Manitoba Hansard — 17 July 1970 (Sitting 152, 29th Legislature, 2nd Session)

29-2-152

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 o'clock, Friday, July 17, 1970 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions; .Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Re ports by Standing and Special Committees. REPORTS BY STANDING COMMITTEES MR. LAURENT L, DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources. MR. CLERK: Your Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources begs leave to present the following as their Third Report. Your Committee has considered Bill: No. 123 -

An Act to amend The Wildlife Act. And has agreed to report the same without amendment. Your Committee has also considered Bills: No. 17 - The Manitoba Natural Resources Development Act. No. 65 -

An Act to· amend The Commissioner of Northern Manitoba Affairs Act. And has agreed to report the same with certain amendments. All of which is respectfully submitted. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Churchill, that the report of the Committee be received. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SIDNEY SPIVAK, Q. C. (River Heights): . . . comment. The report presents bills that have been referred to the Committee.

The· Committee will be meeting in connection with Bill 56 and we will be hearing a number of delegations. There is still one other matter before the Committee that I hope would be considered to be dealt with in this Session, and that is the opportunity for the committee to hear the representation and information and evidence of Mr. Bill Fallis, General Manager of Hydro. We know, Mr.

Speaker, from the evidence presented so far that Hydro faces, towards the end of this month, a major decision as to whether South Indian Lake is to be proceeded with, either a middle diversion or a high level diversion, and I would believe that it's not appropriate at this time because we're only dealing with the bills, but I think it's important that the government understand that it's the intention of this side to insist that Mr.

Fallis, as General Manager of Hydro, be called before the Committee so that we will have an opportunity of hearing evidence and be in a position to know what is going to take place with the high level of the middle level diversion. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. JACOB M. FROESE (Rhineland): Mr.

Speaker, on that same note I would support the Honourable Member for River Heights in his request to have this hearing take place before this House prorogues so that honourable members will have a chance to question him and so that we can assess the situation properly before a decision is made. MR. SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Matthews. MR. WALLY JOHANNSON (St. Matthews): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Fourth Re port of the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs. MR.

CLERK: Your Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs begs leave to present the following as their Fourth Report. Your Committee appointed Mr. Johannsen as Chairman, replacing Mr. Boyce who will be absent for the Remainder of the Session. Your Committee has considered Bills: No. 110 -

An Act to amend The Housing and Renewal Corporation Act. No. 130 -

An Act to amend The Municipal Board Act. No. 136 -

An Act to amend The Winnipeg Charter, 1956, (3). No. 133 -

An Act to amend The Municipal Boundaries Act. No. 144 -

An Act to validate By-law No. 1695 of The Town of The Pas. No. 145 -

An Act respecting The Town of Beausejour. No. 146 -

An Act to amend The Municipal Act. And has agreed to report the same without amendment.

L 3832 Jqly 17' 1970 (MR. CLERK cont'd.) Your Committee has also considered Bllls: No. 39 - The Municipal Act. No. 63 -

An Act to amend The St. Boniface Charter, 1953. No. 129 -

An Act to amend The Metropolitan Winnipeg Act. And has agreed to report the same with .certain amendments. MR. JOHANNSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Gimli, that the report of the Committee be received. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion ca-rried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable·. Member for St. Boniface. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Firs.t Report of the Special Com mittee on Professional Associations. MR. CLERK: Your Special Committee 'on Professional Associations begs leave to pre sent the following as their First Report. Your Committee has reconsidered Bill No. 10,

An Act to amend The Optometry Act, and has agreed to report the same with certain amendments; 1. e., Sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were passed without amendment and

Section 2 was deleted. All of which is respectfully submitted. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Churohill, that the report of the committee be received. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, although I voted agalnst the deletion of the particular item mentioned in the report, I must say, Mr. Speaker, I will vote for approval of this motion, or in favour of this motion.

In the Committee, reference was made of the fact that it was my be llef thst there was a possibility of a minority re!loort being presented. There was some disa greement from the Clerk and I would like to indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of the House, that I was wrong. My information was based on a misreading of

Section 318 of Beauchesne in which theTe is a procedure in which an alternative draft report, which could be a minority report, can be presented to the Committee for its consideration and the majority report does not have to necessarily be accepted. The majority report can be present!;ld and the minority report can be presented and the Committee then, if it approves the minority r!;lport, can acc!;lpt the minority r!;lport. -- (Interjection) -- If I may, Mr. Speaker, so that there will be no question of the reference that I'm suggesting, this is

Section 318, Citation 2, in which it says, ''by proposing an alternative draft report or moving an amendment of the ques tion for reading the draft report a second time in the committee," and whether my understand ing is entirely correct or whether I'm even wrong in this area, I was wrong before and. I rise to point that out, Mr. Speaker, particularly to the chairman who has been very kind and con siderate notwithstanding · the fact that there was a disagreement between myself and he on this particular item. MR. SPEAKE.R put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR.

SPEAKER: Notices of Motion; Introduction of bills; Orders of the Day. The Hon ourable Member for Rhineland. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the First Minister, I will dfrect my ques tion to the House Leader. Has the government taken any action so far yet on the matter of assisting the people who were flooded in the Altona-Gretna area? HON. SIDNEY GREEN, Q. C. (Minister of Mines and Natural Resources) (Inkster): No, Mr. Speaker. MR. FROESE: Has the government not had any reply from the federal authorities in connection with assistance? MR. GREEN: Not that I'm aware of, Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry and Commerce. I wonder whether he could indicate to the House whether the information furnished earlier to day by the Minister of Labour in connection with the unemployment figures has any relationship to the information made available to the news media which would indicate the exports out of Manitoba are down.

JUiy l'i, 1970 HON, LEONARD S, EVANS (Minister of Industry and Commerce) (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, there are so many variables affecting unemployment. One major variable, of coutse, is the policy of the Federal Government to fight inflation,- which is creating a considerable amount of recessionary influences right across the country. Obviously there are too many variables to give a precise answer. J MR. SPIVAK: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If exports out of Manitoba to Canada and if exports out of Manitoba outside of Canada are down, does it not affect the actual employment figures?

Does it not affect the actual employment figures in Manitoba? MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is hypothesizing. It's sheer specula- tion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. BUD SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the First Minister, 1 direct my question to the Minister of Finance.

In view of the fact that -- it arises out of the fact that the current issue of the Manitoba Business Journal features a cover story on the pro jected new headquarters building on the Board of Grain Commissioners in Winnipeg, and in view of the fact that nothing has happened on the site where the building is to go, up to the pres ent time, I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the current economic slowdown is re tarding plans to go ahead with that building. HON. SAUL CHERNIACK, Q.C. (Minister of Finance) (St.

John's): I might indicate to the honourable memoor that 1 was informed by my wife it appeared that her parking lot was still secure, briefly, for some period of time. As to the question of the economic situation in rela tion to the construction of the building, I suggest he communicate with the proper authorities who would have a proper knowledge as to what their plans are. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. J.WALLY McKENZIE (Roblin): A question to the Minister of Transportation, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the Minister can indicate whether his road construction program is on time, or is he ahead of time, or is he behind with the weather we've had this spring? HON. JOSEPH P. BOROWSKI (Minister of Transportation) (Thompson): We're behind time due to the weather. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance in the absence of the First Minister. I wonder whether he could indicate to the House whether the government has scrapped its support of the skyway plan for Downtown Winnipeg. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, the terminology is so completely wrong that I can't really answer it properly without going into much greater detail, but let me first say that the Provincial Government never had a skyway program and certainly was not in a position to scrap it. The Provincial Government's attitude to this entire program has not changed. MR. SPIVAK: A supplementary question. 1 wonder if the Finance Minister could indi cate whether it's not the government's intention to support the building of a convention centre which would not, therefore, assist in the development of the skyway plan as proposed by the City of Winnipeg.

MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, the question is worded in such a nice negative - I think it may be a. triple negative way - that I can only answer it by saying that our attitude to develop ment of the downtown core is positive and has not changed. MR. SPIVAK: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister of Finance could indicate whether the government is now working with a developer other than the developers of Centrepoint for the creation and development of a convention centre facility not connected in the skyway plan. MR. CHERNIACK: The government is keeping all avenues open. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Honourable Minister of Government Services - I think I'm correct in directing the question to him. Why were the reeves not invited to Her Majesty's visit when the mayors of various towns and villages were invited? HON. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Minister of Government Services) (Transcona): I wonder if my honourable friend would repeat that question. MR. FROESE: Yes. The question is: why were the reeves of the various municipalities not invited to Her Majesty's visit here when the mayors were invited?

L .3834 .July 17. 1910 MR. ~AULLEY: I cannot answer my honourable friend, Mr. Speaker. It was not a func tion under the auspices of the Government of the Province of Manitoba. MR~ FROESE: Could I ask then. under whose auspices this function was carried out? MR. PAULLEY: I'm not sure, Mr. Speaker, but I will endeavour to find out for the in formation of my honourable friend. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to direct a question to the Minister of Cultural Affairs. How come that the various Centennial committees that were set up through out the province were not invited to Her Majesty's visit? MR.

CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, may I indicate that the question had been asked previ ously and I was informed that there simply was not enough room, in connection with the Con cert Hall, the invitation to the reeves which was not given

whereas mayors were. I am told that the largest capacity was accommodated but there just was .not enough room for all. MR. FROESE: Does the Honourable Minister not consider this a slight against the reeves? MR. CHERNIACK: Well, Mr. Speaker, since I was prepared to give the answer, then I would certainly not be prepared to voice opinions because I believe the Honourable Member for Rhineland, s.nd I know that I, was not invited either. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Honourable Minister of Government Services.

I wonder whether he could indicate to the House that ln the event of Bill 56 passing whether it would be the government's intention of putting the auto insurance ... MR. SPEAKER: I believe the honourable member is asking a hypothetical question on· Orders of the Day. MR. SPIVAK: Well then, I'll phrase it another way, Mr. Speaker, to the Honourable Minister of Government Services. Is the Winnipeg Auditorium going to be altered to be able to house the Auto Insurance Corporation? MR.

PAULLEY: May I reply to my honourable friend that the Department of Government Services along with other depart~Jl.ents are considering the future use of the Winnipeg Auditor ium. It may or it may not include provisions for the Automobile Insurance Commission after Bill 56 is passed. MR. SHERMAN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister of Govern ment Services have any plans for the Auditorium should Bill 56 not pass? MR. PAULLEY: Bill 56 will pass, Mr. Speaker. MR. SHERMAN: On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if I might appeal through you, Sir, and point out that I think the Minister of Government 5ervices misinterpreted my question. That was not the question I asked. Does the government have any plans for the Audi torium should it not be used to house the Automobile Insurance Commission? MR. SPEAKER: May I remind the honourable member the question is a hypothetical one and is out of order under that provision of Beauchesne's rules. The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. HARRY ENNS (Lakeside): On the point of order . . . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR.

ENNS: On the point of order, I would have to take issue with you, Sir, regarding that the passing of Bill 56 is hypothetical . ; . MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order please. Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Government Services. I wonder if the Minister would indicate the storage charges that are being paid by the province for the 70 cars and three trucks that will be used for the govern ment's auto insurance program. Would he indicate the monthly rate that's being charged and who is paying it? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Honourable Minister of Government Services would indicate whether any part of the Auditorium facility would be available for conventions within the period of the next year. MR. PAULLEY: . . . matter of policy and it is under active consideration not only by the Department of Government Services but government as a whole. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland.

