. Speaker, you are correct that I should have cut it off with the scissors to give you the correct. . . (Laughter) MR.

SPEAKER: I assume that he doesn't want me to include in the amendment "whereupon the Speaker ruled it out of order. " The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. I put this resolution before the House in good faith and expecting to get the respect of the House and not have these kind of amendments placed by the Honourable Member for Radisson which he sent the Speaker up a whole volume of paper and tells the Speaker to cut it off there with the scissors. Mr.

Speaker, I do not accept that kind of an amendment to my resolution, and I ask the honourable member to withdraw that amendment. MR. SPEAKE R: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: On a point of order, House privilege if you may, Sir, I think the time has probably come where, Sir, we have to, in the Opposition and out of deference to respect for the whole institution of the Private Members' resolutions, use some occasion to demonstrate to this government that we are not happy, we cannot accept the kind of abuse that so many of our Private Members' resolutions are receiving at the hands of this government.

Sir, there was what I'm sure to you might have been somewhat embarrasing and to the members opposite MR. SPEAKER: Would the honourable member make his point on his point of order? MR. ENNS: ... somewhat comical, but we have to respectfully challenge your ruling, Sir, and I want to make the point very clear, Sir, that it is not a ruling, Sir, a challenge directed against you, but against the manner and way in which this government has consistently treated our resolutions.

And so with the greatest of respect, Sir, we challenge--we have to take this occasion to challenge your ruling in accepting the orderliness of this amendment. We think, Sir, that the kind of amendments that have been made to our resolutions are, at best, subject to question and in most instances out of order. So with that, Sir we respectfully

2450 April 15, 1974 RESOLUTIO N 16 (MR. ENNS cont'd) ... challenge your ruling. We suggest that this amendment should be with drawn. MR. SPEAKER : Unfortunately I don't know what the member is telling me. I haven' t made a ruling, I've only accepted a motion. The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairi e . MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, if I could just speak to a point of order that has been raised. --(Interjecti on)--Well, I'm speaking to a point of order, the point of order being that the document you have accepted from the Member from Radisson is not what he moved and therefore it's out of order.

It's out of order. I respectfully suggest, Sir, that you have no other course than to rule the resolution out of order, because it is not what was read by the member. MR. SPEA KER: Order please. Unfortunately the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie also didn' t give me a chance to read the amendment, so therefore he cannot know what I've accepted is the same as what the Honourable Member for Radisson gave me. Now, as I said, I shall read it and then the members can judge for themselves.

Moved by the Honourable Member for Radisson, seconded by the Honourable Member for Churchill: Delete "excessive" from the first

Whereas; (2) delete "excessive" from the second

Whereas; (3) delete "to rescind 12 percent sales tax on building materials" and replace with "to adopt policies designed to lower mortgage interest rates to six percent; to increase the funds made available to low income earners through CMHC; to assist the provinces and municipalities in ensuring an adequate supply of serviced land at reasonable prices, and to insulate the Canadians from the impact of international price increases in basic building materials. " That is the amendment. Now let me add to that, that's now on the floor of the House and open to debate.

But again, I too wish to make the procedures as fluent and as expedient as possible to all the members, and I would ask for the co-operation of all the members, when they are making amendments to make them at least in triplicate so that one can be given to the Speaker and one to each of the parties so they know what they are debating on. It's only a courtesy and it's not very hard to get two or three copies of one resolution made. The floor is open. The Honourable Minister of Labour have a point of order? MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I want to speak to the point of order raised by the Honourable Member for Lakes id e. MR. SPEAKER : There is none. I said he didn't have one. MR. PAULLEY: Well if he didn't have one, then I haven' t one, but if he was privileged to speak, then surely to goodness, Mr. Speaker, I have the same right as the honourable mem ber was allowed. MR. SPEAKER: If the Honourable Minister has a point of order he's entitled to raise it. MR. PAULLEY: AlL right, then it's a point of privilege. MR. SPEAKER: Very well. MR.

PAULLEY: The Honourable Member for Lakeside chastised the government be cause one of the backbenchers dared to move an amendment during the Pr ivate Members' Hour to a Pr ivate Members' resolution. My honourable friend the Member for Lakeside, in raising this particular point, in effect was suggesting that no private member on this side of the House has a right to do anything insofar as Pr ivate Members' resolutions are concerned . My point of privilege, Mr.

