Manitoba Hansard — Monday, July 20, 1970

29th 2nd hansardpdf 155 2.pdf

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 o'clock, Monday, July 20, 1970 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker 3975 MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees; Notices of Motion; Introduction of Bills. Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SIDNEY SPIVAK, Q. C. (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I wonder if Aristotle Onassis could leave my seat so that I could take my proper place. (Interjection) -- MR. SPEAKER: Orders ofthe Day. The Honourable House Leader. HON. SIDNEY GREEN, Q.

C. (Minister of Mines and Natural Resources)(Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Labour that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider the following bills: No. 43, etc. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole with the Honourable Member for Elmwood in the Chair. COMMITTEE OF THE V.'HOLE HOUSE MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I believe we were considering Bill No. 138. MR.

CHAIRMAN: ... and the proposed amendment of the Honourable Member for River Heights. The Honourable Member. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, before we begin, I wonder if the House Leader could indicate \\hether it's still his intention to follow the Order Paper in terms of the other Acts. MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR. CHAIRMAN: On the proposed amendment of the Honourable Member for River Heights. The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder whether the government could indicate whether as a result of their deliberations over the supper hour they have decided to accept the amend mentor not? HON. LEONARD s. EVANS (Minister of Industry and Commerce)(Brandon East): Well Mr. Chairman, there's nothing to deliberate. As I indicated earlier, that this amendment amounts to absolutely nothing. The intent of the amendment adds nothing to the intent of the original

section apart from imposing some rigidities and unparliamentary procedures on the committee and therefore there is no need for the government to consult or deliberate. As I stated earlier,

Section A of the amendment is merely a repetition of what was already included in the proposed Development Corporation Act. Subsection B is covered in

Section 44 and secondly, is covered in the intent of subsection A. With respect to the holding of meetings and the calling of the chairman after the first day of June in each year, it's our feeling that this is boxing in the committee; the committee is the master of its own rules and its own activities and therefore the amendment really adds nothing to this Act and therefore it's the government's feeling that it should be defeated. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that the honourable Minister is a very good professor.

I'm sure as a professor he fulfills that function very well and he's understood by his students. He's not a very good lawyer and I can tell you one thing Mr.

Chairman, he obviously doesn't understand the Act, because all the assurances that he gives us are not contained in the Act, and while he may talk as he does about the committee system I think it is fair to say that the committee system works at first at the call of the government and secondly by government majority, and we have enough precedent to indicate that the committee will do the bidding of the government at the particular time and that there's no assurance or guarantee other than the good will of the present government that the things that he says are going to happen w!ll happen.

I suggest it is as much in the present government's interest, because they may not be the present government, they may not remain in government, they may be in opposition and they may very well regret the fact that -- (Interjection) -- oh I'm very pessimistic about the present government's chances of holding office. I'm saying it's in the present government's interest to see to it that there is some compulsion so that in fact, the committee, the Standing Committee on Economic Development will have the opportunity

3976 July 20, 1970 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd.) . . . . . for a review to take place. If 1n fact this does not happen then it's left to the discretion of the government of the time; which wUl be moved I believe by the political exigencies at the time; and I may say, Mr.

Chairman, that there's enOllgh evidence with respect to the standing committee to indicate that 1t was not 1n the government's interest I:JE;lcause of other activities for it to deal with economic activities and as a result the committee for all intents and purposes did not meet and the procedures were a sham, and that's all I can believe will happen here. I really do not believe that this is in the interests of a proper evalu ation of the equity provision with respect to the development fund and the proposals that have been brought forward so far.

If the government adopts this position I think they will suffer the consequences of possibly hurting the very thing that they do not want to hurt, and that is the proper functioning and carrying on of those undertakings in which for one reason or another the government has seen fit to finance through equity and the abllity to help those companies that have found themselves ln some financial difficulty. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. JACOB M. FROESE (Rhineland): Mr. Chairman, 1f you take a look at the amend ments and also the present

section ln the Act to which this amendment is to be placed, we find there is a considerable difference. In the Act 1t says that "the chairman may be required to attend;" however the amendment before us makes it very clear that the committee, well makes it very clear that the chairman will be in attendance at the first meeting. Even the members of the committee could be overruled by the government's majority not to make the request or that may not be required for the chairman ~o be there, to be present.

This would make it very clear that at the first meeting the chairman would be present and I don't think that's such a bad idea at all. I don't know, we haven't had any such meetings yet, whether the government would deny a request like this. We haven't had the experience, maybe they would be quite willing to call the chairman I don't know, but this would just make 1t clear that he would be in attendance. MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe it's getting difficult to hear the honourable member's comments. MR.

FROESE: The reason I feel that is is of importance that the Chairman do appear is that for 'the first time under this Act we will have the Corporation participate in equity position in various companies that do borrow in this way and I think for that reason it is very important that we do have the top officials of the Corporation present so that we can make enquiry per sonally from them because at this time we don't know just what the policy will be of the Corpor ation Board ln connection with companies where there might be subsidiaries or so on, whether they will allow new subsidiaries to be brought into being -- for those companies that will be borrowing from the Corporation.

Maybe this will not happen, but certainly I think it should be made open to us that we could question the Chairman and the Manager of the Corporation on · these matters because we find too often that subsidiaries are formed and then milking the corporation dry or vice versa and certainly this should be known to members of this House so that they could question them on these points. The way I see it all it does it makes it mandatory for the manager and the chairman to be present at the first meeting. I don't thlnk we're asking too much on this.

Maybe this is what the government has ln mind that they would not even object so why not cede to this? Certainly we are embarking on a new aspect as far as the Development Corporation is con cerned, that we will now be acquiring equity ln various companies by way of extending monies and we don't know what the experience will be. I hope it will be successful, but at the same time I certainly cannot see the objection that the government seems to raise against the amend ment before us. MR. CHAIRMAN put the question on the proposed amendment and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR.

SPIVAK: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Call in the members. On the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for River Heights. Should I read the amendment or is everyone familiar with it? A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 17; Nays 25. MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the motion lost.

Section 32 --passed. 33 . . . The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: On 33, ''Powers of the Corporation," it starts off with the corporation or a subsidiary of the corporation may enter into agreements. Is it the intention to set up additional enterprises as subsidiaries of the Corporation?

July 20, 1970 3!t7'7 MR. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, this particular

section is no different from a similar

section in the previous bill. In other words, this is nothing new thatis being introducec;l by this government at this time. This is simply a repetition of a clause which was in the Act known as The Manitoba Development Fund Act. Possibly I could quote the particular section, It was

Section 34 in the preceding bill. Page 93 of the previous office consolidation of the Manitoba Development Fund Act

Section 34, this reads the same except instead of the word "Fund" the word "Corporation" is to be found. In answer to your question specifically, I can simply say that if it's necessary to make things happen with respect to economic development in the province, I'm sure the Manitoba Development Corporation will utilize this

section of the Act. After all the intents, the major purpose of the Act is to promote, stimulate economic development in the Province of Manitoba and if this can be done through the exercise of this particular section, then of course this

section will therefore be used. MR. FROESE: I just want to make it clear to the Minister when the Act was previously introduced by the previous administration I had some very strong exceptions to certain provi sions in the Act, so that when he says there is the same provisions contained in the old Act, this doesn't necessarily mean that I accepted them at that time and I voted for them. MR. CHAIRMAN: (Sections 33 to 43 of Bill 138 were read

section by

section and passed.)

Section 44 -- The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment. Does the Minister of Industry and Commerce have an amendment on this? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. EVANS: Thank you. Mr. Chairman,

Section 29 of the Act was asked to be stood this afternoon inasmuch as the Honourable Member for River Heights had prepared a rather lengthy amendment. We have considered his amendment and we have come up with our own amendment to this particular

section which will, I believe, accomplish the intent of the Hon ourable Member's amendment, that is to broaden the extent of disclosure. I really feel that. •. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, first ... HON. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Minister of Labour)(Transcona): What's the point of order? MR. SPIVAK: Well, first of all, we're dealing with

Section 44 to begin with. --(Inter- jection) -- Yes, that's right, and secondly, there is some relevance to what the Honourable Minister is saying, and there is some relevance to what the honourable member is saying, and I certainly would be interested, lf I'm correct, the

section would stand amended, at least the amendment before the committee, there is an amendment before the committee, before the government can introduce another amendment. - (Interjection) -- Yes. The Honourable . . MR. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding that 44 also had been passed, but if this isn't the case I understand that you wish to debate

Section 44. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to introduce an amendment on 44, but if in fact the government does have an amendment on 29 I would hope that they would at least give me an opportunity of reviewing it because as it happens, my amendment now is before the commit tee on 29 and that would have to be voted down and the government's introduced, and if I could see it I may very well be prepared to withdraw it, depending on what it contains. I don't know what it contains. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, if I may, on a point of order. I don't know how we've got down to

Section 44 if we still have amendments to consider under

Section 29. It does seem to me, and I must confess ignorance at the procedure, if we're at 44 and the Honourable Mem ber for River Heights says, well, we've got an amendment to 29. 'What happened? MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, I accept the Honourable Minister of Government Services' admission of ignorance because he's really unaware of the situation. It's the first time that he's-- well, it's one of the true statements he's made in the last little while. Mr. Chairman, MR. PAULLEY: If I may, Mr. Chairman, the Assistant Clerk has clarified the point for me; I understand the

Section 29 was deferred in view of the amendment, so that's okay; and now I've been informed as to what the present situation is, it's okay. MR. SPIVAK: Well, Mr. Chairman, my amendment would refer back to

Section 29 because this

section itself would be amended to include,a:::tdmyproposal would be amended. If I may, for the benefit of the House, without moving the amendment at this particular time, without moving the amendment, may I try and indicate the intent of this amendment and possibly

3978 July 20; 19'10 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd.) . . . . . truggeilt that we go back to 29 and resolve that before thts one is dealt·with, because this may have to be altered in view of any change that may occur. MR. PAULLEY: If I may, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the Minister of Industry and Commerce has an amendment to 29 that may satisfy my honourable friend the Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Well, as a matter of fact, I'd just like the opportunity, if I may, to read the amendment.

My amendment stands; I'm not prepared to'withdraw it until I have an opportunity of at least reading this to know what the intent is here. So Mr. Chairman, may I do this, then? May I move my amendment on 44 and the discussion to take place on 44 to give me an opportunity to let me examine 29? Otherwise would the committee just give me an opportunity to examine this to determine whether we'll withdraw it or not? MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that we should get this point clarified because it seems to me that procedure is going out the window. The Leader of the Official Opposition. MR.

WALTER WEIR (Leader of the Opposition)(Minnedosa): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I don't think it's going; would you believe "gone"? ·Mr. Chairman just made a point that he thought procedure was going out the window, and I said, on a point of order, would he believe "gone"? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: If I may, Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding now. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. MR. PAULLEY: ... that there was an undertaking by the government that an amend ment to ... MR. CHAIRMAN: My order was directed at the members of the Assembly. The Minis ter of Labour has the floor. MR.