.July 17, 1070 3835 MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a further question to the Minister of Gov- ' ernn'lent Services. Who made the decision as to whether the reeves or the mayors were in vited? MR. PAULLEY: I do not know. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister for Cul tural Affairs, that Mr.

Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into Com mittee of the Whole to consider the following bills: Nos. 43, 115, 141, 67, 88, 89, 90, 94, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, 104 - and there are some more :.. and others. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried, and the House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole with the Honourable Member for Elmwood in the Chair. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE MR. CHAIRMAN: On Bill 115,

an Act to amend The Mining Royalty and Tax Act, we are dealing with the amendment proposed by the Honourable Member for Riel, that

Section 3 of Bill 115 be amended by deleting

section 7(2), 7(3) and 7(3.1), and-striking out the figures and letters "2 and 3" in the first line of the section. Are you ready for the question? The Honour able Member for Churchill. MR. GORDON W. BEARD (Churchill): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad the Member for Lakeside came back after having a good SUPper, I presume. It would appear when I was listening to him that he had felt that perhaps the government were going to go around producing mines all over Northern Manitoba, and if this was the case it would be all the more reason why I would say I would endorse this bill. It would be a very good idea.

But I think that actually 1f they would take a look at the money, or we'll call it the rental, of an area during the time in which the company use it, because after the company is finished with it they move out and that's it, and I think that we've had a look at Sherridon, we've had a look at Bissett, and maybe we'll have a look at more from time to time, and if there is money put aside in which a government or a fund is made available to help the people that have been encouraged to live in that one particular area, and to help them to rehabilitate whether it be 20 years after or perhaps 100 years after when their children or their grandchildren are living in that area, where you are looking at a non-renewable resource, then there is always that chance.

And I'm sure that the honourable member had an opportunity, as I did, to read in one of the local papers in respect to just how much our resources were worth to us in Canada and just how long they could last if they were sold to the United States, which is one of the larger consumers, and I'm not saying that this isn't right, that it shouldn't be done, but a great deal of our product that is known today would be lost in 20 years from now. MR. ENNS: Could I make an interjection at this point?

I would like to follow, as I fol low everyone's remarks with a great deal of attention in this House, and want to know whether he is talking about Bill 17 or Bill 115? MR. BEARD: I was trying to follow the remarks that the honourable member . . . MR. DESJARDINS: Which one were you talking on? MR. BEARD: . • . was talking on just before 5:30, and since they are so closely as sociated I think that we can talk with both of them.

But we could say that if the remarks were right in this issue that in 20 years we could have sold the raw products of - what is it - urani um, iron ore, lead, mercury, copper, potash, zinc, gold, petroleum, natural gas, water, etc. , that it could be used UP within maybe some of our own lifetimes, then I think that we have got to turn around and say, well, how much is this really worth to us? Are we going to continue in the past, as we have in the past, of accepting the fact that an integrated system, one integrated system is enough in this country? Is that all our resource is worth to us? And I would say no.

I would say that we should be getting something else out of it, because pre sumably if we are exporting - and I think minerals come very close to one of the top exports of Canada as a whole, and certainly the natural resources is "the" top export in Canada today - then we must presume that all the other countries are making use of it, but we are not. All we are getting is a small r~ntal for it, and I would hope that rather than consider such small funds as replacing towns, etc. , that there be a fabrication set UP, a plant set UP. because the

3836 Jt~J,_y 17, 19'10 (MR. BEARD cont'd.) ••••• Member for Lakeside said, ''Well, really, what do you expect government to do? Pour hundreds of millions of dollars into exploration programs. " I don't believe this is right. I don't feel that this is the avenue they have to take.

But I would say to them, and I would hope the Member for Lakeside would listen to this, that fabrication plans are much more interesting to me than the straight mining itself, and if he can justify to me the fact that we can allow the product to continue to be exported out of this country at $1. 00 up to $1. 28 a pound, and justify in our own minds that this is what is necessary to develop the north today, then I would say that he is very, very short-sighted - very, very short-sighted because, on the other hand, he says beware; beware of the green book; beware of the green book, be cause it tells you that if you are not careful they are going to take the money . • • MR.

ENNS: I'm more worried about the red book these fellows have. MR. BEARD: Yes. They're going to take the money and they're going to take it to some place else •. I've been told that story before and I believe. I'm not in disagreement with this.

I think that you can milk the cow dry even if it comes from Lakeside, but I think, on the other hand, that those people that are flocking down to other areas of the world for nickel and for other minerals realize that they are in a very unstable area; that there are tremendous trans portation costs; that they have to start from nothing; that the labour force are taking advantage of the labour forces working for- I don't know what it is but I think it's around $1.00 a day, something like that, and I think that is very high • • . and keep, but that's up to that country to worry about that.

But I think the incentive must be put to these companies to continue to de velop Northern Manitoba in that they recognize that they must be good citizens, that they must be ·good citizens of the Province of Manitoba and the Dominion of Canada, and that if they are going to be good citizens of the Province of Manitoba and continue to be good citizens, then they must pay an adequate rental for that which is something they are going to take away that no one will ever be able to put back, Now, granted they are going to put some of their money back in finding other mineral de velopment, and the major companies today have continued to make money out of the ore bodies that they haye found, but what worries me more than ·what the Member for Lakeside said is what is not being developed today that is known to be ore bodies in the Province of Manitoba, and that's something that neither the Member for Lakeside nor myself nor the government know about.

This is a highly kept secret, and how long does it stay a secret? How long should a company be allowed to continue to keep this a secret? I think this is something that has to be looked into. Certainly they have invested money in it, but after that's finished what's the rental off it?

A hundred dollars a year a claim isn't it?- something like that- is what they have to pay, so I think that there are other things that you have to be if you are going to be a good citi zen of the Province of Manitoba or the Province of Saskatchewan, and it has been my experience in listening to people talk that there are incentives in other provinces and there are incentives in other countries, but the bigger incentive means the greater need there is for that incentive. There is something that the company has to do. There is more expected of the company.

And here we're getting into an age where we're into transportation into Northern Manitoba as it never has been before. We're into an age, I would hope, where there will be a further develop ment or an increased development in the use of the Port of Churchill, and if the member will remember back he will recall that I spoke upon an iron ore industry, a steel industry in the north.

I wasn't dreaming when I said that, but I tried to point out, if he was listening, that there was pure iron within 600 miles of that area, that there was nickel within 250 miles or less, and that there was coal that he talked about, where, in Saskatchewan, they would love to sell it to us, or in Sydney. -- (Interjection) -- It may be fool's gold to those people.

When you go to -- as I told you, the Maryland port authority -- (Interjection) -- it bas nothing to do with oil, For my friend's information you dori't produce -- if he'll talk to the member sitting next to him I think he will give him a lesson on the iron steel industry.

But I believe that you will find that these are the things that are right within that area, and with your tremendous hydro program you have bauxite at Greenland, just outside of Churchill, that could be used on this tremendous hydro program to develop the aluminum industry which the United States is going to require some 95 percent within a few short years.

These are the things that are necessary, I think, but we have got to remember that without control of some type or other, and government are going to be asked to keep this control, that even our renew able resources such as water and wood are retired because of pollution and because of the fact that we haven't protected them properly. So I don't know what the hang-up is, whether they feel

Jul:y17, 1970 3837 (MR. BEARD cont'd.) . • • • . that one natural resource is worth more to a country than the other, I'm just not sure, but I do feel that we will require each one, Mr. Chairman, if we are going to get along with the development of the whole of Manitoba. It's been brought forward by the rural members of all opposition that the agricultural in dustry is in trouble and we can't look to it but we have to actually assist it in relief in some form or another.

We have outgrown the fact that we can live with the agricultural industry and depending on the agricultural industry in entirety, and I would say that if we are going to use the remainder of our resource industry that we have to make sure that we are getting our rental out of it, and that these companies that are coming in here are good citizens, and as long as they remain good citizens this is fine, but what mining company today has gone any further than producing the product that they take out of the ground? And this is what is starting to bother me.

They say they are not interested in doing anything else with it. I read the statistics and it shows that this is one of the greatest exports that the; Canadian government has, is the ex port of our raw material, and I think that we have got to take that second look at that and say let's do something with it. Let's encourage them to do something with it.

And I would say, I have used a term that I think many friends in here will remember, and that's the turnkey in dustry type of deal, because somebody's got to start this fabrication; somebody's got to do it; and I would hope that it would be some of the others in government, really, quite truthfully. But we've waited for a long time. We've waited as long as the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company's been here; we've waited as long as the Slaerritt Gordon has been in opera tion; and we've waited as long as the International Nickel Company has been in operation.

But tell me, out of the whole mining industry in Northern Manitoba, what secondary industry has been developed in Manitoba? I haven't seen one.

And the mining industry, as well as the rest of Manitoba and as the Economic Council reminded each of us that those mining companies were dependent on the secondary industry; it was necessary, because some day they were going to run out of the material, so secondary industries are necessary and there's no good bringing in a secondary industry, a fabrication industry, after all the nickel is gone or after all the copper is gone, and I think it is time, long overdue, when we should be starting to do some thing along tb.is line, starting to encourage somebody to come in.

We've encouraged a forest industry; we've encouraged a forest industry to develop here, and the reason I suppose, . . . MR. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): The highest corporation tax. MR. BEARD: I'm not going to stand here and let the Member for Sturgeon Creek have me answer for the government - they can; but I suppose the highest corporation tax is neces sary because there wasn't fabrication industries here to develop the necessary revenue for the Province of Manitoba. It just may be that's the reason.

It just may be it's 600, 000 people in Metro Winnipeg trying to live out of each other's pocket; because you're only trading dollars, unless it's the agricultural industry you're dependent upon or the development of the rest of the province or what happens to pass through this province into the other provinces to the west. And we've already lost in Winnipeg as the distributor for western Canada- we're not the distri bution centre we used to be before.

We have lost, in fact, much of the distribution of even Northern Manitoba and certainly pretty well all of the northern Arctic, and this is what I'm trying to hope and pray, that somewhere along the line a transportation system, fabrication industries, can be brought into forests in the north, either with government assistance or with out government assistance, it doesn't matter. But I hate to see a product such as International Nickel's havlng to go 95 percent of it straight through to the United States, prepaid as far as Winnipeg, I believe it is, and from there on the customer picks up the rest.

But what does this do for Winnipeg? Not very much from that part on. Now mind you, granted, before they bought a lot of product to continue to develop their mine throughout the years. This is right. Granted. And I will say that up to that point mining is good for the Province of Manitoba, and I'm not backtracking at all.

