Manitoba Hansard — 15 March 1974 (Sitting 55, 30th Legislature, 1st Session)

30-1-55

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2: 30 o'clock, Friday, March 15, 1974 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance has 20 minut es. TABLING OF RE PORTS 1461 HON. LEONARD S. EVANS (Minister of Industry and Co mmerce )(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave to table a report that Members ofthe the Legislature may wish to use as a reference. It's the newly published Manitoba Trade Directory for the Year 1974 giving a list of manufacturing and distributing fir ms in the province. Copies will be made available to each member. BILL NO. 7 MR. SPEAKER: Agreed (Agreed).

The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERN IAC K: What did you say? I remernber Rock Lake now what did you . Mr. Speaker, I was just coming to a conclusion. I'm wondering how much time I have left ? MR. SPEAKER: Twenty minutes. MR. CHERN IAC K: Oh well I wouldn't use ... No, no , no wouldn't use any part of it. Mr. Speaker, there were just a couple of comments I wanted yet to make.

One was, coming back to the comments by the Member for Fort Rou ge who talked about the fact that we are an activist government, we are an interventionist gov ernment and I think he supported the concept that somet hing has to be done in the north, and I just men tion in passing that the previous government did practically nothing in the north, and that almost anything that we have done has been active and has shown a great deal of, both courage and thoughtfu luess in doing work- and the Member for Swan Ri ver says "and charity. " I don't know whether he means that in criticism or not, possibly he does.

Cause I don't 1mow why else he would add the words "and charity" unless he didn't agree that charity was applicable in the north.

I believe it is and I think he does too . - All right so that we are talking about the fact that our government felt it advisable to intervene in the problems of the north and try to do somet hing about it, and as the House Leader said and as the Minister for Northern Affairs has said, and a.s our Premier has said, and as so many of us have said, when you go into a field of that kind you are bound to have problems of administration , managem ent problems and you do expect that moneys invested in the north will not always be accountab le to the penny.

Nevertheless as the Membe r for Fort Rouge said, and I think supported, the concept that there are things to be done once you do them. He said there should be some form of insulation, and I have yet to see any form of insulation where it would remove from everybody the opportunity to make attacks alleged, unfounded or indeed founded on fact. I'v e yet to see a board or a private corporation of free enterprise doing anything that can't be misinterpreted or attacked.

And when you see members of the front bench opposite, former Ministers of the Crown talking about independence and lack of - and NDP appointees, it's rather ludicrous when one knows that every governm ent has to make appointments.

Every government , whether it's insulation as referred to by the Member for Fort Rouge , or whether it be in order to separate administration and create boards for that purpose, appointments have to be made and they have to be made in the best judgment of those whose responsibility it is to make appointments to select the best people and to select those people who have the best understanding of their task that is ahead of them as outlined by the body which establishes them. They have to know their task. . And that 's why, Mr.

Speaker, we find that the previous goverinnent appointed a board to the Manitoba Development Co rporation, highly respected people, people that were that kind of insulation, where the governm ent stood here and said we are leaving to them so much that we not only don't know, don't want to know , but can't even find out legally what they are con sidering. And that was a form of insulation, and they are people as I say well respected in the community.

Some names come to mind , people I know and people I respect: John MacAuley one of the leaders of the Ca nadian Bar, Morriss Neaman one of the industrialists of Manitoba, Rod Mcisaac a leading industrialist in Canada, and one whom the Member for St. Boniface seems to support strongly, a man who was a member of the board who was also involved in that Sprague developm ent and other things where the previous government's MDC made a loan and then made an additional loan to take care of the payments that were not made under the first loan and the interest in order to refinance it and then say there are no arrears.

But I don't say that in criticism. What does amuse me is that the Member for - Pa rdon? (Not audible. )

1462 March 15 , 1974 BILL NO. 7 MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. MR. CHERNIACK: I'm sure that Rod Mclsaac's participation in the political arena is well known everywhere and one that he has never tried to avoid. Never. I am sure that there are others who have been on boards. I call to mind Dune Jessiman who was a member of the Hydro Board. Whoever would pretend that he ever hid behind and tried to cover his political association. I don't think he ever did.

As a matter of fact it seems to me that some of the funding of the C onser vati ve Party came through a fund named after, dedicated in the name of I believe Waiter Newman and Dune Jessiman, but you know their politics are clearly known. So I'm just saying that it's kind of phoney to hear that kind of debate.

The only other remark I want to make in passing is that I think it was the Member for Riel who talked about a Gordie Howe being lost to Manitoba when we gleefully or gladly received the resignation of one of the top civil servants in Manitoba and he said- I think he said Gordie Howe or Bobby Hull- I think it was Gordie Howe, Gordie Howe has been lost.

That was his description of one of the people who participated in the development at the CFI to such an extent that the people I've just named, members of the MDC board at that time, apparently knew nothing about, or practically nothing about what had gone on in the arrangements which the Member for Riel described where he talked about $1 4 million, of extra million dollars being paid out. That's why I referred to that because he made reference to that. Mr.

Speaker, I come back to the Leader of the Opposition who has now entered the Chamber, and whom I described earlier as having lost any ability to discuss policy, philosophy and program and has therefore reverted to personality attacks and an attempt to separate and split the Civil Service. I have a slight criticism to make of him.

The other day when he made a broad attack on the government and the Civil Service in relation to the fish co-operatives, I asked him the question as to the basis on which he alleged, or transmitted an allegation that Cabinet Ministers were knowledgeable about this and I said, "what about that allegation" and he sort of said, "it's not my allegation, I'm just bringing an allegation to the public eye so that we are aware of what is being alleged". And I said to him, "well now who alleged it", because I thought that he would want to share all his knowledge with us. And I suspect, Mr.

Speaker, that he did share all his knowledge with us, including when I asked him who it was, he said "to get a transcript of what was said on TV, read the newspapers". You know why should I do your homework for you. Go and read the Brandon Sun and the Dauphin Herald and the Winnipeg Free Press and Winnipeg Tribune and CJAY and radio and all those things, those media. Go and read em he said. Which made me feel that he was really indeed telling us a all he knew because somebody had written down on a piece of paper that there are allegations that other Cabinet Ministers knew about it.

Either he wrote it, somebody wrote it for him or it may have been just a figment of somebody's imagination. But not having the ability to do all that homework that he assigned to me, I did ask one person. And that is the one person I don't know if that's the one the leader also said something- he knows, pointing at me, that I knew the person to talk to, and I confess I don't. Unless it was the CJAY reporter, Mar shall Armstrong; and I did ask him because I was told he is the one who referred to the Premier. You know, Mr. Speaker, he never referred to other Cabinet Ministers.

Unless the Leader of the Opposition wants to correct the statement, I tell him that I believe Mr. Armstrong, especially after I read what he told me was a script; I didn't hear the transcript but he told me this was the script. There was no reference there to other Ministers. So, Mr. Speaker, I must tell you I am still doomed to walk the paths of the media of last week attempting some how to search out the informatio n which the Leader of the Opposition has denied to me unless he thinks that Mar shall Arm strong made the statement, in which case he'd better talk to Marshall Armstrong.

I want to conclude only with the fact that the Conservative Party are now all excited about the thought of Courts of Inquiry, Commissions, court involvement, they've lost the ability to communicate and therefore want the ability to hound, to trap, to cross-examine, to expose others but not themselves, through a media, through a method, through a mechanism which will give them the opportunity to continue to appear completely innocent of doing other than protecting the public goods.

They don't really want to use this kind of information or technique to throw us out and take their place; oh no, they have no thought of being other than an honourable opposition, designed to assist government to operate well. Oh, that's all they care about. They are not really so concerned with dragging us down

Mareh 15, 1974 14 63 BILL NO . 7 (MR . CHERNIACK cont'd) .. .. any way th ey can, but ne vertheless they say, well let' s hear at a Cour t of Inquiry, and in doing so, ar e pr epar ed to deal wit h Bil l 7 in the way th ey ar e doing in order to use it as their vehicle now to talk and in order to creat e dissen tion amongst th e ranks, and indeed, to some extent, I imagine that th eir list of - what do you call pe ople who give information away? -informer s from within government who supp ly them with information and materia l. I tell you, Mr.

Speaker, I believe now that th ey want what they' re asking for and they want it because it is their last chance. They want a Court of Inquiry because, Mr. Ch airman, I be lieve that they have re alized now tha t th ey won' t win in th e cour t of pub lic opinion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb e r for Rock Lake . MR. HENRY J. EINARSON (Rock Lake): If no one further wants to speak Mr. Speak er, I beg to move, seconded by th e Honourable Memb e r for Souris-Killarney that the debate be adjourne d. MOTION pr esen ted and carried MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 17 . The Honourab le Memb e r for Bir tle-Russell. MR. HARRY E.

GRAHA M (Bir tle-Russell): Could I have this matter stand pl ease, Mr. Speaker. (Agr eed) MR. SPEAKER: Second Reading Bill 9- no ? The Honourable Minister of Finance. SUPPLY MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speak er, we ar e no w at the stage in the Committee of Estimates, to be able to bring in the concurr ences on the In terim and the Supplementary Supply. I tell you, Mr. Speak er, that I am not clear on cert ain proc e dural matters as to whether you ne e d leave or you don' t need leave and for the last number of year s, I' ve never been able to get an an swer.

So I will ask for leave, whether I need it or not, and if I don' t get leave, then you know, we' ll just tak e it as notice and go on in the following day. So then Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move, seconded by the Honourable th e Minister of Labour , that the Resolutions repor ted from Committee of Suppl y be now re ad a second time and concurr e d in. MR. SPEAKER: Moved by the Honourable Minister of Finance, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Labour that by leave, th e Re solution repor ted from the Committee of Supply be now re ad a second time and concurre d in.

The Re solutions ar e: Re solved tha t ther e be gran ted to Her Majesty a further sum not exceeding$ 3, 482 , 00 0 for Suppl ementary Supply, Re solutions 1 to 28 separat ely and collectively. And Inte rim Suppl y, Re solved that a sum not exceeding $1 96, 940, 950 being 25 pe rce nt of the amount of th e several items, be voted for Depar tments as set for th in the main estimate for the fiscal year . Ar e you re ady for the question? The Honoura bl e Leade r of the Oppo sition. MR . SPIVAK : Mr.

Speak er, befor e -I'm not sure agliin on proce dures, just as the Honourable Minister may hav e bee n unsure, I want to be sure of one thing. If this re solution pa sses, this mean s tha t the Re solution wit h re spect to In ter im Supply is completed, is that right? An d it means tha t ther e is no other matter tha t we deal with , or do we deal with . MR. CHERNlACK: Le t me describe the proce dure as I under stand it. I'm glad you gave me the oppor tunit y because the Cl erk and the Speaker can hear my under standing of proc edure and corre ct me if I'm wrong.

I unders tand tha t if this pas ses, then the next step would be for me to move tha t we go into Ways and Means for the rai sing of the Supply of Supp lementary and In terim, and assuming that we go into Ways and Means, I think ther e ar e two re solutions to be re ad for th e raising of th e Suppl y and once th ey pass in Committee of Ways and Means, we come out of Committee and then in th e House again, I would mo ve that the Re solutions from Committee of Ways and Mean s be concurr ed in.

Having done that, th en is the oppor tunity to move first re ading of the Bil ls In terim and Supplementary Suppl y, then they would be distributed, th en we could move second re ading , by leave, if it's to be done without notice, and af ter second re ading is concluded, we would move into, I suppose, Committee of the Whole for clause by clause review of the Bill s, then we'd move out of Committee and be able to move third re ading. My pro posal is to go just as far as we can today and if we can' t- no, Capit al is not involved at al l -In terim and Supp lement ary. The only thing is if members would want me

1464 March 15 , 1974 SUPPLY (MR. CHER NIACK cont' d) ... • to split the two I will accommodate members as th ey pl ease. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR . SPI VAK: I understand the proc edure of debate . The proc edure of debate would be on the Bi lls itself, both Int erim or on the Suppl y Bill? MR . CHERNIACK: ... aft er the resolutions ar e dealt with in and out of the Committee, then we'd bring in the Bil ls. MR. SPEAKER: Ar e you re ady for the question? The Honourable Member for Birtle Russell. MR. GRAHAM : Mr. Speak er , before I concur with this motion, I have to te ll you, Mr.