Speaker, is that in accordance with the traditions of this House, in accordance with traditions elsewhere, as well, in the British Parliamentary System, that there are two areas. There is the Execu tive, which is the Cabinet, and then there's the Pri vate Members, and I suggest that one of the reasons why we in this House in its Rules Commit tee adopted a procedure whereby there is a ·Private Members' Hour, is to give the private members an opportunity to introduce their thoughts by way of resolution or by way of amend ment.

That is my point of privilege and I must say to the Honourable Member for Lakeside that the government as such did· not introduce this resolution or this amendment1it was done by a private member, and every private member has the opportunity and the right under parliamen tary procedure so to do. As far as your point, Mr. Speaker, as to the courtesy of dis tributing copies1I concur in that, but certainly the remarks of the Honourable Member for Lakeside were not as suggested by .him� MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, and I now do have a point of

April 15, 1974 2451 RESOLUT ION 16 (MR. ENNS cont'd) ..• order. Because, Mr. Speaker, the Honourable fo rmer House Leader used the word - and I'm rather surprised that he did - "t radition" , and he, Sir, knows tradition. He, Sir, knows that there were resolutions put forward in this Chamber which put fo rward a position and the government of the day, backbenchers or private members included took a posi tion and either voted for it or against it. Or on occasion amended it, amended it within the meaning of the word "amending" . Not throwing out the whole resolution including the wash water along with the baby .

Sir, what has happened to us repeatedly, not just with a member, a mem ber of the government, a private member of government, but with regularity, and always the same member, namely the Party Whip, the Party Whip of the government; he brings in re solu tions or amendments to resolutions that so completely distort the original resolution that they bear no longer any semblance to the original intent. Mr.

Speaker, I'm not going to pursue the point any further, except to say, Sir, that they are debasing the role of the private resolution in this Chamber, and, Sir, if they want to continue that then I think the whole question of private member!l hour has to be reconsidered, because it 's obvious, Sir, that they are not prepared to consider the resolutions put fo rward in good fa ith by individual private members on this side of the House. . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. MR.

ENNS: And, Sir, if that' s not going to be the case then we are using a great deal of taxpayers' money and time in debating in this Chamber the same resolution. MR. SPEAKER: Let me indicate that I think the two gentlemen have an hone st diff erence of opinionbut neither one of them had a matter of privilege as far .as I could see. First of all I hadn't recognized that the Honourable Member fo r Lakeside had anything to say in regards to the procedures and the Honourable Minister of Labour wanted to make a matter of privilege of his own which coincided with that which was out of order to begin with.

So therefore we're at a standstill. The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell. MR. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm not too fa miliar with the rules of procedure in our House but I would like to pose a question to the House. There was an amendment to this resolution which was introduced by the Member for Radisson on March 6th. Mr. Speaker, I would assume that the amendment has been dealt with at some time or another although I don't reme mber whether it was ruled out of order or not. But, Mr.

Speaker, the amendment that has been handed to us here now is exactly word for word the same as the one that has been ruled on previously. So, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that a subject matter having once been ruled on in this Chamber is it permissible fo r it to be brought up again? A MEMBER: Good point Harry. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member is asking for a ruling again and I shall indicate to him why the amendment was out of order the first time. Because it was an amendment to an amendment and at that time what the essence consisted of didn't coincide with the amendment.

Now that .we are back on the main motion the amendment is in order. The Honourable Member fo r Roblin. Order please. The Honourable Member for St . Vital state his point of order. MR. D. JA MES WALDING (St. Vit al): Yes, Mr. Speaker •.• MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. WALDING: Mr. Speaker, it's really a point of grammar. I believe that if you were to accept the amendment that deleting the word "excessive" would require a change in the in definite .article "an" to "a" so that it would read increased to a rate,

whereas just deleting the word would leave it as "increased to an rate ." MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member fo r Lakeside. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, this brings us back to point one, when, Sir, I rose and according to you, Sir, out of order. But you have, Sir, now obviously accepted the amendment which I with a great deal of regret challenge the acceptability of that amendment and conse quently your ruling, Sir. So I would have to now indicate that to you, Sir, and we intend to pursue on that course. Challenge the ruling of the Chair. MR.

SPEAKER: In respect to the Chair accepting this motion as being valid irrespective of the fact that it may have grammatical problems in it, is the Chair sustained in its ruling ? QUE STION put, MOTION declared carried. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, Ayes and Nays.