PAULLEY: It is my understanding that there was a suggestion that there should be an amendment to

Section 29 and that that amendment would be considered before

Section 44 was considered. This is the information, Mr. Chairman, that I have received, and I under stand that the Minister of Industry and Commerce was prepared, and lt was suggested that he so do, to introduce an amendment to

Section 29 that might accommodate the position of the Honourable the Member for River Heights, and if that is the case, then I would in all due respect suggest that the Minister of Industry and Commerce introduce the amendment to 29 because, as! understand it,

Section 44, the adoption of

Section 44 is contingent on the disposi tion of the amendment to

Section 29. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Leader of the Official Opposition. MR. WEIR: Mr. Chairman, if I can speak for just a moment on the point of order, I'm sure the Member for River Heights wlll have an opportunity to read the amendment that the government didn't really want to give him a chance to read, as I make out. The fact of the matter on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, is, as I understand it, that the Member for River Heights has an amendment. - (Interjection)-- No he hasn't, not yet.

There is an amendment, and the Minister's amendment would be conditional upon the Member for River Heights withdrawing his, and I think by the time I'm finished that maybe the Member for River Heights will have had a chance to read the amendment and may be in a position, if it meets the quallflcations that is considered, that that might be able to be done and we would be able to proceed then to Clause No. 44. I don't know how long I have to carry on on this point of order. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, again on the point of order, if I may, lt is my under standing that there is not an amendment to

Section 29 before us but -- (Interjection) -- Is there? MR. SPIVAK: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I think if the Honourable Minister of Government Services wlll allow me, I think we can ... MR. PAULLEY: Yes. Let's clarify this. MR. WEIR: Well, is there an amendment or isn't there? MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment that I introduced on 29 that the honourable members opposite have and have dealt with. They've now proposed, or will be proposing another amendment which is much snorter.

Now, before I withdraw my amend ment, and I'm prepared to withdraw my amendment if I understand the proposal clearly- and this is to expedite the matter not to confuse it any more than it has to be - I want it to be clearly understood that what was attempted in the amendment that I introduced was the

July 20, 1970 3979 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd.) ..•.. 0pportunity for detailed explanation and it was worded accordingly. There is a general proposition here, in the amendment as proposed, which would change 29 (1) into a general statement which supposedly would indicate or include all the things that I've suggested.

Now, if the government is prepared to indicate that in the wording that is now proposed in this amendment the intent and the thrust of the detailed amendment that I've presented is included, then I'm prepared to withdraw it, but all I would like is some kind of commitment that that is intended in this language. MR. PAULLEY: May I, on a point of order? My honourable friend cannot withdraw it without unanimous consent. That, first of all, is the rule of the Assembly.

Now, by a gentle men's agreement, maybe we could hear the amendment proposed by the Honourable the Minister of Industry and Commerce and go from there as a result of a gentlemen's agreement, rather than strict adherence to the rules. MR. WEm: Well, Mr. Chairman, on the point o:: order, maybe the Mlnlster of Labour would rather that we would vote the amendment down and then, the subject matter having being dealt with, it might not be possible for the Minister of Industry and Commerce to move his amendment. Really, Mr. Chairman, what is attempted at in this matter is one of cooperation rather than . . . MR.

PAULLEY: Well, I'm endeavouring to bring about a gentlemen's agreement. If my honourable friend is not prepared to consider a gentlemen's agreement ... MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mlnlster of Industry and Commerce. MR. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, on a gentlemanly agreement basis, I would like to inform all members of the House of a proposed amendment that I wish to introduce to

Section 29(1) which, in my opinion, takes care of everything that was proposed by the Honourable Member from River Heights, and perhaps more. It has been the intention of the government, as was stated earlier in debate, to introduce the idea of disclosure of individual transactions. This fundamentally, I think, is the important innovation which this government has brought in and we should all recognize this. I think that we've provided in the Act, as it stood originally, for this type of disclosure, disclosure of individual companies, of individual amounts, the rates, the terms, etc.

We did not mention leases specifically and I suppose we could go on and say, well, we didn't mention other types of financial arrangements that could be made, and indeed we didn't, but I think we covered in all intents and purposes the bulk, the vast majority, 98-99 percent of the cases.

However, in order to ensure that every type of financial assistance that is provided by the Manitoba Development Corporation, as it will be called after the passage of this Act, in order to make sure that all types of financial transactions are disclosed, I there fore will be proposing - and I hope that there is going to be unanimous acceptance of it and that the Member from River Heights will withdraw his particular amendment- that it read as follows: That subsection (1) of

Section 29 of Bill138 be amended by striking out clauses (a),(

b) and (

c) thereof and substituting therefor the following clauses: (

a) the amount and nature of assistance, financial or otherwise, granted or to be granted by the Corporation and the parties to whom the assistance was or is to be granted, whether by way of loan, guarantee, lease, grant, invesbnent or otherwise (and I suggest, Sir, that "or otherwise" encompasses every other type of financial transaction or deal that could possibly be made) and (

b) the terms under which the assistance was or is to be granted. Now, we use the phrase "is to be" because in some cases the Corporation might enter into an agreement which will take place in X number of months hence, or an agreement that will be pending upon certain transactions that might take place, but I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this amendment that I wish to propose will more than cover the suggestions that were made by the Member from River Heights.

Therefore I would- and he has been given a copy of this about 10 or 15 minutes ago - I would urge that he withdraw his particular amendment and let this one stand, knowing that it is the intention of the government to have full disclosure, be cause this was our intention in the first place. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Are there more copies available? Because I would like to take a look at it before I grant leave. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR.

SPIVAK: While the Honourable Member for Rhineland is obtaining a copy, may I simply say I accept the statement of the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce that

3980 July 20.. 19'70 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd.) ....• the proposed amendment In its short form contains the detail that was requested Initially by me, and I'm prepared to withdraw lt on that basis and on the undertaking that he's given, and therefore I would ask leave for it to be withdrawn. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the member have leave to withdraw his proposed amendment? MR. FROESE: Just one moment. One moment. (Agreed) MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave, the proposed motion of the Honourable Member from River Heights is withdrawn. The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. MR. EVANS: Well Mr. Chairman I would therefore move that subsection (1) of

Section 29 ofBlll138 be amended by striklng out clauses (a), (b)and(c)thereof, and substltutlllg there for the followlllg clauses: (

a) the amount and nature of assistance, financial or otherwise, granted or to be granted by the Corporation and the parties to whom the assistance was or is to be granted, whether by way of loan, guarantee, lease, grant, investment or otherwise; and (

b) the terms under which the assistance was or is to be granted. I believe you have a copy of the . . . MR. CHAIRMAN presented the motion ·and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. PAULLEY: Could we return now to

Section 44? MR. CHAIRMAN: I might point out that the procedure is improper but nevertheless we're in it.

Section 44. MR. PAULLEY: . . . a gentlemen's agreement. MR. SPIVAK: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be moving an amendment to 44 and I think it was appropriate that 29 be dealt with before I deal with 44. Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the Member from Arthur, that

Section 44 of BUl 138 be amended by addlllg thereto immediately after the word "year" In the fourth line thereof, the words and figures, "including balance sheets, profit and loss statements, and other financial statements and information of the type mentioned in subsection (1) of

Section 29 in respect of each industrial enterprise and operation in which the Corporation is involved under this Part." MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mlnlster of Industry and Commerce. MR. EVANS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that this particular amendment, although the honourable member has not explained it . . MR. SPIVAK: Well, let me explain lt. MR. EVANS: Would you like to explain it? Okay. Go ahead and explain lt. MR. SPIVAK: Notwithstanding the comments of the Honourable Member from St. Boniface, I think it's necessary before he or anyone else votes on this that there be some explanation given. Mr.

Chairman, the intent here is again to deal with full disclosure-- no, not to play politics, as the Honourable Member from St. Boniface seems to think. He plays the game all the time. -- (Interjection) -- MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. SPIVAK: It's very hard to Ignore hlm, Mr. Chairman. He seems to be everywhere today. --(Interjections)-- Well, your eyesight is very bad today, Russ. Mr. Chairman, the intent here is to try and deal with adequate information in those areas in which there very well may be a position taken under Part n by government.

So far no government, not even the present government, have In fact dealt with any matter under Part n, but there have been statements made that lt will be the intention of this government to try and enter into partnership, or to try in fact carry on undertakings under Part n, and frankly. Mr. Speaker, I look forward with some anticipation to the first project that they wlll undertake.

But if we are going to be consistent about the disclosure items, then I would think that it's necessary to be consistent with respect to the disclosure items for those specific undertakings under Part n, and it's necessary for the members in the House to not only have a report that would Indicate that the government ls now operating under

Part ll in a particular section, but at least to have details which wlll give us an opportunity to analyze properly what is taking place and be able to make the judgment on the stewardship of the government with respect to this speclflc undertaking, which would involve government Involvement in industrial enterprises. Now there is nothing really ln the amendment that I believe the government would be unhappy about.

We talk about balance sheets, we talk about profit and loss statement, which would Indicate in a fiscal year how the corporation has operated and 1t would give us the information to make a judgment of lt, and other financial statements and information of the type that is mentioned ln subsection (1) of 29 which, as the Mlnlster has just indicated, is to

July 20, 1970 3981 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd.) ..•.. the amount and nature of assistance, flmuiclal or otherwble; to be granted to the corporation, the party to which the assistance was granted, 1f it's a joint venture, the manner in which funding has taken place, and all the other details, and the terms under which the assistance is to be granted. If you recall, Mr.

Chairman, in the amendment that I was proposing under 29 (1)', which was withdrawn, there was an indication that there could be, the Corporation could make - that ·· is the Manitoba Development Corporation- could make grants to get financial assistance, and this may in fact be a proper thing. The only point here is that because they are dealing with the public money and there is going to be disclosure in the manner as proposed; that we have the full details. And I would commend, Mr. Chairman, the government to accept this amend ment. MR. EVANS: Well Mr. Chairman, it is my complete understanding that the

Section 29, as amended, would provide for complete disclosure of all activities of the corporation, whether it be under

Part I or Part n as such. The fact of the matter is that in our minds we did not make any distinction, that the Corporation would be required to provide all this type of information. The clause is not an exclusive clause. It does not-

Section 29 as amended doe-s not exclude reference to Part n operations as such, and therefore all that is needed to be disclosed is already provided for. And! would submit respectfully, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment as proposed to

Section 44 is completely redundant and absolutely unnecessary, a.ll.d therefore should be voted down. MR. SPIVAK: Well Mr. Chairman, again, I think the Honourable Minister oflndustry and Commerce should recognize that he is not a lav.>yer and that his information or his state ment is not correct. The truth of the matter is this; that the Act provides for two reports. One is 29 and one is 44. One is under

Part I and the other is under Part n. The Minister of Finance is aware that the Manitoba Development Fund publishes two reports, one under

Part I and one under Part n, and I can remember when he was in opposition several tlmes indicating · that

Part II showed absolutely nothing. -- (Interjection) - Let me say this to the Honaurable Minister of Government Services. Reference was made to the fact of 31( 3), that the chairman may be required to attend a meeting of the Standing Committee, the Legislative Committee on Economic Development, to provide the most recent annual audited statement of assets and liabilities and profit and loss in respect of any company in which the Corporation has acquired an equity position, and the equity position we are talking about is under

Part I, not under

Part IT. And again, Mr. Chairman ... MR. PAULLEY: It may be under either o:r both and it's the same thing. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, my intention is to try and expedite the matters before us. My intention as well is to try and deal in a very positive way with the intent of the govern ment, and 1f you will allow me ... Again, Mr.

