Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 25 (29th Legislature, 1st Session)

29-1-25

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable Ben Hanuschak Vol. XVI No. 25 2:30p.m., Tuesday, September 9th, 1969. First Session, 29th Legislature.

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Tuesday, September 9, 1969 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees; Notices of Motion. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS 569 HON. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Minister of Labour)(Transcona) introduced Bill No. 35,

an Act to amend The Legislative Assembly Act. (Recommended by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor. ) INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before Orders of the Day, I take pleasure in drawing the attention of the members to the logeon my right wherein we have with us today Mr. James Renwick, Member of the Provincial Parliament of Ontario. Also with us, we have 50 students of Grades 9, 10 and 11 standing, of the R. B. Russell Vocational School. These students are uil.der the direction of Mr. Ludwig and Miss Hamulka. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Point Do'.lglas.

On behalf of all the honourable members of the Legislative Assembly, I welcome you all here today. Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. BUD SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker ..... MR. SPEAKER: I must apologize to the honourable member. It is a practice of the House that motions of condolence usually take precedence and I had received advance notice. I believe the Honourable First Minister was rising ... . MOTION OF CONDOLENCE HON. ED. SCHREYER (Premier and Minister of Industry and Commerce)(Rossmere): Mr.

Speaker, it is the custom in this Ho:J.se, shortly after the passing on of someone who has been a member of th i s Legislative Assembly it is deemed proper to move a motion of condo lence, and accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for River Heights, that this House convey to the family of the late Gunnar S. Thorvaldson, who served as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, its sincere sympathy in their bereave ment and its appreciation of his devotion to duty in a useful life of active community and public service, and that Mr.

Speaker be requested to forward a copy of this resolution to the family. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, while I did not of course have the privilege of serving in this Assembly at the same time as the late Senator Thorvaldson, nevertheless it was my pleasure to have known him for a number of years and I believe it can be said without any hesitation that his life was a full one, particularly as regards his devotion to public service and p:J.blic duty.

It is my understanding that in a sense he followed in the footsteps of his father, who was also in his time a member of this Legislative Assembly- in fact, in the year around 1914 - 1916; and in the case of the late Senator himself, he was elected to this Legis lative Assembly in 1941, re- elected in 1945, and served therefor for the full two terms, or eight years, in this Assembly. I believe, as is the case with many men in politics, he was not always successful when he ran for public office, but perhaps the old saying, "a poor start a good finish.

" After a number of unsuccessful attempts at public office the late Senator was elected in 1941 and subsequently. When he left this Assembly in 1949, it was not as though he left public service. He was subsequently named to the Senate of the federal Parliament, in which he served for quite a number of years and in which he did bring to bear his judgment and his professional knowledge. He brought these to bear in dealing with many of the problems that are dealt with in the federal Houses of Parliament.

It is my understanding, further, that in addition to his political and public involvement, that the late Senator was very active in matters connected with his profes sion, that he did serve on the Manitoba Law Society and was very actively engaged in furthering the interests of the Law Society and really in that way helping to protect the p'.lblic interest.

In 1958, and for a time shortly thereafter, the late Senator was named by the Federal Government of the time to represent Canada at the United Nations as a parliamentary observer, so that it can be said, Sir, that in his lifetime the late Senator served the people of Manitoba and of Canada really at three levels� provincially here at first, then federally as a Senator,

570 September 9, 1969 (MR. SCHREYER cont'd.) ..... and internationally as well. So therefore, Mr. Speaker, I in a sense feel greatly privileged to move this motion, in which I am sure the Honourable Member for River Heights would like to associate himself. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR •. SIDNEY SPIVAK, Q. C. (River Heights): I wish to thank the First Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, who unfortunately is absent today, for the privilege of seconding the motion of condolence to the family of the late Senator G. S. Thorvaldson, Q. C.

The measure of a man is easily determined by the impact he has on his fellow man and by the number of people who can call him friend. Senator Thorvaldson, or Solly as he was called, had many friends. Solly was a friend of mine and friend of long standing of my father. I grew up with my neighbours the Thorvaldson children. My first entry into political life was working in an unsuccessful federal campaign for Senator Thorvaldson in the late 1940s, when Duff Roblin was his campaign manager.

Solly was a man, as the Firat Minister has already indicated, who enjoyed life to the full and achieved, both in his legal and political career, the clear satisfaction that comes from the stern performance of his duty. Every interest of this province was his concern and the rights of the humblest had no better guardian that he. Senator Thorvaldson was a man of integrity, broad and liberal in outlook and patriotic in sentiment. He was a man who was entitled to the respect and esteem of men of every political faith as a man who made good everything he tried.

