Manitoba Hansard — 48 or 1950 (Sitting 83, 27th Legislature, 5th Session)

27-5-83

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 p.m. Monday, Aprill8, 1966 19 33 MR. CLERK: Resolution No. 1 resolved there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $528, 147 for Legislation. Resolution 1 and 2 for the fiscal year ending 31st day of March 1967. MR. CAMPBELL: Madam Speaker, I'm not sure, was the motion put? MADAM SPEAKER: Yes I have the motion and I did read it. MR. PAULLEY: .... Madam Speaker, but was it eventually put? MADAM SPEAKER: I shall so do again. MR. PAULLEY: Carry on ... we're jovial tonight. MR. CLERK: 2.

Resolved there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1, 123, 884 for Executive Council. Resolutions 3 to 6 for the fiscal year ending 31st day of March 1967. 3. Resolved there be granted ... --(Interjection)- MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. MR. PAULLEY: I just want to speak to this resolution just briefly, dealing with the Executive Council. I cannot help but make the comment that while we have before us an expen diture of $1,123,884 we have the most negligent Executive Council the province has ever had. MR. ROBLIN: I can't help but thank my honourable friend for his complimentary re marks. MR. CLERK: 3.

Resolved there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $21, 353,528 for Agriculture and Conservation, Resolutions 7 to 20 for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1967. MR. CLERK: 4. Resolved there be granted to Her Majesty a S!Jm not exceeding $8,783,291 for Attorney-General. Resolutions 21 - 30. MR. JOHN P. TANCHAK (Emerson): ..•. It's going so fast that I couldn't even catch up to the clerk.

I would like to speak on the Resolution on Agriculture and Conservation. --(Interjection)-- (It's passed) I was up but nobody heard me, I'm sorry. --(Interjection)- ! don't think that you should hold to that. If I couldn't draw attention. I was up, so I think. I .... MADAM SPEAKER: I observed the honourable member as soon as he took his seat, I called for Order and we were already on Attorney-General. MR. TANCHAK: Well could I have permission of the House to come back and speak on that, Madam Speaker? MR. GUTTORMSON: Madam Speaker, on a point of Order.

Surely if·a man tries to get up and the Clerk is going so rapidly you can hardly .... you should recognize it. MR. TANCHAK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Attorney-General's Department is before us unless the House gives leave. Has the honourable member leave to proceed in Agriculture? MR. ROBLIN: I think we will give him leave as far as we are concerned Madam Speaker, but I urge the opposition to be a little more alert in the future. MADAM SPEA KER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR.

TANCHAK: I think that maybe the Clerk should read them just a little bit slower and give us more time, but I'm not complaining as far as the Clerk is concerned on this. I would like to make reference at this time to the government policy on flood protection and I'm speaking only on the flood protection in the Red River Valley south of Metropolitan Winnipeg and also re drainage policies in southeastern Manitoba. And here I would like to say that the efforts of all the people who took_

part in flood protection operations are very commend able. They did 'what was humanly possible and this against time and elements of weather and so on and I think that we should really highly commend them for that. And I think that in an emergency such as arose now from this flood threat that the province did whatever was humanly possible and what could have been done, because an emergency did arise. Emergency dikes for the protection of towns themselves became a must because the flood threat was here. It created an emergency, the flood threat.

Now most of this emergency preparation could have been avoided if the present government had a proper flood control policy south of Winnipeg and in southeastern Manitoba, but here I have to condem the govern ment for the lack, its lack of any policy except remedial measures after the emergency arose.

19 34 April 18, 1966 (MR. TANCHAK, cont'd) . . . . There was no flood protection policy south of Winnipeg, except a remedy for something that had already occurred. What did the government do for the eight years since it has been in office for the pro tection of the people of southeastern Manitoba? We can eas ily answer that question -it was nothing and double nothing. The government have done nothing for the protection of the people south of Winnipeg.

Every Sess ion since 1958 I asked the government, and they well know it , I asked the Minister, what steps, what measures are be ing taken to protect this area in the event of another flood, such as we had in 1948 or 1950, and then I backed it up by other floods, smaller floods; but the government was dormant. In fact I was often ridiculed in this House for suggesting certain measures to be taken. I was ridiculed by the Minister and here I would like to say that the Honourable Member for Morris was no better in this respect. MR. HARRY P. SHEWMAN (Morris): Madam Speaker, I want him to prove that state ment .

I want him to prove that statement. MR. TANCHAK: I'll say it again, the Honourable Member for Morris was no better in this respect -that is proof enough. That is proof and it is proof for the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources. When I ·asked for some kind of protection, the honourable members, none of them helped me, they said it was ridiculous, these dikes could not be built because it was dangerous to human life. And I didn't hear the Honourable Member for Morris support me at that time, although now he is supporting. MR. SHEWMAN: Madam Speaker, this is just going a little bit too far.

A person can take so much abuse but when the Honourable Member from Emerson stands in his place and a remark just as he made --he should withdraw that remark. MR. TANCHAK: I have nothing to withdraw, and I'll repeat it again. He was no better, he sat there and he did not support me and he did not give me help -evidently he was not interested in the welfare of the people that he represented because he did not support me when I asked for this protection. Neither did this government. I asked the government to construct permanent dikes. They said it's a threat to life - no this is dangerous -it can't be done.

The report said it's impossible to protect them. I had answers like that for eight years in successi on and I say that if we had a government which was concerned about the permanent welfare of the people south of Winnipeg as far as flood protection is concerned, if we had a government who were concerned about it, we would have had something done . I see the Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Reso urces grinning as he usually grins . I don't think this is a matter just to pass off lightly, a matter to laugh about. Those people are concerned. The government said the dikes are dangerous, they cannot be built.

But we have proof this year that the dikes hold. The dikes at Emerson held and in most of the places the dikes held. We have proof that they did the job and if they were permanent would have been so much better. True we had a breakthrough at St. Jean but that again proves my theory that if we had permanent dikes this would not have happene d at St.

Jean because it stands to reason that if you have permanent dikes, built at the proper time, solid dikes, not those oozy dikes --and I'm not complaining about the work that was done this year, they did as good a job as was humanly possi ble at that time but if we had had permanent dikes these permanent dikes would have held even in St. Jean. Emerson is protected by bush and the waves did not cause as much damage there. Probably some of these dikes might have gone, broken down if there was no protection.

But again it comes back to what I said that if we had permanent dikes built -and this government had plenty of time to do it in the last eight years. They chose to do nothing at that time. Sure I'll give them credit this time, the government, that they're trying to help the people. Anybody would have done it; it was an emergency. But these dikes should have been constructed many years before. They would have been finished by now. The Honourable Member from M•Jrris supports my idea that permanent dikes shoul d be built now, the other day he said it. He didn't say so before.

I never heard him in this House supporting my request. I made other requests to raise some of the buildings, raise them a little higher. Again I heard the same story, now -when was it, on Saturday? -that some of them could be raised and some of them could be relocated,· some buildings, where it is impos sible to protect them. Those were the requests that I made for eight years in a row here and I got nothing but ridicule from the government and grins as I just referred to one minister. I don't think this is a laughing matter in here. These towns could have beem protected.

I'm not saying that all the farms could have been protected, but there could have been certain protection for these people too out in the areas and this government chose to do nothing, before

April 18, 1966 1935 (MR. TANCHAK, cont'd) .... the fact; but when an eme rgency arose -yes. Anybody would try to do something. These dikes will cost a lot of money - a lot of them will have to be taken down. And it isn't a waste of money if they serve their purpose I will say, but it is a waste of money in the fact that there will be nothing permanent left. It will just cost a lot of money. I asked if some of them may be saved later and I believe - I didn't hear objections from the government up till now on that. Maybe some of these dikes will be retained and added on later.

But there are many places that there could have been protection afforded before, before an emergency existed, but this government always waits until an emergency arises and then they go ahead and act. I had other suggestions -one year I sugge sted that some tributaries be dammed so as to slow down the flow. I was ridiculed again. It's impossible to do those things because the retention basins are not large enough to retain any amount of water, any amount, but a certain amount would have been retained. There is an

article here in the Red River Valley ·Echo, I. J. C. -that's International Joint Commission we were discussing here on Saturday. "I. J. C. delay on Pembina Dam a disappointment. " They were asking for a dam on Pembina. And this -- I'm not going to blame the government wholly because there was an International Joint Commissi on but partially the government is to blame for that; they could have pressed that something be done on the Pembina River.

I could read parts of this, "Manitoba and North Dakota residents have cause to feel disappointment that the International Joint Commission has reached no decision on the Pembina River project at its March meeting. " Just as late as the last meeting there was .. .. "People in this part of the province fully expected that the I. J. C . would make a recommendation to the two federal governments this month, so that these govern ments could consider it at their present sessi ons. However, Governor Mathew Welsh, new chairman of the United States

section of I. J. C. said in Walhalla last week that they were asking for some more additional information on that. " I asked the government, if the government tried to influence them, tried to speed it up, I do not know; probably they have an answer for that, but I do not know. "The completion of the Floodway will control future damage in Winnipeg.

United States has constructed many dams on Red River tributaries, but nothing has been done in Manitoba to mitigate the damage of flood waters between Emerson and Winnipeg, except the construction of floodways between the escarpment and the Red, which bring down the waters even more quickly every year, " and so on. This is in an editorial from the Red River, it's not my words -"Red River Echo. " That was one of my suggestions years ago -that tributaries could be dammed probably, maybe it wouldn't hold too much water, but it would help some alleviate the floods. There are othe r suggest ions that I have made.

But no, there is nothing -the government wouldn't consider any of those. And it's not only the policy in the Red River Valley, but there is a lack of proper policy throughout southeastern Manitoba as far as the flood is concerned; and every year the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce, remember, because I always referred to him, what he had said at one place, at one village in my own constitutency, that the present government is going to do a better job in drainage in southeastern Manitoba, because the former government only drained Paul and drowned Saul.

This government has done nothing to change the situation, becaus_e these people, all the way, not only in the Red River Valley, but all the way to the boundary of Ontario, are suffering; they are flooded every year. I could bring you another editorial from another newspaper which condemns the government for doing nothing at Piney. The people at Piney have been flooded and they say it's a simple matter to do it. They've been asking it for years. The people at Sprague have been asking for drainage, some drainage, and the government completely ignores them, doesn't act on their request.

I can go all the way through every town, Piney; can go through Sundown, it's the same thing. They have been flooded this year right in the Town of Sundown. The same thing happened at Vita; the same thing happened at Caliento, and at Zhoda and at Arbakka and Stuartburn, Dominion City- all through those towns. And not only in years of flood but even high water, he avy rains causes an awful lot of damage in southeastern Manitoba. This government has no definite policy.

They'll tell me, we have a policy, we have taken over some certain drainage ditches as 100 percent government and the municipality is responsible for the balance; in disorganized areas, we are doing it all. But, if all means nothing , that's not enough . And that's what -practically nothing. I will not say nothing, but practically nothing is be ing done in southe astern Manitoba in the disorganized areas, and it seems to me that if they want any kind of drainage, the municipalities have to really dig in and do it themselves because the government evidently has no proper policy for southeastern Manitoba.

19 36 April 18, 1966 (MR. TANCHAK, cont'd) ... . I could mention othe r instanpes but I think I have taken some time on this concurrence, but I wou ld still like to get an answer from the gover nment, whether the gove rnment is consi dering permanent diking of these villages and these towns and some help - permanent help for the farme rs south of Winnipeg. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member from Morris. MR. SHEWMAN: Madain Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the English language, and I hope I can maintain that respect. But sometimes it's hard, very hard, to have to listen to what we just went through.