Mining is good, but not so good that it couldn't be better, and I think that the fabrication itself industry, I think the fact that you have to turn the raw materials into something that is worthwhile instead of exporting bolus-bolus and then turning over to our children or our grandchildren a hole in the ground, a muskeg, something that has no value whatsoever to us -- I had hoped that mining may be the start of the development of the whole of the north so that we would not be a million populated province but a two or three million populated province and that it would reflect on all people regardless of where they live in the Province of Manitoba. ' 1 I \

L .July 1 '1, 19'10 MR. SHERMAN: I wonder if the preceding speaker would permit one question. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Fort Garey. MR. SHERMAN: I wonder if the Member for ChurchUl has any ideas or any proposals as to how the current market in Manitoba for fabricated metal"products can support any more metal fabricating industries that are already competing, some of them in a vecy marginal fashion, for existence at this time. Does he have any ideas as to how the market could support more of them? MR. BEARD: I'm sure the member would be aware of the size of the State of Maryla.yd.

I'm sure the member would be aware of the tact that the Port of Baltimore is in the State of Maryland and is the sixth largest city in Macyland. Over the last 20 years it has produced an iron ore steel industcy, the Bethlehem Steel Industcy, the largest, fully-integrated steel in dustcy in the world, and where does it bring its products from? The iron ore from South Africa, South America, Labrador. It brings ·its coal three to four hundred miles by rail, and it brings its nickel from either Thompson or Japan.

In this article, and if you're talking about competition, it states that the United States of America - I don't know whether I can find it now omot -but anyway, it states that the United States of America is a resource-poor countcy, a resource-poor countcy, the United States of America, and it is dependent upon importing the majority of its imports, and says, yet- yes. "Yet, from a resource viewpoint, the United States is a have-not nation. Some 33 separate minerals and other basic materials are on a critical list.

Among those the United States must now import and continue to do so on an ac celerating scale, are crude oil ••• "-and it just goes on with the other ones- copper, and those which I have already indicated to the members. But it does show that the product is necessacy, and if they can import it from thousands of miles away, then certainly we should be able to do it within a maximum area of 600 miles, a maximum area of 600 miles at a port and distribute it more, much more competitive than the Port of Baltimore in which we are much closer to many of the European markets tlh:ln they are. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Honourable Member from Churchill and I couldn't agree more. You know, really, when I made the comment "the highest ._,corporation tax" he made the comment back to me that the government would have to be re sponsible for the decisions that they have made. Certainly, we were on our way to having an area that would support fabrication of our raw materials. When you speak of the Town of Thompson, we're looking at a town that has developed from relatively nothing in ten years to 20, 000 people.

We have seen a company develop their mining and their processing of the products they take out of the ground to the point that it can be used in Manitoba and it wasn't available before. It is now. There are steel fabricators in this province at the present time, one that I work for, who bring their steel from mills from United States and eastern Canada, .and it wouldn't be wrong that they could fabricate these products from raw materials or from mUle that are presently in this province. The development of the north has to be -- first of all, hydro has to be available for them to do it and this is not happening.

All of a sudden, when we are on our way to moving to develop the resources of this province, which is some thing that we are working to - nobody agrees more than this side of the House that a raw ma terial shipped out of this province as a processed product or a manufactured product brings us more than shipping out the raw material to Baltimore or to the United States to proce&s - but certainly we were on our way there and all of a sudden we turn around and, as I ment~oned, we have the highest corporation tax, and then we have the highest personal ihcome tax, and now we are now going to tax the people taking our raw resources out of this province _even more -- (Interjection) -- Yes.

The Honourable Minister of Finance when he's 80 years old will be walking down the street saying: "I made the biggest tax shift in the histocy of the Province of Manitoba, " and as I said before there'll be one mUlion or 999, 000 people following him saying: "You got it all back damn near the next day. " But it bolls down to this. If you're going to -- (Interjection) -- that's right, and I will continue to, Joe - the Honourable Joe, I'm sorry - but I say vecy plainly we were on our way, to the Honourable Member of Churchill, and it has just had the lights put out on it like some body stamping on a mosquito.

They just had no regard whatsoever - whatsoever - about the fact that Manitoba has to be competitive. Manitoba must, in evecy way, shape or form, be competitive with other people that have raw materials, and I agree with the Honourable Memberfrom Churchill that we can iiS.Ve the supporting industry and the manufacturing that he

July 17, 1970 3839 (MR. F. JOHNSTON cont'd.) . • • . . suggests, and it's all-important. The big industries will come along and you will have lots of supporting small industries. You'll have men with imagination go into business, etc. , but not with what this government has presented to the province at the present time, and they're just fooling themselves.

This government is stand ing there fooling themselves, saying: "We've got the resources; we've got this, we've got that." If they take a look at their geography they'll find out other people have them too, and other people are co-operating, but this government's not co-operating. This government is not co operating with people who want to fabricate in this province and make this province grow. They are just going along saying: "We know what's best for you. " Certainly I don't intend to belabour the subject, Mr.

Chairman, and the reason why I rose is the Member from Churchill was saying exactly what I agree with.

But he is saying it to deaf ears when he's talking to this government, because there's no way that they have ever, at any time since they've been in power, had any consideration for this province moving ahead with its natural resources; and any movement we may have made, if there were mistakes made during that movement of going ahead, they haven't just tried to correct any mistakes, they have just tried to drag and absolutely discourage anybody from coming in any further, and they're just hard to talk to about it. In fact, you can't talk to them about it. But they won't recognize fact.

The fact is that you've got to be competitive; you've got to have the supporting manufacturing that you're speaking of and the processed products being shipped out of this province; but industry and people will not come in and do it with the situation the way it is now. And you mentioned Bill 17. The government will be in opposition to you in any way, sluipe or form that they want to be, and again, it's all very well to say that we'll go ahead and do it, but I'm telling you right now there isn't enough money in this province. You will invest large sums of money.

You will have them invested, and in order to have the second project get going you'll have to have large sums of money. To get the third one going you'll have to have large sums of money, and you'll have drained the province by the time you get to the second one. -- (Interjection) -- 1 know. The Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources will go into the 87 percent investment and he says in all his time in business while he's been a lawyer, 87 percent, 86 percent is a bad deal. 1 don't really have that much respect for his business ability . . . MR. GREEN: 100 percent. MR. F.

JOHNSTON: . • . quite frankly. MR. GREEN: 100 percent. MR. F. JOHNSTON: 1 don 't really have that much respect for his business ability when it comes to developing this province. So I say, Mr. Chairman, that I agree with the Member from Churchill, but the government at the present time has just stamped out every possibility and there's no kidding about it. -- (Interjection) -- Mr. Chairman, that's another case of pushing things down people's throats. MR. PAULLEY: . . . for the exclusive, instead of for people. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr.

Chairman, the bill before us is

an Act to amend The Mining Royalty and Tax Act, and we also have an amendment before us which deals with the incentives. 1 feel that this bill, just because we call it a tax bill, has not been retained within the House, and I feel that this bill should not have just been dealt with in this House but should have gone to one of the standing committees so that we could h~r representation from the various mining companies, because it's not just the tax bill that we're considering here.

We have another bill, Bill17, which in my opinion dovetails into what we are doing in this particular bill and the legislation that we're passing here. 1 think, yes, I think it is one over-all project on be half of the government, and to bring it forward in two bills we as members of this side of the House will not have a chance to hear the mining people on what we are proposing to do, and I feel that we should have referred this bill to a standing committee and to hear outside repre sentation. -- (Interjection) -- Yes 1 did say so and I did support you on second reading, sure, because I feel and I always have felt that the minerals belong to the people of this prov ince and that we should have a fair return from them.

Definitely. And I won't change from that either beeause •.. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, would he note that no mining companies or any other in dustry were afraid of Bill 17 and appeared before committee to speak against it? Not a single industrial person in Manitoba came to make objection about Bill 17?

L 3840 .July 17, 1970 MR. ENNS: Who knows when the committee meetings are being called, Sir? MR. FROESE: Well, I don't know. Were they invited? Were they notified? MR. GREEN: The Leader of the Opposition told them it's a disaster for Manitoba. MR. FROESE: I would be interested to know. One reason for having this bill referred to an outside committee would certainly help the members on this side of the House and especi ally, I think, also backbenchers on the government side, to hear from these people because we are not as in formed as we would like to be on this whole industry.

We haven't got the inside story as the executive branch of the government today and of the previous administration. No doubt they are better informed and they know the situation better than we do, and therefore I feel that I am not informed enough to really come out and speak on the matter and raise an is sue. So we should have these people come before us so that we could question them and inform ourselves as to whether we are doing the right thing and whether we should go farther or whether we are going too far, so that we could make a proper assessment of the situation. MR.

GREEN: Does the honourable member really expect the mining industry to come and say, "Go further - you are not going far enough"? I mean, ls that a real consideration for him? MR. FROESE: No, I'm saying that we could certainly question them on their affairs and on the business, on the mining industry in this province, and then make our own assessment of the situation. I am not saying that they should make the assessment for us. I still feel that that should be the prerogative of the members of this House to do that on their own. I would be interested; for one thing, what are the annual payments on claims?

When a claim is made, does the government levy a charge on these, an annual charge on them, or will these claims stay indefinitely, for any period of time? I would certainly like to hear some exPlanation from the government benches on this very matter. Too, another question is the mineral rights held by the Crown. We know as far as oil is concerned that in Western Mani toba most of the oil rights were held by individuals who owned the property. What is the situ ation actually as far as m~erals of the Crown in Northern Manitoba?

I take it that most of them are our own. by the Crown but is this an exclusive right, or what is the situation? Could we have some more information on this matter? · As far as taxing the mining companies for taking the minerals, which are natural re sources, I feel that this is one of the best ways of taxing that we have, because we are not tax ing our own people; we are taxing the income of the revenue that is c;:oming in from other prov inces, other states and other countries, and which I feel is a much better way, a much easier way of getting revenue to run our government.

Maybe the Minister of Mines and Natural Re sources should get into the debate and give us some more of the information that he is with holding at the present time in my opinion. The Member for Thompson mentioned secondary industry. I think we have said this be fore, but ~ertainly, when Alberta struck oil and when they had the terrific development out there, it was really because the raw product could not be exported, it had to be refined, and as a result they got a lot of secondary industries in the province. Why can't we do the same thing here?

Why must we export so much of this product in a less refined state than what we could do? I am just wondering whether the government is considering setting standards or at least on a certain amount of supply that must be refined to a greater extent. Is consideration being given to this? And if so, I would like to hear from them what the situation is, how they assess the situation , and what we can expect for the next several years to happen.

So, Mr; Chairman, I feel that the bill before us, I intend to support it and will support it, but on the matter of incentives I am interested in what the Member for E iel has to say and his amendment before us, whether the incentives should not be retained. I am not sure at the present time whether they should not be retained, so let us hear from the government side on the situation so that we can make up our minds. MR. CHAffiMAN: The Honourable . Member for Riel. MR. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr.

Chairman, we have had a lot of discussion here that has been very valuable, but the point that is at question is with respect to the incentives provided for the development of the mining industry in Manitoba. This is what the amendment ls all about. The government, through th1s biil, has seen fit to double and more - about double the mining taxation by raising the rate of taxation. Now, I think what we don't realize, or what the public in general probably doesn't realize)that mining companies are taxed at the same rate as any other corporation in Manitoba under profits, and if they fall into the category

July 17, 1970 3841 (MR. CRAIK cont'd.) . • • . . where they earn over $35, 000 in a year they pay 50 percent income taX, and they have allowances for depletion on their dividends they pay, and they have deductions that they can make, but in the over-all picture it turns out that they pay and will pay, under the Benson White Paper in particular, a great deal more than the average corporation in Canada.