Chairman, before this amendment was made, I went to the Legislative Counsel to determine whether in fact such an amendment would be required and I am informed by hlm that it would be and I am informed by hlm that the provision, the provision contained in what I had proposed, that was prepared by hlm, wauld in fact com plete v.hat was intended, or what is intended, but what really is not contained within the Act now. MR. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, I . . . point out that in

Section 31(3) on page 18 of the proposed Bill 138, there is reference to disclosure by the chairman. Again there is no separation made to

Part I or

Part II, and it is our understanding that there v.ill be a disclosure of the entire operations of the Corporation as such, and this is -- certainly it's listed under

Part I but it doesn't make specific reference to

Part I. Therefore, it is our understanding that it applies to the total operations of the Corporation, not to any particular

section or part of the Act as you interpret it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Well Mr. Chairman, if it is understood by the government that this would be covered by it, why don't they accept this amendment then? I can see no reason. Because under

Part II the government is going to go into business. They will be in business under

Part II on their own, and certainly I think, under that prortsion, members should have every right to all the information they are seeking, and over the past munber of years, we have had a separate report under

Part II of the Development Fund Act. It was a nil report but still we had a report, and I take it that we will in future also get separate reports under

Part II and I feel that there is nothing \\Tong by putting this amendment into the section.

3982. July-20, 19'10 (liB. FROESE cout'd.) . . . • • Certainly it would ••guard it, and as has been pointed out by the Member for River Heights; that he In consultation with the Legislative COUll88l, that this is required, and therefore I feel that it should be passed. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for River Heights. '· MR. SPIVAK: I think I have been a reasonably tolerant man up to this point, but I am goq to suggest, Mr.

Chairman; that if the government doesn't want to accept this they can sta,nd up. and say it and not let the Minister of Industry and Commerce attempt to try and spout a law th~ he knows nothing about, and I want to-- (Interjection) - Well, we'll have the quel!tion; you have the majority; we know the way the vote's going to go and I know what will happen, but you will allow me to finish my remarks. Now Mr.

Chairman, if the Honourable Minister oflndustry and Commerce's knowledge of law is correct, then l'll.sit down, but I would ask him to take counsel with.the Legislative Counsel and to determine whether In fact this is so or not. Now the Intent of this is to try and deal with those specific situations under Part n in which the government would enter and create a DevelOpment Corporation under Part n of the F.und. Taking a ... company, which has already happened on three occasions under

Part I and is not the same situation, and the Minis ter of Industry and Commerce who continually talks about it outside this House as if it is the same situation should now determine that one happens to be a method of financing and one is the actual involvement In operation of a Crown corporation, and there is a distinction between that.

Now, I don't know whether anyone has come to the conclusion on the other side as to whether they are l.tttendlng to deal with this or not, and if you are not, then I'll make some comments, but at this point I would prefer to sit down and to see whether you are prepared to accept this on the basis that there is not, In fact-- the drafting that now is before us does not contain the specific proposals that are contained within the .amendment under Part n, because there is a possibility - and the government has declared this - that they are Intending to proceed with Part n, and I would think that we might as well correct it now so that in fact, when they do proceed under Part n. we will be able to have the information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? MR. SPIVAK: Well Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the government is not prepared to make a statement, then-- (Interjection) - You've made a statement. Well then, may I say, Mr. Speaker, that if the government accepts that the Minister of Industry and Commerce's

Interpretation of the law is correct, then I must say that one cannot think very highly of the legal opinions of the members on the opposite side. Now, it's very easy, because the government majority have passed this over, but let's now analyze where we really stand. The government has indicated to us that they are the ones who believe In disclosure. A MEMBER: Open government. MR. SPIVAK: Open government.

They have indicated to us that it's their intention to act in a way in which there will be full opportunity for the people of Manitoba and the Legisla ture to have the right to examine the financial matters of the Fund and to be able to deal with all matters. Now I suggest, Mr. Chairman, and I suggest again, that under Part n, if this is not passed, then the government will be in a position ·of filing - and they know this, by the way, at this point. They will be in a position of filing a report which v.ill detail and give whatever information they desire. Now Mr.

Chairman, I had no confidence in the members on the opposite side; and not withstanding the fact that they are going to stand up and say we had no confidence in you and what happened in the past, I must examine what has happened with respect to the present question of equity items, that is equity participation, and the statements that have been made inside and outside this House and throughout this province of their new policy of equity partici pation. to suggest that there has been a distortion and the public in this province had been misled as to the Intent, and I don't want to have it further perpetuated by this report.

The whole objective of the report is to present accurate information so that we have an opportunity of judging the stewardship of the government with respect to the matters before us. I have already indicated, with respect to the equlty matters, there is some question by some members In the community, who have some knowledge of the lnvestments that have been made, as to the judgment of the government, and at this point we are not asking specifically because obviously there has to be a time when this has to be taking place, and the time is not to have this through

July 20, 19'10 · (MR. SPIVAK cont'd.) . . . . . the question period, the time is not to have this in the estimates of the Department of Industry and Commerce, the time is to have 1t v.iren the people involved, the General Manager and the Chairman of the Fund, can appear before a committee and can present accurately information together with detailed Statistical information in connec tion with the financial position so that an intelligent evaluation can be made. If we don't do this, we are going to perpetuate what has happened in the past, notwithstanding these sections.

And 1f the members on the opposite side are prepared to do this and 1f members are so con cerned about their position and are so afraid to allow this to take place so that we can have information dealing with the balance sheets, the profit and loss statements and other financial statements of the Crown corporations in

Part II, and 1f they're not prepared to accept it, then I must say that their words ring hollow. Now there's only one other explanation for this, Mr. Chairman, and that is that the.sug~ gested amendments came from the members on this sllie.

Now surely they have reached some degree of maturity to recognize that maybe some members on this side can make. a contribution to their thinking, and surely they're not going to have their thinking-- you know, prejudice their own thinking to the point where they're not going to listen to amendments that have been proposed which are furthering the objectives and alms that they have expressed. Now having said this, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to seeing whether the government is prepared to support this or not.

I recognize they have a majority and I recognize that they can turn this down, but in turning this down, notwithstanding the statements that have been made by the Minister of Industry and Commerce as to what this means, and he doesn't know \\hat he's talking about and this isn't the first time this has happened, then I suggest, Mr. Chairman, 1f this happens, that the government really is not intending- (Interjection)- Your intention is to do what? -- (Interjection) - Well, 1f you're intending to approve this, this is fine, but that wasn't your indication . . . MR. EVANS: Mr.

Chairman, I am not a lawyer, as the Honourable Member for River Heights points out day in and day out, but I can read

Part II, and

Part II says not a darn thing that you cannot disclose information on a particular company. There's no reference to secrecy with respect to a particular company in

Part II and therefore automatically

Section 44, which refers to the Annual Report, means automatically the government may disclose the information on a particular company or a particular enterprise, and it is the government's intention to do so, and I don't know how many darn times I have to repeat it. MR. HARRY ENNS (Lakeside): Mr. Chairman, I'm not a lawyer either but it's just not possible that I'm hearing right. The government, this government "may" disclose- did I hear them right? After the big production they've been making on the question of disclosure with respect to MDF loans?

The Honourable Minister of Finance, it was his pet challenge to the previous Premier, and I'm referring to Premier Roblin in this instance. This whole question of disclosure with respect to MDF funds and loans arrangement has been one of long-standing argument with the then-Opposition group, the New Democratic Party, and now we have, we witness a squirming in the chairs, a legal argument as to whether or not

an Act wlll apply or will not apply, and then finally capped off with -- really, what is in the back of their minds is that they want to regain precisely, precisely, the same powers, 1f you want to, that the previ ous administration did- which I must admit, after having listened to the reasoned arguments of members opposite, I've come to the conclusion, as obviously has the ... MR. EVANS: Would the honourable member submit to a question? MR. ENNS: ... come to the conclusion-- No, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to finish what I have to say.

I must say that I've come to the conclusion that, with respect to the lending out of public funds in one way or another way, that full public disclosure is unequestionably the right course. Now, for this government to suggest to my honourable colleague the Member for River Heights that they wish to reserve for themselves the discretion as to whether or not they will or not- and Mr. Chairman, he chose , he used the word "may".

He used the word, not I, and as the Member for River Heights has already indicated, the government wlll do exactly what they want to do; they will do exactly what they want to do because they have their troops and they can muster it. But Mr. Chairman, it's our reaponsibllity right now particularly, on this particular issue, to indicate just how the wheel turns, bow the wheel turns, that 1f they now wish to choose for themselves to hold the discretion to themselves as to whether or not the disclosure will be made. Now, if there is any doubt about this, then accept the amendment. The amendment is

July ao, 197.~ (MR. ENNS coot'd) . • . . • a reasonable one; lt calls fOX' further dlsclosure; and particularly In view of the fact that the government is enterlng Into or has announced that it's entering Into new fields with respect to Part n of the MDF Fund, then it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the request coming from this side is only reasonable. MR. CHAIRMAN put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. CHAIRMAN: (Section 44 of Bill 138 was read and passed.) Section.45- The Honourable Member for Birtle-Bussell. MR. HARRY E. GRAHAM (Birtle-Bussell): When you're dealing with Part.m of the MDC ••• MR. CHAIRMAN: We are now. MR. GRAHAM: ..•

Section 45, with the loans to MLAs prohibited, there's a little word In the last Une which leaves the door open, where it says, "In wblcb a member of the Legislative Assembly bas a substantial beneficial Interest." CoUld the Minlster please define for me the word "substantial"? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mlnlster. MR. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, in this respect there's been no change, to my knowledge, from the preceding Act.

The only changes, Instead of the word "Fund" we're using the word "COX'poration" and you can read it word for word, and-- well, I'll read the old Act: ''The Fund shall not make a loan to any member of the Legislative Assembly, directly or indirectly, or to any person acting in his behalf, or to any firm, corporation or organization in wblch a member of the Legislative Assembly bas a substantial beneficial Interest. " And I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the

Section 45 of the new Act reads word for word except the word "Fund" ls replaced with the word "Corporation". So I submit, Mr. Chairman, the word "substantial" now means the same as it did under the adminlstration of the former government. MR. GRAHAM: Thank you very much for the words of wisdom from the Minister. Now I know what "substantial" means. Maybe I should ask the First Minlster 1f be could define for me the word "substantial". BON. ED. SCHREYER (Premier)(Rossmere): Mr. Chairman, I would define the word "substantial" to mean something more than insignlficant. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, this is the

section that I brought in in 1966. The Bill at that time did not have such a provision and my amendment at that tlme did not contain the words "substantial beneficial interest." This was the provision added by the Honourable Duff Roblin at that tlme, so that's where you have the substantial beneficial interest from. MR. CHAIRMAN: (Sections 45 to title of Bill No. 138 were read and passed.) Blll be reported. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, I wlll move that the blll not now be reported. MR.