I just wonder where a member that spoke the way the previous member spoke , what respect he's got for the English language. It's a wond erful thing to say, I said so. I said so. I told you you're · wrong -- and af ter it's all over • Hindsight is a wonde rfu l thing and some people try to live on that, but they're making a big mistake, a terrible mistake. If the Honou rable Member from Emerson was loyal to his Party, as a man sh ould be, he would never utter the statements that he uttered here tonight; never utter the statements he uttered tonig ht.

He stood in his place and he accused me of not trying to help the people of the Red River Valley. I was in this flood a long long time before the honour able member was in this House. In my 16 years in this Ho use, I have been working for the people of the Red River Valley, and it was a flood that got me into this Hou se, the flood of 1948 , when we asked the � governm ent then for assistance for the people in the Red River Valley, which we didn't get.

I wish the Honourable Member from Emerson 'would just use a little of that brain matter he's got, do a little reading - if he has such a thing -b ecause I hon estly believe in brains - that if brains were made of castor oil, he wouldn't have enoug h to physic a flea. Madam Speaker, I maybe should apologize for that statement; I will apologize but when we get in heated debates, it slips out so easy, that I am sorry I made that statement. I have more respect for the members of this House and I am sorry I made that statement.

But we have worked -I have worked for the people of the Red River Valley in years gone by and I want to be fair and say I don't like to rehash this again, because it has been rehashed and re hashed, but the Member from Emerson is away off base. I'd like to know where his party has been in the last eight years and previous 30 -some odd years before that, when they weren't working for the people in the Red River Valley. We have done more in the last eight years for the people of the Red River Valley than has ever been done in the history of Manitoba as far as flood protection is concerned.

Now it's true that we had to wait for the time and the money to help the people in the Red River Valley, which we have done. And the people in the Red River Valley are very thankful for what the government has done for them, realizing that it takes time to cure these iUs, and they are quite willing to wait a little while longe r until a perfec t job is made of it; which the previous government had refused to do. I don't like to go on with this, rehashing this , but I had to say something in my own protection after the outburst that we had from the � Honourable Member from Emerson. MR.

TANCHAK: May I ask the honou rable member a question, please? Did the honourable member support my request for .... MADAM SPEAKER: .... request his permission for a question ? MR. SHEWMAN: Madam Speaker, if it's a sensible question, I'll try and answer it. MR. T ANCHAK: Well my questions are always sensible. The answers are usually not sensible. The question is , did the honourable member support my request for permanent dikes - protection for people in southern Manitoba, south of Winnipeg? MR.

SHEWMAN: I don't remember at any time hearing the honourable member request dikes, until just on Saturday past, for dikes in southern Manitoba. MR. TANCHAK: You have short memory. HON. GEORGE HUTTON (Minister of Agricult ure) (Rockwoo d- IberviHe): Madam Speaker, I don't intend to make a speec h but I've got some really quotable quotes here, going back to 19 60-61 --(Interjectio ns)-- I think that - Pardon --(Interjectio n)-- No. I just want to pick out the very good ones. I'm not going to stick to my honourable friend the Member for Emerson.

I think he and his collea gue all shared a particular point of view back in those days when we were considering these indecisio ns. Let's take '61, there's some pretty good ones here. --(Interjection)-- Oh, I find it pays to keep track of what people say from time to time. Now this is the Honourab le Member for Emerson and this is 1 961. That's five, six years ago. He said, "There's extravagance I don't agree with, but coming back to the Floodway I say that

April 18 , 19 66 19 37 (MR. HUTTON, cont'd) .••. the people of Winnipeg are entitled to some protection. They have a certain amount of protection here, not that this government is giving them, but the forme r. They are entitled to a certain form of protection, but I say this right now, I am opposing the constructi on of that Floodway. " MR. T ANCHAK: I'm not talking abo ut that. MR. BUTTON: "I say I am opposing it until the present government gets a guarantee that Ottawa will contribute at least 75 percent of the cost. I don't believe in that - that we will go it alone . Go it alone ?

I say that this woul d be provinc ial suicide for the Province of Mani tob a to go it alone. They say that it might cost $10 0 million. Who knows ? It might go to $125 and I say that the Province of Manitoba cannot stand that. " He certainly wasn't very much in favour of it. He's got anothe r one in here. This is the Honourable Member for Emerson, the same Session, "But I would say again as I mentioned once before that if Manitoba is to carry this load by itself and if Ottawa does not contribute at least 75 percent of the cost of this project, I say that rather than go it alone, we leave it alon e.

" That was a pretty smart saying in those days. It wasn't nearly so smart this spring. Oh, there's some beauties in here. Here's the Honourab le Member for St. George. He says he doe sn't think the floodwa y's necessary. "I think the enormous cost of this program isn't justified for the benefit that Greater Winnipeg would receive ." Oh yes, he had a beautiful position on this.

He said that in respect to the project on Lake Manitoba up at Fairfie ld, (that's in his constituency) he said that was practical and he endorsed it; but the one on the Red River is not practical and whether the Federal Government pays 75 percent or 10 0 percent, still isn't practical. So he was really opposed to it. Oh, this is a beauty -H e says - The Honour able Member for St.

George : "The Premier said last night, and he's quoting the Premier here, "we're acce pting this reco mmendation beca use the Royal Commission recommend it, and we're going ahead with it." And then he go es on and he says: "The Premier's also - speaking of the Premier - "he also says that he is quite prepared to go to the people on this subject. Well I challenge him to go to the people on this thing because the people of Manitoba are not the foo ls he thinks they are. And if this diversion is ever constructed this white elephant will be regarded forever as "Roblin's Foll y.

" Boy, that's an interesting one in the year 1966. Real interesting. Well that was an interesting Sessi on. Here's some - the Hono urable Member for Emersou again - "Well,"he says, "It seems to me that the government or the Minister" - (guess he was speaking of me) - "is accepting this old slogan that we say 'a pig in a poke ' and wants everybody in this House to endo rse acceptance of this" (and he's speaking here again about our financ ial arrangements and supporting this contention that if we didn't get 75 percent we shouldn't do anything.

Well, he says "Again the government" - this is the same sessi on "Again the government wanted to make - some of the senior members of the government wanted to impress the people and show that they're the go-gette rs , forging ahead so what happens? Studies - sure there were studies, but the First Minister was so anxious to push that through that in a moment of temper, I imagine, a moment of haste, he committed the province to go it alone . I think it wou ld have been nloer and much better for the Province of Manitoba if the First Minister would not have committed himself to this.

" So this is the Honourable Member for Emerson. Now he says on this one, "I was agreeable on the 75-25 percent basis. We haven't got it now and I think it was the First Minister who lost it for us. " This is what he's saying. In 1961 again. And what did his leader have to sey at that time? Some interesting things. Oh, he was objecting too, to the breakdown of costs. The Honourable the Leader of the Oppos ition. The Hono urable Member for Ste. Rose. "Well", he says, "there it is Mr.

Speaker, on the one hand, haste, hurry, bad management, poor planning -referring to the Floodway - haste, hurry, bad management, poor plaDnlng. And if I remember correctly, in his speech in this Session of the Legislature, he was castigating the government because we didn't have the Floodway finis hed. -- (Interjec�ion) -- No, your Leader, your Leader, your Leader. Well here's a dandy here. The Honourable the Member for Portage made a wond erful contribution in 1963.

He said, "I say the intended cre ation of a Floodway around Winnipeg and the Diversion Channel of Portage la Prairie into Lake Manitoba are the two greatest mis takes ever to be undertaken by any gove rnme nt in Canada up to the present time. " Now that's quite a statement! Boy, that sure puts him as opposed to this Floodway, I would think. I like that quotation. I got quite a good one here, I think, I should just close with this one. This was in 1962 -

1938 April 18, 1966 (MR. HUTTON, cont'd) .. •. the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition said in 196 2, "Insofar as our Party is concerned, Mr. Speaker, we are not prepared to approve the financial arrange ment proposed in this resolution and we shall vote against the resolution on that basis." In other words, because we didn't get a 75-25 deal with the Government of Canada, the Liberal Party in Manitoba was officially opposed to the construction of the projects, both on the Red and Assiniboine Rivers. They made that quite clear.

Now, let not the people of Manitoba be fooled because if indeed the Leader of the Opposition and his Memoors had been responsible for the conduct of public affairs in this province, we have it on their say so, not anything we've said, but on their say so, that you wouldn't have a spade full of dirt turned on any of these projects.

My honourable friends think, and the Honourable Member for Emerson thinks that the pe ople that he represents, and on whose behalf he is appealing here tonight, would have had a ghost of a chance with that attitude, he's thoroughly deluding himself; but he isn't deluding the people that he represents because if the government had not pro.:Jeeded with a general and comprehensive program of flood control on both the Red and Assiniboine -and I might say in the binder land on many of the tri butaries of these two great rivers -there wouldn't be any hope.

But the fact is that we are fast approaching the day in Manitoba when due to what might have seemed like haste and bad management in 196 1 and 196 2, has turned out to be pretty provident and prudent planning in 19 66, and I think it just points up the fact that fortunately, we have a man in Manitoba who has a great deal more foresight than some of his most partisan critics, and I say we are lucky to have the First Minister, Premier Roblin, in Manitoba, and the evidence is here to substantiate that statement. MR. TANCH AK: Would the Honourable Minister permit a question?

It's a sensible one and I'll get a sensible reply. Right? Permissi on? I would like to know what that has to do with what I've got up here south of Winnipeg? And I ask him one specific question. Does the government intend to give any form of permanent protection for the citizens south of Winnipeg? I didn't mention Winnipeg at all. I want to know whether the Minister intends to give any permanent protection for the people that I represent and also the Honourable Member for Morris -he can speak for himself. The Minister did not answer my question, and that's all I brought in. MR.

HUTTON: Madam Speaker, I am happy to answer his question. Last summer the Water Control and Conservation Branch of the Department of Agriculture began a study of the Town of Eme rson, which is in the honourable member's constituen cy, as to the feasibility of constructing a permanent earth dike. Unfortunately, we never got a chance to get started on it.

But I think that we made it quite clear last summer in our approach to the requests of some of the people that the honour.able member represents that we are prepared to consider this, and I would remind the honourable member on this subject, that even some of the people locally were not, prior to the real flood scare we had last spring, were not too acceptable, or didn't find the idea of a ring dike too acceptable; so attitudes have changed there and we are co operating. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR.

DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, if what was in the .. . well anyway if what has been said by the last two speakers was music, they'd have the biggest brass band in the land. I think it's a shame to come in here during a flood and try to talk the way these last two members did. It seems to me that this government-- it seems to me the government, and the First Minister, feel (Interjection) Yes, I'm talking, and I think that this government has tried to make this a crime to represent one's constituency.

The Member from Emerson asked a perfectly sensible question; he's worried about the people in his area, but this is a crime. The Member from Rhine land a while back was very concerned about people from his district. He asked a simple question, he tried to discuss this flood. This was the greatest thing, the biggest thing, the most important thing in all the people's minds, but the government would not let him ask his question, would not give him leave to discuss this thing. His own constituency. And now today, especially the membe rs of the front bench think this is a big joke.