Speaker, th at I have quite a bit of concern regarding the op era tions of the Department of Northern Af fairs in the answers that we got and the manne r in which the af fairs of the Provinc e of Manitoba were dealt with. La st year , Mr. Speak er ... MR . SPEAKER: Or der pl ease. The Honourable Minister of Labour state his point of order. MR . PA ULLEY: Might I ask my honourable friend if he is ri sing on a matt e r of gri evance in going into the Committee, if he is doing th at, then I suggest that ... MR.

SPEAKER: We ar e not going into committee, We ar e taking the motion on the re solution, as made by the Minister of Finance. The Honourable Memb e r for Birtle-Russell. MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Speaker, for the edification of the Minister of Labour. We ar e dealing with Concurrence of moneys that we are being asked to pass in this House. Last year we had an appropr iation of $5 40, 000 to build north ern roads. At that time we in good faith, gave our consent to that kind of expenditure and we have had brought forward now Suppl e mentary Estimates that deal t with the additional expe nditure of the various departm ents.

Those Supplementary Estimates that we ar e being asked to pass do not include any additional money that was spent on the nort hern road system, in fact, the Minister of Finance to l d us that by Ord er-in-Council another $5 80, 000 had been allocated for northe rn road building. Mr. Speak er, we had a Minister bring in estimat es which were over lOO perc ent in error in that re spect -from $5 40, 000 he needs an additional$ 580 , 000 -and I suggest, Mr.

Speaker , that the estimates were either p oor ly devised or the Ministe r ran into some rathe r unusual circumstances in the p rogram that he had put befor e the House. We wer en't even asked -by Ord er-in-Council$ 580, 000 was put into the building of tho se roads, and in this respe ct Mr. Speaker, this House had no authority, has had no scrutiny other than the own admission of the Minister, we would not have been able to te ll by examining the estimates or the Suppl ementary Estimates that th e Minister was over 100 pe rc ent in error. Mr.

Speaker , I suggest that the administration of the financial af fairs of this pro vince de ser ves a bette r metho d of accountability -and I stress the word "method". We ha ve also found, Mr. Speak er, that in many branche s that we have seen some programs ha ve be e n dealt with through the main estimates and then supplemente d lat er by Capita l Suppl y, so that the true cost has been diffused by a combination of main estimates and capital supply; and the net re sult, Mr.

Sp eake r , has been that it tends to lull the mem ber s of this Ch ambe r into a false sense of security that the af fairs of the pro vince ar e being adequately scrutinized by the memb ers of this House, when in fact, such is not the case. Mr. Sp !Oaker, we have the opportunity long after these af fairs ar e concluded to then scrutinize through th e Public Accounts Committee what actually took pl ace, but, Mr.

Speak er , members of thi s Ch amber, administrator s in general and th e pub lic at large are re ally not too conc erne d about what happ ened in the past, they ar e more concerne d with what is happ en ing at the pr esent time and what is going to happ en in the future. There f ore, Mr.

Speaker, I want to at this time commend the Ministe r of Financ e in some small manner for suggestin g at the Public Ac counts C ommittee the other day alternat ive methods of accounting; and while I don' t profess to understand the whole concept and the mechanics of it, I do suggest, Sir, that the p res ent system leaves much to be desired and I would urge the Minister to conside r every other avenue that is available to try and p rovide to this Ch amber some adequate method of accounti n g for the mone y that the pe ople of Manitoba raise either through direct ta xation or long-term ta xation to cover capital borrow ing.

We al l re alize that money does not grow on trees -that whether the spending of this government thro ugh main estimates , capital borrowing or whate ver means possible, can

March 15 , 1974 1465 SUPPLY (MR. GRAH AM cont'd) .. .. onl y be raised by the pe op le of Manitoba whether it be this year or amortized over a 20 or 30 year pe riod. I have ne ver been one to 13Plit hairs on th is pa rtic ular issue. I have always considered that a debt is a debt , and whether it be capit al borrowing or th e pr esent curren t taxation year , the amount of ta xes that ar e going to be required event ually ha s to meet the debt s that are incurred by th e spending that is being evidenc ed as we have seen in both the Supplementa ry and the In terim Suppl y Estimates that we have before us.

And we rea lize tha t they do not cover by any means, all of th e spending of government. We ar e now in a position Mr. Speaker, to- if the Capit al Supp l y, the Inter im and the Suppl em enta ry ar e pa ssed, we ar e facing a to tal spending pr ogram in this pr ovince which is well over a billion and a quarter dollars. This occurs, Mr . Speaker, at a time when just five short years ago we were looking at budgeta r y figures on Main Estimates which were considerably less than hal f a million dollars. I raise the issue at this time, Mr.

Speaker, because I am concerned about th e rap id escalat ion in government spending. I do not believe that the government taxing pr ogram is ke eping pac e wit h it and I think that the futur e of our pr ovince could very well be pl aced in jeopar dy unless we hav e had a better financial pi cture pr esented to this House and the accountability of the government spending is gr eatly improved. MR o SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of th e Oppo sition. MRo SPI VAK : Mr.

Speak er, I enter this debate on this Re solution to deal with many of th e matters tha t have be e n discussed al ready in tti s House and to try in some way, put into pe rspective some of the questions tha t have been raised by the oppo sition concerning th e government; and in doing this, Mr. Speak er, I think it's import ant to basically pr esent a first pre mise that the role of the opposition is to monitor the supervision and contro l that th e government ha s on the public purs e. Mr .

Speaker, the role of th e oppo sition and the reason we meet once a year is to be in a po sition to app rove government spending. Now government spending mean s th e moneys that ar e collected from the ta xpayers and ar e dis bursed by government to pay for goods and services pr ovid ed by go vernment for the gene ral will of the community and in the kind of life we live in the '70s to be in a po sition to pr ovide for the kinds of minimum standards to at least enable a basic quality of life to be pr ovided for all pe ople . Now, Mr .

Speak er, I listened with regret to an app roach that' s taken by the govern ment that suggests that in some way when allegat ions with respe ct to th e mismanagement of the handling of the pub lic purse is br ought into this Ch amber that there is something wrong about it. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's what this Ch amber is al l about and in the democratic tradition that th e Honourable Minister of Mine s and Nat ural Re sources wants to ta lk about, in a democra tic tradition, this is the Ch amber for those matters to be br ought up. Now, Mr.

Speak er, ha ving made tha t point one th en has to ask what is an opposition suppose d to do. If fact s ar e pr esent e d which would indicat e mismanagement, incompetence and po ssible wrongdoing on th e part of government of ficials, ar e they supposed to say then no we ignore that ar e th ey suppose d to then say no, we ar e not going to bring it to th e at tention of the government; ar e th ey supp osed to say no we let it rest. Well, Mr . Speak er, I don't think that is the purpo se of the oppo sition. I think, Mr .

Speak er, th e purpos e of the oppo si tion is to examine, to detail and to understand whether in fact the allegations and cha rges ha ve some basis and tru th and to pr esent it to th e House in the hop e tha t it will influence pub lic opinion to influence the government, because a government that has a majority has al l power, a government that has a majority can do anything it wants. Now there ar e a couple of fallacies, Mr. Speaker, about pub lic life and about govern ment op erat ions with respe ct to the Provincial and Federa l Houses. The re is an assumption, Mr.

Spe aker, tha t there is true accoun tability on th e par t of government to th e pe op le and to the opposition, and surely we have demonstra ted in the last week that that accountability does not exist. Surely we have demonstra ted that in effect an oppo sition by the rules that we operate is very limited in its capac ity to be able to get accurat e and detailed information on issues which could emba rra ss a government , the tota l administration or the administra tion of on e of its ministers.

And , tha t if government wants to clam up, it can clam up, if government wants to it can shift in such a way that allegations and charges can be covered up. Now, Mr . Speak er, there ar e two issues that have been involved so far tha t at the

14 66 March 15, 1974 SUPPLY (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) .. .. prese nt time appe ar not to re al l y disturb the members opposite. One the al legation with re spect to the question of th e fishing co-op eratives. The al legations came as a re sult of a minute of a meeting which was pr epar ed by the off icials of the Departm ent of Co-opera tive. Development which made certain changes against themselves al leged to have be e n made by oth ers.

It was a document that they th emselves published and that document was only filed after the Minister re ally denie d that any such meeting had tak en pl ac e; and that document along with oth er documents has on l y produced, Mr. Speak er, in what was cross-examination only after it app ear ed that the government was not p repar ed to act when a charg e had be en made of mismanagement and incompetence. Mr. Speak er, the members opposite want to confuse what re ally has happ ened.

I have a suspicion that they are concerned, and would be, that if there is any wrongdoing that the pe rson who ever committed it should in fact abide by the law and should meet what ever legal re quirem ents anyone else had to meet.

But the ir pr oblem is that they ar e concerned as well that in this kind of study if mismanag e ment comes up and if mismanag ement and incompe tence shows and demonstrat es very cl e ar l y a lack of capacity for administration on their part, that that embarrassment to them would be so severe that they can ac cept that the re is like lihood no wrongdoing and th ey ar e not going to take a chance for any light to be shown in connection with that. Mr.

Speak er, what we were tal king about in the co-ops and what was being repr e sented in th e minutes of the meeting -and I am satisfied that what I am now going to say with out question was never said to the Pr emier, nor am I satisfied th e Pr emier can stand up and say that he has be en satisfied of this -was the fact that the fishermen in connection with the Southern Indian Lake Co -op were not re ceiving what was due to them. Mr.

Speaker, I'm satisfied that if an investigation, inrnpe ndent of what is being pro posed, was undertaken, it would show that th e fishermen from the Southern Indian Lake Co-op were re ce iving sub stantially less even than that which was repr esente d in that minutes of that meeting. And I say that , Mr. Speak er, because what we ar e tal king about is a situation in which there may very well have been, because of sheer incompete nce, bad administration, the depr iving a lot of pe ople of money that was due to them. Now one th en can say is that fraudulently taking and soliciting funds-!

That charg e was made in those minutes pr epar e d by the depar tmenta l officials. Th at charg e would indicate that someone may have done something incorr ect. Mr. Speak er, I want to cit e the example of a solicitor who has trust funds and who for one purpose or another may dip into tho se trust funds and use it for his op erating expe nses and th en lat er on when he gets enough money into his operatin g expenses, tak e that money and pay it back to the trust fund. Now, Mr.

Speak er, the net effect is that nobody is out any money, the society hasn't suffere d or the individuals who hav e.b een involved have not suffere d; the only thing is that he's broke n what is considere d a trust law and he has broke n a law which say that he should leave th ose funds alon e. I want to give some of the answers back that the Pr emier indicate d in the answ ers to his questions which indicate without questio n that he kne w far more than he was pr epa red to te ll when he first answere d this matter.

He indicated that there was a 30-day pe riod in which som e mone y was used that had been take n from the Fr eshwat er Fish Marke ting Com mi3sion and paid for capita l costs, but then money came from ARDA and that paid enough money back so that th ey could then repl ace what ever mone y had been take n or paid back. Well, Mr. Speaker, you know , I think we're ta lking now of an admission right at this point which would indicate something that could be considere d by some, a misuse of funds. Now, Mr.

Speak er, the Pr emier continually tr ies to allege at this point that fr aud had bee n charg ed by myself and the party on the govern ment , and I say unequivocally that the charg es th at have be en made and al legations come from a document pr epare d by the officials of the Departm ent of Co-ope rative Development who summarized a meeting as th ey saw it in which tho se charg es were made. --(Interj ection)--Well, I thi nk that maybe the Minist e r of Financ e bett er find out what the facts re ally are, because unlike . MR . CHER NlAC K: Would the honourab le member pe rmit a question? MR. SPIVAK: Ye s. MR .