CHAIRMAN put the question and after a voice vote declared that Bill 138 will be reported. MR. GREEN: Blll No. 140, Mr. Speaker. MR.CHAIRMAN: Blll140? MR. GREEN: No. 150. MR. CHAIRMAN: (Bills Nos. 150, 110, 130, 136, 133, 144, 145, 146 and 63 were each read

section by

section and passed.) Bill 129

Section 1, 4(4F) - The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to state again that the powers given the Metropolitan Corporation in Blll129,

Section 1,(4F),(4G), (4H) and(4I) are far too extensive a power to be given to anybody of municipal government in any province or in any country, and actually they have not been given to anybody else in this country as far as I can find out. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read briefly a letter that I have received. A copy of it was sent to me and it explains very well my position on it. The letter is addressed to the Honourable Minlster and copies went to myself and the Honourable Attorney-General, and it's from the Mayor of St.

James-Assinlboia, and I say it explains my feelings and some that I think should be taken into deep consideration by the members of this House. ''The addition of Sections (4F) and (4G) as set out in Blll 129 would remove all restri~ tiona and the valuable limitations to the powers of expropriation granted to Metro. It would

July 20, 1970 (MR. F. JOHNSTON cont'd.) . leave In doubt whether those' responsibilities granted to the muniCipalities of distribution of municipal services and recreation are to remain with the municipalities or whether they are now transferred to Metro. "Section 197 of The Metropolitan Winnipeg Act provides: 'In the event of a conflict between any provisions of this Act and any provisions of The Municipal Act or the charter of any city or town, the provisions of this Act prevail. ' Subsection (

b) of

Section (4G) in Bill 129 sets out simply that Metro may develop or redevelop any land acquired by Metro and, without limiting the foregoing, provide services for the land. In order to avoid conflict and confusion between the responsibilities of municipalities and Metro as to the distribution of services (the ' responsibllity of the municipalities) and the supply of the main services (the responsibilities of Metro), this

section should limit the power of those purposes authorized by the Metropolitan Winnipeg Act. "Subsections (

c) and (

e) of

Section (4G) of Bill 120 provide general power and, when combined with general expropriation powers of (4F) In Bllll29, may lead to a conflict of responsibllities and to confusion. The power of expropriation In

Section (4F) is general and sets no limit as to the purpose under 'Mlich Metro may expropriate. These general expropri ation powers, \\hen combined with subsections (

c) and (a), does allow the Corporation to enter into any type of building construction and house building. These same provisions allow the corporation to enter Into any recreational or cultural facilities. "It is submitted that no public body should be allowed such wide and general powers. The Municipal Act provides municipalities with certain responsibilities for recreation and distribution of services.

Unless the provisions referred to In Bill 129 are limited to those responsibilities given Metro under The Metropolitan Winnipeg Act, Metro may well assume broader powers than those given to it In The Metropolitan Winnipeg Act. The general power of expropriation is so wide in (4F) that it allows for taking of lands for any purpose without, in (4F), expropriation, without expropriation as authorized under The Metropolitan Winnipeg Act where it is deemed necessary for its purposes, thereby limiting expropriation to those pur poses authorized In The Metropolitan Winnipeg Act. ''The City of St.

James-Assiniboia submits Sections (4F) and (4G) of Bill 129 are limited and may serve as transfer of authority from the municipality to Metro, which could possibly establish Metro as a regional government and an area of municipalities as of administrative branches. If this is the purpose of the amendment in Sections (4F) and (4G) of Bill129, surely these powers should not be granted until the Boundaries Commission have reported, and further until a decision is made as to new boundaries, and their power established. The alternative

section (4F) and (4G) should be amended to limit the new powers to those purposes described In the Metropolitan Winnipeg Act. " Mr. Chairman ... HON. HOWARD R. PAWLEY (Minister of Municipal Affairs)(Selkl.rk): Would the honour able member permit a question? MR. F. JOHNSTON: Certainly. MR. PAWLEY: Would the honourable member, who is a member of the St. James Council-- I received the original of this letter this morning and I was wondering why the City of St.

James-Assiniboia- and I'm sure he could provide me the answer- why they failed to present this submission to the appropriate committee when we were dealing with this matter in committee stage \\here public representations were being heard. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I don't know. The Mayor of the City of Winnipeg with the aldermen- in fact I was not present when they went over Billl29- it was decided to write a letter to the Minister giving their opinion and send a copy to the MLAs in the area, and I have no idea 'Mly they did not make reprentation. Mr.

Chairman, the last paragraph, where it states that it's fairly obvious that if this power is granted the Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg at the present time, this government is automatically saying that this city, regardless of \\hat the Boundaries Report said, this city is going to be governed by the Metropolitan Corporation with the cities and municipalities being administrative branches, because if this Act is passed the way it is, it wouldn't matter \\hat the Boundaries Report says. Metro will automatically have that power, and Metro has too much power right now.

Metro is a fifth \\heel of government that should be eliminated the way it presently is constituted. It's been a complete flop, and all- (InterjeC' tion) - Yes, that's right, and I'm sure that to you fellows it sounds marvellous. It sounds

L 3986 July 20, 19'10 . (IUJ. F. J~;NSTON cont'd.) . . . • • really wonderful. One big city. ODe big elty. You'll all m9ve out becmse you won't be able to afford it, B.Dd I'm telll:J~ you right now lf you think you can go from twelve to one overnight, which 1a. what thla pretty well does, it sets the sceJJe for it, it's impossible. Any aldermen that you'll meet in this area don't agree with twelve and they don't agree with oDe either; these men are responsible men and I assure you they can tell you more about setting up the city than you fellows know over there.

Thla will give .Metro far more power than any local government should have in any province, B.Dd that's ~asically true and you can't deny it. You're just saying that you're setting up .Metro regardless of what the Boundaries Report may bring ln. MR. PAULLEY: I wonder 1f my honourable friend would answer a question. He may not be able to answer but I'm wonder~ whether my honourable friend, again as a .Member of the Council of St.

Jame~Asslnlboia, v.bether he could tell me -whether or not the letter was written in the knowledge of the provisions of the new Expropriation Act that has just been recently adopted by this Legialatnre that calls, as a requlreinent, for pr&-hearings before expropriation takes place? It is my understandillg this also is applicable to .Metro. MR. F. JOHNSTON: That's right. .Mr. Chairman, I again can't answer that. I am a member of thla Assembly. I do not speak for the St. Jame~Asslnlboia Council when I'm here. This letter explains my position on BUI129 so I read it, and I've expanded on It a bit.

Now, the expropriation .Metro does have to partake ln. They have to go by the new Expropriation Act. Well, there again, why give them the power 1f the Expropriation Act is as good as the government says it is? And I belleve it is. I talked to the Honourable .Mlnlater of Labour about it.

The Expropriation Act says that they must tell the people ahead of tlme what they are taking the lB.Dd for and what use it's going to ultimately be, so the argument that .Metro gave us for this power in Law Amendments or at the .Municipal Committee is not really valid, because lf they're going to be forced to say what the land was used for, they're going to have to pay out just as much money, and that also wlll mean there wlll be all kinds of people's moJJey tied up in land deals in this .Metro area.

They already tie up $500,000 in river bank property and there's not a heck of a lot been done with that, but you're going to have .Metro with all kinds of money tied up, and 1f they're buying it that far ahead, they're ~ying the land this far ahead so that people won't know what they're going to do with it, and the Expropriation Act says that they must know what they're going to do with it, all you're doing ls putting piles of money where it could be used by the people. It does not apply that the .Metropolitan Corpor ation, lf they have to abide by the Expropriation Act, that they should have this power.

Secondly, I might say .Metro is a body of people who do not collect the money that they spend. They have a favorite little trick, you know, of saying, "Oh, we haven't raised the mlll rate too much, or . . . the mlll rate," but then they go whipping around the city reassessing, and then the next year your blll is higher again. .Metro does not collect the money they spend; they just send out bllls, and all that's going to happen here is more people's money tied up with power that is second to none. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4 (4F)- The Honourable .Member for Blrtl&-Russell. MR. GRAHAM: .Mr.

Chairman, I am a rural member, and on the question of Metro we quite often have a tendency to say, well, let the city boys worry about it; but actually, .Mr. Chairman, 1f we are to fulflll our duty in this Legislature, we have to look at all facets of the legislative process and have to become familiar with the various pieces of legislation that do affect the urban area, and this is one piece of legislation that does affect the urban area. And lf what my honourable colleague here has just reported is the case, then there is real cause for concern.

But even 1f it was not the case, there is still cause for concern, because we found last year that the Premier of this province assured the insurance industry that they would be consulted and this .Minister of Municipal Affairs went ahead with his program without consul tation of the insurance industry. MR. PAWLEY: .Mr. Speaker, just on a point of order, I wonder 1f the honourable member is aware that he is not dealing with Blll 56 . .MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Speaker, we have also seen the government here ... MR. CHAIRMAN: ... or I wlll determine whether or not he is effectively dealing with the Bllll29. MR.

GRAHAM: We have also seen, Mr. Chairman, this government express their concern about the assessment practices in the Province of .Manitoba, and we find this .Mlnlater introducing a tax deferral system blll which does deal with assessments, even though they are

July 20; 1970 3987 (MR. GRAHAM cont'd.) . . . . . going to deal with assessment at a later date. We now find that the report of the Boundaries Commission is supposed to be due at the end of this month and here is this Minister bringing in a blll which deals with possibly some recommencbt.;. tions of the Boundaries Commission. So we have . . . MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I would ask the honourable mem- ber to check the front of Blll i29. You'll find that this Minister is not the sponsor of this bilL -~ MR. GRAHAM: Mr.

Speaker, whether he is the sponsor of it or not is immaterial; the question of municipal affairs is his responsibility, and if he is shirking his responsibllity in that manner I feel that he· should be more concerned than ever, but here we find that the ~cal Boundaries Commission, which has worked for several years, is due to bring in a report, according to the Premier, before the end of this month, and yet we find that this government is not waiting for that report but they are going to proceed anyway. If that was the case, I would say, why did they keep the Boundaries Commission on?

If they are not going to wait for their report, why have them sitting? Why didn't they get rid of them? If they want to go ahead with their own program, what's the point in having a Boundaries Commission? · So, Mr. Chairman, I have some concern at this time because we have repe'ated examples here that the government is say~ one thing and doing the other. This causes me concern and I'm sure it causes many Manitobans concern, because people all over this province are now starting to wonder just what this government is, in fact, attempting to do because they're saying one thing and doing the other.

So I have a great deal of concern at this time when they say that they're going to do one thing and they're doing the opposite. · The point that my colleague has raised, I think is a very valid one, and if you are really going to listen to the report of the Boundaries Commission, is it that essential that this Bill · . has to be passed now? Is it really that urgent that it has to be passed now? A matter of two weeks tlll you get the report of the Boundaries Commission and another two years to study it, might cause you to think that maybe this is not in the best interests of the people of Manitoba.

Then again it might be, and I'm not going to say. But why not wait until you have that report? You're not helping your cause or the cause of the people of the urban area by proceed~ in a haphazard manner without waiting for a report which has taken considerable time to prepare, and whether it's a good report or a bad report depends on who's reading it and what interpreta tion you put on it, but that is your prerogative; you are the government- for a very short period of time, but that is another point.