2452 April 15, 197 4 RE SOLUTION 16 MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members. The motion before the House is: shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained ? A STANDING VOTE was taken,the result being as fo llows: YEAS Messrs. A dam Malinowski As per Marion Axworthy Miller Barrow Os land Bostrom Patrick Boyce Patter son Burtniack Paulley Cherniack Pawley Derewianchuk Petursson Dill en Schreyer Do ern Shafransky Evans Toupin Gottfried Turnbull Green Uruski Johannson Uskiw G. Johnston Walding McBryde NAYS Messrs. Banman Render son Bilton McGill Blake McKenzie Enns Minaker Ferguson Watt Graham MR. CLERK: Yeas 33; Nays 11. MR.

SPEAKER: In my opinion the ayes have it, declare the motion carried. The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. McKENZIE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I stand before you tonight mad, irritated, most unhappy with the way that my resolution before this House has been handled by this Whip across here, who tonight in a great haste takes a sheet of paper and sends it up to you, Mr. Speaker, and says cut it off there with the scissors. Mr. Speaker, I put the resolution in in good faith to you and I expect this government to look and the Whip to deal with it in an orderly and a parliamentary manner. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

Order please. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker ..• MR. SHAFRANSKY: On a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member for Radisson state his point of order. MR. SHAFRANSKY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to apologize to you for causing some problems. However, if the Honourable Member for Roblin was on the job as he should have been he would have had that amendment which I moved on March 2nd before him and it would have not created any problems for anybody. Because I had distributed the amendment for every member opposite, every . party opposite. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. McKENZIE: Mr.

Speaker, I just ask you. This is the kind of a Whip that the government's got. Show me on March 2n d where you put an amendment before the House. MR. SHAFRANSKY: March the 6th . . MR. McKENZIE: You said the second. Mr. Speaker, this is typical of the way that the Whip has handled our resolutions where he's deleted them after the first "whereas' on two occasions. Resolutions have been bef ore this House in good faith put in by the members of the opposition and the Whip of the NDP Party deletes them after the first "whereas". And, Mr.

Speaker, he comes here tonight, and I don't know what document he's got in his hand, but he

April 15, 197 4 2453 RE SOLUTION 16 (MR. McKENZIE cont'd) .•. sends it up to the Speaker, says cut it off there with the scissors, that's my amendment. Mr. Speaker, I don' t like to put my resolution before this House and get that kind of treatment, especially resolutions that are as meaningful as the one that's before you right now. And, Mr. Speaker, let' s just take a look at the philosophy and the brains of this government putting this kind of amendment into my resolution.

The Minister of Finance stood up in this House not 20 minutes ago and said this govern ment is not going to attack inf lation, they have no anti- inf lationary policies and they' re not going to do ap.ything about it . Not 15 minutes ago the Minister of Finance stood up in this House, and here we have a resolution, Mr. Speaker, put in by the Honourable Member for Radis son, he says now we're going to adopt policies designed to lower mortgage rates to six percent. That' s a bunch of hogwash.

Eit her the Minister of Finance is lying or the Member for Radisson is lying because you're not going to do anything about inf lation. The Minister of Finance has already spelled it out loud and clear tonight and ten minutes later the Minister of Radisson comes in and who is going to believe anybody across there now, Mr. Speaker ? Who can believe this government or any of the things that they're putting on the Order Paper when they come in with those kind of stupid amendments to our resolutions ? lt' s ridiculous, Mr.

Speaker, for that man, the Whip of the NDP Party, to continue to come in here witr those kind of amendments and I hope the Premier will reprimand him and give him some idea of what resolutions mean and what amendments mean. Because it' s a farce, it' s an absolute farce and it' s a disgrace to the parliamentary system, a disgrace fo r those kind of amendments to be offered to our resolutions. It is. Mr. Speaker, I just can't stand that.

I've been in this Legislature a long time and I very seldom get mad but I'm mad tonight and I'm real mad and I'm very unhappy with the way that the House Leader and the Whip of the NDP Party are treat ing our resolutions. Now let' s talk, Mr. Speaker, about my resolution. He amends it and he says, delete the word "excessive." What' s excessive to you ? Twenty percent inte rest? Fif teen percent inte rest ? Excessive to them, Mr. Speaker, is let the inflationary factor just boom. Let it go to fifteen, let it go to 20 percent. That's what he said. Mr.