Solly had a strong feeling of comradeship for his fellows, though he could denounce his opponents and in doing so sometimes strain the rules of decorum in his oration. Upon slipping his partisan speech back into his briefcase at the close of a legal or a legislative day, he would have just as likely been found in the dinner company of an enemy as that of a member of his own team. He distinguished him self in his legal career; he distinguished himself in his political career; he distinguished him self as a leader of the Icelandic community in Manitoba.

He was a man who could not be ignored nor regarded with indifference. On a few occasions when I was present with his family, he exhibited the deep satisfaction and warmth and love he felt for them. Senator Thorvaldson was a good Manitoban and a good Canadian. He was a gracious, generous and just man, and I suggest he has made his mark on the history of this province. I am happy to join in seconding the motion of condolences to the family with the remarks of that of the First Minister. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho::10urable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. GILDAS MOLGAT (Ste. Rose): Mr.

Speaker, on my own personal behalf and that of my party, I want to associate myself with this motion of condolence to Mrs. Thorvaldson and the family. There are no members in this House today who sat with Solly Thorvaldson, but I'm sure there are no members in this Hoase who ::lo not know the name and know it most favour ably. Solly, as he was known to his friends- and he had a very wide range of friends was a distinguished Manitoban. The First Minister and the Member for River Heights have already described his career.

He brought great credit to his own group, the Icelandic people who have made such a contribution to Manitoba, but he brought even greater credit to Manitoba itself. But for all his achievements his friends probably best remember Solly as a very warm man, a man of great good humour.

It didn't matter where you met him or what the circum stances were, he always had a smile, was always prepared to laugh, always just as willing to laugh at a joke on himself as on anyone else; a politician of a definite party view and yet very friendly to all parties; a man of very broad views; and Manitoba has indeed lost a great man in the loss of Senator Thorvaldson. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. JACOB M. FROESE (Rhineland): Mr. Speaker, I too want to associate myself with the previous speakers on this motion before us.

I too had the opportunity of making the acquaintance of Senator Thorvaldson and I always found him to be very friendly, courteous and helpful on many occasions. I always admired him for his activity that he was engaged in. He seemed to be an optimist, and people of this type -- you can very easily associate with people of this type. And I too want to join in with other members of this Assembly in extending condolences to the family in their bereavement. MR. SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho�ourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, out of sympathy for the Honourable Minister of Health and Social Services in the loss of a very dear and close relative, my party instructs me to advise you, Sir, that we recognize the absence of many members of the administration today

September 9, 1969 571 (MR. SHERMAN cont'd.) ..... to attend the funeral, and that therefor we wish to forego our privilege of asking questions at this time. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable friend the Member for Fort Garry in the gesture of goodwill to my colleague the Minister of Health and Social Services in particular in his loss. We appreciate very much the gesture of the Official Opposition and we will convey to our colleague the sympathies expressed by the honourable member on behalf of his party. MR. GORDON E.

JOHNSTON (Portage la Prairie): ..... been mentioned by the spokes man for the Conservative Party, and of course it goes without saying that our sincere sympathy goes with him. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, likewise I concur in the suggestion and I also would like to extend sympathies to the Minister concerned. ORDERS OF THE DAY- MOTIONS FOR PAPERS MR. SPEAKER: Adjourned debates on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for River Heights. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr.

Speaker, I adjourned the Order mainly to check up on what had been said previously by the member introducing the Order and also to read up on the reaction. I was called out of the Ho'.lse at the time so I wasn't able to hear what had been said. Naturally, I am interested in this Order but my interest would go back much further than just to July 15th. I feel that I would be interested in correspondence going back probably to 1961 or so, and then also in particular to certain matters.

The Order for Return doesn't specify any particular matter and I had proposed an amendment to it, but coming to the Session this afternoon I noticed on the Order Paper the immediately following Order more or less takes care of what I had in mind, and therefore I do not intend to submit my amendment to the motion that is before us.

I feel that the second Order covers those things that I was interested in, namely Damascus Steel and also Friendly Family Farms and so on, so that I intend to leave the matter for the time being and when we get to the estimates of that particular department to discuss it more fully at that time. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, if no one wishes to speak I will now close the debate. I just have a few remarks to make in connection with this. I am happy that the First Minister- (Interjection) -- Yes. The ruling has been made.

I am afraid you were absent when the ruling was made by the Speaker that I am entitled to adjourn the debate. MR. PAULLEY: .... Oh I'm sorry; that's fine. MR. SPIV AK: My remarks are really addressed to the fact, or concerned with the statement of the First Minister, who has now indicated that he has changed his mind and he will be accepting the Order subject to the question of confidentiality etc. that have been mentioned. I would have hoped that he would have accepted this in the first place on that basis and there would have been no need for the ensuing debate that has taken place here in the Ho'.lse.