The 50 percent rate is augmented by the Mining Royalty Tax that is superimposed and, in fact, taken off before they pay that tax, and when the Manitoba Government imposes 15 percent and when they-- (Interjection) -- Yes, and so do the mining companies; and when the royalty is assessed it comes off prior to the income tax being levied, so, as a result of this, by the time that the 15 percent tax is imposed - which there is a tendency to argue that this is all they've been paying is this very small return on our natural resources - we tend to isolate the fact that they are also paying the corporation tax which is roughly fifty percent of their profit, so by the time that we have added on the royalties, then you're talking a good 60 per cent taxation of this industry and this industry at Manitoba's stage of development is very im portant.

We are at the stage in Manitoba where the mining industry was in Ontario two or three decades ago. We are at a developmental stage. So, as a matter of policy, you have to decide not on the·basis of the amount of noise that the mining company is going to make here, but as a matter of policy by government, whether you want to promote mining development or whether you are worried about a hole in the ground that you are going to pass on to the future generation, and whether or not the nickel is used to plate bumpers with or make solid nickel bumpers out of for cars, seems to have been forgotten.

By the arguments presented in this House, you'd thiil.k that we should set up a bumper factory in Thompson making nickel bumpers simply so that we can hire people to use our nickel locally, but this is not the argument in question. The argument in question in this amendment is whether or not this government wants to remove the incentive for a small mining company or are they taking the same attitude they are taking to the profit motive in general. That is what is at question.

And the Minister of Finance stood up here today and proved beyond a doubt that the mining companies were not going to suffer a great loss, and he gave the statistics and said that this incentive does not add up to a great many dollars, but again he forgot to mention the fact that small business, whether it's mining or bumper manufacturing or anything else, in general develops from retained earning. The Minister of Finance earlier in this session stood up here and said, "We have a taxa tion policy." Well, he has shown us just how superficial and thin his taxation policy is.

He hasn't explained to this House how small companies grow. He hasn't stated to this House that 65 percent of Manitoba's industry falls in the category of small industry that before was paying the low taxation rate and in the Benson White Paper is going to be paying the high taxation rate. He didn't explain that; and he hasn't explained this either, that this clause in this Act is aimed at developing the mining industry. So let's get down to the genesis of the argument. Do you want to promote the mining industry in Manitoba or do you not?

Because you have proved be yo~ a doubt, you have proved beyond a doubt, with the statistics that you gave this afternoon, that there is not a lot of dollars in this for the mining companies- and he's talking of big min ing companies, and the Manitoba government is just as big as the big mining companies. If there's not that many dollars in it, leave it there for the small companies that are trying to de velop, and provide the opportunity in Manitoba. And that, Mr. Chairman, is why I am asking that this clause of this Act be left there, and I suggest to you that if we were back . . . MR. BOROWSKI: . . .

Tory policy? MR. CRAIK: Yes, that is Tory policy and I'll stick by that Tory policy. MR. BOROWSKI: You know where you can put it. MR. CRAIK: you put the carrot out in front of the profit motive, my friend, and it will feed your bureaucratic system that you want to keep running. BON. HOWARD R. PAWLEY (Minister of Municipal Affairs) (Selkirk): ... give the carrots all away. MR. CRAIK: Give the carrots all away. That's a good, sound argument considering where it's coming from, from the man who wants to take all the carrots away from another in dustry in Manitoba; all the carrots. Now, Mr.

Chairman, let me tell you that under the Mining Royalty and Tax Act we are already taking away 60 percent of the carrots and we stand here and say they don't need an incentive; they don't need an incentive; it's peanuts to them- it doesn't really amount to a great deal of money -- (Interjection) -- two bags of peanuts now,

3842 .J~y 17, 1970 (MR. CRAlK cont'd.) • • • • • And the Minister of Municipal Affairs suggests here that we don't really need any carrots. He didn't have to say it because he has already proven it and actions speak much louder than words, and the actions that you are demonstrating through this Act -- and I'm not questioning; I supported it. I supported your position with regard to your taxation, but I'm suggesting that you leave the incentives in there; that the bureaucratic system is not going to supply all the answers for all the people; the mixed economy is goiug to provide those answers.

And when you have that balance, you have got a pretty good system and all the other arguments that you want to present to defend the particular position and the way you are going to vote with regard to this go by the wayside. It's a question of whether you want that balance or not, and I suggest to you. Mr. Speaker, that every evidence is given here that this government is pretty biased in its position. You have, through this bill, socked it to the mining companies, taken away the incentive on the grounds that you don't think it really is an incentive.

Through Bill17, you have given yourselves the right to move into an area. In the old Bissett case that was before this House a few years ago, it will no longer have to come before the House. The government can strictly move in by Order-in-Council, make the move; there will be no public debate about whether a loan of $80,000 should be made to Bissett. You can take equity. You can take equity. -- (Interjection) -- And furthermore, Mr. Chairman - I'll answer it when I come to it- furthermore, you have the power now to restrict and curtail all exports of raw material from the province. You have the power.

You have the power. You don't -have to grant the right. You don't have to grant the right ... MR. GREEN: Theh:onourable member is not suggesting that we have the power to prevent exports of material from the Province of Manitoba. MR. CRAlK: You have the ~wer now . . • MR. GREEN: To prevent export from the Province of Manitoba? MR. CRAIK: You have the power to restrict the _exports of your raw mine material from Manitoba now. MR. GREEN: From the Province of Manitoba? MR. CHAlK: That's right. MR. GREEN: Well I think that you should look it up . MR. CRAIK: Well perhaps you should read it. You have the power now.

In Bill 17, which gives you the power to go into your business, through Bill 115 where you've socked it to the existing industry, and through the legislative power you have to restrict exports, you have the ultimate power sitting in the hands of the Cabinet to do whatever you please if you want to exercise it. Now, Mr Chairman, we could stand here and make a strong case that this was a grand design, as has been suggested by the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources from his seat here a short while ago, and it could be a grand design. He suggested it. I'm not accusing him of it.

I'm suggesting to you that there is a point beyond which government should not go, and to defend that argument or as part of that argument, I'm suggesting to leave the incentives in for the small mining company that is developing in Manitoba, and that is what this amendment does. MR. CHAIRMAN put the question on the amendment and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. CRAIK: Ayes and Nays, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Call in the members. On the proposed amendment of the Honourable Member for Riel, that

Section 3 of Bill 115 be amended by deleting subsections 7(2), 7(3) and 7 (3. 1) and by striking out the figures and letters "2 and 3" in the first line of the section. A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas, 18; Nays, 25. MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the motion lost. The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. LEONARD A. BARKMAN (La Verendrye): Mr. Chairman, 1 was paired with the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre. Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment. MR. CHAIRMAN: (Section 3, 8(2) to (3) was read and passed.) The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. Gli.DAS MOLGAT (Ste.

Rose): On 7(3.1), Mr. Chairman, my own view is that we should get everything that we can out of our natural resources, and I've always taken that posi tion. On the other hand, we have to recognize that if we are going to develop our natural re sources we have to have people prepared to develop them. It seems to me that in many cases

July 11, uno '3843 (MR. MOLGAT cont'd.) . • • . ; in the past in Manitoba, some of our developments come · from local Manitoba firms. and Manitobans who have been prepared to invest in the development of our own province, and judging from the last vote, the general feeling of the House is that there should not be incentives at this time for, let us say, all firms. But I think maybe we should make a special consideration for firms made up of Manitobans, or basically of Mani- ;,j tobans, and encourage our own local people to invest in the development of our own province.

I know that even my friends to the left have indicated in the past that they would like to see this sort of development. It's certainly one that I favour. So, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to propose an amendment to 7 (3. 1). I'd like to move that the

section be amended by adding at the end thereof the following words: "except for mines which have at least.one third of their shareholders who are residents of Manitoba and who hold at least one third of the common stock of the company. " Mr. Chairman, some of the members may want come time to read the amendment that I'm proposing. Basically all it does is to suggest that where it is a firm where one third of the shareholders are Manitobans, resident in Manitoba, and where. they control one third of the company, that the exemption which has existed so far be extended to them.

Now there may be some people who would say this is discrimination against outsiders and so on. That isn't the purpose of it, Mr. Chairman.

The whole purpose of my amendment is to encourage Manitobans to invest in Manitoba, and I think that this particular amendment would serve that purpose, would help the small firms who want to develop some mining interests in the province; It would mean that people residing in this province who are prepared to take a chance on develop ment - and let's face it, mining developments are very speculative - but it would give our local residents and our local firms an opportunity to be involved in developments in this province.

It would give them, admittedly, a tax advantage to that extent, but it would be basically very small firms, because I think that in the past the Manitoba companies have been basically small companies and yet they have been in the forefront of developing some of the areas that the big firms are not prepared to look at until such time as there has been some indication of develop ment in those. areas,or at least possibilities, and I think there is an advantage here in encourag ing our local people to be involved and to participate in the development of our mining enter prises for the benefit of our own citizens.

MR. BOROWSKI: . • . ask a question? MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the debate continues, I would like to ask for comment from both sides of the House as to the eligibility of this amendment, because I'm not sure that the Chair can accept this. The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, I was waiting. It seems to me that the measure iS one that involves the money of Her Majesty and is one which can only be brought from the Treasury Bench. It is a reduction in revenue. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, the previous amendment was exactly on the same basis.

In fact, it would have meant a much more substantial reduction in revenue of the province, and surely, if you're prepared to accept an amendment which would rule out completely 7(2) and (3) and (3. 1) which would have wiped out completely any such allocation, then surely you are prepared to accept one which is applicable only in a limited way to Manitoba residents. MR. GREEN: Well, Mr.

Chairman, the honourable member, all that he has just done, to my mind, is convinced us that perhaps there was an oversight on the previous amendment, but an oversight doesn't establish a precedent in the House and where there is -where there is -- well, the honourable member may well recall that every single exemption that was argued in connection with the sales tax legislation was argued on the basis - and I objected to that at the time and I will object to it now- that you cannot amend a taxation statute by putting in the words "consider the advisability of" because the statute cannot then read "consider the advis ability of''.

So if my honourable friend is merely suggesting that a previous amendment was heard and debated and argued and voted down, that doesn't establish a precedent if it happened accidentally and no objection was raised, and the Chairman has now asked the question, and I think he's properly asked it, as to whether it is permissible for a private member of the Legis lature to amend a taxation statute in such a way as it affects the revenue of the Crown, and I think that the answer is clearly No, and it is no answer to say that it was previously done but unobjected to. MR. MOLGAT: Mr.

Chairman, I submit that we have just spent some considerable time in this House discussing an amendment which would delete three sections in the bill which have

3844 July 17' 1970 (MR. MOLGAT cont 'd.) . . . . . by far a greater influence on the revenues of the province than the very minor amendment I am proposing, and there was not an objection raised by one single Minister on the government side. Not one. It was debated on the virtue of amending or not amending, and surely now, Mr. Chairmna, the government isn't going to hide behind a technicality and refuse to vote on a question of whether or not they want to assist Manitoba in dustry or they don't. MR. GREEN: Well Mr.