CHERNlAC K: Would that memorandum not app ear to be a

summary by a specific individual done for his own re cord because he was the on e who was al leged to have been charged?

March 15 , 19 74 146 7 SUPPLY MR. SPIVAK : Mr. Ch airman, I don't th ink --I wonder if the Minis ter under stands what I said. So that memorandum was pr epar ed by a department of ficial as a

summary of what he --(Inter jection) Well "o fficial"-for a

summary for the department of what was alleged and that was his impression. A government official , a pr ovincial government official. --(Inter jection)--Ye s, Mr. Speaker , I say for the department. Al l right , now, Mr. Speaker , what is the prob lem here? The government doesn't appear to be concerned whether the fishermen may or may not ha ve lost money. Th ey are more concer ned, Mr.

Speaker , at this parti cular time that as a result of what may happ en, their incompetence, their mismanagement will be shown, and they then ha ve the gall to stand up and say, well the members on the oppo sition are only inter este d in one thing. Well, Mr. Speaker , I wonder what is the opposition rol e?

If the opposition ri::le is not to be able to ask for restitution and re dress for someone who ha ve suffer ed as a result of mismanagement or incompetence on the part of the government , if that is not a rol e for the opp osition then I don' t know what our democratic institution is supposed to be al l. about. --(Interj ection)--Well, Mr. Speaker , I want to say to the members oppo site, the righteousness in which they attack and try and deal with thi s matter and the other indicates a position that is har d to understand. I suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker , that the judicial inquiry that could ha ve been held would have indicated certain things and would have pr ovided a protec tion for peopl e at this time who have no protec tion other than the form that 's of fered her e. Now, Mr. Speak er , we asked the Provincial Auditor go in, we aske d that he pre sent a report -the government stopp ed us ther e. We are going to have an inquiry by the Attorney Gener al limited to certain areas which are very specific and we are not going to be able to deal with the prob lems of maladministration which is rea lly our responsibility. So th erefore, Mr.

Speaker , we can onl y do it in the nature of the debate that we ha ve and we can only use the te chniques that we can, and we will. Let me now go to the other example, because I was flabbergaste d at the appr oach taken by the Minister of Mines an d Natural Resouces. Mr. Speaker , I would have expe cted him to say this: I don't know what the facts ar e, I will find out what the facts ar e, if the facts are as re pre sented I will take whate ver action is required; I will re port back if they are not and I will express my po sition then.

Now I know that the Minis ter of Mines an d Natur al Resources has a fair reputation as a court lawyer an d I doubt very much tha t he would ever stand up in a court case and pre sent a rebuttal without even ha ving any kno wledge of the facts and he admitted that himself. --(Interj ection)--Yes. Oh, Mr. Speaker , I' m not worried about a re buttal, ther e can be any re butta l what soever. I'm going to deal with the Minister of Northern Af fair s' remarks in a few moments. Ye s, I want to see a rebuttal . But, Mr.

Speak er, you know I find it amazing that al l the Minister tried to do was to stand up and to tal k about it as if you know there was nothing wrong; he doesn' t know whether there' s anything wrong, but there couldn't be anything wrong. How could there be anything wrong if the New Democratic Party were involved:· How could there be anything wrong if the administration was under his contr ol or under the contr ol of a Cabinet headed by the Premier� There' s just no doubt about it. And so if ther e was waste, th ere was a little bit of waste , an d if someone took an excessive amount of power , so they took power.

And if contr ol and super visio n was exer cised even into a higher degree than it should ha ve been, so what. Didn' t it happ en in other administrati ons:' You kn ow, Mr. Speaker , is thi s the way in which the members oppo site believe that they should be discharging their responsibility.

Do they honestl y believe that power was given to them to stand up in thi s Ch amber and say to the oppo sition, you shouldn' t be ta lking about thi s, an d when you tal k about this and when you pro ve something or at least allege certain thing s and provide certain information which would at least question a re ason able per son to suggest that they should examine, that the po sition the government should be --well we're not, you know , it couldn't happen to us. I' ll tell you something, Mr.

Speaker , one of the prob lems with the government opp osite is that in their -- you know it's a question of being corr upte d by power. Th ey ha ve been corr upt ed by power to an extent that they cannot believe that there ha s been such thing s as wrongdoing among themselves. You know , the Honourable Minister did not know what the a�fidavit contained an d yet he was prepa red to ta l k about it as just a disaffe cted per son who was the manager. He was prepar ed to argue and debate no matt er what happe ned to defend

1468 March 15, 1974 SUPPLY (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) .... the party, because the party had to be defended and the go vernment had to be defended . Now, Mr. Speaker, let me make a couple of commen ts about both these issues. Both these issues put into question the morality of the New Democra tic Pa rty; both these questions put into question the ability of this Legislature to fu nction with a whole range of government expenditures that are not really within the control of either the government or not within the control and accountab le to the people of the Legislature. Mr.

Spe aker, I'm satisfied from the discussions that I've had with the Auditor to realize that mon eys are handled, substantial mo neys are handled by government offic ials whose mo neys are not audi ter: by the Provincial Auditor , the flow of which goes through their hands in a variety of direct grants to people and corporations and co-operatives throughout this province with no ability whatsoever for anyone to have any degree of control over what happens. Mr.

Speaker, I'm satisf ied that if the Departmen t of Co- operative De velopmen t was examined and the Co mmunities Economic Development Fund in this particular case, that they would find a flow of signed cheques, in bl ank, going back and fo rth, whirlwind, on various accou nts ... MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask my honourable friend- I think that is a very substantive accusation that blank cheques are going backwards and forwards.

I think in all sincerity that an accusation of that kind should have necessary evidence produced because it does, and here my point deals with pri\ ilege of the Civil Service, it does infer that there are members of the Ci vil Service that are violating all of the laws, I would like my honourable friend --(Interjection)-- just a minute -- I would like my honour able friend to reconsider the statement that he made as to this input which involves Civil Service. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR.

SPIVAK: Yes, the Honourable Minister of Labour can debate this matter --(Inter jection)-- Well, Mr. Speaker, I now want to talk ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. That is not a matter of debate, that is a point of pro cedure and I do also ask that the honourable member reflect on what he is inferr ing and what he's insinuating in respect to civil servants who cannot protect them selves. That is one of the procedures of the House. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, I have now indicated to you that I am now talking about money that is handled in a variety of accounts that does not go through the Minister of Finance, that are not pre-audited, that are handled by them in a variety of different trust accounts that the Provincial Auditor has no contro l or direction to even be involved in. And, Mr. Speaker .. MR. PA ULLEY; ... the point that I made, it was not that point. What my honourable friend says, attempted to indicate in his remarks, that there was a flow of blank cheques going round and round, and my point, Mr.

Ch airman, is asking my honourable friend, the Leader of the Opposition to be responsible and to indicate evidence, and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if there is evidence of this it would be thoroughly investigated. But I appeal to my honour able fr iend that not to leave up in the clouds an accusation of blank cheques going round and round a me rry-go-round. MR. SPIV AK: Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting to you that there have been blank cheques and accounts not pre-audited by the Minister of Finance but in effect within the eff ective control of department people that have in fa ct, Mr.

Speaker, have in fact been signed in blank and have, Mr. Speaker, probably not to the knowledge of the members opposite, certainly not to the Minister of Finance and certainly not to the Prov incial Auditor because there are not things that they oversee. And the point that I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, and this is the point that I think has to be made, is that there is a tremend ous flow of money that in which there is really no accountability, and what has happened, Mr.

Speaker, in these issues up to this point, and by the failure of the government to provide the judicial inquiry, is the inability for this particular matter to become known and to be rectified. MR" SPEAKER: Order, please. Again I remind the Honourable Leader of the Opposition that he has cast a slur on the Civil Service ... MR" SPIV AK: I have not. MR" SPEAKER: .. . that he has indicated they are fu nctioning without regard to the due process and I would ask him to reconsider that particular remark. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR" SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker , if a judicial inquiry is held the info rmation that I have suggested will be brought forth.

March 15, 197 4 1469 SUPPLY MR. SP EAKER: The Hmourable House Leader. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, we have our privileges in this House. I as a private member now wish to raise a privilege of the statement that is made by my ·honourable friend , because I, too , as a member of this Assembly may have some access to cheques and they may be blank or they may be otherwise. The blanket accusation ma de by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition to me is incompreh ensive, Mr. Speaker. You have indicated to the honour able me mber that he should reconsider the words that h€ used.

He replies by saying, "if there is a judicial inquiry into this that this will be revealed". At the present time, Mr. Speaker, on my point of privilege I say that tmre isn't a judicial inquiry into th is, and if there is then possibly the Honourable Leader of the Opposition can do it. But, Mr. Speaker, I ask my honourable fr iend not to use the immunity of statements of members in this House to cast aspersions on the people of this governm ent that I am res ponsible to answer for in this House.

And I suggest that it is incomprehensible for a man of presumed intellect to leave such aspersions and innuendos up ih the atmosphere without the opportunity of rebuttal by those who he is abstractly accusing of issuing blank cheques. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, I would like, on a point of privilege, to read the affi davit of Ro n ... I would like to read the affidavit of Ro n Allison dated 14th day of March. MR. PAULLEY: Who's he from ? MR. ENNS:" Find out. MR.

SPIVAK: "Cheques were prepared by rile for payment on accounts payable by the company to its suppliers and J . M. K. Co nstruction. Since all such cheques had to be forwarded to the Co mmunities Economic Development Fund or to one of its off icers for signature and subsequent forwarding of such to the suppliers, I had no control over whether or not such cheques were in fact ever sent.

Many of the cheques and vouchers which were prepared and delivered to the fund were not subsequently forwarded to suppliers and others upon instructions of the Commu nities Economic Development Fund off icers were forwarded with the amount or payee blank. "I want to repeat for the Minister of Labour. "Then others were forwarded with the amount or payee blank, and other cheques which were completed and fo rwarded were mutilated ." By the way, Mr .... MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker , . . . speak on that point of ord.u. I want to ask my honourable friend that while he may ... · MR.

SPIVAK: I'm on the point of point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, at this point. MR. PAULLEY: What point of privilege? MR. SPIVAK: On your point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. MR. PAULLEY: Just because you think you filed a document. MR. SPIVAK: Are you going to take control of this House, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Well let me re peat for the Honourable Minister of Labour.

"Many of its cheques and vouchers which were prepared and delivered to the fund were not subsequently forwarded to suppliers and others upon the instructions ofthe CEDF offi cers were forwarded with the amo unt or payee bl ank, and other cheques which were comple hid and forwarded were mutilated befor e their return to me for inclusion in the company's accou nting records. " Mr. Speaker, if I can just have a mo ment I think that I can maybe give. the honourable me mber a few additional pieces of inf orma tion. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. MR. SPIV AK: Mr. Speaker, I •. . MR. SP EAKER: Order. MR.

SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Honourable Minister will bear with me. One does not know how to be prepared necessarily for the honourable ... Mr. Speaker, if I cannot find the document ... Mr. Speaker, maybe a judicial inquiry should be held and maybe ma ny people will come fo rward. Mr. Speaker, I think we've demonstrated already that there has been one situation in which blank cheques have been ref erred to and I have a suspicion if I can only find ... well, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker , I will table - I haven't the document in front of me yet but I will

1470 March 15, 1974 SUPPLY (MR. SP IVAK cont'd) ..... table it before the end of the af ternoon. Another document which will refer to cheques and these are supported by a civil servant to another which are written in blank. Mr. Speaker, and I will say that those two documents are of a prima faci e, or the evidence of a case. I'm satisfied, Mr. Speaker, and I' m satisfied from what I'm saying, that this situation does exist, and I'm satisfi ed1I don't make this charge lightly, and I'm satis fied and that 's why I ask certain questions of the Minister of Finance.