Speaker, in the second. he deletes--f rom the second "whereas" delete the word "excessive" . Mr. Speaker, that's what• s wrong with this government and that' s why there are problems today because they don't know there is such a thing as inf lation and it' s eroding the soul of every taxpayer in this province and destroying little people, lit tle people. And the NDP come in here and say that we're going to stand up and fight for the little people. Mr . Speaker, they don' t know what little people are if they' re going to put in those kind of resolutions and not attack excessive cost of housing in this province.

Mr. Speaker, isn't it interesti ng - I got a direct ive from the Premier of British Columbia the other day, this man Barrett. He's dropping the sales tax on building materials. Isn' t that int eresting? But I guess the Whip hasn't got it yet. He never gets his mail for about two weeks. But when he gets it he'll find out the NDP Party in British Columbia are supporting my resolution. Absolutely. All the way. Supporting it. Have sent a directive to Ottawa urging. the Government of Canada to delete the sales tax off building materials. That' s a fac t. That• s policy of the NDP Party of British Columbia. Mr.

Speaker, the Leader of the Conservative Party come out in Ottawa the other day loudly supporting my resolution and says, let's get off the backs of the taxpayers and get some of the taxes off them. Let• s remove the building tax off building material. The re's two political leaders in this country have recognized that my re solution has something of value for the people of this province and for Canada. But, Mr. Speaker, for the Member for Radi sson to come in with such a brainy idea as he's got there, delete the word "excessive", and he says he's going to get--f ind six percent.

He's going to drop the rates to six percent. And what does the Government of Canada say today ? Ei ght and a quarter. And if you go and borrow that kind of money what' s it going to cost you on the street ? Ten and a quarter. Mr. Speaker, let the Member fo r Radi sson go and tell his NDP friends and tell all those people that believe in that philosophy you'll never see six percent interest again for a decade as long as you're government of this province, and maybe never, because you don' t understand what it' s all about. You're not prepared to fight inflation.

The Minister of Finance said in the House here tonight, he says it' s no problem. I've made three speeches, Mr. Speaker, in the Legislature since this session opened on inflation, trying to get it into your thick heads over there that it' s a problem, it' s a

2454 April 15, 197 4 RESOLUTION 16 (MR. McKENZIE cont'd) ..• serious problem. And that's why I put the resolution in. But these lamebrained amendments such as we're getting from the Member for Radisson, Mr. Speaker, it's unbelievable. Unbelievable that the people of Radisson have got the intelligence to elect that man, to elect that man who would come in with that kind of an amendment to my resolution. All I'm asking, Mr. Speaker, is write a letter to the Federal Government or urge the Federal Government to delete the ten percent, twelve percent, off the building material. Mr. Speaker, they don't want to do it.

No, they don't want to do it. They're going to talk about six percent. Man, who can dream today and ever talk about six percent money? I'm sure the Member for Radisson likely can find some out in his constituency but I sure can't find it in mine. Nor can the people in my constituency that are looking for housing dollars today to build their houses. Six percent money. Mr. Speaker, that shows you how ridicuous that amendment was, not only by the way he handled it by you cutting it off with the scissors, it had no thought in it at all. He never even had a chance to read it until he came into the House tonight.

He pulls the Votes and Proceedings over and tears it off or sends you up the whole book, Mr. Speaker, and that's just the way this government is running the province today, Mr. Speaker. They just work from one minute to the next, the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. They're in one box after another, scandal, problems, everybody alleging things, papers being put on the desks every day. Mr. Speaker, in great haste tonight, the Member for Radisson comes in here in a heck of a hurry and he grabs his Votes and Pr oceedings and sends it up to the Speaker, says "Cut it off, Mr.

Speaker, there, with the scissors. That's my amendmen t". Mr. Speaker, you can't blame me for being annoyed tonight in this House. I put a resolution in here that makes a lot of sense and I'll just read it into the record once more, for the Member of Radisson especially:

WHEREAS the costs of building and maintaining buildings in the Pr ovince of Manitoba have increased at an excessive rate during the past two years; (Has anybody got any quarrel with that statement? Outside of the Member for Radisson? No. )