Think this is a big joke because the member .. . and we have heard quotes. Oh boy, he's been promising this for a long time. He was all set with all his big books hoping that we should say something, to be able to say, "You voted against the Floodway." He talked about certain Members from Portage, Members from Emerson, and Members from Rhineland who are interested in their own constituency. What is this Floodway doing for them? What is this Flood way doing for them? And he couldn't find anything else in his quotes but that the Members of the Liberal Party

April 18, 1966 1939 (MR. DESJARDINS, cont'd) .. .. did not like the way that this was done, the negotiating; and if any one of the front bench can stand up and tell me this was good negotiating - - .• . it was in the days of Diefenbaker, and the First Minister did lose his temper and after rubbing his little moustache for a little while he said, "We'll do it alone, " we'll do it alone; and we're stuck with an awful lot of money doing it alone, so let's not . . .

Th3 flood is a big thing- I never dreamt for a minute -I couldn't believe when some people say that the Roblin Govern ment was a little disappointed last year when they lost the crest, but I've started to think that maybe this is what they wanted. He was all read), with his books, the Minister, to give us a lecture. And what did he say, that the members felt that it was poor negotiating, poor nego tiating. The man with the foresight he was in Ottawa last week with a different government. There was no politics, there was nothing. What did he get?

What did he say when he left here that he wanted at least 75 percent, and he got it. This was a little different then. This is a little different. It's a different government. But he didn't dare .. . he didn't do this at all because he lost his temper. And you can say what you want, this is the government of fores ight. Where is that $6 million it was supposed to spend last year? Was it waiting for the crest again? What did they do in 1962 when they promised that this would be done in 1965?

And to have the gall, to have the gall to pretend that the.re are some members, and members in the House who are not interested, who are not trying to do something about a flood. Did any of them, did any of them give credit to the former First Minister of this House for this perma nent dike. Where would you be, Mr. Minister, if you didn't have these permanent dikes to start in? w:1ere would you be? Can't you give a little bit of credit? Are you that almighty and that wonderful that you do it all alone? That you don't need anybody else?

Did you hear anybody here on this side of the House all during the Sessi on bring up this question of flood? You were hoping, with your •.. the Member from Rhine land, who brought it in, and this Member who is asking about hJls constituency. You arranged for us to fly over this consti tuency. Weren 1t you worried?· Is it a sin for a member to get up in this House and say that he is worried about the members of his own constituency? What are we elected for in a constituency for? Then he talks about the Member from Portage. What is that going to do for these people?

The great friend of the farmers; the farmers are going to pay an awful lot of money and that water will just go back in that valley year after year. The great people that are so satisfied. They want to challenge us on the flood. It's

an Act of God, it'll give him a plat form. Why he can't quote me on this and I come from the city and I live near the river, but I still say you've got to negotiate , you try to negotiate something decent when you deal, the same as he did this year with a different government. And why is it are you dragging your feet? Never mind what we did, you were the government. That's right, you were the govern ment, and you out voted us, and I voted against the Floodway. I voted against the Floodway on the same reason because of this negotiating, this lack of negotiating. And I would vote again.

We've got so many people living in this province. We've got •. (Interjection) Yes, I would on the same thing, I would vote against this. This government is not out there to just throw the money away. We've got a certain population here in Manitoba and there's so much they can pay. Oh yes, it's a big joke. You tell the people on the farm, your great friends the farmers what you are doing for them on this flood. You tell the people of Elm Park. We saw not too long ago that this Floodway will do very little for Elm Park. Isn't that true? What are you going to do there? What are you going to do there?

Why don't you give a little bit of credit? There was no playing politics in this Session at all on this question. --(Interjection) --.All right, tell me who did? The Member from Rhineland who was worried because you authorized another government to go and blow dikes? That was wrong for him to have the nerve to ask you why? That was wrong? Did you give him an answer? Did your friend give him an answer? He told him he was being paro.:Jhial. He's alone on this side so run him down. He can't defend himself. You won't even give him a chance to talk. Run him down. Tell him how wonderful you are. Run him down.

Ani you're the great defender. You stall -you'd like to stall long enough to have a flood, wouldn't you --(Interjection)-- well why did you promise in '62 that this would be finished in 165. Why did you promise? MR. HUTTON: I never made any such promise. MR. DESJARDINS: The government didn't promise in 162 that they would have this ::eady in 165? They did? They did? We'll have some quotes too, my dear friend, because you

19 40 April 18, 1966 (MR. DESJARDINS, cont'd) ... . know, Wnere's that $6 million you were .going to spend last year? Wny get excited now. Couldn't you rush this a little bit? Or did you want to prove - to be able to quote - get out your big books and say that the Member from Emerson did not like this flood. He represents the cons tituency that's not helped a darn bit, except that they have to pay for it. The other member also - he can't even ask you why another government will come in and blow the dike. He ca n't even ask you that. Now they're supposed to blindly vote for this ?

No, Madam Speaker, let's be hone st on this thing. These people know, the members of the front bench know that there wasn't any politics because everybody was ca reful not to play any politics on this. There was some qaestions been asked. I myself had a lot of questions and I ask you personall y because I fe lt that you were doing your best. I know you were doing your best and I give you credit for this, but to come in here and gloat tonight and not have the decency of giving a little bit of credit to the man and the Party who built a permanent dike. Is it fair to compare 195 0 to 1966 ? Is it fair ?

Weren't you prepared in 1966 ? Did yoa have to go through the same thing in 1966 as they did in 196 0 or 50 ? Is it fa ir? Don 't think that you should have the courage of giving credit for what was there? Madam Speaker, do you think we would have · been as successful this year if we hadn't had that start, that base, and if God almighty hadn't helped us by keeping the rain away from this provinc e? If they want to say that the members , some members, or the members of the Liberal Party voted against the floodwa y, they should puU out their big books and tell the people why.

And he says that we wouldn't have had anything if we would have been in power. That's not true because we got nothing this year, the flood way's not ready. We might have taken another year to negotiate, but I'm sure that things would have been done permanently. How much is this floodway really going to cost? Right now the people are wor ried - oh yes, oh, yes, these are the miliionares out there. What's a few dolla rs? --(Interjection)-- Will you tell me in '68 how much that's going to cost in interest and everything?

All right, and then you tell me what we've lost out - what we lost because of poor negotiating from your government and your First Minister because he acted like a spoiled boy scout and he says "we'll do it alone." You tell me --(Interjection)-- did you hear about the flea , Madam Speaker ? MA DAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member from St. Boniface is disobeying the rules of this House to accost me in such a manner.

I ask the honourab le member to take note of the rules of the House and if he continues to disobey me in such a manner as this and accosts me in that fashion , I shall have no other recourse than to name him. MR. DESJ ARDINS: Well, Madam Speaker, I won 't tell you what I think, I'll try to be more careful. It seems that I have the knack or something of saying the wrong thing, contrary to some of the members here.

Nevertheless, I still feel that in this thing, especia lly in this time of the year when we are just going throagh the flood, it's not good for the people of Manitoba, trying to sc are them and trying to say that a ce rtain gro11p of people are not interested in their welfare at all. Or try to muzzle or to stop some people from the rural points or from points of Manitob a who are not getting anything but debt from this cost of the floodwa y. And as I said, I think that the Minister did a very good job.

I think he did during this time; I think he tried his best; and I think that the Minister of Public Utilities did the same thing. I think that everybody did their job and I think that we should congratulate all the people, and the Army and so on who worked on it. But I don't think it's proper because a member stands up and wants assurance that the govern ment will not forge t his constituency - who 1 s been hit probably more so than any other cons tituency - or the constituency of any othe r members in this House.

I don't think that it's quite proper to pull out these big books and start quoting them that they didn 1t like, bec ause these people did not like the way they negotiate. You didn't negotiate a single thing, a single thing, that didn't explain exactly what the member said, that they felt that we should have had 75 percent. And you haven't got the floodwa y ready, the flood way didn't save the people in 1966. And you say that you hadn't promised this in 1965 and a lot of people know dif ferent - a lot of peo ple know diff erent. And you haven't told me what you did with that $6 million that was earmarked for this.

You haven't told me that yet._ Madam Speaker, as I say I will congratulate even though I don't like the arrogance that they have and the way that they try to muzzle some of the people, especially the one that's alone in his Party. I think that if they want to tell the people of Manitoba the story about the flood and the story about the flood way, I think they should tell all -n ot misrepresent, not give the impression that people from one side of the Ho11se are not in favo ur.

The people of one side of the House didn't like the way the negotiating was done - the money that it cost the people of Manitoba - and it's going to cost an awfu l lot of money . A lot of negotiations should have been

April 18, 1966 1941 (MR. DESJARDlNS, cont'd) .... done with the government of the United States because a lot of this water comes from there. And I think if that had been, if we hadn't -we rushed into deciding this but we didn't rush in completing this. MR. FROESE: Madam Speaker, I think I should make a few comments in connection with the deb:J.te that has just gone on and continued until now.

I to:> voted against the floodway when it was 'orought up in this House and I'm quite free in telling this beca:.�s-:J at that time, as still is the case, the people south of Winnipeg did not receive any protection and I felt that if we were going to spend money on the flo:>dway, certainly the people south of Winnipeg were just as much entitled to protection as the people in the City of Winnipeg. And this is still true today. This is one of my reasons for voting against it at that time.

Also, there's been talk about the amount of money that was supposed to be spent and is being spent and while this was first put on capital account, later on when it was stated that this might be a white elephant, and they had other terms used at that time, the government changed it so that they would put the item under current expenses and in this way take the money out of current account for the project so that there would not be any interest accruing, so that they would not be blamed for this in later years when this would still show up on the books and we would still ue paying interest on it, that they would change it so that this would not be the case.

Well, I still hold those views that I held at that time and I will stand by them, that if we're going to build protection for some people we should build protection for the farmers along the Red to the U. S. border as well. We find that these people are the very people that bear the brunt of the whole flood.

They had to leave their homes; they had to move their cattle and livestock and beloagings and these are the people that are suffering today, even though the floodway is not completed, so that right now today we are depending on the dikes that were built originally as well as the ones that have been built and constructed this spring, I too con gratulate the government for building the dikes this spring and doing the job they have done. I think this is remarkably well ... The people in southern Manitoba have contributed a lot toward getting the dykes in order and maintaining them, as well as the Army.

We have had a lot of people from our area going into these towns and assisting day in and day out and this is -a lot of this is volunteer work so that we have every right to be thankful to these people and we should give them credit and public thanks for the job they have been doing. On an earlier occasion, during this Session, we had a flash flood 1n Winkler. Later on we had another flood occurring 1n my constituency which was prompted in the first instance by blasting of a municipal dike and at that time I was treated, I think, rather unfairly, by the Minister of Natural Resources.

That night after I had given an account as I saw it and as I was informed and the Minister that night said the following -and I quote from Page 1561 of Tuesday, April 5, 1966 and I quote "instead tonight as was the case this afternoon, we are treated to a dissertation by the honourable member on certain allegations that have been given to him and which he is entitled to believe, although not necessarily spread all over the face of Manitoba, in connection with a small bit of flooding that was occurring in his constituency, and which he alleges, falsely so I'm told by the Minister of Agriculture and as he said today on the Orders of the Day, was caused by forces outside this country".

Well this allegation, 1f they call it an allegation, was not a false one. I can prove it for that matter and the people, the people 1n responsibility, the Reeve of the Municipality, the Council, they can all bear up and vouch for this, that this was not a falsehood that I was telling the people here 1n the House -This was fact; this was the truth -that they had received orders or at least had been given the okay to do just that and when I reported it, I'm treated to these kind of statements.