Chairman, with all due respect to the honourable member, he can try to make as much out of it as he likes.

The fact is that he has said nothing which over comes the objection that was raised except the fact that we spent a lot of time debating some thing which perhaps we shouldn't have debated, and if that happened by oversight it doesn't mean that from this day forward on every tax measure, when the government objects because an opposition member or a private member of the Legislature doesn't have the competence - and I use the word the legal competence - to amend a taxation measure, that once they spent two hours arguing about it, because that's what my honourable friend's objection amounts to, and I assure him and I think that it goes without saying that we don't need to hide behind this type of provision.

We were prepared obviously, by accident to argue an hour and a half on another one and if it was merely an argument then I assure my honourable friend that I could engage in it with the greatest of delight, but we are not to waste our time and the fact is that the objection is well-founded. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Official Opposition. MR. WEIR: Mr.

Chairman, on the point of order, might I suggest that when it comes to a matter of a message from His Honour, it seems to me that the message for His Honour was presented at first reading of the Bill and that that has really been looked after and what we're talking about here is a matter of degree in terms of these revenues, and I would suggest, Sir, that the message that was introduced at the beginning by the IVinister of Finance would certainly authorize the discussion of the raising of the revanues under this statute and the matter of degree. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, just further on the point of order.

It seems to me that having spent the hour and a half debating the previous matter, that the suggestion now being put for ward in this amendment is one of extreme reasonableness and gives the government an opportu nity to indicate, with some degree of sincerity, as to whether they wish to acknowledge the role that Manitobans can or should be playing in the development of their province. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The honourable member is now trying to debate the merits of the bill on the point of order which was raised, and that's all very well and good but the fact is that we are discussing whether or not a private member of the Legislature can move an amendment to a revenue bill, and whether or not the honourable member feels that we are hiding behind it or don't wish to debate it is entirely ir relevant. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: When the estimates and the budget were passed, there was no indication given by government that there were still measures to come forward to provide added revenue.

These were passed on the supposition that the taxes that were in force at that time would suffice and would bring about the required revenue, and I think on those grounds this amendment should be considered. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I would say, as background, that two wrongs don't make a right and that it may have been true that the ruling should have applied to the previous proposal of the Honourable Member for Riel, but since this is a measure which would relieve people of taxation and which would affect the taxation policies of the government, I think that it should only be properly handled through a message from His Honour and I would accordingly rule it out of order. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, then I must, with regret, challenge your ruling. MR. GREEN: Properly now, I take it, Mr.

Chairman, that what we have to do is go into the House and the House votes on the ruling, but I again, so that I won't have any arguement from the Member for Arthur who is ready to jump to his feet, is it required ·that there be a motion that the Committee rise? I don't think so, because if the Committee rises we will not then be able to go back. So I would merely ask that the Speaker be called in so that the House may decide on whether the Chairman's ruling is correct or not correct. MR. J. DOUGLAS WATT (Arthur): Well Mr.

Chairman, on the same point of order, and I think that this is the second time that it's come up in this session. I don't think-- as far as

July 17, 1970 3845 (MR. WATT cont'd.) .... I'm concerned, there is no place in our rules that says that the Speaker must be called in, but common sense tells me, which has happened in the past that we have a precedent set for actually, that the Chairman simply put the question, "Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?" and what is . . . . MR. GREEN: Well, Mr, Chairman, my understanding is given from authorities that! respect, including the Clerk of the House, that the House must rule. The House cannot rule unless the Speaker is in the Chair; therefore, I think that the Speaker must be called in. Mr.

Prud'homme is not in, which is a pretty good indication to me that I'm correct. MR. WATT: On the same point of order then, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Honourable the House Leader then, if the Speaker does come in do we follow the same pro cedure as we did in the last instance where we do not go back into committee and that ends the sitting tonight ? MR. GREEN: We will not go out of committee bt:t the House will rule. That's why I'm asking the Chairman to leave the Chair and call in the Speaker.

The Rule 62(3) says: "The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House shall maintain order and decide all questions of order subject to an appeal to the House . . . " MR. WATT: Yes, that's right. MR. GREEN: " ... and if the appeal is made it goes to the House." MR. CHAffiMAN: The Honourable the Leader of the Official Opposition. MR. WALTER WEffi (Minnedosa): Mr.

Chairman, on the point of order, we have had some experience of recent days of moving in and out and having the mace appear and reappear with really, I think, very little formality, and it's still a question in my mind whether the Speaker can come into the House without a motion that the committee rise, that the Speaker does have no authority to sit over the committee, and unless the committee rises the House in fact has no right to make a decision, Sir, so that on the point of order, if this is the approach that is taken, Mr.

Chairman, then I suggest that the method taken is that the committee must rise so that the Speaker comes in and that the House in fact, with the Speaker in the Chair, must in fact rule. I would suggest, Sir, that the Speaker coming in as a head and ruler over the Committee of the Whole would be completely and utterly out of order in terms of the opera tion of the House. MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, on that same point of order, I would have to support the Leader of the Opposition on this very point, that how can you bring in the Speaker without having the committee rise? It's not proper. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, there is a problem as to whether or not the committee has to rise. If the committee rises, then the problem is that the House will make its ruling and I wonder whether members would give leave to go back into committee. If members do not give leave to go back into committee, then I would recommend that this bill and the ruling be held in abeyance and that we proceed to the next bill so that the House will then decide on the ruling as to the chairman on this particular measure.

It's been brought to my attention that --well, I'm reading now from the Journals of May 11th, 1965, which would indicate that the House does not rise. ''Mr. Chairman then ruled in compliance with Citation 66(2) .... " -I'm reading from Page 485 -"of Beauchesne's Parlia mentary.Rules and Forms, that this matter of

interpretation of Rule 12 of our Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceedings of the Legislative Assembly, be referred to the House. The decision of the Chairman was then referred to Madam Speaker in the Chair .. Madam Speaker then said 'You have heard the decision of the Chairman', and put the question: shall the decision of the Chairman be confirmed? The House agreed, whereupon Madam Speaker requested the Chair man to resume his duties as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole." And there. is no indica tion that the committee rose. So Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the Chairman to call in the Speaker so that the House can decide on the question that was ruled by the Chairman. MR. WEffi: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, may I say, if I can repeat the remarks of the House Leader a few minutes ago, two wrongs don't make a right. -- (Interjection) -- I know, and as so often is the case, Mr. Speaker, when we're talking about point of order, the will of the House Leader is the thing that rules the Assembly, and he is very good, he is very good at showing that will, not just in this Chamber but in the committees of the House as they are exercised outside.

I don't have control over the House like the House Leader and I have no opportunity of exerting my will except to say that I don't think that it is correct within the rules of the House, Sir, to have the Speaker come in and essentially take over in terms of the

L July 17, 1970 (MR. WEm cont'd.) . committee; that there's only one way of getting back into the House and that's for the committee to rise. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest of respect to my honourable friend, I would suggest that on the basis of what I've just read, on the basis of the rules, it's quite ob vious that the Speaker can come in, that the Chairman can call in the Speaker, and that we pro ceed to hear the appeal from your ruling. MR. WATT: Mr.

Chairman, on the same point of order, may I ask the Leader of the House theu, when the Speaker comes in, if it's a tie vote will he be in a position then to break the tie, and . . . . MR. GREEN: Certainly. He's a voter like anybody else. MR. WATT: ... and will he understand the conditions in the House, the debate that has led up to the motion by the Member for Ste. Rose when he challenged the Chair ? MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, I assume that the question, the member can ask, but the rules are plain that the House decides an appeal, and not only did this happen in our previous experience, it happened •. or it almost happened last year, but when the Speaker was called back, the then Premier got up and rather than get a ruling from the House announced an election. So I would ask that the Speaker be called in, Mr. Chairman. -- (Interjection) -- MR. CHAmMAN: Mr. Speaker, in the Committee of the Whole , while discussing Bill No. 115, I ruled an amendment of the Member for Ste.

Rose out of order on the ground that the amendment required a message from His Honour. The mover has challenged my ruling and I therefore refer it to the House. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order before you rule, I would like to.point out that, prior to my amendment, a previous amendment had been heard by the House, had been debated by the . . . MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I think that the honourable member .. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, I rose on th-2 point of order. Mr.

Speaker, on the point or order, and I submit the House Leader has no right to get up on a point of order when I am speaking. MR. GREEN: Will the honourable member -will the honourable member be reasonable and understand that the Speaker will not rule. It is the House that will rule and this is what happened two days ago. All I'm trying to do is bring that ... MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, are you in charge of this House or is the House Leader in charge of this House ? MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will allow the House to hear the honourable member's point of order. MR. MOLGAT: Thankyou, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, l'mrisingonapointoforder in view of the fact that you have been called back to the Chair, and I rise on a point of order to point out that prior to my amendment another amendment of much greater effect on the rev enues of the government had been listened to by the House, had been debated for an hour and a half, had been accepted by the House Leader and by the government benches, and there was no objections raised at all. My amendment is of much, much more minor consequence, and I submit that's the reason I presented it; that the ruling was not a reasonable ruling in view of what had happened previously.

MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, and if the members will contain their composure and try to understand-- (Interjections) --Well, Mr. Chairman, I appeal to hon ourable members to be reasonable. I have done nothing which would inspire what has happened a few moments ago. I merely wanted to advise the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose, when he said that the Speaker is going to make the ruling, that that is not -- (Interjection) -- Well, he said, ''Before you make your ruling," and I thought, I understood the Member for Ste.

Rose was trying to make a submission to the Speaker on his ruling, if I am correct; I know that that is what he said. I was merely trying to indicate to him that the Speaker would not make a ruling, that the ruling would be sustained or called by the House, and all of the members who are sitting here of course heard him make his previous submission. And that's all I was at tempting to say. MR. SPEAKER: Shall the ruling of the Chairman be confirmed? MR. SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. MOLGAT: Yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Call in the members.

July 17, ·1970 MR. WEnt: How many do you need, Mr. Speaker ? A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS: Messrs. Allard, Barrow, Borowski, Burtniak, Cherniack, Desjardins, Doern, Evans, Fox, Gonick, Gottfried, Green, Jenkins, Johannson, McBryde, Mackling, Malinowski, Miller, Paulley; Pawley,Petursson, Shafransky, Toupin, Turnbull and Uruski. NAYS: Messrs. Beard, Bilton, Craik, Einarson, Enns, Froese, Girard, Hardy, Hen derson, Johnston (Sturgeon Creek), Jorgenson, McGill, McKellar, McKenzie, Molgat, Patrick, Sherman, Spivak, Watt and Weir. MR. CLERK: Yeas, 25; Nays, 20. MR.

SPEAKER: I declare the ruling of the Chairman confirmed. MR. BARKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre. Had I voted, I would have voted in the negative. MR . WEnt: Mr . Speaker, on a point of order, ml ght I suggest that it seems peculiar to me that when there is a vote being taken on whether or not the Chairman's decision be upheld, we find the Chairman votin:g. It seems to me to be just a little peculiar to find the Chairman voting on whether or not his own decision should be upheld. MR . GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't think it requires further comment.