WHEREAS the cos ts of building and maintaining private dwellings in Manitoba have in creased at an excessive rate during the past two years . Mr. Speaker, is that a fact? That is a fact, but he says take out the word "excessive" because in his mind it's not a fact. I say it is a fact, and I'll bet you every member in this Legis lature will stand up and support me that it is a fact, that the costs of building and maintaining private dwellings in Manitoba have increased at an excessive rate during the last--and that is a fact, and I challenge the Member for Radisson in his amendment. My next clause, Mr. Speaker:

WHEREAS the costs of building and maintaining buildings to house our indus trial base in Manitoba have greatly increased as well; Isn't that a fact, Mr. Speaker? Ask anybody in this province that• s looking for industrial. . . or is trying to expand, if the costs haven't increased. The Member fQr·Radisson says "No. I'll go and find you some six percent money. " This is his amendment. And I hope he'll put a sign on tomorrow morning and pace up and down Portage Avenue and let the businessmen of this province know that he'd give six percent money from the Member for Shafransky.

He'd be the laughing stock of the Legislature and the laughing stock of this province. Six percent money, when the Bank of Canada already said 8-1 /4 today. Street money, ten and a quarter. Mr. Speaker, I finally said: THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Manitoba Legisla ture give consideration to the advisability of asking - not just asking - the Government of Canada to rescind the 12 percent sales tax on building material. Now, Mr. Speaker, isn't that a humane thing for a member of this Legisla ture to do? Especially for the little people, the guys that haven't got the bucks, that have to go and borrow money to build their houses. To ask the Fede1al Government to rescind the 12 percen t. And the Member for Radisson says, "I can't buy it. I'll get you six percent money, you guys down town. " And here it is in his resolution.

They' re going to adopt policies designed to lower mortgage rates to six percent. Isn't that a dream? That• s the dream of the next century, be cause I don't know who's ever going to see six percent money as long as this kind of governments are going to look after the people of this province. I doubt if they'll ever. I bet you within--if we leave this government here, Mr. Speaker, for another two or three years, we're going to be facing 20 percent interest, because they don't know there's an inflationary problem and they're they're not going to fight it. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm annoyed, I'm unhappy, and I think my

April 15, 1974 2455 RESOLUTION 16 (MR. MC KENZIE cont'd) ..• resolution has been mistreated, and with those remarks I ask those members, outside of the Member for Radisson, to vote down his stupid amendment and support my resolution. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MR. AXWORTHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this, what I think is a series of unfortunate approaches to the problem of housing. We over the past three or four weeks, five or six weeks, have discussed in different bits and snatches the problem of housing.

It seems to me that there has been one trait or pattern that has evolved and that is that we have developed a very interesting technique at trying to pass the buck; that whenever you 're trying to zero in on an issue that deserves probably the most utmost serious attention of people of this House, instead it ends up in a gambit of making point s, scoring off the other fellow, blaming the other jurisdictio n, trying to eliminate those areas of responsibility for which this jurisdiction has responsibility, putting the onus on the other fellow; in other words, playing the old shell game.

As long as you keep those shells moving around, no one will really have to tag the people with the responsibility for responsibility. And the tragedy of the amendment and counter-amendments and sub-amendments, new proposals, is that we are doing a serious dis service to the people of this province because we're not seriously attacking the issue, which as other members pay great homage to, is one of the most important fa ctors in the existence of every day fam ilies in the province, and that is the rising cost of housing of all kinds. Because the fact of the matter is, Mr.

Ch airman, while the Federa l Government bears its share of responsibility for practices, so does the Provincial Government share its responsibi lities for practices, as does municipal government, as do private builders, as do in many cases of consumers themselves; and in each case there's a series of restraints, or a series of factors which inhibit or prohibit the ability of this community, or this organization of the society of ours to come to grips with the problem of housing.

As long as what we have witne ssing going on now with the kind of amendments we have from the Member of Radisson and others, is simply passing the buck, then we are not going to be able to answer the problem of housing in all its facets and all its ways.

I suppose if there's any one lesson that should emerge out of this somewhat kind of ridiculous game that we're engaged in at the present moment, it 's that in some cases--they used to say war is much too serious a problem to leave to the generals, I'm beginning to think that perhaps housing is much too serious a problem to leave to politicians because all of a sudden we're not prepared in this Chamber to treat it as seriously as it deserves and instead we're using it as a political fo otball which we can try to sort of make yards on the opposition measures eit her in terms of other political parties or opposition in terms of other jurisdictions.