There is a further statement on the following page - 1562, where he has further things to mention by the same Mlnister, the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, and I quote: "While we're sitting here listening to my honourable friend for Rhine land, they are packing their bags, moving out of their homes, going to other places of accommodation". This sounds as though I was to blame for this whole thing. I certainly had nothing to do with causing the flood, I'm sure of that.

And further on on that same page- 1562, at the bottom of the page he continues and I quote: "It makes one wonder when one has to be treated to something like ten or fifteen minutes of debate by an honourable member who 1s complaining about an alleged flooding of a municipal road 1n part of his constituency. I would hope that that will be all that he will have cause to complain about after the flood waters have come and gone from southern Manitoba". There were further things said at that time. But !just wanted to come back to it and say that this was

1942 April 18, 1966 (MR. FROESE, cont'd) .••. not a falsehood, that these were not just allegations, that I was speaking of fact. Madam Speaker, in speaking on the flood protection for southern Manitoba, this after noon I mentioned the Pembilier Dam which could be used for agricultural purpose s, for irrigation, and to grow small crops, canning crops for the area in my constituency and that of the Honourable Member for Pembina where we have the canneries and so on where we could make use of this. And furthe r to that, if these dams were built they would help in avoiding excessive flooding.

We were told I think at the time that we discussed the whole matter of the Floodway that about eight percent of the flooding waters come from Pembina. Then we have other creeks that flow into the Red just a little further north of the U. s. Border such as the Hespeler and others. I am sure these also contribute to the flooding of the Red. Naturally this year they came a little earlier, and probably it was a good thing they did come a little earlier so that the river was opened up, channels were opening up before the main flow of water came from the south.

I would urge the government to give consideration and do everything in their power to get the Pembilier Dam constructed and give every effo rt and endeavour to the International Joint Commission to speed up the matter of getting the Pembina Dam built. I think this is one way of getting protec tion. Further to that, we have these dikes now in these smaller centres such as Morris, St.

Jean and Emerson, and perhaps we could make these of a more permanent type so that in future this work would not have to be done during the rush of a flood but that they would � be able to be built in such a way that they would be durable and that they could be permanent, I think if this was done it cer tainly would be a help for any future floods. MR. GORDON E. JOHNSTON (Portage la Prairie): Madam Speaker, when one goes into politics from time to time one can expect to have one 's statements misinterpreted, perhaps distorted, and from time to time used in some manner that may be embarrassing if at all possib le.

But I heard an amazing statement tonight from the Honourable Minister of Agricul ture when he quoted me as having made certain statements in a debate regarding water conser- vation in 1963. ' I would like to refer to the 1963 Hansard, Page 926, I have made a speech and I have quote d from ce rtain authorities, and down at the bottom of the page -- Madam Speaker I would like to quote exactly what is here in-print. I'll begin the paragraph. "Now when I read from a minority report, I am not reading to prove a point for myself. I am bringing this forward to say that there is diffe rences and serious diff erences.

Another person, quite far removed from the scene , who is not closely, or shall we say, emotionally connected with this particular item has something to say along this line and I would like to read it. " Madam Speaker, I would like to remark at. this time that quotation marks now follow the next statement. "The Honourable Mr. George Hutton made a statement at the Winnipeg Junior Chamber of Commerce meeting recently that Manitoba will be safe even from major floods by 1967. This exuberant message carries with it the spirit of Mr.

Hutton's political statement that now the Roblin Government � has done it's best in the interests of Manitoba's future. I make this statement as a challenge '4 to those who are for the Flood way and a Diversion Channel at Portage la Prairie. I say the intended crea tion of the Flood way around Winnipeg and a Diversion Channel at Portage la Prairie into Lake Manitoba, are the two greatest mistakes ever to be undertaken by any govern ment in Canada up to the present time.

The diversion of Manitoba water from central Manitoba around Holla nd and the Souris basin to Lake Manitoba, is a disaster of the first magnitude. These waters should be kept up on the plateau. From there they should be let down by gravity to be used when required. There the water can be U:sed for the benefit of the whole provinc e. Diverting these valuable waters into Lake Manitoba make the water useless. It must be remem bered that Lake Manitoba is from 25 to 50 feet lower than the Holla nd Dam area, and 100 to 200 feet lower than most parts of Manitoba where this water could be used.

Once in Lake Manitoba the water is lost to 90 percent of agricultural Manitoba. The onl y use for this water will then be to divert it into Winnipeg to clean up excess sewage rUbbish. The loss of this water which has great potential use west of Portage, will in time be a serious matter for Winnipeg. This great city cannot live by and to itself, but only if water can be built up above the first level, " Madam Speaker, the quotation marks end there.

Then I quote again, "He goes on to state that, we are living in a 10-i nch annual rainf all country but the gov ernment is taking steps in terms of a 50-inch annual rainfall country. Now again I don't say everything this gentleman has to say is true, but it sounds quite reasona ble, quite sensible and quite reasonab le. Madam: Speaker, for a Minister of the Crown to stand up in this House tonight and

April 18 , 1966 1943 (MR. JOHNSTON, cont'd) .••. deliberately, deliberately, attribute and misrepresent in a manner that he has done is a disgrace, it's a disgrace; and if he's man enoug h he'll get up and apologi ze. MR. HUTTON: Madam Speaker, I'm man enoug h to get up and apologiz e. I'm sorry . It was an hone st mistake that I made; and we do make mistakes sometime s. I apologize to the honou rable member. MR. JOHNSTON: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a question? Do you accept the question? How many other people have you misquoted tonight ?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Department of the Attorney-Gene ral. MR. CL ERK: 4. Resol ved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $8, 783 , 291 for Attorney-Gen eral. Reso lution 21 to 30 for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1967 . 5. Resolved 'there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $8 2,9 65, 454 ... . MR. PA ULLEY: Madam Speaker, before this ... . MADAM SPEAKE R: The Honour able the Leader of the New Democ ratic Party. MR.

PAULLEY: Before this moti on is placed before the House , or voted on, I rise on a question as to the correctness of the figure that has been presented to you as a vote for the consideration of the members of this House. If I heard the Honourable the Clerk correctl y, he mentioned a figure for Education of $8 2, 965, 454. I ask you first of all, Madam Speaker, is that corr ect? - that that was the mo tion that was presented for the considera tion of the Hou se? Is that the moti on ? MADAM SPEAKER: These are the figures on the paper, unless the Clerk made a mistake in •. .. MR.

PAULLEY: Then, Madam Speaker, I protest the whole proceedings of the House thus far, because the figures -if the figure for the Department of Education is an indicator of the figure s for the othe r departments -- and I must confe ss I did not watch them as closely as I did this one -- then I resp ectfully suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that all the motions . that have been placed before the House thus far, are incorre ct.

I suggest Madam Speaker, that you look at the Estimates for the Department of Educa tion as contained on page 10 and 11 of the doc ument which I have, a gold covered booklet titled Manitob a Estimates and Expenditures of Revenue for the Fiscal Year ending March 31 st, 1967 as presented to the Legislature. The figure which has been read out of $82 million, 900 odd thousand dollars, is a figure which also takes into considera tion contributions from the Government of Canada.

We are only concerned here, I respec tfully suggest, Madam Speaker, with the amounts of money which have to be raised by the taxpayer of the Province of Manitoba, and th.at it is erroneous for the government, through the Clerk, to present motions to this House asking for greater amounts of money than have to be raised within the provinc e.

I appreciate very much, Madam Speaker, that we have in Manitoba at the present time a governme nt who love s to glorify themse lves; who love to magnify what they are doing in Manitoba; but I respectf ully suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that the motion before us is not a proper one because it is not the prope r amount, and if it is true of the others which have pre ceded this, then I would respec tfully suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that it is your duty as Speaker of this House, to rule as being inco rrect, all the motions which have been presented to the House thus far; because they contain monie s raised by the fe deral authorities and monies which are contributed by the federal authority to the people of Manitoba.

They are not expen ditures of mon ey, of and by the people of Manitoba.

So I rise at this point, Madam Speaker, not to discuss the qllestion before the House of the es timates of the Department of Education - - l will have something to say on that - but I rise, Madam Speaker, on a point of Order, and I ask you to cons ider whe ther or not the pro cedure thus far is incorrect - and I refe r Madam Speaker, to substantiate the position that I am taking, to the Journals of 1965 Page 449, wherein we deal with the question of the es timates of the Department of Health last year, and the amount of money that was voted on at that time was precisely the amount of money which had to be raised by the Province of Manitoba.

There was a recorded vote on that motion, Madam Speake r, a vote for general administration of $1, 120, 399. That was for last year, and I'm referring now to Pa,ae 12 of our gold covered booklet -- and I think it's appropriate it's in go ld --that this year the suggested amount, or total for last year would be $1 , 467 odd thou sands of dollars. My point is, Madam Speaker, we did not vote last year for $1, 467, 659, that the motion for $1, 123, 099. So I suggest, Madam·

19 44 April 18, 1966 (MR. PAULLEY, cont'd) .. •• Speaker, it is erroneous for us to vote here in this House for any amounts that are not the actual amounts for which the taxpayer of Manitoba has to provide out of its own revenue source s; it's not proper for us to have to consider a motion which includes monies which come from the taxpayer of CanJ.da and I ask you, Madam Speaker, to rule in this regard. MR. ROBLIN: Madam Speaker, this is an interesting discussion. Perhaps I could make a comment on the point of Order that's raised because it's quite without any foundation what soever.

There's no reason to pay the slightest attention to the ;:>roposition that's been put forth by my honourable friend. I would like to point out to him that in the first place in the statement that was made when the revenue expenditures - when the expenditure estimates were submitted to the House was made - it was quite clearly pointed out at that time that we were going to go to a new system of accounting, namely the gross basis instead of the basis that we're on in previous times.

The only reason at all why the old basis is shown in these es timates before us now is to provide members as a convenience so they could make a more reasonabl e comparison with the expen ditures last year. So the House was put on notice - that this change in the method of estimates and the method of voting and the arriving of the sums were put on notice that this was our intention.

And there are a number of good reasons for this change because the previous esti mates going back for quite a number of years were neither fish, fowl nor good red herring, because they were not on the net basis that my honou rable friend seems to be spe aking for . They were on a mixed basis -b oth mixed, net and gross and that obviously when you consider it was a mistake, so we decided that we would go to the gross basis rather than have this mixed basis that existed before .

It's no sense trying to pro test that last year the estimates went through on a net basis because they did not - they went through on this mixed basis both net and gross - very confusing I submit- and it was decided in the interest of clarity, in the interest of accuracy, to take this step of putting them all on a gross basis. The House was notified of this weeks ago. Further, Madam Speaker, why does my hon ourable friend discover the need to investi gate this matter now?

Does he not know that in the Committee of Supply he has already voted - already voted - for every one of these items ou the gross basis, just as we're asked to do tonig ht, and to suggest on this occ asion that it is something that - presumably the Clerk has made a mistake or that you should rule on is of course something that's qllite out of the question. And why is the gross basis the proper system of doing things?

Very simple - because the shared cost programs that we have from Ottawa come into our hands as part of our Coll8o lidated Fund - as part of our Conso lidated Fund; and now we are asking for appropriations from that Conso lidated Fund. And if we don't ask for it on the gros s basis we'll never get the federal money appropriated to the vario.us items and departments for which it is intended. So clearly the system that we are following now is to be pref erred to the one that we followed in � previous occasi ons and that there's really no substance in the point raised. MR.