The honourable member has said that it looks peculiar. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you now leave the Chair and permit the House Committee to resume. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, will Votes and Proceedings show just what has transpired ru;re ? The previous time it did not show it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. CHAntMAN: (The balance of Bill115 was read and passed. Bill141 was read

section by

section and passed.) MR. GREEN: Bill 94, Mr. Chairman. The Expropriation Act. MR. CHAntMAN: By page? MR. WEnt: Mr. Chairman, might we find out, on a point of order, order of business, in what order we're going to have bills. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I believe that it's our prerogative, to call the bills, but the fact is that the Attorney-General, who is in charge of some of these bills, is not in the House at the moment and that's why I wanted to call a bill where the Minister is here, No. 94, and then when the Attorney-General comes back I will be calling the bills which he has on the Order Paper.

It will be tonight, you can be sure of that. MR. CHAntMAN: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister at least could indicate the order of the next two or three bills so that we have some idea, so that .... MR. GREEN: Well, I was going to go from 94 to 98, 100, 104. I was just going to leave out the Attorney-General's bills, and there are others that follow. MR. SPIVr~.K: Just as a matter or record. We do no have a list of them. Here is the Attorney-General now. MR. GREEN: Here is the Attorney-General now. Maybe I will deal with his immediately after this one . MR.

CHAntMAN: Bill 94, The Expropriation Act, by page? The Honourable Member for Ste . Rose . MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, there are some questions I want to ask about sections and I would prefer, frankly, that it be dealt with

section by section. In view of the importance of the Act, I would ask it be done that way. MR. CHAntMAN: (Section 1 was read and passed.)

Section 2 ... The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, on this section, it seems to me that this

section changed substantially some of the applications of the Act. In the light of the previous Acts that have existed, I would like, for example, to refer to the Hydro Act where it seems to me in the past, any objections to this were referred back to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, which is, after all, a broader referral than the present Act would call for, because the present Act, if one goes back to

Schedule A, indicates under 1(d), that where the expropriating authority is a Crown agency, the Minister to whom the industry reports to the Legislature. In other words,

L July 17, 1970 (MR. MOLGAT cont'd.) • the Minister by himself becomes the ccmfirming authority, if I read the Act correctly. Now it seems to me that in the past the rule has been that on any ob jection to an expropriation by a Crown agency, it was not simply the Minister but it was the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Now it may be that the Minister has some comments to make on this, but if not, I think that we ought to look at the transfer of authority strictly to the Min ister rather than to the assemblage of Ministers. MR. P.AULLEY: Mr.

Chairman, ... of my honourable friend is that there is basically no change involved, that under the Manitoba Hydro Act the Lieutenant-Governor will be confirm ing authority in this Act. Is that correct? And the approval of the Lieutenant .Governor in Council is required under the Hydro Act before expropriation can take place. You have to read the two Acts. MR. MOLGAT: Coming back, then, to the point, Mr. Chairman, how then do we relate this

section which says "notwithstanding any act of the Legislature"? In other words, this

section negates any other act of the Legislature including the Hydro Act. MR. PAULLEY: Ah, but it doesn't negate it, if I may say, Mr. Chairman, to that degree, unless it is inconsistent in the application of the Act, so it still comes back to the Lieutellant Governor in Council - so I am informed by my legal advisor. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, my knowledge of English may be limited but when I read a

section that says "notwithstanding any act of the Legislature heretobefore enacted, whether special or general, this act applies wherever an authority expropriates land," then it seems • to me that this says basically that it doesn't matter what any other act of the Legislature says, Hydro Act, Telephone Act, be it what it may, that this act applies and this act says that the Minister makes the decision, not the Lieutenant Governor in Council. MR. PAULLEY: No. No, no. That's not so. If my honourable friend would have an

interpretation further, its lawful power indicates that the expropriation must be with the ap proval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council ancl not the Minister. It's the only way in which it can expropriate. MR. MOLGAT: Could the Minister indicate to me under what section-? MR. PAULLEY: Manitoba Hydro Act. I think that the two conjoin. But the Minister hasn't these broad powers without the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that under page 6,

Section 16 of the Hydro Act ..•. --(Interjection) -- That's my problem though. This Act, under

Section 6, says that only the Lieutenant Governor in Council can do this. Now that's the present Hydro Act. The present Act says that any other Act of the Legislature basically has no effect. Isn't that correct? Well, notwithstanding any Act of the Legislature heretobefore enacted, this Act applies. In other words, Bill No. 94 will apply. MR. PAULLEY: .... under the Act is the Lieutenant Governor in Council. MR. MOLGAT: But if you go back to

Schedule A, you will find that whenever any appeal comes up in this matter, any complaint, that it no longer goes to the Lieutenant Governor in Council but it goes strictly to the Minister, and I refer you to

Schedule A page 25. MR. PAULLEY: Ah, my honourable friend may be technically correct insofar as

Schedule A is concerned, but it is my understanding that

Schedule A is not the confirming author ity. It is still not the Minister but the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Isn •t that correct? MR. MOLGAT: But Mr. Chairman,

Schedule A says the confirming authority is ... MR. PAULLEY: •..• reports to the Legislature and in every other case the Lieuten ant-Governor . . . MR. MOLGAT: Ah yes, if you take

section (e), but if you take

section (

d) it says "where the expropriating authority is a Crown agency." Now surely the Hydro iB a Cro\vn agency. the Telephone is a Crown agency, and where it's a Crown agency it's the Minister who decides. MR. PAULLEY: I need some --I'm getting lots of legal advice and I'm sure my honour able friend can understand my present position, and-- pardon? Yes, and I'd suggest maybe my honourable friend better go back to tilling the soil, but the confirming authority is the Minister. MR. MOLGAT: That's right. MR. PAULLEY: It's still that way. Maybe the Attorney-General ... HON. AL MAC KLING, Q. C. (Attorney-General)(St.

James): Mr. Chairman, I think we have a grasp of it now. The approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council is a condition pre cedent to the Crown agency having the right to expropriate. That is, the Crown agency can ex propriate only on the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Then, once thatcondition,

.Tuly 17, 1970 3849 (MR. MACKLING cont'd.) ..•.. once the Lieutenant Governor in Council has gtven that authorization, then the confirming authority for the acual expropriation is the Minister respon sible for that Crown agency. MR. MOLGAT: That's fine, Mr. Chairman. I accept that, but under the present rule, if there were a complaint under the expropriation by a Crown agency, I understand from - and · ... 1' I have to admit this is difficult hecause you look at several acts at once - but I understand that any complaint would end up back in the hands of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, under the Hydro Act; for example,

whereas this Act will now mean establishing the confirming authority as we do under

Schedule A, that the Minister will be the final decision, no longer the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Admittedly, the first decision may be made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council but the final decision will be made by the Minister, and I submit that this is restric- tive as compared to the present legislation and I think we should say, instead of what we are saying here, that the Lieutenant Governor in Council should make the decision rather than simply the Minister.

Now I'm not looking at legalistic questions but it seems to me that we are in fact here being restrictive, that under the previous Act, the, let's say the Cabinet instead of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the cabinet as a whole were the final authority, originally to give the authority to expropriate and secondly, if there were complaints, to deaf with it. Now, the cabinet still remains the first right to authorize it, but the Minister has the second right as the confirming authority under

Schedule A to make the final decision, and I suggest that we should remain with the original situation where the cabinet as a whole, not just the Minister, should be the confirming authority. MR. CHERNIACK: Well Mr. Chairman, if I can have a go at it too. The proposed bill goes further than the Hydro Act and there is no change, really, from the Hdro Act where the Lieutenant Governor in Council must be the authority which approves of the expropriation by Hydro, in this case, and that is the end of the problem insofar as the present law is concerned.

The Lieutenant Governor in Council has approved of the expropriation, the expropriation is proceeded with, that's the end of it. There's no more discussion except for the adjudication as to compensation. This bill is designed to provide for review after an enquiry has been made on a complain of or at there quest of a person whose property is expropriated. This brings in a new and additional feature.

The additional feature, after the Lieutenant Governor in Council has approved the expropriation, is a review again of the decision that was made and at that time when the review is made, the enquiry is gone into and report is made, then according to the bill it goes to the Minister responsible for reporting who then reviews the recommendations and the hearing and all before it and then is the confirming authority.

Now I understand the honourable member's point, but I am rejecting the thought that there is a change from the present law except for the better, that there is a review and a confirming authority which there wasn't before. So it's not worse, it's not weaker, it's not poorer than it was, it is stronger. Now the honourable member says well now, surely a mere Minister should not have to be the confirming authority for a decision that was made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, -I think that's his point and I understand it.

I would hate to at this stage make a change with out really seeing whether it is a requisite one. In my experience, both as a member of the Cabinet and as the Minister reporting, I must say that the hydro makes a report and a recom mendation to Cabinet and Cabinet reviewing it on the basis of the recommendation of the Hydro Board approves the expropriation.

Now for the reviewing authority to report to Cabinet and require Cabinet to make the exhaustive research which I think is required after a recommenda tion is made, I think myself is an onerous task for the entire Cabinet and could well be done by the Minister responsible to Cabinet for the report. Now one can say fine, the Minister can do the job and then recommend to Cabinet and Cabinet then does it again, but by that stage I would suggest that it is a rubber-stamping in the final stage and I think that it should be adequate in this way.

I would think that if it's found inadequate then it should be changed, but I'd be in clined Mr. Chairman, to suggest that we leave it as it is simply because it has received a great deal of thought up to now. The point made by the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose injects a new dimension but does not point out a defect, rather points out what he thinks might be some way to raise it to a higher authority. Well I would like to think Mr. Chairman, we could leave it as it is.

I find that work of Cabinet is a pretty onerous one right now and I would rather as a member of Cab inet, and I'm sure other members of Cabinet and previous Cabinets would agree, that it should not have to deal to this extent with every matter and should be prepared to leave it to a Minister.

i L 3850 July 17, 1970 '(lrm. CHERNIACK cont'd.) •... If it does seem· to create a hardship or an anomaly, I think that we should always be prepared to make a change, but certainly the bill as it is before us has received a great deal of exhaustive review over a period of, I'd say at least two or three years, and I really would hate. to just jump at a change because it seems as if it's logical to do so. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 2(1). MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, I'm not proposing an amendment on the section. I have other amendments on other sections, but on this one I wanted to present the point of view be cause it seems to me that this is one that should be looked at because we are in the final analysis giving the Minister who comes up originally because it's a Crown corporation and makes a recommendation to the Cabinet, he then ends up by being the final confirming authority under the present Act. Now I agree that this is one step more than what existed before but still the Minister is the final authority.