And it 's that particular fact which I find disturbing in what's happened this evening; that not only do we waste an awful lot of time with shenanigans - and Sir, it 's no fault of your own, I think it traces back to the motivations of those who are making the movements of amendments and so on - that rather than sort of seriously addressing the issue, it was an attempt to simply to try to take the light of exposure off in this case the Provincial Government and focus it on somebody else.

So as a matter of course what happens is we are still add ressing ourselves to partial solutions in partial ways with in many cases very much a partial approach and almost no motivation at all. . . . . . Continued on next page.

2456 April 15, 197 4 RESOL UTION 16 (MR. AXWORTHY cont '

d) So on this particular amendment, Mr. Speaker , I would simply like to raise certain points concerning the intent of it. I think that inflation in housing is not caused by any one factor, it is not solely a consequence of, as the Member from Roblin would have us think, building materia ls. Building materials account in most cases for about 25 to 30 percent of the cost of a housing unit. Far more extravagant in the upward push on cost at the present moment, or equally as extravagant with build ing material is the problem of land.

So on the one hand we have the Member from Roblin saying, let's ask the Federal Government to reduce their 11 percent sales tax. All right. That makes some sense. At the same time, at the same time, we should be asking the real question as, what is the Provincial Government doing about the general problem of land, becaus e the control and application and implementation of a land policy in the City of Winnipeg is very much a provincial responsibility and there has been very little effo rt being done on that level.

At the same time you can look at the question of the impact of building codes and regulations and zoning arrangements, which in some cases adds anywhere from a $1, 000 to $1, 500 per normal bungalow housing unit, which is very much a responsibility jointly shared by provincial and municipal authorities, and nothing's really much being done in that area.

So if you begin adding up on your finger, what you're saying is that a resolution, if we'd been able to bring all of it together and kind of come to some sharing of minds on the thing, we might have been able to come up with a fairly decent and responsible resolution. Instead, what we're busily trying to do is poke holes in one of the other types of propositions that have been placed before this House.

Now I would think that in terms of the member's amendment himself, the proposal to reduce the interest rate to six percent is not quite as ludicrous as the Member from Roblin intima tes ; that unquestionably if we were to reduce the interest rate to six percent right across-the-board it would basically bankrupt the nation.

Because one of the reasons why the interest rate was set free in 1967 -68, as members would recall, at that time was geared to the lending rate that the Government of Canada could borrow money, it was set at one and one quarter percent above that, it was set free simply as a means of attract ing more capital into the mortgage market. If you don 't have capital in the mortgage market, then you won't have a supply housing. If you don 't have enough supply housing, then the costs will go up. So that obviously the mortgage market was set free. Did the member wish to raise a point or question ? MR.

DOERN: Just leaving. MR. AXWORTHY: Okay. Fine. So that the fact of the matter, however, where the con cern about interest rates should have been properly--or is to look at how a reduction or a sub sidy of interest rates could have been particularly applied to middle income or middle level families who can no longer afford housing on the private market.

In an interestin g analysis called a two-step flow of housing, it showed that if in fact a form of interest subsidy applied to mortgages was applied to families in a range of making between six and nine thousand dollars to enable them to purchase new homes, this would free up existing stock in the housing market for lower income fami lies, which in many cases would supply the non-existent low-income housing that we have in the Province of Manitoba because we're not building any, the Member of St. Matthews to the contrary.

So, in other words, if you had been able to properly orchestrate that question of a sub sidy of interest rates down to a six percent, it would have provided incentive for middle and lower middle income fami lies to purchase homes, and the accommodation that they would have would have then become available in a very direct sort of filtering arrangement for lower in come fam ilies, because we're simply not building any--or pardon me, we built some 400-odd units last year; I wouldn 't want to have the Member from St. Matthews pore over it with his fine tooth comb and notice a comma out of place.

So the fact of the matter is that the proposal put forward by the Member of Radisson, if it had been a little bit more carefully thought out and it had been a little bit more selective in its approach, whether being directed to what is a current need and that is to provide an incentive for purchases of fami lies, particularly young fam ilies, to give an incentive, and in fact they might have adopted a proposal which is now becoming fairly common in Europe and that is to index the interest rate; that over a period of years, as a fa mily's income grows, that lower or subsidized interest rate tends to be reduced - I think it 's in the Netherlands, and I could be mistaken, where the interest rate is subsidized to a fairly heavy extent in the first years of a mortgage, say for a young family which is just

April 15, 1974 2457 RESOLUT ION 16 (MR. AXWORTHY cont'd) ..... starting to earn income, over a period of 15 years it reduces to the point where it is then paying the same mortgage interest rate as any other family. So it is indexed over a period of ten or fifteen years. So I think that there is a certain interesting purpose, a certain interesting rationale. At the same hand, I think that the proposal on building ma terials also makes sense and there is no need to delete it simply to achieve some kind of scoring advantage by members of the other side.