But if you think this is so essential to push through right now without waiting for the report of the Boundaries Commission, then I think that you must be prepared to take the co~uences. MR. PAWLEY: Will the honourable member submit to a question? MR. GRAHAM: Certainly. MR. PAWLEY: Is the honourable member just as concerned about the more or less equal powers that are granted to the towns, villages, and rural municipalities that fall under the Provincial Planning Act as he is with Blll 129 and the proposed powers there insofar as the Metropolitan Corporation of Winnipeg is concerned? MR. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, at the way this present government is go~ we won't have to be too concerned about the towns and villages; there'll be none left if they carry· on the way they're going right now. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I too am concerned, and when I'm concerned I would like to discern the concern that I have about a

section of this Act. I am not opposed to the Bill that is before us but I'm opposed to, and I will vote against, the particular

section here that deals with the powers in the additional zone. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, is the honourable member aware that the additional zone has been struck out of that particular clause? MR. ENNS: Thank you. I wish to thank the House Leader for that information. That . removes the concern that I had. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. GREEN: That's the first time I've got up and shortened the proceedings. MR. FROESE: The Honourable Minlster was interrupting me. Mr. Chairman, I move that the

Section 1 of the Bill be deleted, and I want to speak to the motion. That's Page 1. Mr. Chairman, we heard representation in committee on this particular bill and especially in connection with the

Section 1 of the Bill. We heard from individuals, from

July JP. 19"1.0. (liB. FROESE cont'd.) • • . . . developers; we heard from Metro Council and the Vice Chairman of Metro, and he told wi, When questioned, In no uncertain terms that they. were In ~e process, If this Blll was passed, to assemble laud and to develop it but not to resell, so this means that the City would be the owner of the property indefinitely and that once the lands were assembled the Intention was for the city to hold on to it. I feel that I cannot support this City of Winnipeg, or Metropolitan Winnipeg. -- (Interjection) - Metropolitan Winnipeg . . So Mr.

Chairman, I for one cannot support this kiDd of business. I know that we as a govern ment of Manitoba under the Development Fund are proceeding Into business and are going to set up corporations, subsidiaries and take over businesses, as Bill 56 provides, and now we are also going to find that the Metropolitan area of Greater Winnipeg is going to follow suit, also go into business, that of land assembly and development and h0118lng and so forth. I don't think that v.hen Metro was set up originally away back In 1960 that this really was the.lntent at that time.

I couldn't mpport the government in connection with the Metro Bill at that time and I still can't mbscribe to the principles In the way the Metro was established and the powers that were given to Metro. In my opinion they were far too excessive and I just don't go along with it. Here, too, there's no limit set as to the amount that the Metro Board can spend on the matter of developing and on the matter of acquiring land and then holding it l.nctefini tely.

Therefore, I am moving the motion that this part of the blll be deleted because I feel that we are giving them far too much power, and right now through land assembly they're speculating on the supposition that land prices will contf.nne to increase and that inflation will contf.nne.

On the other hand, If prices should go down, If the tight money situation prevails and contf.nnes and that the economy wlll deteriorate further, that Metro then could find itself with large liabilities on their hands, and the people In the City of Winnipeg and the various suburban municipalities would be required to foot the bill And this would all happen without the people having any right or any vote or any say in the matter. We know that Metro does not have to go to the people for by-laws or any moneys.

All they do is ask the various municipali ties for the moneys and they have to put it up, so I cannot subscribe to the philosophy In this portion of the bill, and I intend to oppose it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. BUD SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Mr. Chairman, I rise for just a brief moment or two to support the position taken by my colleague the Member for St. James-Assiniboia with respect to Bllll29 and to support- for Sturgeon Creek, correction, Mr. Chairman- for Sturgeon Creek- on Bill 129. I was thlnklng of his connection with the municipality of St.

James-Assinibola and it's from his experience In municipal affairs In that connection that he makes the plea that he does for a redrafting or reassessment of the directions proposed for Metro in Billl29. I similarly support the amendment moved by the Member for Rhineland and In fact, Mr. Chairman, had I not been so slow in getting to my feet I would have moved the amendment myself. I believe that

Section 1 In its entirety, of Bill 129, will work to the severe financial disadvantage of individual municipalities In the Metro area. I believe that it contains within it regulations that will inhibit the negotiations undertaken by Individual municipalities In the Metro area for attracting industry and I believe that it intends to place in the hands of Metro an absolute power that is extremely dangerous.

I'm dismrbed also by the fact that I see no reference to and am aware of no opportunity of any right of appeal, of any avenue of appeal that individual municipalities may have against the Metropolitan Corporation shwld it be vested with this kind of absolute and autocratic authority. I think, Sir, that many Improvements require to be made in the over-all adminis tration of our Metropolitan community. I think that there is a strong case that can be made for rationalization of the Metropolitan setup as it currently exists.

There's certainly a strong case that can be made for ratlonallzation in terms of the multitude of services and administra tions, the overlap of services and administrations that exist as a consequence of the prolifera tion of individual municipal administrations in the entire Metropolitan Winnipeg area, and I favour a rationalization of the present system.

I favour a tightening and an improvewent in the loose, disorganized, and in many cases cross-purposed setup that we have at the present time with all the member munlcipalltles and their conflicting ambitions and conflicting roles, but I don't think that the answer lies in the vesting in the hands of the Metropolitan Corporation this kind of absolute authority, and I fear

July 20, 1970 (MR. SHERMAN cont'd.) . . . . . for the effect it would have on municipalities such as the one which I represent - andl make no bones about that vested interest, although I'm not a member of the Fort Garry Municipal Council, as my colleague from Sturgeon Creek is a mem ber of the Council of St.

James-Assiniboia, but I still have that concern for the rights and the role and the sovereignty of the. municipality which I represent, which makes me extremely anxious for the future of the municipal function and the municipal role, when authority of such · an absolute nature as envisaged in this bill is placed in the hands of the Metro Corporation. So I say, Sir, that I rise to support the amendment of the Member for Rhineland and only regret that I didn't beat him to the floor to move it myself. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Chairman, I've already made my few comments and I just make one more comment, that this power - and just think about it- this power gives Metro the power to expropriate any lands, any houses, any bulldlugs, anywhere, and do as they please with it. Now that's a pretty wide power to give anybody. That's a pretty wide power to put upon the citizens of Metro Winnipeg.

I know that this has been requested by Metr.o Winnipeg; for a long time they've been trying to ask for this particular power to be given to them, and I know, and in fact the Honourable Minister of Education mentioned to me that he presented it one time, I believe, and believed that they should have it to put this Assembly with the ldea that they should have this power. But it's not right.

You're giving a group of people who are not responsible for collecting any of the funds, as I said before, that they have to spend, and they will tle up money which will be nothing but a financial burden on the people plus they can do anything that they please, at any tlme, with their expropriation. Mr. Chairman, I practically plead with the members of this House not to give the Metro Corporation this power at the present tlme. . . . . . Continued on next page

MR.C HAIRMAN: TlM! Honourable Member for River Heights. A MEMBER: Not again. JUly ·zo, 19'10 MR. SPIVAK: Again. Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of aspects of this particular bill and this particular item that should be discussed and some note be made on the record. First, the development plan itself is not something that is undesirable. It's a desirable concept. - (Interjection) --Yes, just let me - the development plan itself, the development plan itself is not an undesirable thing.

We do know that the government intends to introduce very soon either amalgamatim of tbe City of Wimrlpeg, or some concept of amalgamatim, which will either ac cept tbe Boundaries Commission's recommendation or Mlyer Brownstone's recommendations - either one. We do know as well that there are proposals for the development, commercial development of tbe downtown area, some of which are in conflict with the development plan as proposed by Metro. We know as well that there was a proposed project for Centrepoint which involved, or was cmditional on provincial government participati<m in a conventim facility.

We know as well that there is discussi<m now taking place with another developer for a conven tion facility to be tied into his development, and from all appearances it would appear, it would appear that the first land to be expropriated by Metro under this specific provision will be land to be used by a commercial developer in connection with his specific project which will tie in with the over-all development plan but which may very well involve a convention facility to be financed partly or wholly by the province.

Now, none of these things in themselves are things that should be of concern except that the intent of this proposal was not to be used as a vehicle for commercial enterprises who are desirous of and concerned with purchasing property, and through the use of this specific power will be able to acquire property that they may not otherwise acquire on the same pricing condi tion. Now I don't think that was the intent. Now Mr.

Chairman, the thing that disturbs me and I think I'm correct in this, is that at the committee hearings no one from the City of Winnipeg made any representation, and if I'm correct, neither did the mayor.

Now if the Minister had been in communication or had there been some representation in writing or verbally made before him in connection with this bill, by the City of Winnipeg or by the mayor, I'd like to know, and I think it's important for the record, because I think it has a great bearing on the decision that has to be made by the mem bers in this House, because if I'm correct, the only representaticn made was the representa tion from Metro in support of this, in terms of an official municipal body, was by Metro in sup port of this. Now ••• MR. JOHANNSON: Would the honourable member submit to a question?

MR. SPIVAK: Yes. MR. JOHANNSON: Did not the City of Winnipeg have a chance, an equal chance, along with other municipal bodies, to present a brief before the committee, and did they not certainly receive ample notification of the fact that this bill was coming before Law Amendments? MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, this is exactly the point that I'm going to make, and you've made the point. I don't really believe that there was adequate notice because of the way in which our committees operated, and the Honourable Member for St. Matthews can shake his head. I really don't believe that.

However, the city-- there's an onus on the City and the other municipalities to act in the most proper manner and there's a responsibility on their part to present a watching brief in connection with these items. Now the point, Mr.

Chairman, that I make, and one that becomes very serious, if neither the City of Winnipeg nor its mayor, nor any of the municipalities, are prepared to come forward to the committee and to this Legisla ture to oppose this legislation and to oppose the specific provision, if neither bodies, or none of the bodies are prepared to come forward and deal in the specifics that I've mentioned, and others that are before them, then I wonder whether, Mr. Chairman, on this particular situation, whether there's justification to withhold support for this particular

section in view of the fact that the other political institutions on the municipal level have not been prepared to come for ward and to present their position. And Mr.

Chairman, had they done this and had they pre sented the position which would indicate some of the things that I believe are the case -but I'm not sure of them as a matter of fact and I'm not suggesting that everything that I've given or presented this evening is accurate; I only mow. this by thirdhand reports from others but I have a suspicion, unless someone is prepared to stand up and say that it's not so, that there's probably more truth in what I've said in this specific situation than untruth - then I say, Mr.

Chairman, how can the members of the committee here be expected to vote against this other than on the principle that's been expressed by the. Member from St. James and the Member

July 20, 1970 3991 (MR. SPIVAK cont'd.) • • from Fort Garry whose principle I respect and whose right of standing for that principle I respect as well?

But it would seem to me that if those wh(l are in-, volved in the City Council, including the mayor, have any objection to this specific clause or are concerned about Metro's power, they should have been before the Committee and they should have made representations, and those representations have not been made and therefore one has to conclude that they're satisfied with the kind of negotiations that are taking place. in turn are satisfied with what is happening with respect to this plan. Mr.