I'm prepared to go along and say let's try it ... MR. CHERNIACK: ... permitted to interrupt to add that we musn't overlook that the Hydro Board itself has already dealt with the matter as well. MR. PAULLEY: I wonder though, whether a mere layman, I may also make a contri bution, if indeed it will be a contribution insofar as the application of this Act is concerned. Because as I read

Section 2(1) and we take a look at the wording, this Act applies wherever an authority expropriates land or in the exercise of its lawful powers causes injurious affection of the land due compensation shall be determined in accordance with the provisions hereof, so that limits the Minister in the application of it to the contents of this particular Act. It does not in my opinion give to the Minister referred to in

Schedule A as the expropriating authority, the power to do anything other than what is contained in this Act. So I think that point is covered in this section. -- (Interjection) -- No, this Act decides the actions of the Minister notwith standing. MR. CHAIRMAN: (Sections 2 to 4 of Bill 94 were read and passed.) MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, 4(4)? MR. CHAIRMAN: 4(4) as amended. MR. MOLGAT: That's an amendment? MR. PAULLEY: Yes, The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose I do not believe was in the Committee at the time an amendment was proposed in respect to . . . MR. MOLGAT: ....

I was there when it was supposed to be called, the Minister was absent; I met him in the hall and went back and the committee was not called then . . . MR. PAULLEY: I don't know how the game of checker went ... you were not there at the time the bill was considered. MR. MOLGAT: .... at about five minutes before closing time . MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 4(4) notice on certificate of title reads after the last word "per son" ''but the notice lapses upon the exploration of six months after the date of its filing." MR, PAULLEY: This brings in a time period for the lapsing of the notice of expropria tion, it's suggested six months. I believe this is the point that was raised by a former Premier of the Province of Manitoba. MR. CHAffiMAN: (Sections 4 to

Section 9(3) were read and passed.) The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, under 9(4) it seems to me that the ruling that we have here is unfair to the owner of the land. Why should simply the passage of 120 days and no order being taken that it should be considered to have been ordered -why is this necessary? --(Interjection) -- This simply ends it? MR. PAULLEY: Because if there's any further delay then the expropriating authority loses its right. MR. MOLGAT: And there's no further claim? MR. PAULLEY: That's right. MR. CHAmMAN: 9(4) --passed; 9(5) .. MR. MOLGAT: Mr.

Chairman, under 9 (5) this seems to me to give some special ad vantage to the confirming authority because simply the order is proof that they have submitted to all the regulations. Now is this reasonable towards the owner? Why should they not be forced to live up to whatever the Act says rather than simply say that the fact that they have submitted an order is proof that they've lived up to it? MR. PAULLEY: ... face of the evidence submitted of the confirming authority and if there •s any other evidence submitted well then different action is taken. Face value.

July 1'1, 1970 ~1 MR. MOLGAT: . Is the owner being put in a different position than the expropriating authority? MR. PAULLEY: No. MR. MOLGAT: No? MR. P A ULLEY: I don't think so. MR. MOLGAT: All right. MR. CHAffiMAN:

Section 9(5) --passed; 9(6) --passed; 9(7) --an amendment, (a) - passed; (b) --passed. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, under 9(7), I'm sorry I didn't see the amendment pre viously. What . . . MR. P A ULLEY: The purport of this - for the purpose of my honourable friend - I don't know if he has now the amendment before him, they may be satisfactory to him Mr. Chairman, -the purport is that where absolutely necessary in the opinion of the Lieutenant-Governor to proceed then they have the power so to do. MR. MOLGAT: Mr.

Chairman, in this area it seems to me that the Ontario Act may provide some suitable improvements to our own Act because as the original Act read here under special circumstances the Lieutenant-Governor in Council could do certain things. Now the Ontario Act provides for some very clear action where this does happen recognizing the possibilities of special circumstances, but the Ontario Act sets forth that where this does hap pen, then there must be notice to the owner. Now I don't think that the amendments proposed necessitate this.

It would appear to me that in fairness even if there are special circumstan ces that the owner of the land ought to be notified. MR. PAULLEY: I believe -and I thank Mr. Tallin, Mr. Chairman- that a copy of any direction -this is 9(8), I believe covers the point of my honourable friend - "that a copy of any direction made under subsection (7) shall be served by the expropriating authority forthwith upon the registered owners." So I think if you take them in conjunction then you achieve what . MR.

MOLGAT: All right, then all I require is the definition of "forthwith". --.(Inter jection) -- The Attorney-General says "come-on, come-on." I've asked for

definitions of "soon" and I've been told that's "soon". Now should we not put into the Act then within five days or within a specific time because I think this then becomes a subject of argument •. Wha_t is "forthwith". MR. PAULLEY: Well I would imagine that if necessary a judge could interpret it insofar as expropriation is concerned, but I think that the normal

interpretation of the word is "right a way" or "as soon as possible" following an action. MR. GREEN: Ask anybody but a lawyer and you'll get a very good answer. MR. MOLGAT: But then why shouldn't we put in the Act say within five days? MR. PAULLEY: Well five days may be too long or may be too short. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, what I'm concerned about here again is the right of the owner.

It's all well and fine for the members on the government side to joke about this, but we've tried many times on this side of the House to get information from the government side - and I don't say any more this government than the previous government, I've tried with both and I've frequently had the answer ''soon." But that's not good enough for an owner because he's the fellow who's being affected. Now why can we not put in the Act a time limit so that it would be clear that the government bas the authority or has the responsibility to act within a certain time ? MR. CHAffiMAN: The Honourable Attorney-General.

MR. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, there are innumerable statutes in this province that use the term forthwith, I can assure the honourable gentleman, and if the logic of his argument is to be followed we'd have to go through every Act and define a time limit. Now why these words are left in that form is so that there can be reasonable determination of them, because as my honourable colleague has pointed out, there may be circumstances where five days would work a hardship, but there may be instances where five days would be overly generous, it ought to be done in a matter of 24 hours.

The courts have interpreted these words for many many years and it depends on the circumstances. MR. PAULLEY: •.. and also, Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest to my honourable friend that we're not treating this as a joke at all. This is serious business and this govern ment is very much concerned with expropriation as it affects the ordinary citizen. May I sug gest that if my honourable friend reads 9(7), that is the amended 9(7), "the Lieutenant

L '3852 July 17, 1970 (MR. PAQLLEY cont'd.) . Governor in Council deeming it' necessary or expedient in the public interest to take certain action shall forthwith" -which in my opinion would mean, as a layman, that on the Lieutenant Governor in Council deciding to do something it should in the public interest notify the parties affected insofar as the expropriation is concerned. I want to assure my honourable friend that that would be the approach that I would take. MR. MOLGAT: Mr.

Chairman, I really believe that the Minister who proposes this bill is exactly of that view, that he wants to see to it that the owner has equal position with government, but as I said on second reading of this bill, the facts are that by and large the owner is not in the same position as the government because the owner if there is a problem must hire legal counsel. My honourable frieni and I not being members of that profession can speak openly about that profession.

We have found -I'm sure my colleague will agree with me - that this can be a very costly procedure at times and hence if we are putting the owner in a position that he must seek legal counsel, he is no longer in the same ·position as government and therefore the Act should bend over backwards to see to it that the owner is not put into a positi011where he has to become involved with legal costs in order to protect his position, be cause government does have legal advice -paid for by whom? By the public at large. In other words, in part by the fellow who is being expropriated.

So he's paying a part of the cost of legal counsel for the government who is going to expropriate him; meanwhile if we are not careful how we prepare this Act, he must also pay for legal counsel to protect himself. So I simply want to be sure that he is in a position -- (Interjection) -- your legal counsel will speak for you? I shall listen to him. MR. PAULLEY: I defer to my legal counsel. .. MR. CHERNIACK: No, no, not as legal counsel Mr.

Chairman, but the honourable mem ber said he could speak openly not being a lawyer and I think I can speak knowledgeably being a lawyer about the costs involved and the costs can be high. This Act does provide that the costs shall be included in compensation when the· court deems that it is proper so to do, so that that kind of protection was considered and accepted. Mr. Chairman, what really brought me to my feet is the suggestion that - I know the honourable member was not serious when he said it but I wouldn't like it to be on the record that we're not taking this seriously.

We •ve spent a great deal of time on this Act- and I don •t mean we the government, I mean we the legislators. I don't recall if the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose was a member of the Committee that sat the previous -not last year but the year before, but I've sat many long hours and I happen to sit beside his colleague the former Member for Lakeside and I think that we gave it a very thorough going over. This is a govern ment bill of which we are proud but we can't say that it is a government bill that we have com pletely drafted without considerable help; and I'm sure the Honourable Member for Ste.

Rose accepts our serious approach to it. On tb.e point he mentioned, we are dealing now with a direction which is made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council is special circumstances where notwithstanding anything con tained in the Act the Lieutenant Governor in Council becomes concerned on behalf of public interest ... MR. PAULLEY: Not an individual. MR. CHERNIACK: . . . and then in such special circumstances the Lieutenant Governor in Council acts. Now it seems to me it's clear that when the Lieutenant Governor in Council takes such

an act, makes such a decision out of the ordinary and under special circumstances, it will have every interest in making sure that the owner is advised of the decision and it will then proceed with real expediency. I don •t think that we should get involved in semantics in this case when we know that lawyers, and competent lawyers, have drafted all this, this wasn't drafted by any layman but by several people who had a great deal of confidence in it and who know the word "forthwith" does have meaning, and the court knows it, and I assure the honour able member that it can't be that. . . ..

One other thing, I don't think this Act is designed to put the -now this is my opinion - an owner in exactly even position with an expropriating authority. The mere fact that there is an Expropriation Act and an expropriation principle already determines that somebody in author ity is forcibly taking property away from an owner and we have to start on the basis that it's not "even-steven", it is a decision that is made.

Then there has to be considerable review, justification and compensation, and I think this Act does give a tremendous step forward in providing the owner with great opportunity to protect his rights, but I don't think it was correct to say that they're on an equal basis; they really can't be. That's my opinion, that's not a ..

July 17, 1970 MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, I know a good deal of time was spent on this Act before by the previous government am by the present members in the House and I'm not suggesting that that work wasn't good, but it doesn't necessarily mean that that work was perfect and is not subject to improvement. I thank the Minister for his comments and I'm prepared to let it go on that basis.

Now under the Ontario Act there is a clear-cut obligation on the government to table in the Legislature within 30 days after the opening of the next session, any details of any of these that are done under special circumstances, and it seems to me that this is a wise course of action, because it means that government must justify anything which they deem to be special circumstances.

The Ontario Act in this area simply says "that the Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General shall within 30 days after the commencement of each session of the Legis lative Assembly, lay before the Assembly a copy of each Order made theretofore under sub section (3) and not previously laid before the Assembly." In other words a copy of any special circumstances. Is the government prepared to give this information to the House~ MR. P A ULLEY: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that we have now in the Province of Manitoba as a result of some of the activities of the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose, an ombudsman.

We have provisions in our procedures for Orders-in-Council requesting precise information. I don't know whether it would be really advisable or necessary to have the pro- vision within the Act. ' I want to suggest to my honourable friend, Mr. Chairman, while it may sound good to pick out certain sections of the Ontario Act, that the Act that we have before us is the result of studies, not only of the Ontario Act but the British Columbia Act, the Act in Great Britain and the Federal authority. Now I want to say to my honourable friend, Mr.

Chairman, we recognize, and I'm sure that he would agree, and as my colleague the Minister of Finance said a moment or two ago, we recognize that this is not a perfect Act; but I appeal to my honourable friend not to -I'm not suggesting he should be deprived of his right -but the point that he raised can be covered through a different methodology, and as far as the government is con cerned, we would have no objections eventually or in certain circumstances to give this informa tion to the House, Order for Return as I mentioned a moment or two ago would be accepted by the government without necessarily being within the Act itself.