I think if he talks to the Provincial Auditor he will understand that the Provincial Auditor has spoken to me, at my request, and I've asked exactly what procedures are followed to be in a position to determine what is happening. Because I think, Mr. Speaker, we've reached a point, and we're getting there very slowly, and the honourable members opposite will understand what we're doing, and are not going to be so offended or so righteous to suggest that this is not ou r func tion, to deal with the issue which has to come up in this House, in the other provincial Houses and in the House of Co mmons .

That we are now at a point where there is so much money flowing in so many different directions with respect to the kind of gra nts in general terms that are given to peoples and corporations and co-operatives that effec tively are not within the control of govern ment at the present time and that are not caught in the auditing process that now takes place, either in the pre-audit or the post-audit. Because they are not within the ambit of government at this point, yet they are for all intents and purposes in the hands of people who can if they so desire take advantage of the situation. And, Mr.

Speaker, this is, you know, what we've been talking about. The hono urable members opposite im medi ately become involved and become concerned. Mr. Speaker, all these become concerned. You know, Mr. Speaker, if I had been the Minister involved I'll tell you what I would have done when the charges were made and the affi davits were made. I wouldn't have juniped up as he did. I wouldn't even have gone into the coffee room to sit there or to suggest that there's nothing wrong. What I would have done, Mr.

Speaker, I would have easured that the documents wherever they are are secured as quickly as they could be, if he believes that there is even a prima facie case on the affidavit. Now if he's prepared to say no, there's no prima facie case on the af fidavit, because I know, because I know I know, because I know I know I know, because that's the only basis on which he could determine that, if he's prepared to believe that, then he's prepared to allow things to happen. But if I was in his position, Mr.

Speaker, I would make damn sure the documents were secured and I would make damn sure that I could see them and I would want to be sure. A MEMBER: Would the honourable member permit a question ? MR. SPIVAK: Mter. And, Mr. Speaker, I would want to be sure that, you know, from my point of view that I could at least substantiate it. Now the problem that the honourable mem bers had is that there was a political connotation made to certain things which automa tically puts them in the position of being defen sive. But the political connotation really, Mr.

Speaker, has to do very much with what the Honourable Member for Fort Rou ge said. It has to do with the approach and the problem area which I do not believe has really been understood by many of them, and you know I say this quite honestly. And there has been a tol erance and an allowance that should never have taken place, Mr. Speaker. It should never have taken place because, Mr. Sp-"eaker, by it taking place I believe it has allowed and provided for itself an abuse. Mr.

Speaker, I have now found the letter and I want to - for the benefit of the hono urable member and t would ask the Cl erk to photostat this one. This is a letter to Mr. Gor don Demery--he was a Co-o p Development off icer, he is now the officer of the Southern Indian Lake Co -op Fisheries--f rom W. M. Kalinowsky, who at that time before his demotion was Director of Co-operatives, in which he said, "Enclosed please find two blank cheques written on the trust fund PEP for your disposition. " Well I want to again read for the benefit of the Minister. I hope he understands English.

I mean I hope he does understand English. "Enclosed please find two blank cheques written on the trust fund PEP for your disposition." And I table this, Mr. Speaker. Now, Mr. Speaker, how much more do we have to go through ? Every time the honour able members opposite have asked for certain info rmation, every time they've said that the accusations are outrageous, every time they have said,you know1 that there's no substance or basis, what has happened is we've had to produce one document after another to essentially point out, Mr.

Speaker, that they either do not know very much of what's h::.. ppening, or they do know what is happening and they are concerned. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because they're

.March 15, 1974 1471 SUPPLY (MR. SPIVAK cont'd ) ..... dishonest? No, because they're concerned about the one thing that has been bothering them from the beginning. God, an inquiry would show that we've badly mis managed things, that in fact we have really in o:1e sense broken a trust with a lot of people and from that point of view we are going to do everything we can to be able to more or less hide it under the rug and not deal with it. Mr. Speaker, that's what the issue on the co-ops is all about, and I mus t: tell you some thing. The Premier would like to make the allegation that it's about something else.

It's about that, and in this case I say to you, and I say to the ho'lourable members up north because you really don't know, you haven't the slightest idea. You do:1't know at this point whether the fishermen themselves have received what they should have. --(Interjection)--Well the Honourable Minister of Public Insurance, you know, the problem at this point is don't try to appear so honest and so righteous at this point because as a matter of fact you don't know. And as ·a matter of fact I don't know how much more additional inf orm ation would have to be put O'l the table, but I want to tell you right now, Mr.

Speaker, I don't think that ar.. ything will ever coJ. vince you that there's any wrongdoing. I don't think so. I think that you're so im mune now and you're so corrupted by your own power to believe that in a budget which involves over a billion dollars that it's not possible for some things to have happened. If some of those things could have happened} and they will happen in any administration in any case,· but we don't want to admit it .bec ause if we do we are admitting a weakness. In some cases it could happen because there has been some bad administration.

But instead of being positive about it to the extent of saying, okay we'll investigate, we'll look, we'll examine,you have to be bludgeoned into a posi tion, hit over the head because that 's the only way to get your attention, and then at that time try and maneuver the best way you can. I want to recount, and I don't think it's a matter of competence because I don't think we're doing anything or saying anything.

I had a discussion with the Honourable Attorney-General, he can relate the conversation if he wants in connectioa with it, but one thing that he said with out realizing it which was very significa nt to me - I was concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the nature of the action that the Attorney-G eneral would take with respect to the matters af fecting his investigation of the problem s of the co-operatives and there was a commentary made out side the Ho:Ise, which I understood him to make that concerned me, and I t:;�.lked to him .

And I had a discussion which I'm satisfied with respect to that, that there is an extensio'l or there will be some extension of that, although he hasn't confirmed that. I wasn't unsatisfied with that, bat what I felt very unsatisfactory about in that co'lversation was his question, you know, "we'll have an investigation, there'll be a crimi nal investigation, we're not dealing with management incompetence. " I think I'm quoting you correctly. ··we're not dealing with management incom petence. And he said that, and that was frightening to me. And I'l l tell you why, Mr. Speaker.

Because they don't want to deal with management incompetence because that can be embar rassing. --(Interjection)--Oh no. Yes. They don't want to deal with management incom petence because that can be embarrassing. Yah. Well, Mr. Speaker, who is dealing with mana gem ent incompetenc e? All right. Who is going to deal with management incompetea ce ? The Provincial Auditor was requested, he can't deal with management incom petence. Who's going to deal with management incompete nce ? You're going to judge the management incom petence in this ? Is that what you're saying ?

We shouldn't be able to judge because ... we shouldn't be doing this, we shouldn't be talking about this, this is not our--the Hoase will. --(lnterjection)- Who are you kidding ? The House will. Who are you kidding? Yah. You're kidding. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Would the hono:Irable member address him self to the Ch air. MR. SPIVAK: Yes I will, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the fact is we have been criti cized now because when he says the House should deal with it when we bring the matter up they said this is not the kind of matters we should be dealing with. This is how low the oppo sition has become.

This is the thrust. --(Interjection) --Well you weren't in here in the last little while but the Ho:1ourable Minister of Finance said that. And I'm saying to you, I'm say ing to you, Mr. Speaker, you know the concerns that we have, you know, the concerns that we have are real. I have now heard from the members opposite an admission that there are going to be significa nt changes in the Civil Service Act. I am convinced as well - and I say this to you now, Mr. Speaker - that most of the members opposite did not read the Act before it went in and now there has to be changes.

I expect and would have expected some kind of action on their

1472 March 15, 1974 SUPPLY (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) ..... part which would have indicated (

a) we protect, in the case of the co-operatives, the fishermea, we protect the public. I would expect in this situation we stand up and we say we protect the public, we do all things to determine if there is anything that is wrong we will take what action there will be, and then we will make a judgment as to whether in fact the opposition itself had a case or aot. Mr. Speaker, what they have done - in the case of the co-operatives they said there is no problem.

In the case of the co-operatives the first set of answers were well nothing's wrong, and as a ma tter of fact if some documents hadn't been proved, I don't think there would have been any issue on the co-operatives and they wo:tld have been satisfied. In the case, Mr. Speaker, in this situation, the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources gets up, makes the great political attack, and rebuttal based on nothing, because he hadn't read the documents. And as I indicated before and he wasn't present, he would never do that in a court of law, he at least wo:tld know what the fac ts were before he spoke.

And then having made that kind of attack and rebuttal and saying that you appointed people, the boards and the fact it was an NDP appointee, what difference does it make, I appointed NDP people that have continued. That's all irrelevant, Mr. Speaker. The issue at this point is whether the trust that 's placed in them will be carried out correctly. And I-- (Interjection)--You'll look into it ? Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that's what he should have said right at the beginning and sat down. --(Interjection)- -No, he didn't sit down, Mr. Speaker. Oh ! Well he won't sit down, he'll never sit down. Now, Mr.

Speaker, this debate will go on. I have indicated that the ball was in the court of the governme nt with respect to the �o-ops. We have made some progress on the basis of the referral to the Attorney-General although I still don't know the exact nature of what that review will be.

We do not have at this point any external investigation being made with res pect to the other issues, as to the cost of the Southern Indian Lake Co-op and where all this money may have gone, unless the members opposite are now satisfied and have dealt with this matte r, and have reports; or are they just going on the blind judgment that nothing was wrong in the first place, and there couldn't be anything wrong. You know the NDP could not do any thing wrong. They're not at this point, Mr.

Speaker, going to do what I think is necessary in the interest of protecting a lot of people who know nothing about what is really happening. Many of the fishermen, Mr.

Speaker, are people who have received moneys and goods and ser vices and supplies from the co-operatives who are referred to as assets in the asset structure of the fina ncial statements because they're receivables from the fishermen, and who because at this point are not being pressed at this stage for the money that they owe the Co-o peratives, seemed to be satisfied at this stage that they' re not being pressed for it and so it can't be all that bad. But the fact is, Mr.

Speaker, it may very well be that in many cases the moneys that could be owing to them are significa ntly higher than their indebtedness to those Co -operatives; and the fact is, Mr. Speaker, because they owe the Co -operatives money and they're not pre p::tred to stand up, and they're not prepared at this point to express their concerns because they don't understand esseatially what has happened in the very confusing and almost bizarre situation in which they have been handled, because of that reason, they who are people who cannot protect themselves, can only look to government to protect them. And, Mr.

Speaker, what the government should have been doing right from the very beginning is saying we will protect you, we will have those external audits undertaken and we will insure that the moneys going to you were correct, but so far, Mr. Speaker, at this point, no they haven't done that . And, Mr. Speaker, I now go back to this other issue and say to the honourable member opposite, it's on the table in front of you.

You should have been acting by now, you should be commencin g your investigation im mediately, yo'.l should be in a position to establish where there's some basis, and if there is, you should be taking whatever actions could be taken now, not later, and you should at least know the facts before you commence your attack. I'm satisfied Mr.

Speaker, and I've spent a fai r amount of time and so have member s of our caucus, on both issues, to say to you that there is a substantial basis to believe that in the case of the fishing co-operatives, the fishermen did not receive the money that was due to them and in this particular case, that the matters were in such disarray that it's open to question as to procedures, it's open to question as to the way and how matters were handled, and the whole concept of people who had political power being able to have access to the public purse in the way that they had, has to be considered and debated and discussed in the House.

And,

March 15, 1974 1473 SUPPLY (MR. SPIVAK cont'd) .. ... Mr. Speaker, I consider that it is the oppositio:J.1S role in our society in the seveaties to bring to this forum these kind of allegations and charges to be able to debate this, and if the members opposite do not believe that to be the case, then they are completely unworthy, Mr. Speaker, of being members of a Legislature and of suggesting that they really are true participants in a democra tic society. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, you know, Sir, there's been quite a transfer made in the ap;:>roach of my honourable friend the Member for River Heights. I recall when that honourable gentleman scuttled the former Member of River Heights and took his place and came into this House, and af ter that period of time, it appears to me that my honourable friend the Member for River Heights has spent more time in the theatrical studio attempting to learn how to act before a mic rophone or a camera than he has been attempting to learn the facts of parlia�eatary procedures and the approach that oae should have in parliamentary democracy.