I note that the Ho'.lse Leader is a little bit concerned with the statement but I think I am accurate in connection with this. MR. PAULLEY: I'm not concerned ..... concerned that that has been done. MR. SPIV AK: Well, the Hon.ourable First Minister, for his information , has accepted this subject to certain conditions and we on this side are prepared for that acceptance and I am only sorry that this did not happen before.

I think it would be interesting for this House to know in a very real and substantial manner the feeling of support that the government feels towards the Manitoba Development Fund, its chairman and its board of directors, and I look forward to the information that will be supplied to this Ho'.lse. MR. SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The proposed motion of the Honourable Member for River Heights. The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. MOLGAT: Mr.

Speaker, the subject of Friendly Fa...'llily Farms and Damascus Steel has been debated in this House on many occasions. I don't propose today to go over all those discussions once again. I want to point out, however, that the discussions that took place, while they were misinterpreted by some people as being attacks on the particular com panies, I am sure that it was not the intention of any of the members who spoke at that time. The concern was whether or not the right 'thing was being done in Manitoba insofar as integrated

572 September 9, 1969 (MR. MOLGAT cont'd.) ..... farming and corporate farming; where this would lead to; and whether the government was in fact encouraging this development, and what government policy was. In the case of Damascus Steel, the question was whether injustice had been done to any individuals, and while we had assurances from the government of the day that everything was proper, tl:iere were constant problems that seemed to appear. The people concerned did not seem satisfied at that time with what was being given out by way of public information.

The member who has moved this motion has suggested that this matter should now be investigated by the Ombudsman. Personally, I think that that is a good suggestion because it ought to clear the air once and for all and lay at rest any uncertainties that may still exist in the minds of people. it seems to me, however, that in listening to one of the honourable members on the government side speaking yesterday, and I do not know if he was speaking for the government or not- I would hope that he wasn't- but he indicated that the government was not prepared to take this action.

I would like to recommend to the government that they give that matter careful thought. I think it might be in the best interests of everyone concerned- the corporations concerned, the individuals who were involved originally - to have the matter cleared, and I would strongly encourage the government to have a good look at this. MR. SCHREYER: ..... the honourable member could just clarify this point. When he said that he was hoping that he was not speaking for the government, who was he referring to in particular? MR.

MOLGAT: Well, it was one of the Honourable the First Minister's colleagues from the back benches, I think the Member for St. Matthews, or is it Wellington? I will have to check my chart; I haven't memorized it yet. MR. PAULLEY: It must be St. Matthews ..... MR. MOLGAT: When speaking yesterday on the subject of the Ombudsman, or the day before, I think he suggested or said that the recommendation of the Member from River Heights to have the matter of Damascus Steel and Friendly Family Farms referred to the ombudsman was not a good idea.

All I was pointing out was I hoped he was expressing a personal opinion and not the view of the government, because I think that this is one that they might well consider. But Mr. Speaker, the question of Friendly Farms and Damascus Steel goes far beyond 1969. It was a subject of a very lengthy debate here on Agricultural Estimates many years ago, and in my opinion a very profound debate, because it wasn't just a question about one company receiving government assistance. It went far beyond that; it was the whole question of the agricultural policy and the agricultural outlook of the then government.

In the case of Damascus Steel, it was not there a question of overall policy as much as to whether or not an individual or a group of individuals, who felt that they had not been treated properly, had a method of recourse, and it never seemed to me that they did have one. And so, Mr.

Speaker, I support the present motion but I don't think that it goes far enough, because this subject, as I mentioned, was covered on two or three occasions at least in this House in past debates, and I think that if we are going to get the information before the House, and I hope eventually before the Ombudsman, that the information ought to go back covering the period during which it was a subject of public controversy. So Mr.

Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye, that the motion be amended by deleting the figures 1969 in the fourth line thereof and substitu ting therefor the figures 1965. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr. Speaker, since an amendment has been moved and accepted, it gives me an opportunity to comment further on the motion before us. I want to take the opportunity to clarify, or try to clarify one point of misunderstanding.

I was one of the first to say that the transaction between the Mar1itoba Development Fund and Friendly Family Farms and Damascus Steel ought to be reviewed or investigated or whatever other verb you wish to substitute of similar meaning, because, as I have said before, in these particular transactions there have been such persistent allegations of either wrong judgment or wrongdoing; allegations, I say, of wrongdoing on the part of the Fund, that have caused financial injury if not ruin to a number of small investors.

These allegations have persisted for so long, and the ways in which the problem was dealt with in the Ho;1se, in this House, in the past five years have been so unsatisfactory that I am firmly of the opinion that only a systematic review and/or enquiry can clear the air, so in that respect I am in agreement with the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose, and the Honourable Member for River Heights as well.

September 9, 1969 573 (MR. SCHREYER cont•d.) The Honourable Member for Ste.