So I appeal to my honourable friend that insofar as expropriation we're just as con cerned as the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose is with disclosure as to the process of govern ment. And also, may I point out Mr. Chairman, to mY honourable frienc that the report of pre-hearings in essence become public knowledge as well as the point raised by my honour able friend the Member for Ste. Rose insofar as the situation which might prevail if the Lieu tenant Governor in Council takes the advantage, if necessary, on

Section 9(7). MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment prepared on this

section providing for somewhat the same as the Ontario Act. The Minister asks me to not do that at the moment -- (Interjection) - No, no, ... and that the government is prepared to give full information. On that basis I'm prepared to give this a try, but I would ask the government to give considera tion that wherever there are any of these actions taken that the House be so informed. MR. PAULLEY: I will give that undertaking on behalf of the government on request or Order-in-Council; I think that I can say this quite fairly, for the government.

I am at the present time the Minister in charge of expropriation, I give my personal assurance that while I am the Minister on behalf of the government that that will be done. MR. CHAffiMAN: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, I would just add support to what the Member for Ste. Rose said in that the Ontario Act provides for the government to give a list of the exceptions. I think this would be appreciated by the House so that we would know what was going on and whether there were any cases there. MR. PAULLEY: I've given the undertaking on behalf of the government. MR.

CHAffiMAN: (Section 9(7) to 13 of Bill No. 94 were read and passed).

Section 14 passed. -- MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, under 14, it seems to me that here we are in conflict with another

section later on in the Act. No. 14 says: ''Within 60 days after the registration of the declaration." If you go back to Page 25,

Schedule A, under 2(1) we say "within 30 days of the signing of the declaration of the expropriation." Now, are not our timings here in conflict?

JUly 11, 19'10 MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, the Legislative Counsel informs me that the difference is that in the first place ''within the 30 days of the signing of the declaration of expropriation, the expropriation authorities shall serve notice;" and then in 14 --my honourable friend the legal counsel says that's to give them notification as to application as far as the enquiry and confirmation; and then after confirmation within 60 days after the registration of the declara tion the authorities shall serve every owner on the land. It's a broader scope -first 30, then 61). MR. CHAIRMAN: (Sections 14 to 23(1) of Bill No. 94 were read and passed).

Section 23(2) MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, under

Section 23(2), under this one, if the authority does not act within the proper time then any interest to the individual is only from the date of the confirming order. Now why should this not be from the date of the declaration of expropria tion, because really it is from tne date of the declaration of expropriation that the land is frozen; from that time on the individual really no longer bas free use of his land.

Technically he may have, but the facts are that at the Land Titles Office there is notice of expropriation filed and that that being the case he's not a free man to move that land because you might say a caveat is there. Now why then shouldn't we pay him interest from that date? MR. PAULLEY: Because . . . okay. MR. CHERNIACK: We'll take turns here, Mr. Chairman. The Honourable Member for Ste.

Rose is getting a review of all the discussion that took place in the committee itself. - The use of the land is not denied the owner in any way; the returns from the land, for the use of the land, are in the hands of the owner at all times. For him to receive interest is really a double revenue for him; whether it's rented or whether he's using it himself he's got the full use of it.

He is denied the opportunity to sell it, subject to the caveat he can still sell it and the pw:chaser will then take it having accepted notice of the fact that it is under considera tion, and therefore the interest itself, the interest in terms of money paid for the use of money is not really payble to him until the confirming order has come through and then he is really expropriated. So long as he isn't he's got the value of the use of the land. MR. CHAffiMAN: 23(2) pass ... MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, no.

The Attorney-General pardon me, the Minister of Finance, legal counsel of my honourable friend, makes a case, but the facts are that many things can happen, that once the expropriating authority says we're going to take that land the owner is no longer in the same position as he was previously. Prior to that he was minding his own business betting along perfectly well on his own without the help of government presum ably. Suddenly some agency steps in and says we are going to do so anc so to you, then he's no longer in the same position.

True, he may have occupancy of the land, he may have some revenue from the land, but faced with that he may also take other course of action, he may go and buy other land because he has a continuing operation he has to take care of; so his whole position is changed. MR. P A ULLEY: That's where the compensation comes in. MR. MOLGAT: All right, but then why not have there the compensation will go_ back to the time of the declaration of expropriation ? MR. PAULLEY: Ah, but there -is provision for this.

Surely my honourable friend is not suggesting that we should pay interest to an individual who is still using the land for the same purpose that he was using it prior to the expropriation? There are provisions contained within this Act for consideration of compensation for injurious affections and the likes of that. MR. MOLGAT: I agree he should not be paid any more than what he deserves and I'm not suggesting he should ge a bonus from .... MR. PAULLEY: Oh, you are when you say he should get interest. MR.

MOLGAT: No, but I think it should be a consideration within the total calculation of what comes to him, and that if he has suffered a loss - for example, if he ceased at that time to make use of that land, went and did something else, then he ought to be entitled to interest.

And it's the total calculation - all I'm interested in really is that the total calculation of bene fits and losses go back to the time when the authority decides to take the land over and that we should give him the benefit of any losses he may have but also charge him for any advantages he may have, and that the proper time to do this is not as the Act provides, from the date of the confirming of his order, but rather from the date when the authority decide to act. MR. CHERNIACK: Charge him for advantages he gets, just what do you mean by that?

July 1'1, •1970- MR. MOLGAT: Oh, that's up to the .... MR. CHERNIACK: What sort of advantage ? 3855 MR. MOLGAT: Well, there may be some very substantive advantages- the land may go up in value because of other factors, but it's relating directly to the decision of the expro priating authorities. The fact that they may do some work of benefit to him, and I don't think he should get the advantage of that. MR. CHERNIACK: Well, he can't because it's as of date of ... MR. MOLGAT: Well then,- let's go back to the original date when the decision is taken because there can be a substantive delay between the two. MR.

PAULLEY: Oh, but my honourable friend Sll"ely realizes that if there is injurious affection to the individual from that time, there are provisions for compensation, but it could conceivably be that the confirming authority or as the result of the hearing· that possession is not taken, so surely we should not be in a position of having to pay interest in those circum stances and it is only at the time of the expropriation, the physical expropriation, that interest should be payable . . . . . . continued on next page

July 17,1970 .. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rb:iDeland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, this was the very point I raised In committee and we had a discussion on it. l feel like the Member for Ste.

Rose on this because once you have filed with the Land Titles Office that certain lands wlll be expropriated, the owner knowing that at a future date - at that time it might not be known just when the property wlll be actually taken over - he has to look for another piece of property - but he wlll have to purchase probably In order to make sure that he wlll have something to go on, and In the meantime he wlll have to pay interest on the new property that he is purchasing but will not get anything on the property that is being expropriated but from which Interest wlll only be paid from the day of the confirming order and you will have a lapse of time here from which the owner will not get . anything.

I think consideration should be given to what the Member for Ste. Rose ... MR. PAULLEY: Ah but, Mr. Chairman, my honourable friend from Rhineland knows fllll well that if there is an agreement for the vacating of the property by the owner who is under expropriation, then due compensation takes place at that time; and in accordance with the provisions of the Act he will be compensated from that time. The question then becomes not one of possession by the expropriating authority but the voluntary giving up of the land by the Individual concerned.

When my honourable friend mentioned the fact that the individual who went out and bought other properties and vacated the land and started to pay interest, there is provisions in the Act to take care of those circumstances because then in effect the land under expropriation becomes the property of the authority at that particular time. MR. CHAIRMAN: 23 (3)--passed; 24--passed; 25-passed -- MR. STEVE PATRICK (Assinibola): Mr. ~man,l..do believe that my colleague from ste.

Rose certainly has a good point because, unless I don't understand a section, and perhaps the Minister at the last minute I think is trying t'> explain it but the point is that many people when they have notice of expropriation filed, or receive a notice of expropriation- and the government may not take the land for the next two to three years- they may be able to live and farm the land and receive the benefit from it.

That's a good point, but the argument that I like to pose to the government here is: many will not farm this land for three years, or for two years, they will try and make their decision now, right now, and look for other property, but for the same suitable property it may be in a different location, it may take him some time to find a suitable farmland, so they can relocate and they will make the move right now. So what happens? Do they get compensation from the day that they leave the land or from the time that the government decides to completely take it over?

And this is the argument that I'm trying to pursue and would like to see the Minister explain that. -- (Interjection) -- What happens if there's notice of expropriation filed and then the government does not Intend to take .the land over right away? It may serve notice and decide to take it six months or a year from now. The man that owns the property, be it a farmer or whoever it is, decides to relocate right now, because he can't wait, he thinks that he has found a piece of property and he wishes-- (Interjection) -- what's that? MR. CHERNIACK: Under the Act ... MR. PATRICK: He cail do it, what section? Mr.

Chairman, is it not true that 23(2) the due compensation payable to the person calculated from the date of the confirming order - which may be some months later, after the expropriation orders have been filed. MR. CHERNIACK: It has to be within six months. That is the time limit. There was the amendment, so that there is a time limit. It can't be two or three years as the honourable member says; it has to be within six months - and within that six months there is a notice against him, that's true. And that's it. Now ... MR. PATRICK: All right, Mr.

Chairman, I'll ask this question: why shouldn't he receive interest for six months in case, for instance, he has received an expropriation notice he went and purchased another suitable property within say three weeks, so why should he wait for six months before he . . . ? MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, interest on what? You are now saying suppose the government, or the authority,does not expropriate; well then, there's no interest payable because there is no compensation payable, and there's no loss because he has used it. Now if

July 17 , 1970 3867 (MR. CHERNIACK cont'd) . . . .. he wants to jump the gun- and that's \\hat you 8l'e n<>w suggesting - ls the minute he learns an expropriating authority has filed a notice which is only a consideration, only notice that it is going to consider expropriating, he's going to jump the· gun, and he's going to.buy something else and give it up. Well I can't conceive of a person who would be so foolish as to do that without having closed his deal with the expropriating au1hority and known that he's getting his money. --(Interjection)-- ... expropriation there are damages payable. MR. PAULLEY: All the way back. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, the present

section says that he was entitled to interest from the date of the confirming order; so the government accepts because even a confirming order, the government can still back down. And so if after - if we accept the fact that once a declaration is made - in fact, this expropriation exists - an individual then has the right to protect himself. Surely he has- (Interjection}-- No but even from the date of the declara tion of expropriation, because at that time the government says, we intend to expropriate.

Now any reasonable individual being faced with a decision of the government that they are going to expropriate, I think has an obligation to protect himself, and he has to look Immediately for other means of . . . MR. CHERNIACK: ... Enquiry Officer and there's a ... MR. MOLGAT: He may or may not, but the facts are the government has decided on a certain date we are going to expropriate and from that date on, that individual should be protecting himself by making alternate arrangements. If he does, then I think he is entitled- again nothing more than what is right and fair, nothing more, but surely nothing less.

MR. PAULLEY: Ah

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-2-152
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 2nd hansardpdf 152.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2b8054d95d28c5b8dd9e927956c6b5f86169cebe

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