He started out in his remarks referring to the role of Opposition. My honourable fri end is correct in some respects as to what the role of opposition should be. If he would only learn what the true role of opposition is, is to indicate alternatives to administration and the co:1duct of the administration. I don't know how long the Honourable Member for River Heights was around this mornin g when the Minister of Finance was attempting to penetrate his cranium in order to indicate to the Honourable the Member for River Heights as to why we are here and he is there.

I recall, if my honourable friend wants to engage in an area of muckraking, I can acco mmodate my honourable fri end and refer back to many entanglements and many engage ments that I had with my honourable friend when he was the Minister of Industry and Com merce, but at that particular time of the day, Mr. Speaker, there was some gentlemen in this House that did not stoop too low or so low as the Hoaourable Leader of the Opposition is attem pting to do today. Mr. Speaker, he is using every device that he can to lower the morale of the Civil Service in the Province of Manitoba.

Oh, he did it before yes, and we're trying to im prove on the shortcomin gs of the previous administration. My honourable friend this afternoon referred to blank cheques. Never, never, in any of his accusations of the use of blank cheques, if indeed they were used, was there any suggestion by my honourable friend as to whether or not he had taken the opportunity or the time or got one of his stooges to take the tim e out to see whether there was any basic reason for it, the filling in possibly of an actual amount. His accusations, Mr.

Chai rman, are !ly innuendo to the Civil Service of the Province of Manitoba that there's widespread misuse of government funds by the Civil Service of Manitoba. He has attempted, tim e after time, Mr. Speaker, in this de!late to use the introduction of the recomm eadations that I make in respect of the amendments to the Civil Service, to heap abuse aft er abuse on the Civil Service of the Province of Manitoba. How wrong. Not on this issue, on every issue that he can.

He did it this afternoon and the whole caboodle of you are trying to be so sancti mo!liou s insofar as the Civil Service is concerned, at the same tim e that you're attempting to put stilettos in their back and make their positio'ls appear to the general public to be that, that they're padding their pockets as indicated by the Hoaourable Leader of the Opposition this aft ernoon by reference to blank cheques. How low, how low, Mr. Sp eaker, can anyone in the political life of Manitoba get ? I have the honour, I have the hoaour, Mr.

Speaker, as is well known, of being fi rst elected into this House in the year 1953, almost 21 years ago. In all of the years that I've been here, I've never ever seen an opposition stoop so low as the one is at the present time. As my colleague, the Minister of Finance said earlier today, Mr. Speaker, they are !lereft of any tangible criticisms of this goverament that could stand a court of public opinion. But my fri end with a sm ug smile on his face is endeavouring to try and undermine those of us who have been in politics. But more im portantly, Mr.

Speaker, I would say those of us that have beea engaged in politics - and I since 1945, in various avenues - no one that I'v e ever known has attempted , as the Leader of the Opposition did today, twice, did the other day two or three times, to undermine the Civil Service of the Province of Manitoba. A leader? Yes, a leader. I don't know where he will lead the morale of the people who devote themselves to the service of the public in Manitoba by his nonsensical utterances that we've heard today.

Of course people can bring forth af fidavits, table them and make themselves loo:{ like Yul Brynners and the likes of that. And that's the objective of my honourable friend. But I'm going to say, Mr.

1474 March 15, 1974 SUPPLY (MR. P AULLEY cont'd) ..... Speaker, he will be thwarted in this. And insofar as som e of these letters, that when one scrutinizes them, there's no substance at all in what the Honourable Leader of the Opposition is attempting to im pute into these mat ters. But apart from all of that, Mr. Speaker, reference is made to questions dealing with the fisheries co-op at Southern Indian Lake .. Questions arise as to a meeting which was alleged to take place, and I suppose it did, Mr. Speaker, with Mr. Moss.

It hasn't penetrated the mind, if indeed he has one, of my honourable friend, the Leader of the Opposition, that the president of that corporation has disallowed the allegations of my honourable frie nd who apparently is getting out of the House because he doesn't like when the foot is on the other ... --(Interjection)- MR. SPIV AK: Po int of privilege, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Leader of the Oppositioa. MR.

SP IVAK: I think that if the honourable member, I assume that he's ref erring to the information that was supplied by the Premier, because that's the only information I think that he's aware of. He should look at Hansard before he makes that statement. Because the infor mation that the Honourable Minister is supplying is not correct. MR. PAULLEY: I don't know if tl;tat's a point of pri vilege or not, Mr. Speaker, but I'm entitled to my opinion, and without the same gusto that was used by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAULLEY: I recall, and I want to recall, too, Mr.

Leader of the Opposition, a conversation that took place between you and I in an elevator when you were the Minister of Industry and Co mmerce dealing with the conduct of the Manitoba Developme nt Fund and one of the members of that board. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to reveal this, but if my honourable friend wants to raise issues of that nature, which I didn't at that time, because I felt I should be a gentleman; I can do it, involving an expenditure of $3 mill ion dollars. If you want innuendos, if you want facts - yes, you smile, you smile, but you know damn fine of what I'm talking.

Maybe it would be advisable for you to. leave the Chamber in case I'm prompted or provoked into ful ler revelations. But what are we dealing with today, Mr. Speaker, getting back--getting back to really the motions that we have before us for our consideration? A motion to grant and pass interim sup ply under the resolution, in order--good-bye my friend, and I'm not finis hed with you. We're dealing, Mr.

Speaker, with a motion to consider the resolutions coming out of the Com mittee of Interim Supply, in order that the governme at will have suf fici ent moneys to pay those people that the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition is so wont to criticize and to lower our civil servants . We want also, through this resolution, to consider the resolution coming out of the commi ttee dealing with supplementary estima tes, so that we can pay in this current fiscal year the accounts that are necessary in order that people receive proper payment. My honourable friends opposite, Mr.

Speaker, constantly use this approach that this government is not being accountable, that we're trying to hide. We can't hide anything that's done within the public arerra. We have many methods by which this is prevented - Provincial Auditor and others. We have this Assembly. We have the Fourth Estate, Mr. Speaker, but more im portantly possibly - and I may be taking out of context what Edm und Burke said about the Fourth Estate standing up there it peers over all of us - we have another group, another group, Mr.

Speaker, more im portant than any of us here, or the Fourth Estate - the people of the Province of Manitoba. Over the years, as a result - and as this was indicated by my col league, the Minister of Finance today - as a result of similar conduct by the Liberal Party in days gone by, the Co nservatives moved from there to here, and eventually we moved from there to here, because the people of Manitoba were sick and tired of the efforts or the endeavours to depreciate the parliamentary procedure in Manitoba. I well recall, Mr.

Chai rman, on one occasion when the Liberals were in opposition, a news reporter said to me, "Why do you tackle the Liberals more than the government ?" And I said that the Liberal Pa rty at that tim e were doomed to obliviorr, and that has happened. But more im portantly than that, Mr. Speaker, is because of the tactics that were employed at that tim e the government of the day was defeated. We are responsible to the people of Manitoba. The people of Manitoba have elected us now for the second term of offi ce.

Surely, as my colleague, the Minister of Finance indicated today, in the election in '7 3, efforts were made by opposition parties, and in particular the Co nservative Party, with some of their colleagues, the Com mittee for Good Govern ment, 'eo try and gang up. It happened basically in my own constituency with one opponent. But the people of Transcona

March 15, 1974 1475 SUPPLY (MR. PAUL LEY cont'd ) ..... didn't get fooled. Here am I. The people of Selkirk didn't get fooled, Mr. Speaker. My coll eague, another Pawley, is here. The efforts of the Conservative Party during that election were thwarted. The people did not stand fo r their guff- their ins inuations and their approaches at that time. Mr. Speaker, som ebody mentioned, my coll eague the Minister of Finance mentioned that he was surprised that we became the government in 1969. I have had some involvement before that.

I told Walter Weir, the then Premier, that if he dared to call an eleGtiori in Manitoba, the Co nservatives would be defeated. And he asked me - and this is recorded in Hansard - he asked me, "Russ. who 'll defeat us ?" And I said, "We'll defeat you", and we did. And the people of Manitoba can not be fooled; they can't be fooled - unless I'm a fool, and I may be. They cannot be fooled --(Interjection)--oh, you don't even know whether really you've got a seat or not yet. --(Interjection)--But they were fooled for 100 years. They were! With changes from Conservatives to Liberals over a hundred years !

But sometim es people wake up, Mr. Speaker, and they did; and in 1969, just as we were going into the celebrations of our 100th Anniversary, the people of Manitoba could get down on their hands and knees or shout to the high heavens, "Thank the Lord we got rid of that tripe!" And we've got a government in Manitoba that is concerned with people. But apart from all of this, Mr. Speaker, having had years in opposition, I realize what the responsibilities of opp:lsition happen to be. I realize too, what the responsibilities of government are. And I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that in order to show ourselves as responsible members of this Assembly, we should stop this gutterism getting down to the lDwer depths and acquit ourselves as members of this Assem bly as representative of the public·. ·rs it necessary, Mr. Speaker, for any opposition to constantly conduct thems elves as is being done by the oppo sition, the of fic ial opposit ion, and in particular its leader? I followed his career. He followed a very illustrious Manitoban. And I sometimes wonder, Mr.

Sp.gaker, that if that honourable gentleman could perceive what is happening in this House today, h e would wonder whether his con tribution as a previous Member for River Heights was really worthwhile. I suggest not. Because, Mr.

Speaker, I wonder - and in wo:1.dering I sometimes doubt whether many mem bers in this Assembly know of the camp:J.igning that was done in River Heights so tha't the pre sent Leader of the Co nservative Party would get the nomination or get the choice over a man who was esteem ed and honoured by all our constituency and all parties in opposition. -- (Inter jection)--Yes, we're talking basic policy as enunciated by the Leader of the Conservative Party. Mr. Ch airman, I ask the Leader of the Co nservative Party to get up out of the gutter.

I ask his members to try and discipline him so that we can get on with the job of governing Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho:1.ourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. J. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I was not part of the Progressive Co nservative Party when it was in power, but I certainly would not have liked to have had the NDP Pa rty as my opposition. The reason being, Mr. Speaker, is that we have had four or five speeches today, we have had speeches since the Ho·�se opened saying, "Please don't criticize the government.

" I would not like to b.g ag overnment that is not criticized. I would not like to be sitting with the responsibility of running this pro vince and have an opposition sitting opposite me who takes the attitude, who takes the attitude that we should not criticize the government; who takes the attitude that when they find that there's irregularities going on that they have got the opportunity to look into and change to make them go right, would not bring it to my attention. I'm very surprised that som ebody on the other side has not got up and said, "Thank you.

Thank you for bringing the irregularities to my attention. We want to examine them. We want to look into them for the be!lefi to f the people of Manitoba," and I haven't heard it. If I was running a business selling shoes and I was selling bad shoes or somebody was supplying me with bad shoes, I would appreciate the customer come walking in and say, "Look, you' re selling a bad product. " I'd say, "Thank you, I'll stop selling it. " Mr. Speaker, we have been telling them for several days that there is something to be investigated within the administration to look into.

We have been telling them that grants are bigger in this province than they have ever had before. The member says: What about the good ones? And the grants that they have given were possibly good ones and good sound philosophies and things that would help this province, but why turn the good ones into bad ones, Mr. Speaker? By very poor administration and not looking at how it is handled. I've heard defences from the

1476 March 15, 19 74 SUPPLY (MR . F. JOHNSTON cont 'd) ..... governme nt on the other side continually saying, what happened during the election ? The Minister of Finance keeps mentioning a little old lady in Rock Lake. We keep getting two--we've had two speeches from the Member from Ste. Rose saying you did during the election. You know, Mr. Speaker, I don't really get that concerned. We call an election, all of us, we're going out to win and I'm not saying that I'm ashamed of anything oar party did. And if you really want to start talking about elections, we'll start talking about it if you want to.