Rose seems to be of the opinion, however, that to deal with the grievance, or the allegations of grievance here, that it's necessary to put these transactions before the Ombudsman for his review, and I have already said in this House that this is half way meritorious; that certainly to do that is better than to do nothing and to leave these allegations persist even longer into the future, but I believe that there is a better way than to put this before the Ombudsman, and that is to have these particular transactions, have them submitted to the Economic Advisory and Review Board which we intend to establish in accordance with one of the recommendations of the TED Commission Report, and if we are to have such a board established, it would seem logical to place this matter before them.

The personnel that would be named to this Economic Advisory and Review Board would be personnel particularly suited to delving into financial transactions, and therefore they'd be able to do a good review of the Damascus Steel transaction and the Friendly Family Farms transaction. It would seem to me logical, for example, for this Advisory Board, when it is constituted, to name someone like a chartered accountant, someone like a lawyer, one or two people who have had some business experience. They, I repeat, would be well suited to undertake this task of systematic review of these two transactions,

whereas an ombudsman, in the first year of operation he will be literally swamped with work.

The ombusdman's whole function, the concept of the ombudsman's function is that he will be investigating allegations by citizens of mal administration on the part of the Crown, grievances suffered by an individual because of some acts of the Crown, or some lack of action on the part of the Crown, etc. , so that really the whole point of my argument is that it would be less suitable to have these particular trans actions referred to in this motion submitted to the Ombudsman for his investigation and review and possible recommendations for redress or remedy.

Centainly, however, if it were not contemplated to have an Economic Advisory and Review Board to do this, then the Ombudsman would, I suppose, be the next best way to go about dealing with this problem. So on that basis I hope I have the support of the Ho'lourable Member for Ste. Rose when I say that these two specific transactions will be investigated and reviewed by the appropriate body and that we hope to have a report, and if recommendations for redress are called for, I am sure that will be in the report and we can clear the decks. With those few words, Mr.

Speaker, I would say that on the whole, bearing in mind the main motion here of the Honourable Member for River Heights and the amendment proposed just a few minutes ago by the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose, that we should produce for this House copies of all correspondence between the Government of Manitoba and these three firms, going back to 1965, July 1965, it is quite acceptable to us, subject to anything that may be under current negotiation, which I doubt applies in this case- I don't think it does - so that -- there is the other problem, of course. lt' s a practical matter - how voluminous is all this?

We undertake to accept this, however, Mr. Speaker. If there should be a problem arising as to volume of paper, we will contact honourable members. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the House Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. G, JOHNSTON (Portage la Prairie): What powers would this Advisory Board have? Would they have the powers to recommend and have restitution made if there was something wrong? Would the report of the Review Board be made public, or would it report to the Premier or to the MDF? MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, apart from that question, I am not in a position to answer just yet, but there will be a resolution and legislation before the House before the end of this sitting, or before the end of this Session, at which time the honourable member will be able to see it in more detail and perhaps re-pose his questions then. MR. MOLGAT: .. .. Mr. Speaker. Will this Advisory Board have the right to call witnesses and investigate people under oath, and have the powers that the Ombudsman has to get information in the same way? MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, this is the concept in mind which we hope to be able to embody in legislation which will be submitted to honourable members soon. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose for his amendment, because it has given an opportunity for a further clarification of this matter.

I think we have reached a point now where it should be clarified and the government's position on this should be made clear, and I am happy to have heard the remarks of the First Minister, only because it gives me an opportunity at least to meet the arguments and suggestions that he has made, because I still think that he is on the wrong tack in what he is attempting to do.

574 September 9, 1969 (MR. SPIV AK cont' d.) For a few moments - and I am sorry I am going to have to do this - I think it's necessary to rGad the three chapters, or the three paragraphs of the

chapter of TED dealing with the Advisory Council and its functions, to understand fully what was intended and to compare it with the intention of the First Minister. Now, the reference has been made to the fact that there have been persistent allegations, and that of course is true, and the Premier has already indicated that it either means that there has been a wrong judgment made or there has been some wrongdoing.

Now, one of the purposes of the Ombudsman would be to determine, in a specific case, whether there has been wrong doing by some administrative tribunal and to make his recommendation to the government. This is so someone who had a complaint against government would be able to have redress. That's one objective.

If it is a judgment to be made, that there was a wrong judgment by those who were in authority at the time that loans were made to any one of the two concerns involved, I think this is a matter that has to decided by a government because a government is going to have to take the position that in fact there was wrong judgment, and of course it is within the power of the present government, as it is within the power of any government, to bring forth the documents and to bring forth the information and to, in fact, enquire from the people who were concerned and make a determination of what the stated facts are, and whether in fact a judgment was or was not wrong.

In the case of the previous administration, as I have already indicated in this House, that was done; and based on the judgment of the previous administration, there was no wrong judgment made. That is to say, the people who were charged with the responsibilities, fulfilled their responsibilities in a proper manner and there was no reason for government interference or for government to exercise a discretion over the discretion of those who had been given that responsibility and charged with that responsibil ity. Now, just one item.