PAULLEY: Madam Speaker, if I may speak to the point of Order again, I do not agree with my honour able friend at all. I say to him that I accepted the explanation when we started the estimates for comparative pur poses, but only for comparative purposes, and - (Interjection)-- I beg your pardon. I thought I just heard a mumble over across the way from my honour able fri end. You .•• MA DAM SPEAKE R: The honou rable member has already spok en. If he has a question to ask or point of Order to raise he may speak, otherw ise he is ..• MR.

PAULLEY: And I take it Madam Speaker, that you're curtailing my rights to reply to my hon ourable friend. . • • Enforcing the rules ? ..• MADAM SPEAKE R: Order please. The hono urable member has spoken. I think he has exceeded his rights. The es timates for the Department of Education. MR. PAULLEY: Madam Speaker, what is your ruling on the point that I raised please ? MADAM SPEAKE R: I think I must say to the Hoaourable Leader of the New Democrati c Party that the House was put on notice when we started this that there was a new system of accounting.

I think that you were duly aware of it when we were in Supply and that these amounts have been voted and I have - I now call on the Clerk to continue with the amounts for the Depart ment of Educ ation. MR. PAULLEY: Then I understand then the motion before the House is cons ideration for an amount of money for $82 , million 965. Is that correc t? Then, Madam Speaker, I must

April 18, 1966 1945 (MR. PAULLEY, c ont'd) ..•. say in respect of the figure that we hJ.ve before us and this has nothing, Madam Speaker, to do with your ru ling - I'm spe aking in connaction with the amounts of money that the Province of Manitoba is going to spend in respect of Education - so kindly relax. I want to say to this government that no matter what type of bookkeeping they may use , be it in respect of educ ation or any ocher department , they are letting the people of Manitoba down.

They are particularly letting the people of Manitoba down in the field of Education, because if the objective of my honourable friends opposite was to inflate the figures that we have under consideration, I suggest that they could have inflated them far more by taking full advantage of the offers of the federal administration for contributions to e:iucation - and in particular to the federal contribution for technical and vocational training. Madam Speaker, Manitob a is the lowest on the whole totem pole in respect of contributions from federal authorities -federal departments in the field of vocational training.

The Minister of Ind:.1stry and Commerce this afternoon s:1ggested :o us that the Province of Manitoba and Monoca are going to go 50-50. You said it. Going to go 50-50 in bringing into Manitoba skilled personne l. At the same time skilled personne l are le aving Manitoba. My honourable friend has entered into this agreement when there has been for a number of years grants at the federal source to make provision for trained personne 1 in the Province of Manitoba.

So I say, Madam Speaker, that had this government been on its toes this figure might have looked even better than· the inflated f igure that it is at the present time. Not only in the fie ld of vocational, technical training have they failed in education, while we were c onsidering the estimates of the Department of Education, almost simultaneousl y as we were c onsidering the advent of Monoca, or the Churchill Integrated Industries here into Manitoba, the govern ment was suggesting with the building of a vocational school at The Pas, they wou ld start training perso nnel.

Madam Speaker, the other day I asked for Orders of Return dealing with correspondence over - dealing with the possi bility of an Integrated Forest Industry in Manitoba. It goe s back to 1962 - the c orresponde nce that I rece ived- four years ago , Madam Speaker, that government was talking about ... MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. I think the honourable members in the House should lower their voices if they wish to speak and to give the hono urable member who is speaking an opportun ity to continue . MR.

PAULLEY: I know, Madam Speaker, it's sometime s hard to get through their skulls and I accept their raised voi ces. I'll yell just a little louder in order to penetrate. It is tough and I thank you for your support. I was just saying, Madam Speaker, four years ago the Department of Industry and Commerce started -- according to the corre spondence that was tabled the other day, they started nego tiating for an Integrated Forest Industry here in Manitoba. They may have started sooner, I believe Arthur D. Little mentio.ned it prior to that- 1958 if I remember correctly.

The report on COMEF in 1960 I believe mentioned it. But anyway, Madam Speaker, in the corresp ondence that was tabled the other day, it appeared as though the gove rnment was serious ly taking this question under advisement. It's not until 1966 , Madam Speaker, that the government even annou nces that they're going to go ahead with vocational training in The Pas area insofar as training skilled worke rs in an Integrated Forest Industry.

When the Honour able the Minister of Education laid before us the brochure or prospectus in regard to the vocational training school at The Pas, there was no ref erence at all to the training of personnel insofar as a forest industry is concerned, except that they would make some provision for minor courses. There was no provision, as there was indeed in the field of mining, for educa tion at the higher Level. So I sa y, Madam Speaker, in the field of education this gov ernment has let Manitobans down and let them down badly.

They have had no vision; they have had no foresig ht; yet they are pleased to butter up es timates to the degree that we have before us toda y . I ask the govern ment, I ask the former Minister of Education, the present Attorney-Gen eral, were you, Sir, not aware of a vast potential in the area of The Pas for development of our for estry?

When you were a Minister of Education my friend, why did you not undertake the training of the youth of that area in order that the Minister of Industry and Commerce toda y doe s not have to sey to us in this Hou se, that the taxpayer of Manitoba is going to go 50 - 50, in addition to all other costs, in the provision of importing -- yes, Madam Speaker, of importing skilled labour from outside the boundar ies of Manitoba and possible of Canada, as well.

19 46 Aprll 18, 1966 (MR. PAULLEY, cont'd) .•.. This afte rnoon my collea gue from St. John 's pointed out many deficiencies in what we think is the Agreem ent in respect of this industry. But, Madmt Speaker, may I say in all d.1e respect that the defi ciencies in the financ ial arrangements cannot equal the defici encies and the failure of the Roblin administration in the field of ed:lCation. It is admitted, Madam Speaker, that there is an exodus of trained personne l from Manitoba because under our ec onomic so called climate wages are not suf ficient to retain our work ers.

Just the other day we had an instance of it in the City of Brandon where skilled workers are leaving in the building of a plant in Brandoa because of the lack of wages. But because of the lack of training of the young men and women in Manitoba in the fie ld of voc ation al training and education today , the Mlniater of Industry and Commerce says we are going to have to go 50-50 with a S wiss com pany that's going to exploit the resources of our provi nce, because we haven't got trained personnel here in Manitoba.

And at the same time, Madmt Speaker , at the same time, Mani toba has been at the bottom of the totem pole in rece iving federal contributions in utilization of the benefits of establishing vocational training schoo ls. And I say, well might the First Minis ter leave this Assembly because I'm sure what I'm saying is not palatable to his ears, or anyone who truly thinks, erroneously as it may be, that we have a progress ive government in Manitoba. HON. STEW ART E. McLEAN, Q.

C. : Mad.nn Speaker, perhaps in the absence of my coll eague the Honourab le the Minister of Education, I might be permitted to say a few words in response to the contribution which the Honourable the Leader of the New Democratic Pari.y has made to this debate. This allegation that not suffic ient has been done , not suff icient money has been devoted to technical and vocational education in Manitoba, is of course an old and almost dead horse that has been beaten to death every Sessi on of the Legislature, with the exception of the first one that I attended.

And while I suppose one might say there's really no point if you haven't been able to make an answer so far, that will be either listened to or understood, there's probabl y not much point in trying again. However, for tl).e sake oi the record let us say, I think there are some things to be said.

First of all, the Honourab le Leader of the New Democratic Party, of course, has managed to drag into this particular discussion, a new item, namely to imply or to say that we have been negligent bec ause we do not have already trained the people who will be required for the fore st produc t industries related to Monoca A.

G. and the arrangements that have been made; and I think that I might deal with that first because that's a specific matter which I think he will agree, on reflection, - stands on quite a diffe rent footing from the general problem, the general responsi bility, or the general program respecting technical and vocational education . It must surely seem obvio us , Madam Speaker, that one can only deal with specif ic areas of training related to a specific industry or specific industries, when you know that you have tho se industries and require those skills.

Loo king at the situation in Manitoba in, for example, 196 1 or 1962, while one might have hoped that there wonld be a for est produc ts industry established in Northern Manitoba, one couldn't say for certain that it was going to be, and if indeed we had started then to train people to take part or to work in a forest products industry in Northern Manitoba, and we had not been successful in that regard, just think what the Honour able the Leader of the New Democratic Party would be saying to us tonig ht. He'd be hitting us over the head saying how foolish we were to train people for non-exis tent jobs.

And so it goe s. We have for example had es tablished in recent months in Manitoba, a cheniical industry at Brendon . Obviou sly, while one may have hoped with all his heart that a chemical industry would be established, until there were spec ific opportunitie s in that field, it would have seemed rather foolish and improvident to have been training people for the specific job in that particular industry.

That is a spec ial job which is done in relation to the industries when they are esta blished or expanded as the case might be, and I think stands quite aside and apart from the general prob lem of technical and vocational education .

And that brings me to my next point because while we cannot provide training for the specific industry employment until the specific industry is available to provide the employment in question, there is the necessity, a very real neces sity of providing the general, technical and vocational education that may be required and which forms the base upon which those who are going to move into specialized fields can move .

And so, we do have the program which has been planned and in operation for some time in the provinc e, of providing technical and vocational education of a general and to some extent, spec ialized nature, but which is a basic education given

April 18, 1966 19 47 (MR. McLEAN cont'd) ... beyond the high school years for young men and women and others of the province. I would submit to the members of the House , Madam Speaker, that the suggestion that not enough has been done is again erroneous and without foundation because we must always remember, and I want it clearly understood I'm not making any comparisons between what hap pened before 1958 - that's something that is past history and really not too much concern of mine.

But we always have to remember that there would have been no point, no point in spend ing millions of dollars in the development of technical and vocational educational institutions until we had sufficient young men and women studen ts , who had completed their high school educ ation and were ready to proceed into the post-sec ondary field of educational training.

We could have built the buildings and done all sorts of things but they would have been useless be cause we had not developed the educa tional system below that point to a sufficient degree for that purpose; and so in the development of the educ ational program in the Province of Manitoba it was absolutely imperative that there be developed an adequate available system of secondary schools in the Province of Manitoba. We make no apology for this. That was the basi c approach that we took.

It was the, I suppose one might say one of the main programs which we undertook as a government to provide that secondary school education facilities which were needed in the Province of Manitoba. And I don't need to recite the story, I've said it many times here, but we know what took place.

But it was an absolute prerequisite, an absolute prerequisite, Madam Speaker, to any deve lopment of technical and vocational educ ation in the Province of Manitoba, or for that mat ter to university education -- all the fields of post-s econdary education in the Province of Mani toba, because the people who were going to use the post-s econdary educ ational facilities such as the technical and vocational schools and the universities, first had to receive their high school training, and there were as we know, literally thousands of people, young men and women in the province who were unable to do that until the facilities for that purpose were provided.

And let it not be overlooked, Madam Speaker. --(lnterjection)-- MR. P AU LLEY: Madam Speaker, would you permit a question? MR. McLEAN: Well, it will spoil my speech, but carry on. MR. PAULLEY: Well, I don't think it can be any more. Madam Speaker, is the Honour able the Minister suggest ing there were no high schools prior to 19 58? MR.

M,JLEAN: I am not suggesting that, have never suggested it, but I do say this to the honourable the -- I thank him for asking that question because it gives me the excuse to make the speech that I really wanted to make of the hundreds and thousands of pupils in the Province of Manitoba who were unab le -- who had no right, who had no legal right, aside from no place to go, for purposes of a secondary education.

That was the purpose of the school di vision plan which was a very simple one in it's design, which gave the responsibility for provid ing high school educ ation facilities for every boy and girl in the Province of Manitoba, which provided the tax base for providing that education. Pm not arguing now what proportions of that came from where, but provided a tax base; provided transportation so that the people who were going to use those facilities could get to them and literal ly burst at the seams the number of boys and girls in the Province of Manitoba who are taking sec.ondary education.