Chairman, this specific section, we'll have an opportunity in the sessions to come, at least the Legislature will, of reviewing this

section and determining whether in filet the powers that are being given are really going to be used in a way which will not accomplish the simple objective, which was to basically get the development plan into operation and to thus stimulate the City's development. And I think we're going to have to wait and see the experience of the next period of time to know whether this is the caae and we can :fudge on that basis, and on the basis of that, Mr. Speaker, I would believe that there should be support for the specific

section and not for the proposal before you. MR. CHAmMAN: Just to clarify a procedure again. I would like to remind members that it is not necessary to.propose a motion for a deletion of a section. A proper method is to wait until a

section is called and then to vote in the negative. It is only positive motions which are in order. So I would therefore refer back to the

section I was dealing with and ask the Member for Rhineland, and any others, that when we complete the

section and I call for the passage of

Section 1, to at that point say nay, and if there is sufficient support or sufficient. size of opposition, then a division may be called for, but it is actually not in order or not good procedure to move the deletion of a section. --(Interjection) --Well, I am still proceeding through

Section 1. I'm on 4(4F) (b). MR. FROESE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. You have accepted the motion when I made it. MR. CHAIRMAN: I did not accept it. I simply accepted it physically. I did not say in any words that I had accepted it. MR. FROESE: You accepted the motion and allowed it •••• MR. CHAmMAN: Well the motion was handed to me and I did not accept it verbally. (Section 1 of Bill 129 was read and passed.) I'm calling the question on

Section 1 --passed? SOME MEMBERS: Nay. MR. CHAffiMAN: If the Member for Rhineland would like to challenge the • MR. CHAmMAN put the question. MR. CHAm MAN: I believe the Nays have it .• MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, would you call the Yeas and Nays. MR. CHAmMAN: Call in the members. We're dealing with Bill 129,

an Act to amend The Metropolitan Winnipeg Act. A COUNTED VOTE was taken on

Section 1 passing, the .result being as follows: YEAS, 29; Nays, 17. MR. cHAmMAN: Those in favour have it.

Section 1 passed. (Sections 2 and 3 of Bill 129 were read and passed.)

Section 4. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: I move that

Section 3 of the bill be amended by, deleting the words "six teen thousand eight hundred dollars" and inserting the words "twelve thousand seven hundred and twenty dollars.'' MR. CHAffiMAN presented the motion. MR. P A ULLEY: On a point of order, all the honourable member has to do is to vote against the

section and then in effect it remains the way it is. MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, if I may, the Honourable Minister is incorrect. The amount that I am putting in there is $12, 720. This is an increase of six percent. This is ac cording to the Federal Government guidelines and therefore I feel that we are away out of bounds in increasing salaries in this way. Certainly I think we should be economy-wise at this time when the farmers of this province are facing a very serious situation, when they will be doing without many things that they would also like to see.

They would like to see higher prices on wheat, coarse grains, flax and so on, but their return will be very limited. Certainly, prices of grains have gone down instead of going up in recent times, and here we are going to give these people big increases and I feel that we should be guided somewhat by the situation

·. ·-· 3992 Juty-BO, ~19f0 (MR. FROESE cODt'd.) • • • • • that is prevailing today and .that the increaae be along the guidelines set out by the Federal Government, namely sfx percent. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, I have a qp.estion for the Honourable Minister of Transporta tim. I wonder whether he could indicate to the House whether he intends to protest this raiae or not. BON. JOSEPH P. BOROWSKI (Minister of Transportation)(Thompson): I agree with it but I'll vote against it. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the First Minister.

I wonder whether he can indicate whether Mr. John Young has approved of this raise or not. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Chairman, the question just asked, I know it was really ~t forward in a bantering manner but it does afford me an opportunity to make some comments relative to the amendment before us. In the first place, although I don •t suppose the Honourable Member for Rhbleland would put much weight in it, the fact remains that we are not ffxlng the alary by passing this blll, but leaving it in the judgment of the Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg's elected council. I believe that is correct.

The second point, which again I don't believe the honourable member would put much weight in,. is the fact that in different jurisdictions in this province, in this country, different provinces, and the different cities within each of the provinces, there are various levels of alary that are received by mayors of the larger cities and premiers of other provinces.

It is a matter, I suppose, of interest to the Honourable Member for Rhineland that the salary re ceived by mayors of the City of Vancouver, when you relate it to the salary received by the Chairman of the Metropolitan Corporation, it would seem that if this increase in in fact imple mented by the Metropolitan Corporation, that the salary would still be, I'm confident, substan tially lower • The Premier, or Prime Minister of British Columbia, for example, receives a salary much, much larger than that of the Premier of Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba.

I know that it's not being increased this year -perhaps this would please the Prices and Incomes Com mission -but somewhere along tie line in the past year, two or three or four years, the salary must have been increased substantially, otherwise it couldn't be at the level that it is now, so if an increase takes place in one year that would be higher or larger than that which would be acceptable to the Prices and Incomes Commission, the fact still remains that some time in recent years increases in salaries of mayors or premiers must have been to a degree that wat•ld have been unacceptable to a Prices and Incomes Commission had there been one, and I regard that as relevant to the amendment that is put forward by the honourable member at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, in reply to what has just been said, these other cities only have one administration •. we have two administrations.

We are not Just paying the mayor of the city but we are also paying Metro Council and the chairman and vice-chairman who are get ting additional indemnities, so that if other cities give an increase to the mayors, certainly it is not the cost of administration, is not nearly what it adds up to in Winnipeg when you add both the City of Winnipeg and the Metro Council together, so that in fact the people of Winnipeg are paying much more in administration to their officers than other cities. MR.

CHAIRMAN put the question on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Rhineland and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. CHAIRMAN: (Sections 5 to 7 were read and passed.)

Section 8 33(l)(a) --passed. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, I move that

Section 8 be amended by deleting clause (

c) of subsection 33(1). MR. CHAIRMAN: Again I would remind the member that he should simply express his views and vote against

Section 8 when it is called. MR. FROESE: Well Mr. Chairman, I challenge your ruling. I put a properly worded motion up to you and I see no reason why it should not be accepted. I want to speak on the motion, and therefore • • • • MR. CHAIRMAN: There is nothing to prevent the honourable member from speaking. He should be putting motions that either amend or else, if he wishes to speak against and vote against a section, he should do so. It is not necessary to move a negative motion. In fact, I

July 20, i970 (MR. CHAIRMAN, cont'd.) ••••• think it is out of order. I'll quote Beauchesne in a moment for you. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, would the honourable member not consider that there is you know, this has been a moot point. Several times motions for deletion have been put and accepted.

The Chairman has now indicated that he prefers to deal with it in an orderly manner; that if one is not in favour of the section, he votes against; for or against, which gives the hOllourable member the chance of voting and it also gives the honourable member the chance of speaking, so why should we be arguing about something which is a moot point, whether the Chairman is or is not correct? Is there any loss that the member sUffers by not being able to move deletion rather than speaking against the motion as it's put? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party. MR.

GORDON JOHNSTON (Portage La Prairie): Well, Mr.

Chairman, if I may speak to that point of order, I would expect that if your ruling is to be accepted and upheld that it would be retroactive, and I'm talking now about in Law Amendments Committee on BilllO, where - sections of the bill, deletions were moved and voted on and accepted, and that blll and other bills are coming back to this House having been amended in that manner, and I would expect that the Speaker should make a ruling now on every motion that has been made in this manner in this session to see as to whether or not the motions where a deletion was moved are valid or not. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman, I really fail to see what earthly difference it could make to anyone on either side of the House whether a motion is spoken against and voted against by an honourable member or whether he is allowed to move a motion to delete a particular reference. The net effect is the same. It's not even of a tactical advantage, I shouldn't think.

The only circumstance in which I can see that there is a difference between voting against a motion or moving a motion to delete, is in the case where an honourable member wishes to vote against only part of a particular motion, in which case it's in order; it's really necessary then to move a motion to delete part of a particular provision. Here we are getting ourselve-s worked up into a frenzy as to whether or not the Member for Rhineland should be allowed to move a motion of deletion when he could accomplish the same purpose by voting against. If he is only against part of the particular

section that is before us, then of course I can see the necessity of a motion to delete part of a provision in the bill. MR. P A ULLEY: Each

section is called separately. MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, if I may speak to the same order. When the Chairman goes through the bills

section by section, he calls out "pass; pass." He doesn't call for a vote. No he doesn't; he just calls out "pass" and that's it. In this way you are putting it for ward in a positive way and you then have it on record as members voting for or against it, and for this reason I feel that this should be adhered to. MR. SCHREYER: I would just like to make the point, Mr. Chairman, that when Mr. Chairman puts the question "pass?" in the interrogative tone, that is really the putting of the question, and if the Honourable Member for Rhineland does not wish tbat

section to pass, he would merely indicate nay, and if he wishes he can ask for a recorded vote. The use of the word ''pass" really is a question; shall the

section pass? The honourable member can indicate nay and ask that a vote be taken if he wishes to. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. G. JOHNSTON: On the point of order that is under discussion, Mr. Chairman. If this is the case then, a member or a Minister does not have the opportunity to explain or try to persuade people as to why he thinks the question should pass or not. --(Interjection) - Well, it didn't happen in all the committees that I attended this session.

Members and Min isters moved deletions of sections of a bill and they spoke at great length, and if we are going to accept the procedure that has been suggested by the First Minister and the Chairman, there will be an aye and nay and that's it. There will be no chance to speak to the question. SOME MEMBERS: Not No! MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, surely the honourable member knows what is going on, and I thought the First Minister put it in a way in which everybody could grasp immediately.

The Chairman could say, instead of pass, which is the word that I have heard in these four years, "question on 1; question on 2; question on 3"; and every time he says "qUestion" any body can take the floor the same way as when Mr. Speaker puts any other question, so there is

Jul:y 20~ 1970 (Jill. GBDN cont'd.) ••••• no doubt at all about hqnourable members being able to speak• Every time he asks for the question, which is when he uses the word ''pass", any member can u..ke the microphone and that has been happening, and nobody has ever been prevented from speaking. The Honourable Member for Portage says that this should be retroactive. Mr. Chairman, there is no difficulty about what is happening. The Chairman has asked honourable members to co-q~erate on a procedure which he thinks is right, which does no harm to anybody, and which be feels is the correct procedure.

That doesn't mean that we have to go back thrOilgh four years of legislation to see what has been passed in that way and what has not been passed in that way, or even go back in this session. He is merely indicating that from this moment he wishes to adopt this procedure. Now Mr. Chairman, I couldn't care one way or the other, but the Chairman is running the meeting; he bas asked for that; and certainly it doesn·•t do the harm that has been suggested by the Member for Portage la Prairie or the Member for Rhine land. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order.

I thought I understood you to say that if a member wished to record a difference with a

section or a clause of a bill, he was to say aye or nay ••• --(InterJection) -- Well, I understood the Chairman to say this, and if a nay is called by one of the members, well then the Chairman has no alternative but to call the other side of the question. MR. GREEN: There is a musunderstanding. I don't think that there is any doubt that when he says "pass?" he says, "Are you ready for the question?" That is his shorthand for "Are you ready for the question?" And then if somebody wishes to speak they can speak - there is absolutely no doubt about that. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would try to sum up what I have said in the following manner. Ther~ is a

section in Beauchesne which I have been using as guidance, and I'm afraid we are unable to locate it for the moment, that no motion should be put, should be negatived in the manner in which the member has done • I might try to explain it under this section. A member is free, when the

section is under consideration as in

Section 8, to speak in any manner he wishes. He may speak entirely in the negative tone, and then when the

section itself is called it is simply called, "Will

Section 8 pass?" and the manner is, "Section 8 --pass," the chairman says, and normally it passes. But if members wish to challenge it in the negative, they are free to do so. So all I'm saying is that it is redundant and unnecessary and, as indicated by Beauchesne, I think it is out of order to actually move a negative motion• that the member wishing to nega tive a

section should simply indicate nay when the

section is called, and I have pointed that out to the Member for Rhineland in the last session and several times in this session. I would like to read from Beauchesne so that •••• Under

Section 191 (1) on Page 163, for those members who have a copy; 191(1) in the first part, the first section. I will Just read the last sentence: "No motion shall be made in the negative form for the very good reason that the House cannot decide not to do what it is not doing." I repeat the key words; ''No motion shall be made in the negative form." In other words, no motion to delete. MR. GRAHAM: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, Mr. Chairman.