The First Minister made reference to the fact the Ombudsman was liable to be flooded with a number of requests, and that of course these two, along with the others, could tax him, but of course this is not the history in Alberta, where the first year there were approximately lOO cases the ombudsman investigated, and the second year there were approximately 500, and I would suggest that probably we are going to find a pattern which would be very similar. Now if I may, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to read from Page 400 of the TED Report, and I hope the members who have not had an opportunity of reading this will listen with some intent so that they will understand exactly what was intended by the Advisory Council on Economic Development. "The Government of Manitoba does not seem to have an instrument for obtaining rigorous, independent, appraisal of policy matters relating to industrial expansion and economic development. In effect, the appointment of the TED Commission itself is a recognition of this problem.

To correct this deficiency, following the completion of the Commission's task it is recommended that a permanent five-member Advisory Co1mcil on Economic Development be created, drawn exclusively from the private sector and headed by a chairman who has the respect and confidence of the entire business community of the province, as well as that of the Canadian business community at large, The Council would report to the Minister of Industry and Commerce, but its interest would extend beyond matters of importance to industry and business to include all matters respecting the economic growth of the province, such as agriculture, education and regional development.

The Council would be an advisory board and would not become involved in the direct or indirect administrative responsibilities for public programs. No government staff would be required although logistics support would be provided by the Department of Industry and Commerce. Special research on specific projects would be carried out at the request of the Minister of Industry and Commerce or the government with funds provided fr om time to time for such investigation.

The government would refer to the Advisory Council, for assessment and advice, all matters and policies which could have signi ficant impact on economic development or technological advance, or which might create, expand or sustain productive capacity. The Council would recommend relative priorities among development objectives, and would review and annually report on the activities and perform ance of the Manitoba Development Fund, the Department of Industry and Commerce and other government departments affecting economic development.

The Minister would be responsible for providing such reports to the Standing Committee on Economic Development and the Standing Committee would no doubt call on the Council at least annually for testimony about economic affairs and policies in the province."

September 9, 1969 (MR.

SPIVAK cont•d.) 575 Now I suggest to you that the matters that the First Minister has said should be referred to them, do not come in any way under the category "for "assessment and advice" on "matters and policies which could have significant impact on economic development or technological advance which might create, expand or sustain productive capacity." We have two specific instances, one in which there has been some grievance of wrong judgment, one in which share holders have claimed wrongdoing, and one of these matters has been before the courts several times, and I'm suggesting to you, Mr.

Speaker, and to the other members of the House, that the proper place for this investigation, that the proper assessment that should be made, should be made by the Ombudsman, not by an Economic Advisory Board that's to be set up under the TED Report, whose policies and responsibilities have nothing to do with investigation of previous complaints of specific wrongdoing or wrong judgment of the Manito ba Development Fund.

I suggest, as well, that once you do that, you are going to put yourself in the position of having an Economic Advisory Board reviewing a judgment made of a Board of Directors of the Fund that have been appointed and have been operating for a number of years, and who in fact may come to a conclusion that the discretion that was exercised by them was not correct.

One of the objectives of the ombudsman, as I understand it in reading on the ombudsmen in other jurisdictions both in Alberta and New Zealand and in the other areas, particularly with reference to Rowat•s book, is to understand that the ombudsman is to be able, in a very real and impartial way, to get down and see the actual facts of the matter, have them in front of him, really understand what is happening, and without any fear and without any involvement, without any concern about the political consequences of what may be expressed or said, to be able to give his recommendations to the government.

His impartiality, I think, is recognized, and I suggest in both of these cases, in the case of one where there is a redress claimed by share holders who want an impartial review, the Ombudsman will be the correct and proper person; in the second case where there is a problem with respect to judgments that were exercised, again the Ombudsman would be the proper person, and I suggest as well that it really has no business being before an Advisory Board on Economic Development who are not at this point considered to have investigatory powers which would be required if this matter was to be brought to a head properly.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I was quite intrigued with the remarks of the Honourable Member for River Heights. I really can•t follow him too closely in his assessment of the duties of an ombudsman or indeed the duties of the Economic Advisory Committee that•s going to be set up as announced by the First Minister. To me, the duties of an ombudsman is to investigate complaints against the Crown and the administration of governmental departments, as distinct from that of an Advisory committee on the economic development of our province.

And I appreciate very much the honourable member reading excerpts from the TED Report, and I'm sure that most members of the House have likewise read those pages that he referred to, but surely to goodness the Honourable Member for River Heights would give to the administration the right to set the ground rules for an Economic Advisory Committee that was set up insofar as the power that it might have to trying to chart, in concert with other agencies, the economic destiny of the province, but also, I cannot understand my honourable friend's objection to that committee having the right to investigate into transactions, if necessary, of the past, of which there has been considerable debate.