And I don't have to suggest that there were no high schools before that. There were. The trouble is there were too few of them, and the trouble is there were too few of the young people of the province that were able to get to them; and the trouble is that the proportion of pupils who were taking and completing their high school educ ation was too low, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party knows that just as well as I do. That was the basic program which we had to develop, and the other has of necessity, and properly so, come in second place to that important and basic development.

But, Madam Speaker, what the honour able member and many others over look is that there was an important element of technical and vocational educ ation included in the plans for the high schools that were es tablished under the school division system.

I don't need again to recite the facts that schools were built including provision for technical and vocational class es on an optional basis and as part of the program, that special grants were provided for that purpose , that encouragement was given to the training of teachers who would teach in the high schools , all a part of the training in the general field of technic al and vocational education and as part of our high school program.

So that for anyone now after all these years and after what has been done to attempt to suggest that we have been lagging in this field is· surely less than accurate in the presentation of the facts as they are in the Province of Manitoba.

1948 April 18, 1966 (MR. McLEAN cont'd) .. Madam Speake r, I'm not just too sure just what the conclusi on of this round of debate is other than if the Honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party was endeav ouring to suggest that we ought not to approve the estimates of the Department of Education for the reaso ns which he has mentioned, then I most strongly refute that suggestion.

I say to the House, Madam Speaker, that there has been not a perfect development, because I don't think that anyone has ever s aid that it was a perfect development, but there has been an orderly pro gressi ve development in the field of providing all forms - not only technical and vocational edu ca tion - but all forms of post-secondary education in the Province of Manitoba which of necessi ty had to follow a properl y es tabli shed secondary school system in this province. MR.

CAMPBELL: Majam Speaker, the case that my honourable friend the present Attorney-General and former Minister of Education makes it so convincing to him that I hesi tate to shatter the compla cency in which he is basking, but I just want to remind my honourable friend, because I have lis tened to this so frequently in this House, I just want to remind my honourable friend that practically the same difference , the same incre ase in high school enroll ment took place in the City of Winnipe g as did in the rest of the Province of Manitoba, and my honourable friend in connection with this program that he boasts about so greatl y and is so pround of did absolute ly nothing in the City of Winnipe g - nothing except to change the name from School District No. 1 to School Division No. 1.

That's all that the new program meant to the City of Winnipe g and yet this same influx of high school people occurred here as occurred in the rest of the Province of Manitoba - variations of course in different areas. And though I hate to sh atter my honourable friend's dream, Madam Speaker, this is the fact. The program that he's talking about had the same effect in Winnipeg as it had outside of Winnipeg where the new program made no difference whatever except a change of name. Now, what is the reason? The re ason is that that influx of young people had just at that time come to the high school age.

That's what made the difference. I'm not trying to pretend that my honourable friend's program didn't build some new schoo ls, of course they did. They built some new schools, but the people who wanted to go to the high schqols were getting there before anyway , and a large proportion - not all perhaps - but a large proportion of those that were coming along into that age group would have got there too, and more schools would have been built. But this is in the realm of specula tion as to just what would have happene d.

And of course the great day dawned and my honourable friends came in to put their program into effect. But if it were so so great, if it made all the difference as my honourable friend suggests, how is it that the same thing happened in the City of Winnipeg as happened in the rest of the Province of Manitoba? MR. TANCHAK: Madam Speaker, I'll be very brief, I didn't intend to get into this at all, but listenin g to the former Minister of Education I just have to get up. I promised I wouldn't tangle with him any more so now I'm sorry I have to break my promise.

But there's only one point that I must say that is not right and he's not tel ling us - I won't say the truth be- � ca use he believes it's the truth -w hen he comes up and tells us that the students before 1959 , .. 1958 had no place to go - had no high school, maybe they did not belong. But I'm sure that the Honourable Minister will agree with me that prior to the school divisions we had more high schools in Manitoba than we have now. I do not sa y they were any better.

I agree that a larger unit -h e knows my stand on that - will give a better education; but if you go to these small towns a lot of them were one-room high schools and some of them were not even high schools, they were just an extension of the elem entary schools but they were teaching high schools in those. So the students had a pl ace to go. It isn't true, it isn't a fact when the Minister gets up and says that they had no place to go to high school. They had places to go to high school and at that time those high schools suited the purpose.

They brought some wonderful products forth educa ted for young people. But it isn't right and it isn't fair to come out and say that there were not enough high schools for the students to go. There were more high schools and they were closer together. I do not say that they were better high schools , but there were high schools to take care of those, and anybody who wanted-the parents who wanted to send their children to high school had a high school to go to. I didn't want this to go by not refuting it. MR. ARTHUR E.

WRIGHT (Seven Oaks ): Madam Speaker, I had this in my mind that there was something in the COME F report to substantiate what my Leader has sa id and I wish to speak briefly on this. I'm looking at

Chapter Two of the COMEF Report, 1962- 63, the head ing is Education and Training Requirements for Economic Deve lopment, and I notice the head ings here: leve ls of education must be improved. Another, heading: lack of technical education a major weakne ss. Madam Speaker, we only have to look once again at the plywood factory at

April 18, 1966 19 49 (MR. WRIGHT cont'd). . . . Birch River to show where we were completely unprepared to cope with the supplying of labour to this plant which had been started many years ago and when we wanted to train people we had to send to British Co lumbia for an instructor. I just want to quote from the bottom of Page 11- 2-3, whatever that me ans, and I quote: "By and large many of the present standards respecting technical and management education will be inadequate to the intensive competition of the more technically advanced 19 70's.

M:>re over, there appears to be some danger that the deve lopment of an adequately educated population can be discouraged by present standards and attitudes. The future success of the Manitoba eco nomy in the face of increasing national and International competition will demand some change in the present situation and a positive, energetic and dedicated interest and formal education and technical training at all levels. It is stressed that the requirement is not merely the improve ment of the education of a specific

section of the population but rather the u;:>grading of the level of education of a majority of the labour force." I sugge st Madam Speaker that back in those days they saw the need for the training of people in the field of vocational training and it seems to me that it's much more in view of the fact also Madam Speaker that the COMEF Report said back in those days that the lumber industry in Manitoba was a sick industry, it predicted that much had to be done by 1965 -the years of 1965 a:�d 1966 .

It seems that we did miss the boat by not taking more of the $643 million that was appropriated by the federal government for technical and voca tional training. MADAM SPEAKER: The Department of Education. MR. CL ERK: 5. Resolved there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding 962, 454 for Education, Resol utions 31 to 35 for the fiscal year ending the 31 st day of March 19 67. 6. Resolved there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $69 ,720, 297 for Health, Reso lutions 36 to 40 for the fiscal year ... MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. MR.

PAULLEY: Madam Speaker on this resolution, I wonder if the Honourable the Minister of Health could indicate to the Committee any proposition which he might have now - formulating respecting the plan for Manitoba entering into the Dominion He alth Scheme. HON. CHARLES H. WITNEY (Minister of Health) (F Un Flon): Madam Speaker,. there is no change to the statement that I made in the House a while ago. MR.

DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, I don't think it's fair for the Minister, if he doesn't want to answer it's fine, but I don't think it's fair for him to say there's no change, espec ially when this government is thinking of an election - going to the people. I think that the members of this House and the rest of the people of Manitoba should know what this government intends . to do, and we certainly don't know this. The Minister was asked repeatedly, he was asked many times during his es timates and he wouldn't give us anything at all.

The Minister was also asked this with the motion brought in by the NDP and he didn't give us anything at all. I think that we're entitled to know, especi ally if this government wants to enter into an election I think that the people of Manitoba are entitled to know what they intend to do, not just say well we'll take advantage of this plan. We certainly haven't received any information. Of course, Madam Speaker, that is pretty well par for the course with this government before an election, this is what this government will do.

We had a small fortune of the money of the people of Manitoba spent on a Safari all across this land to study the denturists which certainly should come under this department, and this Minister, the Minister of Health, certainly told us, and certainly gave us the impression that this would be done, at least move concurrence of the report, and this wasn't done, Madam Speaker. And this is the government that wants to go to the public and feel that it's ready to go to the public. I say Madam Sp3 ak:er, that it's ready because it's hiding anything that's controversial.

If there's any controversy at all, this government will hide it. This is what it has done with this Medicare Plan. We know that they are interested well everybody is interested - a!!d we're told that they will bring a Plan, but we don't know how they propose to do this. We don't know how they propose to do this, and I'm sure, Mad'llll Speaker, that certainly this government has had, the Minister of Health, the First Minister has had some discussion with the people in Ottawa and I think that we're entitled to know something about this - to know what this is all about. Right now we haven't received anything.

We're told that the Medicare Plan is coming but that is an we know. And on this Denturist I certainly think that we should prote st the way that this government has treated this. I'd like the Minister to tell the people of Manitoba how much this has cost; what it has

19 50 April l8, 1966 (MR. DESJARDINS cont1d) ... a:::hieved. I don't think that the Minister is showing much courage, or the government is showing much courage, after this trip, after all this wonderful trip, and all this would-be study to come here and say well, we'll wait. Why wait ? Can the Minister jus tify this ? Now the Minister has not given us anything either on the - he hasn't given his intention on the que stion of hospital premiums . We were told, and this is what I was quoting, I was talk ing about a few days ago about misrepresentation.

The people of Manitoba were led to believe, led to believe that this was a great gift by the government, and this is why the premiums hadn't been gone up, when all the time, Madam Speaker , it was a change in the financing of the hospital plan; it was an income tax; a hospital tax that was brought in and we were spending an awful lot more money. This was done. The Minister then flew a kite and he tried to prepare the people for an increase in premium, although we had been told at a Special Session that this wouldn't be done.

You see, Madam Speaker, in this department, the leadership, or rather the lack of leader ship, that we're getting. What are in the people's mind right now? Medicare - they won't give us any sta tement. The Denturists - We won •t find anything about it until the election is past. The Premiums - Will the premiums go up ? We won't know this either. And what has this Department done with the Willard report - the second part about person nel? This is a government that is buil ding a lot of hospitals , new beds , but it can't staff these beds.

Madam Speaker, I have told the Minister many times over the past few years that they would have trouble with this; and they're having troub le with this . We haven't enough beds but we can't even staff those that we have now. This has been pretty well by-passed. What did the Minister say on his estimates on this ? What did he say about some new nurs ing home, a few more nursing homes , but look at all the beds, the way we're increa sing the beds. And what did we see from the papers just last week? That they were so short of beds.

And this is a plan, this is a contra ct, this is a contract, a compulsory contract that this government has with the people of ManitOoa. They say "We force you. Here Manitoba, we'll take care of you. You give us your premiums, you give us your taxes and we'll take care of you. " Well a contrac t, Madam Speaker, should work both ways and there are two parties to a contract. You can't just put a gun at the head of somebody and say "all right, you give me your money, I'll take care of you, " and do nothing about it.

It is morally wrong to force the people to pay premiums , and if they don't to be ready to put them in jail and then not to be able to give them beds, beca use they did not follow the Willard report and this is another reason why this is cos ting us so much money because the cost of const ruction is much higher. They haven 't done anything or very little. They named a Committee to study. They had a report, the Willard report, who told them all about this, about this personnel.