It doesn't bother me, you know., It's past history. Like the Minister over there says, let's run the province. But you know, we could maybe ment ion a few things that might have been irregularities. But all we have had is defence from this government. We've been called muckrake rs. We've said, where is your proof? And we've presented. We get told, why do you co me in here and make accusations ? Well, we have come back and we have shown that the accusations have some foundat ion.

And the only thing we get from the government is criticism that we, we as elected members O'l this side are supposed to be seco:J.d-class elected mem bers. They have the atti tude that we have no more right, we're second, they're better than us. The people that elected them are better than us, is their attitude. Better than the people that elected us, is their attitude. Because we have the gall, the audacity to bring up some thing that the government should look into and be welcoming, welcoming the fact that we brought it to their attention.

Instead, we have had to work all day to take the snickering off the faces of the back row . . . A MEMBER: And we did. MR. F. JOHNSTON: We have worked all day and we've got rid of most of the smiles, as I said once before, in the second row. We've worked all day and we're getting close to getting rid of the smug ness in the front row, as I've said once before. (Applause) . And the Minister, the Minister of Autopac says he's going to smile. A MEMBER: Right. MR. F. JOHNSTON: .

He remin ds me of the guy going down with the ship saying,'' I love it, ha ha, I'm going to drown." And that's exactly what my leader told him awhile ago, is, he doesn't know. He's a young guy--pardon me, Mr. Speaker--a young man, the Minister of this government, who has been brain-washed by the old soeialist members of that party and he hasn't take'l his head and lif ted it up and looked around. And who better could they have taken, but a naive young Minister with lots of enthusiasm and raises turkeys, and give him a turkey like Autopac and he accepted it. --(Interjection) -- Now, Mr.

Speaker, I'm still waiting, and I hopefully would say that I will hear from the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources. I didn't quite mind his speech this morning as much as my leader, but very surprised that he was as defe nceless as he was being for the government - because I know he 's a man of principles. I would very much like him to come back .� and he says if there's nothinp wrong and he proves it, fine. And if he comes back and says,' I've found something wro:1g / and he says,''there's going to be heads roll and this thing is going to be straightened up, 'that 's what I want to hear.

And that 's what I would like to say; that I will respect the government for doing that. But I haven't heard one word from the govern ment side af the House saying they respect an opposition who has found something wrong with the operation of the government and brought it to their attention. And all we've got from them, Mr. Speaker, is crap because we did that.-- (Interjection)--C rap, because we did that. --(Inter jection)--You play it with dice. Mr. Speaker ... A MEMBER: It's more like a roulette game. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, we just have gone - as I've said all day - and I'm not going to take up any more time, because if they haven't got the message by now1 if they haven't realized that the fellows that can go out and play a hockey game with them are as good as they are, who can sit in a dressing room with them, have a cup of coffee with them J are as good as they are, and have the right to bring up things in this House, let's have them stand up and tell us that, Mr. Speaker - because that 's what I've been told all day, that we have no rights in this House to take the audacity to criticize the government. And, Mr.

Speaker, I would never want to be a government with an opposition like them, who wouldn't bring something to my attention if they found it wrong. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIAC K: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to tell the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek and anybody else, that if I learn of wrong-doing in government I

March 15, 1974 1477 SUPPLY (MR. CHERNIACK cont'd ) ..... apprecia te being told about it and I would be an assistant in attempting to make the proper heads roll and do it in such a way that it is clearly known. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a timin g and a manner in which these things are done. And there may be some members opposite who will recall personal conversations with me, where I drew a matter to their attention, which I felt was firstly a matter for their concern personally, and subsequently public if it were not corrected. And, Mr.

Speaker, I believe that the way these things should be handled, if indeed there is a real effort to make corrections, is to go to the Minister responsible and say; Now, I don't know what the truth is, but here is what I'm told, it looks fishy; Mr. Minister, would you care to investigate ? Find me a Minister here who would not say: I will investigate. Find me a Minister here who would not investigate and would then stand a chance of being told: I, an MLA went to a Minister and informed him of it and he refused to investigate. Mr.

Speaker, I've never had an opportunity to be given informat ion where I didn't firs tly act on it, and secondly, attempt to report. But I still say that the way this matter was built up, and breaking the news that was broken this morning was a deliberate attempt of political maneuvering and not really an ef fort to see that the matt ers are straight ened out. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am the Minister of Finance. I have certain responsibilities regard ing the accounting system.

The Leader of the Opposition asked me a few days ago, on March 8th, who has the signing autho rity on consolidated fund cheques and PEP program cheques? Why did he ask that question, Mr. Speaker? Because he was curious? No, he had a letter dated August 22nd, referring to blank cheques, and he wanted to see just who had the authority to sign. That's cute if you're figh ting an adversary action such as one does in court, or such as one does in politics. And if what he wanted to do was to get all the informa tion in order to drop a bomb shell, break the news , he did the right thing.

He got me to give the record as to who had sign ing authority. Thea quietly, at the right time, he produced the letter dated August 22nd and said: "Enclosed please find two blank cheques written on the Trust Fund PEP. " Do you know what my reaction was ? Of course our first reaction was, why didn't you tell us earlier if you're concerned about getting the information to the right source im medi ately ? Why didn't you do it earlier ? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Birtle-Rus sell. MR. GRAHAM: Would the Minister submit to a question ? MR. CHERNIACK: Of course. MR.

GRAHAM: If the Minister has had these things brought to his attention and there's nothing been done, where does an individual go at that time ? MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: One goes to the public. One goes to the House. One doesn't sit in one's office with this kind of informa tion and not take it to the right source in order to have it traced. So, Mr. Speaker, my first reaction when I read this: "Enclosed please find two blank cheques written on the Trust Fund PEP for your d(sposition. " you know, I'm not that sm art, I but I've been around, Mr. Speaker.

I've practiced law for thirty years, I've handled trust fun ds . And I know there are many occasions when trust funds are signed by more than one person. You know what my reaction was? It was, well, probably the writer of the letter is one of the signatories, the recipient is another of the signatories, and probably he's signed the cheque, sent it on to the recipient who could then com plete the cheque and add the verif ying signature without which the cheque couldn't be cashed. Well, that's only based on the experi ence I've had in the law bus iness where I've handled trust funds and see that it's handled.

So when I finally got this letter - what is it, 20 minutes, half an ho:1r ago ? - I went back to the list I had, Mr. Speaker, to see what had been reported. I could not find the names of either Kalinowsky and Demery that is the writer and the recipient of the letter, and I thought well now, that sort of makes it look more, you know, more serious. I went downstairs in my department.

I checked the record to see previous dates closer to August 22nd, because this one the Leader of the Opposition didn't ask as of what date - and I gave the information as of January 14th - but I didn't find that a prior list had these names, it would have beea amus ing had I found it so readily that they did. So I didn't find that, so I phoned the Department of Co -operatives and I asked whether they had some idea of what transpired here.

1478 March 15, 1974 SUPPLY (MR. CHERNIACK cont'

d) And 11ow I'm giving the House·the lim ited information I have, which is not adequate. But I thought that if somebody wants to broadcast this kind of information, that at least one should answer even step by step as we learn what developed. And what I've learned isn't too helpful, but it is that when the PEP cheques were distributed for co-operatives, they were se:J.t with instructions that they shall be deposited - each in a separate account for each co-op - into a trust PEP acco unt for which there should be two signatories; one, the governm ent represe:J.ta tive, one a member or an officer of the co-op.

That's all I've learned. I've learned that when the cheques are sent out, the PEP funds were put into a trust fund in the name of the co-op, each individual one, with instructions that the signatories should be a member of the staff of govern ment plus a member of the co-:op. Now, I don't know any more. But it doesn't surprise me because !. expected to get that kind of informa tion when I read this enclosure of two blank cheques. Mr.

Speaker, it's really nonsensical to think of what could have happened, blank cheques floating around as if I - mayb e the accusation is that Is igned some cheques in blank and started sending them around to various people to fill in whatevertheywanted, you know. As if they would say: Well, I'd like five bucks today and mayb e I'd like 500 or five million. This doesn't make sense.

But the hullaballoo that has been raised publicly is one which of course has to be answered, will be answered.· And I would tell the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek that if there is a wrong doing, if there is fraud, I'm sure there'll be a prosecution as there have been in the past. The member isn't a mem ber of Public--at least I don't think he was in Public Accounts when I reported that there was some $48, 000 paid to government 'on bonding for frauduland acts and there have been prosecutions.

And if there is an occasion, there would be a prosecution - and to the extent that the Leader of the Opposition has been carrying this letter around in his little bag for any period of time, then that amount of time has been lost. MR. SPIV AK: Mr. Speaker; on a point of privilege. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIV AK: Mr. Speaker, that letter has already been tabled in the House. MR. CHERNIACK: When? MR. SPIV AK: Well, Mr. Speaker, as far as I know that letter was tabled last week--oh oh, Mr.

Speaker; I know - I can't be sure of the date but my understanding is that along with many of the docume:J.ts - I guess probably not last week - after the Ho:wurable Minister made his reply, that letter was tabled. MR. SPEAKER: The Hm oura:ble Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Well, Mr. Speaker, when I receive mail formally it is stamped so I know the date it's received.

I don't know the date on which this letter fell into the hands of the Leader of the Opposition or any other responsible member of his party, but I would say that from the time it fell into their hands until the time it came to the attention of those people res ponsible for the administration - that much time, be it o::te hour, be it one mo:J.th or be it eight months, that much time was lost. That 's ... MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR.

SPIV AK: I'm satisfied that in producing this letter which only makes reference to two trust cheques - in answer to the questions that were given by the Minister and in answer to the questions by the Pr ovincial Auditor asked af ter the meeting on Tuesday and with respect to the investigation I conducted, this really truly was the firs t time that I was in a positio!l to bring this forward. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho!lourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHER NIACK: Mr. Speaker, I delight in the way the Leader of the Opposition comes into the room and participates in the debate without any briefing of any kind.

He just - you know he must have antennae somewhere that tell him what's going on even in his absence - reminds you of the meeting yesterday where I was trying to convince the Co mmittee on Publ ic Accounts to hold meetings sooner rather than later and honourable members - the Member for Brandon West and the Member for Pe mbina each gave a valid reason why they didn't want to meet earlier, and I said: Well it's up to you, if you don't want to meet earlier that's okay, we can wait. Something to that effe ct.

And the Leader of the Opposition came storming in from behind me and said something to the effect - and I'm really paraphrasing: tl•.e Minister of Finance cannot prevent our dealing with the accounts of the province; we know our responsilities,

March 15, 1974 1479 SUPPLY (MR. CHERNIACK cont'd) ....• Mr. Speaker, we will carry them out whether it's one meeting or ten meetings or whatever. Com pletely ignorant of what had been said, but he was ready to blast me, because that is the way he visualizes his job; blast the opposition, blast the government, he's better off. So I come back to say ... MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Oppos ition. MR . SP IVAK: On a point of personal privilege.

I would like the Honourable Minister to note the affidavit that was tabled· and to realize that it was dated as of yesterday, and that I did not receive it until yesterday and it was filed as soon as I received it. MR. SP EAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHER NIACK: Mr. Speaker, I give the Honourable Leader credits for doing that. I don't know how long he's had this letter dated August 22nd. Had I had it mayb e one or two hours earlier I migh t have been able to give even more information than I've already given to the Ho'.lse. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR.

SPIV AK: On the point of privilege and I again, Mr. Speaker, I have to indicate this on a point of privilege, that there are two matters involved with respect to that letter. There were questions that were asked of the Minister; there were answers that were given in the House. There were questions asked of the Provincial Auditor and there was my own investiga tion and determination that had to be undertaken. And, Mr.