Long before my honourable friend the Member for River Heights came into this House, or possibly long before my honourable friend even knew that there was such an organization as Family Friendly Farms and Damascus Steel, this was a subject matter of much debate in this House, but we were never able to obtain from the then government any satisfactory replies as to whether or not there were areas of complaint that were necessary to be aired in this House, because my honourable friends opposite, when they were on this side of the House, took the attitude that only they in the Executive Co'.lllcil could become knowledgeable of what transpired.

So, as my Leader has suggested today, the setting up of this committee will in effect clear the air in respect of these particular organization s, and I think the assurance can be given to industry at large that inquisitions will not be conducted, investigations will not be conducted, by and large, into the operation of private transactions, but the specific matters referred to in this resolution, and the specific firms, have been the subject of public debate for seven or eight years or more, and I would feel that the very firms that are mentioned in this resolution proposed by the Member for River Heights, would be glad to have the atmosphere cleared for once and for all, and this was denied them by my

576 September 9, 1969 (MR. PAULLEY cont•d.) .. ... honourable friend the Member for River Heights when he sat on this side of the House as the Minister in charge, or to whom the Manitoba Development Fund was responsible to. I suggest to my honourable friend that if there is any cloud prevailing in respect to the organizations mentioned in this resolution, that he was the author and the instigator of that cloud; My honourable friend points to me and said that I was one of those responsible.

But how well do I remember my honourable friend, just as late as this spring, chastising me when I was on that side of the Ho•1se because I dared mention any industry in this House. And now, now'maybe my honourable friend is getting just a little chastised because I am revealing truisms to this House of the attitude of my honourable friend opposite when he was on this side of the House, and I can imagine, Mr. Speaker, the chagrin of my honourable friend when the truth is at long last coming home and penetrating his skull. And I'm happy that it is, because surely, Mr. Speaker, it is time that it did.

My honourable friend, by introducing this Address for Papers, is doing exactly the reverse to the attitude of my honourable friend as late ago or as soon ago as May of this year. So I say, Mr. Speaker, to members opposite, that they can be assured, industry can be assured of no investigation into their operations, but because of the very fact of the public debate that has taken place for so long, that the industries concerned and named in this resolution by my honourable friend the Member for River Heights, would be happy and glad to have the air cleared.

Well, maybe we should thank our honourable friend for introducing this Address for Papers. It certainly gives the administration an opportunity once again to be able to say that this administration will be open and aboveboard in its dealings with the public, in its dealings with industry, and its dealings with the members of this House. MR. FROESE: . . . . . Order for Return that we are discussing at the moment and the amendment that has been placed before us.

I would only like to say that I hope the amendment that is before us to change the date from •69 to •65 goes back far enough- I haven't checked back; most likely the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose has - so that the matter will be fully covered. -- (Interjection) -- Sixty-four? Oh, thank you. There's one point that I think I should raise and it has already been pointed out, and that• s in connection with the Ombudsman that has to be appointed and the legislation that is to be approved by this Legislature.

I do hope that this House will always be free to name com mittees, either special committees or standing committees, to look into matters of any type that this House feels that should be done. I don•t think the Ombudsman should be brought in for that purpose. I feel that we should, as a House, still have a free hand and maintain it to be that way so that we can do work of this type on our own. For instance, on the matters brought forward in this Return, I feel these are matters that should be looked into by a committee of this House and not referred to the Ombudsman. MR.

SCHREYER: Would the honourable member permit a question? MR. FROESE: Yes. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, my question to the Honourable Member for Rhineland is as follows: Does the honourable member recollect that about a month ago, when it was reported in the news media that this government, the new government was considering a public form of inquiry into these three transactions, that the Honourable Member for River Heights went on television to say that this would be simply terrible; that it would be impossible to have any kind of inquiry such as by a committee of this House or by a judicial officer of a public kind without harming the position of the Development Fund? MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of privilege. I'll probably have an opportunity later on in the debate to reply but I must indicate to the First Minister that the statements he made are not correct. MR. SCHREYER: .. ... not correct? I can show, Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend has been incorrect more times than I have. MR. SPIVAK: That doesn't make the statements correct. MR. FROESE: Mr.

Speaker, I still maintain that we of this House should be supreme in this matter and should always reserve the right to appoint committees and look into matters of this type, and I think if the Honourable Member for River Heights had sat on this side of the House for all those years that we have, I think he might have a different attitude or different idea about the whole thing. At the present time we do not know just what powers this committee will have when it is named, but I do hope it has the power to make a proper investigation and to report back to this House.