Because unquestionably, and I refer members again to the Economic Council report of last year, the tenth annual review, which pointed out that if you look at the Consumer Price Index, the rise in building materials is again one of the most significant impacts upon the Consumer Price Index; that we have tended to use the CPI as some indicator of infl ationary trends . What we don't point out is that the two incidents of both food and building materials are far above the median of the Consumer Price Index, which means they are simply the inflation leaders in the country.

So it does make sense certainly to reduce the five percent sales tax in this province on building material s, which the Minister of Finance and others across the House have vehemently opposed, just as it would make sense to recommend to the Federal Government that they reduce their one percent building material tax. Then we come to the member's proposals that deal with the question of land. And again, there was something - and I 've tried to read it quickly - about asking CMHC to assist the pro vinces and municipalities to supply more serviced land.

Well I don't know whether the member has read it or not, but there was a thing called the National Housing Act amendments that were passed last year, which in effe ct of fered 90 percent financing for the acquisition of public land and for servicing, as well as to provide very favoura ble write-off procedures.

And I would suggest at some point and perhaps--I know the Member of Radisson wasn't able to stay around for the debate on his own amendment, but it may be important for him at times to look at what the National Housing Act has got to say about what is the federal position and the kind of federal stimulants and incentives presently available to the provinces and municipalities for their use.

I think that the point we've been trying to make in this House repeatedly is that, the promises of the Minister of Housing to the contrary, the performance of this government in the last four years in the field of land policy has been non-existent. The only major activity they have is to give money back, which I suppose has some kind of negative value.

But the fact of the matter is that we properly need a land policy that combines a new tax system to control land speculation in the urban fringe, and I would suggest very strongly that the Minister of Finance look at some variation of a land value tax system, which is now being introduced by a few American cities and in places like Australia, which would provide the em phasis of taxa tion, not on the improvements to the land but on the value of the land itself and its potential value.

I think this could be a very important way of both reducing the cost of land in the urban fr inge and cutting down on speculative activity, because it is simply not enough to assemble land. The assembly or banking of land in and around the city must be done in com plete co-ordination with a tax policy, with zoning policy, and with development policy, so they fit a packa ge. I think it 's fair to say that one of the impacts that we're now suffering in Winnipeg through some of the purchases of the Provincial Government is simply to induce a further escalation in land cost around the perimeter.

At the same time, if they try to purchase land within a twenty or thirty-mile fringe, it has no immediate impact upon the cost of housing, so that in ef fect a land assembly program is either a fut ure-oriented policy, which I could certainly fully support, but there is nothing bein g done to meet the immediate question, and the immediate thing could be done through, first, the question of changing tax policies, and then begin looking- and I was surprised to find, looking at the City of Winnipeg Act, that really not much effort was made to look again at the performance of the zoning procedures that the City of Winnipeg must now use, because I don't see anywhere in those any major mechanism that changes the mechani sm that will speed up the ability to process land development to provide for a more contemporary sense of land zoning so that we can get away from the traditional form of R1, R2, R3, which is basically ineffectual anyway in controlling development.

Also speaking of the supply of land, there is now bei ng again incorporated in some cities in North America the concept of planning of development, which provides criteria for the zoning area or subdivision development, which looked at things like density and amenities and so forth - which again is the way you're paying the outlying costs, because it induces a higher degree of density.

2458 April 15, 197 4 RESOLUTI ON 16 (MR. AXWORTHY cont'

d) So, again, what I'm simply saying is that rather than coming at this subject in a more comprehensive way and saying, "Lookit, let's quit fooling around with this thing; let's recog nize that it's not something that we can hammer each other over the head with; let's simply recognize that there's a number of faults and sins of omission at all levels of government and that we ne ed to basically repair a whole range of programs. " Let me move on to another question on the whole things of building codes and building materials.