Speaker, insofar as I was con cerned in bringing this to the attention of the honourable mem bers, I am doing so o'l the basis of my own investigation - which now satisfies me that this should be brought in, and it has been brought in. MR. SP EAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry the Member for Sturgeon Greek has left be cause he talked about our responsibility to act, and he would like an undertaking that there would be action. So really he ought to find out from the Leader of the Opposition what else the Leader knows which would be. helpful to a proper investigation.

Because the Leader of the Opposition has implied--(Interjection)--has im plied that he had the letter for I don't know how long, but he today was - as a result of further investigation - satisfied that it's a matter that should be brought to our attention. I would have thought , Mr. Speaker, having received a letter with the information he gave us today - which was what ? - I have your letter with two blank trust cheques. With that informa tion I would have thought that was enough to inform the proper responsible offi cials, but he is now saying that he-- (Interjection--Oh. MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the ... MR. SPIVAK: On a point of privilege, that letter was tabled earlier. That letter I believe was tabled two days ago. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, it may be another copy of the letter. This one was tabled March 15th, 1974. Maybe another copy was tabled earlier - but then the member has tabled a number of ma tters, and in spite of what he thinks I don't make a practice of looking at everything that 's tabled in this House. If it's important and the member thinks it's impo rtant, thought it was importa nt, he should have brought it to our attentio:1.

And the point I was--well I'm not going to repeat the comments I made before he came, because if he wanted to know what they were before he spoke he would have at least asked to be briefed. So, Mr. Speaker, I've given the kind of inform ation that I could get in only a matter of minu tes. I am certain there'll be further investigation, there will be further reports - and all I can tell the Member for Sturgeon Creek - who cares - that we will investigate and being satis fied that allegations mad e have any truth whatsoever, there will be action.

But I say that to the Member for Sturgeon Creek who cares, and not to the Leader of the Opposition who I think thinks that he's already accom plished his purpose by breaking the news as he did this morning. You know, about 11:30 I think he finish ed hi s day's work and now he's going back to his offi ce to find more things that he can raise and break again to the populous - but not to the people responsible- because I think that's the way he sees his job and that's his privilege.

I give him the right, I give hi m the right - not that I have the right to withdraw that from him - I give him the right to conduct his af fairs his way. --(Interjection)--Yes. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIVAK: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Honourable Minister indicates that they'll make an investigation. In view of the fact that the Provincial Auditor has indicated to me that this is

1480 March 15, 1974 SUPPLY (MR. SPIVAK cont 'd) ..... not within his jurisdiction how would that investigation then be conducted ? MR. SP EAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, firstly information has been given but, you know, unfor tunately the Leader of the Opposition is so busy popping in and out of the room - and I don't criticize him for it, he's got things to do outside as well as in this room and he is the one who determines how he apportions his time.

But I brought to this House the little informa tion I was able to bring within the short time allowed to me from the time he presented the letter, and I will try to get more informa tion - and I will bring, or others will - and we'll bring it forward. We want it to be known. But if he wants to know the extent to which we'll do it, it will be to the extent that we're able to. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIV AK: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Honourable Minister would permit another question.

In the event that the letter proves correct, will the government consider a judicial inquiry on it? MR. SP EAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, peculiarly enough I have already indicated to the person whose position I respect and accept, that is the Member for Sturgeon Creek, that if we find wrong-doing heads will roll. That's his expression. I don't use all of the expressions he wants to use in this House, but the heads will roll I would do.

Now, the peculiar thing is - again the Leader of the Opposition whose experience is in politics much more than it is in the legal pro cess - is that if this letter is correct, there shall be a - what did he say? A MEMBER: A prosecution. MR. CHERNIAC K: No, a judicial inquiry. What ? A judicial inquiry to find out if two blank cheques were enclosed? If this letter says so, I assume they were. So are you going to inquire whether or not the two blank cheques were enclosed or are you going to inquire as to what wrong-doing took place as alleged by the mem ber?

You know, I do�'t take particular pride in this, Mr. --I'm not even going to say it. I would invite the Leader of the Oppositio� to read my comm ents, if he thinks that my comments are of any interest or value to him, let him read them and o.ot make me repeat them and bore other mem bers and take up tim e of other members to tell him what i'd already said before he came in. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. HARRY J. ENNS (Lakeside): Mr.

Speaker, in the five minutes or six minutes remaining to me, let me indicate to the Minister of Finance the possible trips of blank cheques at a tim e of an election. And, Mr. - Mr .... --(Interjection) --Never mind. And if they happened August 22nd, they can happen July 22nd or JJL'le the 2nd.

We're talking about the administration of thi s program, which unlike the admin istration of the program down south , we're talking about a particular kind of a program, the assistance program towards the im prove ment of dwellings, homeowner grants kind of programs, which down south here - and there is a difference, we have to draw a difference - down south here the grant calls for the homeowner to make a proper application. And it is essentially an employ ment program. Then the works is approved, the works is approved and some body comes and does the work and the program pays the money.

Now we are talking about different kinds of blank cheques that can roll around the north country, which I would expect a kind of a proper investigation that my Leader talks about should uncover, in the af fidavit, in other ma terial. Up north however there aren't all these qualified carpenters, glaziers, roofers, plasterers or workmen available. So, Mr. Ch airman, what we suggest or what we have reason to believe took place prior to the election, the cheques were delivered in lieu of the labour. So in effect, Mr.

Speaker, persons actually received in cash, by cheque, the amount normally accredited to that kind of a program or that kind of a repair for these kind of programs . So, Mr. Speaker, whether they were contract employees, whether they were Co mm u:'lity Development people or what have you, the fact of the matter is that you had a situation in northern Manitoba where people ran around through the commu nities of Wabowden, Cross Lake, Norway House--(Interjectio�) --No, no, no, it didn't work there be cause the rules .were different there. The rules were different there. But up there this is- well, Mr.

Cha irman, I think suf fic ient information has been given that this t>ossibility indeed was there and suffi cient supporting ma terial has been tabled that in fact at least in some

March 15, 1974 1481 SUPPLY (MR. ENNS cont'd) ..... instances this took place. Now the question is to what degree. I suggest that if it could take place in one instance or in two instances, it should be suff icient to take the complacency off the faces of the honourable members opposite - off of the honourable members opposite. Now, Mr. Ch airman, the fact of the matter is, you know, when we speak about blank cheques being bandied around the north, that 's what we're speaking about. Mr.

Speaker, the fac t of the matter is that when we speak about the kind of, kind of conf usion between economic programs , economic goals to be achieved, and at the same tim e certain political goals to be achieved, we're talking about the kind of adm inistratio:I that would allow cheques to be made payable to people who do not apparently show up on any list of approved homeowner grant appli cants, but yet a cheque was made to those people. We're talking about situations where materi al was kind of sent from here to there to there, and no proper accounting of as to whether the works were actually done. Now, Mr.

Speaker, all of this can surely be clarified reasonably clearly and with some understanding, if the governme nt - if the Minister, as he should have this mornin g in resp::mse to my Leader's charges, had agreed to acknowledging, accepting immediately a seizing of all proper documents and records of the program in that area; a full accounting, a ful l account of the kind of programs that were administered say in the last year in this specific area, this specific incident that we're ta]Jl:ing about. Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee you that that will unlikely not take place. Mr.

Speaker, with the one minu te remaining to me, let me just pass a further com ment on it, because there is always a value in just sim ply listening to the exchange. I have no diffi culty in accepting the fact that my conception of the democratic process is one of an adversary nature. It of course reinforces my suspicion of the attitudes of the honourable members oppo site when they challenge that basic assumption, that democracy fu nctions best under an adver sary conditio::t.

I suspect that, of course, in their sister, their cousin states where totali tarian socialism has long ago established itself, it has shown its inability, it has shown its in ability--(Interjection)--R ight, right. Wherever totalitarianism, wherever totalitarianism rears its head, wherever--(Interjection)- -No. Well wherever totalitarianism rears its head they have shown an inability to address thems elves to work within an adversary system. Mr. Chairman, I am not complaining about the adversary system, the Minister of Finance is. He is accusing us of fighting him.

He's accusing us for being adversaries to the government. Well, Mr. Ch airman, Mr. Chairman, I accept that as my legitima te role in a truly democra tic state. MR. SPEA KER: Order please. We are at the hour of Pr ivate Members' Hour. Does the honourable member have leave to proceed ? (Agreed) The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIV AK: ... it relates to an answer that was given to the--really on a point of privilege earlier to the Minister of Finance in indicating that the letter was tabled in the Ho'.lse. Now, there have been a num ber of letters tabled in the House.

My information really came as a result of an indication by one of the news media that they had had that letter and they assumed that it was one that had been tabled because it was in their possession, and I assum ed if it was in their possession it had. It may be--(Interjection)--Well no, Mr. Speaker, it may be that it may not have been tabled, I have asked the Clerk, he's not at this point in a position to confirm that, and so it may very well be, Mr. Speaker, that I'm mist aken and if I am it is now tabled and is a matter of record. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question ?

The honourable member has already spoken, he cannot speak again. A MEMBER: He can speak again. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairm an, I believe that I had the floor at the time that 4:30 was being called. I deferred to the . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. A MEMBER: He did not. He finish ed. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. Let me recite the roll of events as they occurred. I was intending to get up when the ho:1ourable member sat down to call it 4: 30, and as the honourable member sat down then I wanted to put the question.

Then the Honourable Leader of the Opposition asked for a matter of privilege and I said it's already the hour now

1482 March 15, 1974 SUPPLY (MR. SPEAKER cont'd) ..... for Private Members' Hour. The honourable member went on with hi s matter of privilege, so therefore I feel I should call the question. If the House does not wish to have that fine, I can leave it open. It is no concer of mine whether we pass the resolution at this moment or not. What's the will and pleasure of the House? MR. CR AIK: Mr. Speaker, if it's in order at this stage to adjourn it I would ask to adjourn the debate, seconded by the Member for River Heig hts. MOTION presented and carried. PRIVATE MEMBERS' HOUR - RES OLUTION NO. 23 M.R.

SPEAKER: I must indicate that we have Resolution 23 at the top of the Order List. I believe that is an error, because last night that resolution was under discussion. There was some comm itment by the Minister of Labour to the Member for Assiniboia, and I think the Honourable Member for Assiniboia indicated he would leave it there. If that was his intent, then it should have gone to the bottom. If not, we adjourned three minutes early because there was still O(lportunity to debate. Now, I'm at the pleasure of the House again in respect to this mat ter. Does it go to the bottom or does it get debated now ?

I want guidance from the House. The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, my understand was that - and there may be some mis understanding, was that the honourable member did not introduce his motion, and it was going to stand over until today. MR . SP EAKER: Very well. The Honourable Member fo r Assiniboia. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Bo�iface, that :

WHEREAS �omen no� compr ise over 40 percent of the Manitoba labour force; and WHEREASthere remain in our laws outmoded symb ols, which ignore the im portant contri butio� of women to. our work force; and

WHEREAS it is in the interest of advancing the status of women in our society that these unjust symbols be systematically removed; THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Gover nment of Manitoba consider the advisabil ity of changing the name, Workmen 1 s Com pensation Act and the Workmen 's Co mpensat ion Board, and any similar in�titution or agency,.by replacing the word "Workmen" wherever it appears with the word "Workers". . MR. SP EAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GR EEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I've just asked the Clerk to assist me, I indicated yesterday that we would be having to move this matter out of order because of the reference to amendments to the Workmen 's Com pensation Act in the Sp.gech from the Throne.

I'm sorry, I don't have the speech directly before me, the Clerk is now getting it. And also I was able to give my honourable friend the assurance that not only is there amendments to the Workmen 's Com pensation Act listed on Pa ge 8 of Votes and Proc eedings containing the Speech from the Throne, which says : "You will be asked to consider amendments to the Workm en's Com pensation Act to increase coverage to injured workme:J. and to provide for an increase in pension to those affected by accidents in industry.