In general, I concur with the remarks made by the First Minister

September 9, 1969 577 (MR. FROESE cvnt•d.) .. .. . because, during all the years that the Development Fund has been in operation and ever since some of these matters that are referred to in the Order for Return came to light, the Opposition has been trying to get information and get to the bottom of this thing and we were always unable to do so, and I recall too well the years when the First Minister was on this side and other members, including myself, tried to get information on this parti cular matter.

I was also interested in the points raised by the Honourable Member for River Heights and probably I should have adjourned debate on this matter and given some of those matters further thought before I spoke this afternoon, but anyway, we will have further opportunity ,to discuss these matters when we come to the estimates, I hope, so that if there's any change of mind in certain respects we can make them known at that particular time.

Then, too, I rather feel that the committee that will be named, probably the functions and the objects of that committee will not probably be the same as that mentioned in the TED Commission Report on Page 400 as is set out and advised by the TED Commission. The set-up may be different; the objectives could be different; and therefore I think these will be matters that will be made known to us when this committee will be appointed. So I do support the Order for Return and especially the amendment that goes with it. MR. LEONARD A. BARKMAN (La Verendrye): Mr.

Speaker, I took particular pride in seconding that amendment of my colleague from Ste. Rose for very many reasons. I think this is indeed a very happy day, at least for me.

I can think back, sitting in that corner over there since 1964, not knowing what to do, and being also the Mayor of the town at the time and also a member of this Legislature, many a day has gone through when I wished I could have got up, but I'm thankful today that these clouds that have been hanging over possibly som e of the shareholders or some of the people in our area- I'm referring especially to the FFF Farms- I'm happy, and I compliment this government for filling it. I would rather go with the Honourable Member for River Heights as far as the Ombudsman is concerned.

I like his resolution and I believe it should be that, but this is still much better than nothing if it is a public inquiry commission that will be set up, and I couldn't resist but bring forth the ma..lly times that I wished I could have got up, thinking of the concern it caused so many people in our area and I'm sure many people in Manitoba. So I am happy that some of these clouds, I hope they will be removed, and if this government, although they should be complimented, change their mind that they wish to leave it up to the Ombudsman, I'll gladly go along with that also. MR.

SPEAKER put the question on the amendment, and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The question on the motion as amended. The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just make a few remarks. I may indicate to the member I am closing the debate on the main motion-- (Interjection) -- on the main motion. I'd like to point out to the House Leader, because I've made the statement in the House, tint I'm aware of some of the details of Damascus Steel.

I indicated that one of the shareholders is a client, was a client of a legal firm which I was involved in, and although we were not involved in this particular matter because we acted for him in other matters, I have some familiarity with this going back to the original Day One, and before I entered into this House. So I would assume that I'm fairly knowledgeable about the problems and the claims of the shareholders in connection with this. For the life of me I can't understand why the government hasn•t the courage- and that's what really it takes - to put it in the hands of the Ombudsman.

They may find that the result that may be forthcoming may not be the political result that they want, but surely it can be placed in the hands of someone who in an impartial way will make that judgment, and it's beyond my imagination to know why it's necessary to take the Ec:momic Advisory Board and to sort of twist it to meet these situations. I may say as well that the First Minister has made reference to the fact that there were some statements made prior to this Session by myself in connection with this.

My concern at that time, and I express it again here in the House, was that it wasn't necessary for him, in his newly-e lected position, to put himself in a position of making any remarks about these firms without at least first investigating and then determining on the basis of his investigation and he had every right to do that; he would have every right to the access to the files - and on the basis of his own investigation to determine what course of action should be suggested.

578 September 9, 1969 (MR. SPIV AK cont•d.) But to determine and to, in public, deal with the suggested course of action before he himself had at least examined the facts and was in a better position to assess what should be done, I found rather difficult to understand and I felt that it was not in the best interests of the Fund and its Bo3.rd of Directors, who obviously have been put under a cloud under this, and who have every right, and I suggest have every right to have that cloud removed.

And I suggest to the Honourable House Leader, and I suggest it very strongly, that the cloud on the two issues was put, to a large extent, by the members who now sit on the side of the government, who for many years confused and argued the situation in a way that suggested that there was some wrongdoing - and I suggest there was not - and suggested there were some wrong judgments. Now again we come down to a very simple determination. If it's a wrong judgment, then the government is going to have to make a decision on that and they will require advice and I think they must themselves investigate it.

If it's a question of wrongdoing, then that judgment should be made by someone impartial, not an advisory board who are charged with other main functions, but should be put in the hands of the Ombudsman because that's really what he's there for. MR. SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Address for Papers. The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the Honourable Member for St.

Boniface -- (Interjection) -- Well I hope not another three speeches, but in connection with this address I think it's a fairly important one and it's my intention to spend a few moments on it. The TED Report was published earlier this year. As we know, it was the work of hunclreds of Manitobans who contributed to a very difficult task. The report of the Commission- - (Interjection) -- Yes, it's been moved to the Honourable Minister's ..... The report of the Commission in its quality, in its depth, in its imagination, in its honesty, will long stand as a symbol of what is best in our society.