With respect to a motion to delete, you have quoted from Beauchesne and this House also has its own rules, but there is one thing I want to impress on your mind, the fact that we are sitting in committee, and in committee basically you are making recommendatiDns on bills. Now a recommendation to delete is in essence a positive recommendation, because you are in effect trying to improve or change a bill, and it's only a recommendation from committee to the Legislative Assembly, and in that respect I submit, Mr. Chairman, that a motion to delete would in that sense be in order. MR. CHAIRMAN: (Section 8, 33(1) (

a) and (

b) of Bill No. 129 were read and passed.)

Section 8 33(1)(c) -- The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman,

Section 8 deals with ''Investment of surplus funds" and here we have

section (

c) where they will be permitted to invest in the Government of the United States of .America investments. I feel thai. to<iay we have such a shortage of funds in Canada and Manitoba especially that we should not permit the funds to be invested outside of this prov ince. We can well use all the money that we have in our own province and therefore I was moving that particular

section be deleted. I feel that there is plenty of ways and means to invest

- , ___ ---,.~' July 20, 1970 (MR. FROESE cont'd.) • • funds in Manitoba without going outside of this country /toin- vest. HON. SAUL CHERNIACK, Q .C. (Minister of Finance) (St. John's): Mr. Chairman, there has been some support given to the statement made by the Honourable Member for Rhine- land. I don't know if that support was facetious or not, so I think I should answer as briefly j as I can on this question. Certainly all this is permissive; it's up to Metro to lend its money. · ·. where it feels it can make the best deal. And it's not at this time when there is a shortage, this is

an act we're dealing with. The .Province of Manitoba has the right to invest its monies in various securities which include those of the Government of the United States and those that are provided under The Trustee Act. The Trustee Act enables the investment in securities of various governments in cluding the Government of the United States and in securities guaranteed by various govern ments including the United States.

It occurs to me that if Metro has borrowed in the United States and is in the need to repay, let's say in six months, or eight months or ten months, that it might be to its financial advantage to be able to invest money in securities of U.s. dollars in preparation for a payment in U.S. dollars. --(Interjection)-- Yes, of course, the credit union of Winkler could probably do the same thing under The Trustee Act. I don't think that we ought to hamper the financial abUities of Metro or any other municipal corporation from being able to operate in such a manner which it in its wisdom thinks to its best advantage. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Well Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance when we're dealing with trust funds, and if this is under The Trustee Act, is the information readUy avail able whether these corporations have had seven years success where they've shown profits? I think this is one of the conditions is it not for trustee funds, to meet the requirements under The Trustee Act? MR. CHERNIACK: I'm sure the United States of America has not shown a profit for quite a while; nevertheless I'm under the impression tha'; it's paid its debentures.

And under The Trustee Act I think there's no question that one does not check on the statement of the United States Government of America to see whether it has made a profit in the last seven years. Under the

section it's clearly acceptable to lend money to a corporation which is guaranteed by the Government of the United States of America. MR. CHAIRMAN: (The remainder of

Section 8 was read and passed.)

Section 9 •• The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR. ARTHUR MOUG (Charleswood):

Section 9 would increase the penalty from one-half percent to three-quarters of one percent per month against municipalities that are late of pay ment. I wanted to make mention that taxes are collectable at par October 1st of the year and Metro makes their demands June 1st for 50 percent of the tax levied against the municipality. Take in the City of Winnipeg, for 1969 their levy was close to $10 million.

Some municipalities -I don't know what the City of Winnipeg's doing- I know it's permissive to charge three quarters of one percent, and even if they are doing it, they're still paying that money out at the 1st of June and they're collecting it at par on October 1st, and at any rate they would have four months' interest to pay at three quarters because if they do collect it in June, they are also giving the same discount previous at the rate of either one-half or three quarters of one percent per month previous to October 1st. Therefore, I would move or vote against

Section 9, or move the deletion of it, whichever is right. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 9 --passed. Is the Honourable Member calling for a division? MR. MOUG: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Call in the members. We're dealing with

Section 9 of Bill No. 129. A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 26; Nays 21. · MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the

section carried- passed. (Section 10 of Bill No. 129 was read and passed)

Section 11 -- pass? The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR. MOUG: I also object to

Section 10 in the same principle. MR. CHAIRMAN put the question on

Section 10 passing and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 1145(1\(

a) and (

b) of Bill No. 129 were read and passed). by page? (Pages 4, 5 and 6 of Bill No. 129 were read and passed) Page 7 -- The Honourable Member for Charleswood.

r ! 1... 3996 July 10, · 19'lo MR. JIOUG: Jlr. Chairman, when you read

Section 14(4F)(b): "sell, mortgage·, lease, or otherwise dispose of land acquired by the corporation to any person for the purpose of development on such terms and conditions as the council may deem advisable;" and then you go to 4(41) with the expropriation powers that we have ridiculously Just given them. Wben you get to

Section 26 175B I really don't see any need for it, but it seems they Just forgot some thing and put it in. I don't think that the Metropolitan Corporation should be allowed to go Into the business of establishing, regulate automobile trailer parks, tent campsites, etc. I don't see any reason why any city or municipality should be using the people's money to go into the business of the trailer park business.

We've got a private company at the present time that is developing a beautiful trailer park out by Blumberg Golf Course on private monies and here we have another government in the Province of .Maniotba that's going into business in opposition of private people, and they're doing it with the people's money. So .Mr. Chairman, I recommend it, I'll vote against it, and ask for the yeas and nays on that 26 be deleted. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable .Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: .Mr.

Chairman, I rise to support the position taken by the Member for Sturgeon Creek and to say, I think regrettably, that the committee is going through a very im portant piece of legislation here very quickly and perhaps without giving certain aspects of it the consideration they deserve. I think if you take this bill in total, it appears to be one that works very heavy hardships against the municipalities and I think that it will work very heavy hardships In the form of increased taxes against the individual taxpayers in the Metropolitan Wbmipeg area. I know we have moved on Mr.

Chairman, passed Page 3, but Just in retrospect as Page 3 sinks slowly in the west behind me, I must say that the two sections that my col league from Char leawood obJected to I think deserve very profound consideration, as does the one we're addressing ourselves to at the moment; because there's no possible escape from increased taxation.

When you take this bill in its total content and when you inspect in partic ular the four or five sections that have attracted individual criticism and individual opposition during the debate this evening, the argument that my colleague from Sturgeon Creek Just raised libout the corporation being permitted to go into business is equally important, but I, along with my concern for that, I am concerned with the fact that, as I say, I see no way that the taxpayers in the Metropolitan Winnipeg area are going to escape a more onerous taxation burden as a consequence of the provisions in this legislation and one is tempted to describe the Act in its total form as a piece of legislation aimed at putting the blocks to the individual municipalities in this .Metropolitan area; that's precisely what it seems designed to do, to drive the individual municipalities ultimately out of existence.

Now it may be, as I said a few moments ago, that some of them should in a rational and logical sense move towards amalgamation with others, but this kind of subtle pressure that's going to be put on them, that's going to be exerted on them as a consequence of this kind of legislation I think is unfair and inconsiderate and irrational, Mr. Chairman; if not questionable as far as morality and ethics are concerned.

I think it's somewhat unethical to box the muni cipalities into corners, to force them into positions such as they're going to be forced if this legislation goes through, to achieve an end that is undesirable for many of them; an end that may be desirable for this government, but an end that is undesirable for many of the municipal ities who are involved. As to the point that my colleague Just raised, this also arouses my anxiety because I feel that the government by taking the position that it takes in

Section 26 175B is discriminating against -or giving the Metro corporation the right to discriminate against individual entre preneurs. The right to construct, operate and maintain facilities in these automobile trailer parks and tent campsites mentioned in that

section means that the Metro Corporation in reality has the right to go into the tourist industry, to go into the motel industry, the restaurant indus try, the hotel industry in competition with private risk takers, private operators, who are at a distinct disadvantage when attempting to obtain the land, the site, the facilities and the licence to operate competitively in industry.

So on both those counts I think that this is unfortunate legislation for the people of Manitoba, and my main concern is that it's going through this com mittee rather ·swiftly it seems to me and is not being given the kind of scrutiny and the kind of examination by conscientious members of this Chamber that it deserves. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: I was Just going to say to my honourable friend I wonder if he's actually read the

section that is before us and whether he -realizes or not that at the present time within

July 20, 1970 (MR. PAULLEY cont'd.) ••••• the Metropolitan area the Metropolitan Corporation have a number of areas which are conducive to the establishment of trailer parks and the purport of this particular

section - if my honourable friend would stop pontificating and read the

section he would see that this would give the authority to Metro to make regulations etc. insofar as the facilities available in trailer parks under the control of Metro --(Interjection) --and- Pardon? These private operators are under the Health Act of the Province of Manitoba at the present time, and it's a co-operative effort all the way through. So I say to my honourable friend, or make the suggestion to him in all deference, I appreciate the fact that he is a reasonably intelli gent individual, that he should read the

section and then I'm sure Mr. Chairman, his approach would be vastly different than that that he indicated a moment or two ago. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, I must sat that the Minister of Labour takes a typical position, one that we've become accustomed to, of glossing over the difficulties that private operators are going to have under the --(Interjection) -- No, the difficulties they're going to have under a kind of a bureaucratic administration that permits governments to opt a free wheel in competition - to free wheel in industry and in competition with those same private operators.

Now you can gloss it over all you want by telling me that the private operators are liable to per formance under the Health Act and I'm fully familiar with that condition.

The fact remains that the argument raised by the Minister of Labour is the classic, typical, traditional argument raised by him and his colleagues when trying to justify opening up wider areas for government participation which in the long run can only have the effect of discouraging the private risk taker who up to this point has been willing to take his chances and willing to take his risks; but I sug gest may lose the desire to do that as more and more of these avenues for enterprise are open ed up to government agents. MR. JOHANNSON: Mr. Chairman, would the honourable member submit to a question? MR.

SHERMAN: Certainly. MR. JOHANN SON: In view of the fact that the G. W. E. C. has a majority on Metro Council and this is the council that you are so worried about right now, is the honourable member wor ried about dangerous bol_shevik tendencies in that particular political organization? MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, I said that I would submit to a question. So far I haven't heard a sensible question. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Minister of Government Services proved once again that he should really not enter into debate after 10:00 o'clock in the evening because usually his thinking is quite fuzzy.