" The Minister of Labour has also indicated that there will be a specific change relating to the exact requirement that is being requested by my honourable friend. Now, I know, Mr. Speaker, that the Act says- specifies what amendments to the Workm en's Com pgnsation Act - or gives certain specif ics- and I suggest that one stability for the House, that that is suffi cient to anticipate debate on any question. But I am able to go further and indicate that the question is going to be amended. MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate the comments of the Honourable House Leader.

I too, woald like to indicate that this matter had come to my attentio:J. in perusing the Speech from the Throne, and subsequently I came to the conclusion that it would be out of order, with the assurance as well from the Minister of Labour last night, Therefore we go on to the next reso lution, which is Resolution 11, and the amendment thereto, and this particular resolution is open. The Ho�ourable Member for St. Matthews.

March 15, 1974 1483 RESOLUTION NO. 11 MR. WALLY JOHANNSON (St. Matthews): Mr. Speaker, it would appear that we've come to the dull part of the day. The opposition seems to have lost interest. I note that the Leader of the Opposition has already departed alo'lg with the Assistant Leader. --(Interjection) -- MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. JOHANNSON : Mr. Speaker, we intend to oppose the - Mr. Speaker, if the honour able mem bers will - if my own members will let me - we intend to oppose the amendment to this resolution and of course we intend to oppose the resolution itself.

I think both the amendment and the resolution are really irresponsible - irresponsible - and they tend to demonstra te the irresponsibility of the opposition, which has been shown very clearly in past days. I'd like to and I will say this, Mr. Speaker, that I think that the Co nservative Party of Duff Roblin wo:tld have been far more responsible than this group now is. And I give them that credit, I th.ink they would have been far more responsible than this group presently is.

I'd like to deal with some of the statements made by the Leader of the Liberal Party in introducing the resolution and some of the statem ents made by the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek in proposing his amendment . The Leader of the Liberal Pa rty1as is his wont, made a number of claims without really backing them up - he has a ha bit of doing this. He claimed, first of all, that the Economic Co uncil of Ca nada had made a stateme nt at some time, that government in general is responsible for up to a quarter of the infla tion that occurs in this country.

No w, I frankly doubt that the Economic Co: mcil of Ca nada ever made such a claim, and I'd like the Leader of the Liberal Party to table the documents to support that claim. The Leader of the Liberal Party also claimed that a family earning 7 thousand dollars, which he claim ed was--(lnterjection)-- A MEMBER: He's not here. MR. JOHANNSON: I know, that's unfortunat e.

The Leader of the Liberal Party claimed that an average family earning 7 thousand dollars would have four thousand of that subject to sales tax, and his calculations were that 3 to 5 percent of the cost of living for that family would be accountable through sales tax, and that that family would pay some thing like $200 a year in sales tax. Now, I've looked into this, Mr. Speaker, and the calculations that are avail able to me would indicate that he exaggerates by probably 100 percent. The actual cost to such a typical family would probably be around $100. 00.

Now, the calculations are not perfect, but the actual costs would probably be around $100 a year. You have to take into account the fact that food, except for meals over $2. 00 in a restaurant, is exempt from sales tax; shelter is exempt from sales tax ; clothing, children's clothing is exempt.

I would also point out that since 1969, this government has extended - just to a degree, and I'm not boasting about it - but to a degree, the government has extended the exemp�ions under the sales tax; used furniture under $25. 00, used clothing up to $25. 00, some children's clothing, shoe repairs, used foot wear under $5. 00 have been exempt. So there's been some extension of exempt ions since 1969. So I think the member has exaggerated greatly this particular claim. He claimed that the government is profiting on inflatio' 1 through growth and sales tax revenue. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the economics of the Member for Wolseley me at times. He makes the point, which we all recognize, that most people are now suff ering because of inflation, they have to pay much more for goods now than they did in years past. But he some how seems to feel that governme nt doesn't have to do the same thing; that government doesn't have to pay more for goods now than it did in 1969, that it doesn't have to pay more in wa.ses. Somehow in the mind of the Leader of the Liberal Party, government has been insulated, pro tected from this inflation to which everyone in society has been exposed.

His statement isn't really correct. The one point I would make is that since 1969 real incomes have rise::1, that is, people are better off now than they were in 1969, in most cases. Because they're better off, they can spend more on purchasing item s above and beyo::1d the necessities, beyond food, cloth ing, shelter. And because they are able to do this, they pay more in sales tax. Now, they pay more in sales tax it is true, but this also illustrates the fact that they have im proved their economic position since 1969, under our government .

The member--bo th members seem to harbour the illusion that Manitoba is far more heavily taxed than in any other province - and when we looked at the area of sales tax, it's obviously not true. Gr anted, Alberta doesn't have· any sales tax - but it happens to have one thing that no other province in the country has, that is abundant supplies of oil. --(Interjection)- Yes, it has a Co nservative Government, but it didn't have a sales tax when it had a Social Credit

1484 March 15, 1974 RESOLUTION 11 (MR . JOHANNSON cont'd ) ..... governme nt - and the oil revenue enabled them to avoid a sales tax. Let's look at the other provinces, though. There are three provinces that have Liberal Gove rnment. Quebec has an 8 percent sales tax; Nova Scotia, 7 percent; Prince Edward Island, 8 percent. Co nservative provinces: Alberta of course has none; Ontario, the wealthiest province in the country, 7 percent; New Brunswick, 8 percent; Newfoundland, 7 per cent. Now, Mr.

Speaker, in the case of the Maritime Provinces, one can't really blame them for hav ing a high sales tax, because these are the provinces in the country that are least wealthy and they obviously have to have revenue, and therefore the y've raised it in the way they felt they had to. However, let's look at the NDP provinces in this country, three of them.; Manitoba 5 percent sales tax; Saskatchewan, 5 percent; B. C. , 5 percent - the lowest in the cour1try. --(Interjection)--Well, Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the fact that we have the highest in come tax in the country, I'm proud of that fact.

And I'm proud of it for a very simple reason, because the income tax is the most just fo rm of taxation, the most progressive form of taxation we have available. (Ap;:>lause) But, Mr. Speaker, while I'm admitting pride in the fact that we have the highest incom e tax, I would also admit pride in the fact that we have the lowest medi care premiums. We have none - and the medicare premium is the most unfair kind of tax available in this country, and we have the lowest.

The Member for Sturgeon Creek basically was trying to establish the position that this governm ent didn't care about the little person in our society, that we were trying to tax him to death, and that we didn't recognize the fact that people in this society are suf ferin g from infla tion. He made the point that, through our placing sales tax on production machinery, we were in fact increasing the sales tax to 7 to 8 percent. Now, I'd like to have his calculations to prove that point, because it's an indefe nsible point that simply doesn't bear any relation to the fa cts.

In fact, the firms that do pay the production machinery sales tax can deduct this as a business expense when they pay their income tax, and therefore the ef fect for them is really half--they pay about 2-1/2 percent. Farm machinery and equipment is exempt from the sales tax . So the effective increase in sales tax rate is far, far less than the honourable member would claim.

I would also point out that the Consumer Price Index in Winnipeg is the second lowest in the country and has remained so for several years - and therefo re, the effect of the production machinery tax was minimal, judging by the means which you can use to measure this. Now, we recognize that inflat ion is a problem, but we are trying to be responsible. This is something we have to be as a government; as members of a government, we can't afford to be irresponsible.

Members of the opposition can indulge in all sorts of extravagant claims , extravagant promises, because they don't have to deliver, and they won't have to deliver because they're going to be in opposition for a long time. But we do have to be responsible. We're not going to try to fool the people. We're not going to make extravagant promises on which we can't deliver. And there's a very sim ple reason for this. Infla tion is not a Manitoba problem exclusively, it's a national problem, it's an international problem. The degree to which we control trends, the basic overall trend within our economy, is minim al.

We exercise control over a few items, but not that many. We, for example, control the cost of mi lk to some extent. We can have som e effect oa the cost of housing. But when you have a hostile City Council tha t wrecks our housing program in the City of Winnipeg,they in ef fect prevent us from doing any thing about rising housing costs. So, we haven't made extravagant promises on which we can't deliver. The ap;:>roach of our programs has been very different from the approach of the oppo sition. The Leader of the Liberal Party is recom mending the committee to examine the sales tax, reduction of the sales tax.

And we know from the election campaign, from statements made by the member, that he would bring about a flat cut in sales tax on everything, plus a removal entirely from what he calls necessities--(Interjection)--Mr. Speaker, I don't care what the Federation of Labourers says, to this extent ... --(Interjection)--! don't agree with them. I think that they're wrong in their opposition to the sales tax, and I'm willing to tell any member of the Federation that I think they're wrong.

March 15, 197 4 1485 RESOLUTION 11 (MR . JOHANNSON cont 1d) And this may sound strange comin g from an NDP member but I think the Federation of Labour is wrong in this case, and I don•t support their position . I happen to think that there are taxes far more inequitable that1 the sales tax. --(Interjection )-- No , I •m afraid -- Generally the opposition advocates tax cuts of a flat nature, they 're going to cut the sales tax by two per cent;

whereas we have favoured programs of tax credits. Okay, let's deal then with what the resolution says. The resolution proposes to refe r the matter to a commit tee, and that 's the thing of which I am most critical and which I oppose totally . I would not and I could never support ref erring this matter to a committ ee. because I think that •s an irresponsible thing for a government to do . Under our parliamentary s:.-ste m in Can ada and in Britain the Cabinet, the governme nt , has the sole responsibility to bring du\\11 estima tes and to bring in taxat ion. And I support that position.

The BNA Act requires for exam ple that only Cabinet can bring forward supply bills, supply resolutions, tax bills. And I happen to think that this is a proper way to conduct the business of this proYince. I think it ts a responsible way. We stand prepared as the government to put fo rward tax me asures and to stand responsible for them, we 're willing to take criticism for them. And I happen to think that it is the healthiest system available to us. The government which spends the money is res ponsible for levying taxes to raise that mon ey, and I think that •s a good system .

It makes - you know, raising taxes is probably the most unpleasant thing that any poli dcian has to do and it is very difficult , and I 'm sure the members opposite who•ve been involved on City Co uncil have gone through this experience) it's a very dif fi cult thing to persuade the members of any government to raise taxes because there's going to be apublic outc ryby at leastsom e people. There's goingto besom e kindof abuse and lt hink it's an extremely healthy kind of system. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member has five min utes. MR.

JOHANNSON: Now , right now we have the responsibility as the goYernment fo r raising taxes, for Faising revenue through mean s of taxes and we don 't intend to weasel out of that responsibility. We have a man date from the people given to us in the June election to govern the province and we intend to do so , The members of the opposition don't have that mandate . they have a mandate to act as an opposition. --(Interjection)-- Pardon '? MR. CRAIK: You don •t like that either. MR . JOHANNSON: What ? That you have a man date to act as an opposition? MR . CRAIK: That 's what you 've been saying all day .

A MEMBER: We think that•s terrific if you put a man date .. . MR. JOHANNSON: Mr. Speaker. I am so pleased about the fact that the�· haw that mandate that I would like to have them have that man date for man y years to come . (Applause) Now they have a ma ndate to act as an opposition, but it seems that they've given up hope of ever being elected because they continually ask for things that are the proper role of govern ment . They want to share in running the government because they1vc g·iyen up hope of e\·er being elected as the government . A MEMBER: Right , MR.

JOHANNSON: You know , as far as I'm aware Duff Robl in when he was Premier never, never would have tolerated the reference of the matter of how taxation was going to be determi ned to a commi ttee containing members of the opposition, and the Member fo r Souris Killarney I• m sure would agree with me that Duff Robl in would have neYer tolerated this kind of suggestion. And he was correct, becau

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-1-55
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 1st hansardpdf 55.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	52fc26ec44c0470d1dff594b45b1048f97c5908b

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