Now, just late last year the Minister named a Committee to study the question of personnel, and especia lly -- well I don't know if I should say especially, but the nurses. Now what did the Minister teLl us about personnel? What about the lack of doctors ? What about the lack of doctors in rural points ? The shortage of doctors. And we are ready i to go into a Medicare plan. Who's going to take care of these people? Are we going to have � the same shmozzel in the Medicare as we have in the Hospital, because this is what it is.

I think I should take this opportunity to protest the way the estimates have been presented, beca use there again you could not get anything. We have a report from the Commission a finan cial report. Everything is all mixed up. We're talking about grants -- the premiums and so on are supposed to be for the administra tion and so on, for fhe keeping of this hospital not for constructi on grants, but they're all mixed up in this. The grants from the province also.

And to this day, to this day, Madam Speaker, this government wHl not tell us, will not tell us how much money they get from the income tax, that special five percent and that six percent tax. This is still as mixed up now as it was in 1962 when this was sta rted. And this is the famous tax, Madam Speaker, ·when the government decided that finally it had the way to promote an ability to pay ta.X. This is what the First Minister and the members of his Cab inet said at the time in that Special Session , "Now we have the way, and we will promote the ability to pay tax.

We're not satisfied with this deal from Otta wa, but we have to .take it and at leas t it's something good. The people will have a chance to pay -- ...... their ability to pay. " A few short years after this, this was changed. This was changed, and the income tax was reduced and we're talking about raising the premiums. Madam Speaker , this is certainly a Department, and I don't blame only the Minister, because he has to listen to his Chief. I blame the whole Cab inet and the whole party for the mix-up they have in this Department. And we're just starting our troub le, Madam Speaker.

�ril lS, 1966 19 51 (MR. DESJARDJNS cont'd) .•• We're going to have a lot more troub le. We're talking about Medicare. You'll have people up there up in the North and so on who won 't have a chance to see a doctor. Will they have to pay? What have we heard about this? Nothing. What about these premiums for these hospitals for people that can't get in? There's a bigger waiting list now in these hospitals than ever befor e and I hear from reliable authority, I hear that we cannot fill any new need at all, we're just taking care of what they ca ll the emergency on this waiting list.

Oh, the First Minister is never here in the time of crisis. I think he will prob ably follow the- well this is beside the point. I'd better wait, Madam Speaker. I don't want to tempt you again. Madam Speaker, I certainly prot est the lack of leadership of this governme nt, and un fortunate ly the Minister must take the blame because he is resiXJusible, and I think it's up to him to tell his Chief that they have to have a little bit of coura ge to talk about this Medicare.

It's not fair to go to the people of Manitoba to have an election and say "No, we can't tell you any mo re about this." This is not fair ; and it's not fair not to bring in this question of the Denturist. And it's not fair not to do anything about the personnel of these hospitals that we are building for.

This is not fa ir, Madam Speaker, -- especially in this department and a lot of other departments, mind you, there is certainly lack of leadership and I certainly prote st and -- I hope I'm wrong but I prophe sy that if we keep this government very long their Department of Health will bankrupt this provinc e and will not give the proper medical and hospital ca re that the people of Manitoba are entitled to receive. MR. FROESE: Madam Speaker , a few words before we pass this item.

I too wou ld be interested to find out and to know whether there have been any further negotiations with the medical prof ession, with people from the medical profe ss ion or with MMS in connection with the medical plan that they are planning for to go into eff ect sometime next year. Certainly if furthe r developments have taken place I think this House should be advised so that we could be better informed when we talk with the public on this matter.

We have had the report from the Committee on the Denturists, but I have had so many other Bills to look at that I certainly haven't had the time to go through it in detail and study it. But one thing I'm sure, personally, that whatever the government comes up with that I will be suppor ting the Denturists. I think they should be allowed to operate and deal with the public bec ause we have too few dentists in Manitoba.

We have hardly any in the rural parts of the province and too many of our people haven't got the means whereby they can go to the dentist and pay the dentist's bill, so that very often the work gets sloughed off and the people wait till they have to have a denture made; and naturally they then go to the denturist because they can get service for less cost. This has been very evident over the years when we find people from the United States coming into Manitoba and getting their dentures made here.

They can well take a trip from California down here and get their dentures made with no additional cost be ca use the amount that they save having the work done here, pays for their travelling bllls, and then some, So we should defi nitely keep the denturists in business and let them operate. I do n't see any reason why the dentists should have a rake-off on the work that these denturists perform. They have already shown that they can do a good job and that they are no amateurs in the making of the dentures.

They have car ried on this work for years and I think this would be wrong to deny them now by bringing in legislation prohibiting them to operate in the Province of Manitoba. We find that the western provinc es of British Co lumbia and Alberta have authorized them to oper ate·. Certainly we could place some conditions, but nevertheless, they should not be denied the opportunity to operate in this province. I do hope the Minister has some addition al information to give us on the matter that I raised fir st and that was also raised by the Honourable Member for St. Bonifa ce.

I will certainly look forward to hearing from him. MR. SMERCHANSKI: Madam Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Honour able Minister in refe rence to the status of the Children's Hospital. Madam Speaker, last year we had a discussion on the matter of the Grace Hospital being located in two sections and in two areas. The additional cost that was wasted by this governme nt, of the taxpayers' mon ey, was some $2 million; and the reply we received from this government last year was that the medical staff in conjunction with the Commis sion, justified the con struction of this hospital in two areas.

And this was not so. And yet this year we have the same government telling us that the staff, the docto rs, the research members of the Children's Hospital in the City of Winnipeg are not com petent enough to make a decision on their own plans for the expansion of a badly needed Children's Hospital. Madam Speaker, it is very diff icult to reconcile the thiDking of this governm ent, when you

19 52 April 18, 1966 (MR. SMERCH ANSKI cont'd) .•. have two opposing factors. This seems to be the continuous policy of this government that that which is politicall y expedient has to be the expediency that the taxpayers of this province have to take; and when it is not politically expedient then it is not a very good project.

Madam Speaker, in conjunction with the proposed Children's Hospital, I want to mention to this government that the Ladies Auxiliary, the hospital staff, have not been encouraged - and these are dedicated people - have not been encouraged by the decision of this government to refuse to acknowledge their abil ity to plan for the type of hospital that would be most efficient and the type of hospital that would give the best care to the children who are going to be patients in this hospital .

I wish that this government at the oncoming elec tion would take a little time at the hustings to tell the people the true story about the Children's Hospital, because there are many members of the people who live in the Province of Manitoba at one time or another have had their children to the Winni peg Children's Hospital and they would like to hear the true facts concerning the dela yed construction pla ns, the continual dela y in the finalization of this most necessa ry project.

I would like this government to tell the people of the province at that time why this has been done, because the members of the staff and those people associated with the Children's Hospital are anxious to know the facts and anxious to know why this project is being delayed.

From what I can understand, Madam Speaker, there is no good re ason why this pro- � ject is being delayed, why the Children'�> Hospital pla ns are being continuall y frustrated, de- la yed, re-planned, planned and dela yed some more , and I think that this is a most unfair atti- tude on the part of this government to the Children's Hospital. . . . . • . . continued on next page

April 18, 1966 19 53 MR. CLERK: 6. Resolved there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $69, 720, 297 for Health, Resolutions 36 to 40, for the fiscal year ending 31 st Clay of March, 1967. 7. Resolved there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $40, 665, 975 for High ways, Re solutions 41 to 44, for the fiscal year ending 31 st day of March, 1967. 8. Resolved there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3, 051, 500 for Industry and Commerce, Resolutions 45 to 54 ..... MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR .

HARRIS: I wonder would the Minister give his reply now to the questions asked him before supper, as I'm interested in listening to what he has to say to what was asked him then� MR. EVANS: Madam Speaker, I don't wish to speak at this time . I suggest that all honourable members who have any comment to make would make them now, refresh whatever questions they wish to do so, and I'll try to reply at the end. MR. CAMPBELL: Madam Speaker, I a1n speaking here on a point of order.

I under stood that the arrangement that was agreed to this afternoon was that the Minister woultl be prepared to make his statement first and then the discussion could continue. MR . EV ANS: I'm quite prepared to answer any questions, and the two questions that I had on my records were to do with Damascus and the Interlake Lumber Company -o r Forest Products or whatever it was. I think my honourable friend from St. John's had a question, and if my honourable friend from St. John would be good enough to remind me of that question. MR.

CAMPBE LL: If I might speak on a point of order again, my reason for suggesting before the dinner adjournment that it be done this way was because - I'm sure that you would agree with me, Madam Speaker - that the Minister must speak first. In other words, if the Minister does not speak at the time the motion is made, that he can't reply.

Now you've been allowing, and I think quite properly this evening, that we have had considerable latitude in the discuss ions and I have no objection at all to that continuing, but I think I'm correct in saying, Madam Speaker, that this is the Honourable the Ministe r's .motion that's before us.

Even though it's read by the Clerk of the House, it is actually the motion of the Honourable the Minis ter, and this was why I was suggesting this afternoon that that would be the proper time for the Minister to make his statement, and certainly I'll not object if we enter into a discussi on, but just so there'll be no danger of the Minister being called out, I thought that was the time he would want to complete it. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Member for St. John wish to state his question once more? MR .

CHERNI.ACK: I assume, Madam Speaker, that I will not be making an address, I would just be re-stating the question which I had earlier asked. On that basis, as I recall it amongst many others, one of the important questions was how this $45 million was being fin anced and to what extent the Development Fund or any other means of financing was available · to the company - Monoca. MR . EV ANS: Madam Speaker, my honourable friend - two of my honourable friends, I think the Leader of the NDP and the member for Lakeside, asked me questions concerning Damascus Steel Products.

I think the first question was: was I aware that the former manager, whose name I have forgotten -- (Interjection) -- Yes, Mr. Ross Henderson, was now employed by Dosco in Eastern Cana da. Yes, I am aware of that. He asked me to explain, if I could, the reason for his apparent success down east where I had said that he was incompetent here . That's a rough

summary of his question to me . I think that the answer is quite simple, that here he was handling duties for which he was not qualified as General Manager, as one in charge of sales, one in charge of finance, one who undertook to authorize the erection of buildings and direction of finance in the way that it had not been intended to go. In the east he is superinten dent of a small divis ion of a very large corporation where his duties are entirely different. I believe that he is being successful there. I hope so and I wish him well.

As to the subsequent history of Damascus, because the company was unable to meet its indebtedness the company's assets were advertised for sale. Bi ds closed on June 15 and by closing date only two bids were received ; One bid reserved the right to withdraw by June 25, 1965, a condition which could not be met by the Receiver as the Court of Queen's Bench had to approve all bids and this could not be accomplished before July 7, 19 65. This bidder was ad vised to this effect but would not change his bid.

However, both bids were placed before the Court of Queen's Bench and approval was given to the Receiver to accept the bid of a Mr. F .G. Ellis for $50, 000.

19 54 April 18 , 1966 (MR. EV ANS cont'd) ...... . On receipt of Court approval, possessi on of the plant and assets was given to Mr. F. G. Ellis. Damascus, and some of the shareholders, applied to the Court to have the sale set aside for a further period so that sufficient monies could be raised to pay out the fUIJ.ds. A Court of Appeal upheld the lesser court's approval of the sale . The Receiver paid out all the secured creditors, and the balance of monies remaining, following completion of these payouts, was paid into the Court of Queen's Bench together with a complete statement of the Receiver's operations.

This terminated the Recei vership and the Court of Queen 's Bench in its discretion attended to the payout of the remaining monies paid to it. The new owners took over on July, 1965. They foUIJ.d that the machinery and equipment required extensive overhaul before any production could be accomplished. A complete over haul took some four months before any production was effected. Before attempting to sell any products it was felt that a good inventory of screws should be established so that satisfactory delivery could be accomplished·. The company therefore did not tmdertake any sales tmtil January of 1966 .