This is again something that comes very much under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Government, looking at the question of housing standards, waiver codes and the application of those practices. Again, a number of useful experiments have been introduced in the industrialization of housing; and again, if you look at the building codes and standards that have been brought in when we brought in the National Building Code as a universal factor, we found out that what it again did was tended to freeze into legislation, into law, certain practices which simply again aid and abet the increased cost in housing.

Again, here is an area where some fairly useful and innovative kinds of amendments and changes could be introduced by the Provincial Government, in combination with the municipalities, but again we see no action; instead we'r e back at the old sort of Punch and Judy game; you slap me and I'll slap you back. And so, Mr.

Speaker, I think that the underlying concern that this group would like to express is that if we continue to approach the problem of housing in this fractious way that were designed primarily as a means to make and serve political advantage, then we are simply going to watch the cost of housing increase and the frustration of the housing consumer increase, and will then reach crisis porportions and will destroy the credib ility of any level of govern ment that people really believe we are seriously intending to do something about immediate problems.

And I think that that, ultimately, is the most seri ous condemnation that can be made of this amendme nt and that is the fault with it, that it really symbolizes or indicates a lack of cr edibility and a lack of interest and a lack of pursuit of what is becoming probably one of the most major social and domestic problems . I suppose the thing with housing is it is not something that can be designed to grab a fashionable or fancy headline. It is a kind of day by day ever-grinding but ever-increasing cost. You can' t undertake great dramatics in this field.

It requires in many cases - and I would sug gest in many cases - a multi-partisan approach that provides bringing together the best minds that exist in this Chamber and, rather than using those minds and those opinions to clobber one another, it requires the ability to sort of point out the faults and errors but then to come to some consensus or conclusion as to how the problem can be solved.

I suppose it indicates in some cases the limitation of this kind of adversary system that we work under, a system that I suppose as a new member I find frustrating at times, that it doesn 't enable us to put ourselves and apply ourselves to a problem which I think is of major concern and using it in the best way possible.

Pe rhaps if the government were to take an initiative and set up a special committee of this House to look into the problems of housing costs and how it can be attacked on a local and provincial level, that might be one medium of bringing together the different points of view and applying themselves to it. Because obviously it's difficult to lay out a comprehensive analysis of all the factors that underlie the rise in housing prices and how the different juri sdictions and different agencies and different organizations must begin to co-ordinate and orchestrate their policies in some combination and co-ordination.

So I think that should probably be the message. I know that in true-to-form the amendment will be supported and it will go in the record of this House that we think that, first, housing costs or the inflation is not excessive, and that, secondly, the responsibility for all this lies with the Federal Government, and I suppose this will give some satisfaction to some members opposite that they can kind of go home to their constituents and say, "Gee, aren 't we such good fellows ? Look at the amendment that was passed.

It's really not our fault at all, it's really the other fellow's fault, and after all, there really isn't any problem.

" But that simply is playing a charade, and I would hope that at some point in the near future we can end the charade and that this government and this Chamber will be able to apply itself in a full way with the talents available, and rather than approaching a problem in a rifle fashion, trying to bore in at one target at a time, that we approach it in an over-all fashion so that we can provide a far more important service to our constituents, and that is, in an extended and over-all way, to do something about the cost of housing rather than just talking about it.

April 15, 197 4 RESOLUT ION 16 QUESTI ON put on the amendment . MOTION declared carried. MR. McKENZIE: Ayes and nays, Mr. Speaker . MR . SPE AKER: Call in the members. A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result be ing as follo ws: Messrs. A dam Barrow Bostrom Boyce Burtniak Cherniack Derewianchuk Dill en Do ern Evans Gottfried Green Johan nson McBryde Messrs. As per Axworthy Ban man Bilton Blake Enns Ferguson Graham MR. CLERK: Yeas 27 , Nays 16. YEAS NAYS Malinowski Miller Os land Patt er son Paulley Petursson Schreyer Shafran sky Toupin Turn bull Uruski Uskiw Walding Henderson G.

Jo hnston McGill McKenzie Mar ion Minaker Patrick Watt MR. SPEAKER: In my opinion the ayes have it; I declare the amendment carried. Are you ready for the motion as amended ? QUEST ION put, MOTION carried. 2459 MR. SPEAKER: The hour of adjournment having arrived, the House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 2:30 tomorrow af ternoon. (Tuesday)

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-1-89
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 1st hansardpdf 89.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	299f91a097f97878de700fad8306210cbc4a2455

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