You know, he's now telling us what the particular

section says and he gives us his

interpretation of the law and he and the Minister of Industry and Com merce I think should be taken by the Legislative Counsel outside and told what this contains and what the other sections we were dealing with further contain. As much as the Honourable Minister of Government Services would like to indicate that what he is saying is correct, it's not what is contained in the section. I think the valid question that has to be asked of the government, and I believe it is a valid question, it was asked by the Member from sturgeon Creek, is why it was necessary for this

section to be brought in when it appears to be contained fullywithin

Article 4 or Clause 4(4G)(

c) and it would seem to me on that basis that there really is no justification for this specifically being detailed unless there is a particular situation that has arisen or a particular situation that is known, in which case if that situation does exist it should be identified so the members on this side will understand. Otherwise there's no justification for that particular clause. MR. CHAmMAN: The Honoural)le Member for sturgeon Creek. MR. F.

JOHNSTON: What I wanted to say has been said but when we hear • the discussion about who controls the Metro council I could expect a question like that because he's not absolutely thinking, I can start naming off names myself if you'd like me to, but anyway reading this, "The Corporation may establish, regulate ••.• " this is what the Honourable Minister of Labour wanted me to do, he said have you read it- "regulate automobile, trailer park and tent campsites within the Metropolitan area and the additional zone -that's out -"and may construct, operate and maintain facilities and works thereon for the purpose of affording accommodation to the public'' -and again you're going just about into the hotel business and they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

And I might say that the question was brought up by the Minister of Municipal Affairs as to why the ... MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I just don't want the honourable members to be misled and I don't want to have misled the Honourable Member for Lakeside. I didn't realize that the words "additional zone" are in this section.

3998 MR. F • .JOHNSTON: Well I understood It was taken out of all sectJons. of this bill. MR. GREEN: Well I dldn 't realize they were in this section. If they are they haven't been taken out of th!J

section but I don't see them in this

section although he's just used them. They have not been taken out of this section, so I • • • • Well I just got up because I did say that the words "additional zone" were taken out. They had to do with the previous sectfDn on expropria tion. They haven't been taken out of this section. MR. CHAIRMAN: May I just point out that the words "within the Metropolitan area and the additional zone" are in this Section. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Well that's even worse because here you've got the additional zone without representation and they're going to have trailer parks built and what have you, this type of thing.

That's another question but I was just finishing up to say that the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs had stated that they - I did some checking since he said that - stating that the City of St. James-Assiniboia had not made representation. Mayor Yanofsky represented the Manitoba Urban Association when be made his submittal and they felt that his submittal took fn and certainly does take in the City of St. James-Assf.nllioia, and after they found that it had passed Munictpal Affairs this letter was to be written. So again I say that I am opposing 26.

I believe that we've opened up a whole new subject on "additional zone" through this bill; if it's out of one area it should be out of all of them. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Osborne. MR. IAN TURNBULL (Osborne): Mr. Chairman, on this

section I must offer my support. There is in my constituency some 300 voters who have the fortune or misfortune of living in a trailer park; and since this trailer park changed hands about a little over a year ago, the owner has seen fit, for purposes unknown to most, has seen fit to double the rent and at the same time reduce the services provided, so that at one time where there used to be a full-time mainte nance man at the campsite there is now someone there periodically during the day for about oh, two hours. Now I don't know what recourse the residents in this particular trailer park have.

It would seem that as the owner wants to act in the way that he has acted that they don't have very much recourse if they wish to continue living in a trailer park in that area of town. I would think that this Metropolitan area could be made more suitable to people coming into the city from outside of the Province and from outside of Canada by the provision of pleasant trailer parks and mobile home parks, and I think that some of the criticism that has been extended in relationship to this

section indicates a lack of contact with the people that live in some of these homes and indicates an indifference to their sometime plight. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, this gets worse as we go along, really, if the hon ourable member is now suggesting - and of course when you read this

section they could do it - if they're going into trailer parks where they're going to have permanent residence as he is suggesting. I was hoping sincerely that the Metro Corporation would be going into trailer parks if they're allowed to for transient people coming in and out of this city, but if you're suggesting that the Metro Corporation go into permanent trailer parks we've had lots of experience with in the area I come from too, and the reason that they are not paying as much towards school taxes as they should be is because in the Municipal Act they are controlled.

We just raised it if you'd have followed the new Municipal Act and the cities will not collect more money. But I certainly hope that the Metro Corporation doesn't start going into "permanent" trailer parks. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, I'm interested in the discussion that has been going on. I know when I made the amendment before to delete

Section 1, that under

Section 1 Metro was going to do certain things, acquire land for development, for housing and for commercial busi ness, right-of-way and a number of things. Now we find that they're not satisfied just with that, now they're going to go into the camping business and set up campsites. I'm just wonder ing how long it will be until they'll be in the auto insurance business because already they're going to regulate automobile parks and probably within a year or two they'll be in competition with the government in the auto insurance business.

I'm surprised that we don't find that they're going to build cabins along airstrips along the landing fields because this would be a uatural too, to have cabins built or lodging places for people who come in. Why restrict it to campsites only if the Metro is going to go into this type of business at the people's expense and without giving the people the right to vote, and this ••• MR. CHAIRMAN: ••• having difficulty hearing the honourable member.

July 20, 1970 MR. FROESE: This iS what this means, that Metro can do all of these things without ever going to the people and letting them decide on it. It's a matter of·course with them~ All they do is levy the funds and the municipalities have to fork up the money. ThiS iS something I cannot subscribe to and never will, unless I change my mind, but this I don't think will happen because when the Metro bill was brought in way back in 1960, I opposed it along with the Member for St.

Boniface who was a very strict man in opposing the Metro bill; He was one of the five or six of us that opposed it in all the force that he could muster and apparently now he's changed, now he's going for campsites, he's going for housing and he's going for every thing, even for auto insurance. So I'm just wondering, I would like to hear from him whether he's changed his mind and he is now in favour of Metro going into the camping business? MR. DESJARDINS: I'm all for total amalgamation, Jake. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. GORDON w. BEARD (Churchill): The Honourable Member for St.

Boniface advises me- through me to the Member for Rhineland that he's going for total amalgamation so I think that'll answer some of his questions. I wonder about campsites. First of all, governmept have been in the business for many years and I think that roadside campsites have provided a very necessary service throughout the whole of the province and I really couldn't see why Metro couldn't offer the same type of service to tourists coming into the City of Winnipeg. So I sup pose that would be all right.

I can recall back years ago in Neepawa where I was brought up the town there had their own tourist camp and I think many towns at one time or other had their own tourist campsites so really this is nothing new. If this is what they intend to do well then I certainly would go along with a government of Winnipeg in offering that type of facility for the travelling public. Certainly we all know that trailers are very popular today, travelling trailers. We are not in the same position as many of the States to the south of us are where it's a year round busi ness.

It's only a part-time business, it's a few months of the year, Metro operates parks and I'm sure that they don't make any money out of any park that they operate in the City of Winni peg.

I think I'd go along with saying that it is only· right that the City of Winnipeg or Metro Winnipeg or the consolidated area, whatever you may call it, should if they're going to encour age tourists and the type of trailers that I'm thi'nking of anyway, the overnight camping tourists, then it seems that it just goes along that municipalities should be offering that type of service to the travelling public just as the province offers it to the travelling public as they pass along the highways.

But I would be against Metro going into business any further than that, into permanent buildings on a year-round basis, operating campsites on the year-round basis, be cause it's -- Lord knows, Metro have had a hard enough time over the twelve years, I guess, that they've operated without getting into a business, but if it's just to provide a modern facil ity for a camper trailer during the summertime so that they can provide that additional tourist accommodation for tourists to linger a little longer in Manitoba and spend a few more dollars, then perhaps that is a government service that Metro should look into; or the different cities within the Metro area, if they want to service that tourist, because the people that live in Winnipeg are going to profit through the dollars that these people spend while tbey are staying in Winnipeg and eventually the Province of Manitoba will profit from it.

But I would certainly hope that this does not extend to what-some members have said, that they are going to build hotels and get into permanent-type, year-round accommodation to compete with other types of business. I would be against that, but certainly I think it is complementary to a park type system that we know of in Manitoba today. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, and again I'm going to be brief, but this is not what the bill said. They could go into permanent trailer parks. I agree the cities and towns should be able to take a look at trailer parks but not Metro.

They do not collect any money that they spend. Metro should be the servant of the cities and municipalities as far as planning and certain roads and what have you are concerned, but they should not be the master, and this is what this bill does and this particular clause lets them even go into the grocery business if they want to. MR. CHAffiMAN:

Section 26, 175B--pass?

Section 26 passed. In my opinion the yeas have it. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Ayes and Nays, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAffiMAN: Call in the members.

Section 26, 175B.

4000 A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result beingas follows: YEAS, 24; NAYS, 20. MB. CHAIRMAN: I declare the motion carried. The Honourable Member for Birtle-Bussell. .July 10, 19'10 MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman on a point of order, a member came in after the bell had stoppedlllllitbedoors were closed. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, let's settle down. My information Is that the member was in the Bouse. If he was not in the Bouse let :us discount one affirmative vote and let's DOt argue about it all night. MR. CIIAIRMAN: Question on 26 -- pass? MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, I move that

Section 26, subsection 175B, be amended by deleting the words "and the additional zone" in the second line thereof. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the previous reference to "additional zone", I just want to explain what I understand to be the . • • or the Minister can. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, the previous reference to additional zone was deleted in respect to the expropriation of land within the additional zone by the Metropolitan Corporation authority. In this particular clause here, there is no reference to expropriation of land for the purposes enunciated in

Section 26. Certainly, I would see no reason that the honourable members, now that the principle of 26 has been approved, why there should be any objection to the acquiring of property on a mutually consented basis between an owner in the additional zone and the Metropolitan Corporation to establish the trailer park. We should not confuse this with the earlier

section dealing with expropriation of property within the additional zone. MR. CIIAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Charleswood. The Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources. MR. GREEN: On a point of order, again, if I ••• saving time -- is it my impression that we passed that item? Because if we passed the item, then we shouldn't be-- then it can't be amended. MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I called for the question on 26. MR. GREEN: Well it was passed. So then I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the motion is out of order MR. FROESE: The Chairman already accepted the motion. MR.

GREEN: Perhaps it went by without objection but if the item is passed it can't be amended. MR. FROESE: I take it then, Mr. Chairman that the Honourable Minister is challenging the Chair. The Honourable Minister then challenges the Chair. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not challenging the Chair, I'm bringing to your atten tion that a motion was made on an amendment which has been accepted. If you accepted it, you accepted it inadvertently. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 27 190 (lA). The Honourable Member for Birtle- Russell. MR. GRAHAM: Dealing with

section 190A sub (lA) and (lB) dealing with the control over plant diseases, it seems rather odd to me that in this province of ours the responsibility for the health of people, animals, etc., are the responsibility of the various municipal corpora tions, but here we find that we are placing plants in the jurisdiction of control of the Metro Corporation where the control of disease by tradition has always been the responsibility of the various municipal corporations. We find that we have just passed

an Act dealing with animal health throughout the province and giving municipal cor

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29th 2nd hansardpdf 155 2.pdf
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 2nd hansardpdf 155 2.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3e9abb8eb37b12d322395492e2361d43df57db7b

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