To date, the product has been accepted by firms who previously did not pur chase from the original operators. Sales for the first six months ending June 30, 1966, will exceed $60, 000. This compares with total sales of $57, 639 over a two and a half year period by the previous owners, so that in the first six months ending June 30, 1966 , the new owners made sales equal to or in excess of the sales that were made by the previous owners in two and a half years. Production, with the addition of new machinery purchases, is 1, 000 to 1, 500 pounds per day.

Since taking over, the following has been accomplished: all existing machinery and equipment completely stripped down and rebuilt; an overhead electric crane installed; a com plete plating department installed; an office was built; a tool room was built; a new annealing furnace was built; a laboratory for testing hardness of screws was set up, which effected re quired quality control on sheet metal screws.

The following additional machinery was installed; one large header, two small threaders, one large threader, one large pointer and shearer, an oil reclaimer which was unserviceable at the date of purchase was put into working order effecting a large saving in oil purchases. To effect all the foregoing, the company has had to lay out some $40, 000 in additional capital. The additional machinery has satisfactorily upped production. The plating division has reduced the cost previously paid by Damascus for this service from five cents a pound of product to one and a quarter cents a pound.

The previous company used to pay a 23 percent duty on dies imported. On its own initiative, the new company on representation made to Ottawa had the duty reduced to seven percent. Since taking over, some $1 1, 000 in new dies has been purchased. Our latest inspection of the plant found all machinery fully utilized with five persons employed full time. The company conservatively estimates that some 30 people will be em- ployed in the next two years. The whole production flow now established is as different as � night is from day from the original set up.

All machines are working at two to three times the old capacity due to proper maintenance and rebuilding. So that is the subsequent history of Damascus Steel. MR. PAULL EY: May I ask who the author of that statemen t is ? MR. EVANS: That's a report compiled for me by my advisors in the department.

With respect to Interlake forest credits, this matter arose in the first place by a letter addressed on September 17 to the Manitoba Development Fund, and copies sent to Premier Duff Roblin, Minister Gurney Evans, MP Steve Patrick, W alter Lupryta, who is President of Interlake Forest Products Limited, and Steve Melnyk, the Winnipeg Tribune. I take if from that list of people that the letter was made public and that one is free to comment from it. Interlake Forestry Products - on September 13 and September 17, Mr.

Singer, of Inter lake Forest Products sent me a copy of letters that he had written to the Manitoba Development Fund . He had also sent copies to Premier Roblin, Mr. Steve Patrick and the Winnipeg news papers. On receipt of these letters, I made some investigations to determine what were the problems. Subsequently, arrangements were made for Mr. E. L. Underhill, an experienced Canadian Forest Products consultant, to carry out an independent survey of the operations of Interlake Forestry Products. I have a copy of Mr. Underhill's findings and a copy was sent to Mr. Singer.

The conclusions of this independent report were unfavourable. As presently organized, succe ss seems doubtful. That is the statement that I have with respect to Inter lake.

April 18, 1966 19 55 (MR. EVANS cont'd) ...... . With regard to the Development Fund and Monoca, Monoca has their own financial re sources. As far as I am aware, they have not made any arrangements with the Manitoba Development Fund, although as my honourable friend knows I do not pretend to be in day to day touch with them. I have already said that this industry would be eligible to apply, and if they applied they could then satisfy the Manitoba Development Fund as to their credit worthiness and as to the liability of the proposal for which they want the money.

I don't see why particu larly they would want to apply to the Manitoba Development Fund because they are an invest ment group themselves. Nevertheless, they might want to. Some investment groups do want to have a local partner so that there will be local interest in the development that takes place. So I am not aware of any approach or application that has been made to the Manitoba Development Fund. I have not been informed to that effect, either by Monoca or, naturally, by the Manitoba Development Ftind. I think those were the main points that were outstanding. MR.

CHERNIACK: Madam Speaker, would I bE;l permitted a question to the Honourable Minister? He did state a couple of days ago that he would deal with the $50 million capital in crease in the Manitoba Development Fund when he had an opportunity, and I think this is his last. MR. EV ANS: Thank you. I'm glad that my honourable friend reminded me of that parti cular question. I had forgotten it, That is just at this stage an estimate which our depart ment makes to the Department of the Provincial Treasurer.

As to the amount of money in the coming year that might be required by the Manitoba Development Fund, it can be no more than a good guess at this stage, so our estimate is that if some of the things for which we are hoping in the coming year do come along and if some fair proportion of them do apply to the Manitoba Development Fund, that their requirements can be met within the limit of $50 million. :MR. CHERNIACK: Madam Speaker, may I speak on this matter please. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. John's . MR.

CHERNIACK: Well, Madam Speaker, we find here the Manitoba Development Fund which has been in existence for some years and now has a fund for loans of I think it's about $9 million as of the last statement, and which started at a lesser amount, is now suddenly being given $50 million more for this coming year, which to me is a very surprising increase.

I don't think that there's anything in the Budget statement of the Premier's, and let's discount for a moment the lack of enthusiasm that others of us who spoke on the Budget did have for the growth potential in this coming year, but even the Premier's statement on the Budget -- I really mean the Provincial Treasurer's Budget Statement, did not indicate that there would be such a marked increase in activity in this province, in general, which would ju stify an increase in the Manitoba Development Fund from $9 million to $59 million.

Not only that, but there was no indication that the Manitoba Development Fund would be going into higher risks or different fields. There was an indication in that address, as I re call it, to the effect that there would be greater risks taken; but as I recall it, that had to do with the Nelson Agency, that's the name of the organization which was going to derive revenues from water rights. The Minister shakes his head but I don't know the purpose for which he is doing it. :MR. EVANS: The two shouldn't be confused. MR. CHERNIACK: No.

So he indicates that the two should not be confused and I appre ciate his telling me that, but I do not recall any indication that the Development Fund was going to change its procedures or its principles or its standards or its terms from last year to this coming year, so that it seems to me that there has been no explanation at all as to this tremen dous increase.

It's a 500 percent increase or more, and yet the Minister says, "Well this is a pretty good guess." He says it's only a guess and I acknowledge that it must be, but there was no indication, no justification at all for the expectation of this other than, as I suggested earlier and I guess it's quite possible, that this money or a substantial part of it would have to be made available to this enterprise, or possibly others that we're not yet aware of. When I say this enterprise I of course mean the Churchill Development.

Well now it seems to me that the Minister expects that the money -- well the Minister does not know where this money will come from, let's put it that way. Of the $45 million which was the first phase or the first phases which are planned, we know of $5 million from the Federal Government; we know of $600, 000 - and less - because $100, 000 is going to be tied up. So we know of half a million dollars by the company and that's all that we know aside from the money that the government is going to contribute.

1956 April 18, 1966 (MR. CH ERNIACK cont'd) ...... . Now the Minister suggested that this company being an investment firm, he doesn't quite see why they should go to borrow money. But this company is not an investment firm, it's a form of a developer; it's a form of a syndicate operator. 1f it were investment monies that it was looking for it would be in the mortgage business; it would be in the finance business; and it isn't that at all.

It's been clear to us and I certainly hope it's so, that this company is interested in the developing of an industry in forest products, and if it is, then certainly every good operator in any kind of development like that puts in a minimum of his capital and a maxi mum of borrowed capital, because if they have money to invest in this type of venture, they certainly aren't going to put it out at six or seven percent interest.

They would much sooner pay six -- and I'm not an international financier, but I'm suggesting that I'm right and that the Minister is wrong in thinking that they're looking for investments for their money. I am sure, and I don't discredit them in any way for it, that they are looking for a deve lopment of what may be a potential good return in their field, which is the development of forestry products, and certainly it cannot be conceived that they would be themselves putting up the money for the balance, but rather would be borrowing it.

And the question still remains and will be answered someday, because I must indicate with some amusement that all this secrecy of the Development Fund is really no secrecy if you have the name of the firm or per- son that you think is a borrower, because in the office upstairs of the Provincial Secretary � you can get a copy of the debenture that's given to the Development Fund; you can go to the Land Titles Office; you can go to the County Courts; you can search the chattel mortgage or the real property mortgage; and it won't be any problem at all, if indeed the Development Fund becomes involved in Churchill, to find it out because our own laws indicate that there has to be a public record of this type of loan, so that we'll find out sooner or later.

Obviously, the Minister doesn't know because if he did I'm sure he would have told us, so he doesn't know where the financing would come.

I must say that I don't look very favourably to a government which enters into a tremendous project and undertakes a tremendous under taking on its part, involving the construction and setting up of vocational schools and roads and all the rest of it, and relying ohly - and I think I'm correct in saying this - relying only on $500, 000 put up; $100, 000 bond; and the reputation of a company which I think is four years old, and the reputation of that company has nothing to do with its capital structure or its capital worth.

All that this government has been told, if I can summarize it and I hope I'm not mini mizing it, is to say that the indications from the bankers and from other banks are that this company has honoured its committments. Well that's fine - that' s fine. This government, I am sure, has honoured and will honour its committments; that its committments are concrete, specific, they're laid down in the Agreement and this government will honour them. But the committment of the Monoca is nothing near the committment of the government.

Well, I hope that the Minister's faith in the company is well based, because it is im portant for this province trui.t this project once entered into should develop and do well, but it would be an awful shame if it was found that the people of Manitoba were financing this project and that the profits of this project - and everybody must expect there will be such - will not be used for the benefit of the people. MR.

SMERC HANSKI: Madam Speaker, I'd like to add something in the way of the rural industrial development which, in the government's reply this afternoon, seemed to be that everything was in proper shape and that rural industrial developmen t in Manitoba was going at full steam ahead. Madam Speaker, I simply want to illustrate my point by confining myself to the lnterlake area, and seeing that there was some quotations earlier in the evening, I too would like to make a quotation.

On April' 3, 1963 in this House, we were talking about the lnterlake area and the Minister of Agriculture and the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce made various remarks about the lnterlake area, and I would like to read one paragraph in particular, and this was by the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. "Now turning to the lnterlake, " I quote, "I feel quite sure that there will be opportunities discovered up there. What they are I don't know, because if I did we wouldn't have to make the study; we'd just have to ask me. But there's a surprising little industry has grown up at Souris.

For example, just out of an old abandoned gravel quarry, as I understand it, they went into that thing and found rocks that could be polished up and made into costume jewellery, and a very nice little industry - it's a small one - but a nice little industry has grown up on that. Who should say what could be made of the rocks that are taken out of the fields that my honourable friend referred to? I don't know;

April 18, 1966 1957 (MR. SMERC HANSKI cont'd) ...... I don't think he knows; but if somebody looked at them, they might find some kind of a use. " Now, Madam Speaker, the point I was trying to bring out this afternoon is that the deve lopment of industry in rural Manitoba is not progressing on a satisfactory basis. Now in the Interlake area particularly we have had a series of studies, and I venture to say some 24-odd studies, and it's a very strange thing, Madam Speaker, that this Interlake area should be - part of it considered as not belonging to a designated area.

In other words, there has been somebody that says that the Interlake area is not devoid of industry and is not a designated area. I challenge that type of a decision because this area is not developed; this area needs industry and this is just one of the many instances in tbe Province of Manitoba w

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	27-5-83
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	27th 5th hansardpdf 83.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	360e59c01ac69f5b717c2cb47f37c2e2ac3a0e77

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