To Manitoba, and indeed to Canada; it provides solid evidence of the intelligence and strength which over the next decade would lead us to new achievements in this province in economic development and to vast improvements in the quality of life. The Com mission and all who worked with them earned the thanks of all Manitobans, The TED Report represented total involvement of business, labour, agriculture, govern ment and education in the task of setting realistic economic targets for 1980, and it consisted of a wide cross

section of the total community: company presidents, representatives from the agricultural sector, members of provincial, federal and municipal governments and Crown corporations, members of the faculties of the three universities in Manitoba, members and representatives from the labour unions, members from Greater Winnipeg representing the Greater Winnipeg interests and those in the rural area, spokesmen for the area development corporations and boards and chambers of commerce throughout the whole province.

Now, in April of this year, Walter Weir stated publicly that his government endorsed the principles and broad directions set forth in the TED Report and also the Commission's target for 1980. -- (Interjection) -- Walter Weir. Although the report had been public for nearly six months, and although the report was endorsed by the New Democratic Party in the last Legislature, the present government has given no positive indication whether they indeed accept the TED targets and follow through on the recommendations made.

Now, I'm concerned that the government could ignore both the findings and recommenda tions that have been made. I recognize that some action has been taken but there is still no public declaration accepting the TED targets. Now in this regard I would like to find out from the government specifically about ten of the recommendations made, and which in my opinion require immediate attention: 1. The TED Commission stressed the need in Manitoba for better transportation planning in order to reduce costs to rural areas and improve services.

It recommended a program of bold and immediate action and recommended the reorganization and strengthening of the Manitoba Transportation Commission. The report on the Northern Transportation Commission corroborates the necessity for early action. Well, does the government intend to implement this recommendation? The TED Commission recommended that the government use power as a tool for development, and recommended consideration ... . MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my honourable friend is in order, on the Address for Papers, to give us such an enlightened oration on the TED Commission Report.

The proposition that we have before us is a request from my honourable friend for copies of all correspondence between the Government of Manitoba and the Commission. This, I would suggest, Your Honour, is the proposition, and I also respectfully suggest to my honourable

September 9, 1969 579 (MR. PAULLEY cont•d.) friend that the proper time for the oration of my honourable friend would be- and he would have two chances I'd suggest- one is on the estimates of the Department of Industry and Commerce, and the other one would be on the establishment possibly of the committee referred to by my Leader in connection with carrying through some of the ideas. But I do, in all respect, suggest, Mr. Speaker, to my honourable friend that the motion before the House deals with correspondence between the Government, the Commission and so on. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

I would request the honourable member to limit and contain his remarks within the purpose and intent of the motion that is being debated. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I am limiting and I am discussing the TED Report; I am asking for the TED Report papers, and I do not need the House Leader to inform me how to oonduct myself in this House. I have sat in this House fcir three years; I have witnessed other addresses for papers and orders for return; my intention is to relate my remarks to it.

I am following procedure that's been practiced in the House and I am not out of order on this occasion as suggested by the Honourable House Leader. And if I may, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to continue. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to get into a tassel, or a wrangle with my honourable friend, but I want .... MR. CHERNIACK: Tassels are for dancers. MR. PAULLEY: Yes, and he's quite a dancer. I never saw anybody bob up and down like him. No go-go girl we have in Winnipeg is as good.

But I would suggest to my honourable friend that it is my duty as House Leader from time to time to raise points of order when my honourable friend varies and strays so far from the rules of the House. And the rule is that debate must be to the proposition before us, the question of correspondence, and that I respectfully suggest, Your Honour, is the reason that I raised the point of order. In all deference to my learned friend, maybe after he's been around a little while he will learn something of the rules of order as well. MR.

SPEAKER: I believe the Honourable the House Leader has discharged his responsi bility and we have the assurance of the Honourable Member from River Heights that he will limit his remarks to the purpose of the motion. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, I intend to proceed and I intend to- - (Interjection)-- I am not defying the Speaker. I am going to simp!y indicate that I would hope that in the address for papers that will be supplied by the honourable members on the other side, the recommendations that I have suggested that they have not at least .... been declared will have been contained.

I would hope that the correspondence between the various departments and the members of the TED Commission, and the Chairman of the TED Commission, and the members and chairmen of the advisory committees, would indicate that there had in fact been some effort made by the government with respect to the various departments and the various issues that have been mentioned in the TED Report, to indicate a course of action that at this point has not been announced, and for that reason, if I may, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to continue. MR. PAULLEY: Well Mr.

Chairman, may I point out to my honourable friend that that was the purpose of his correspondence, and it's on the Return to his Order he'll know whether we're acquiescent to what he has in his mind insofar as the contents of the correspondence is concerned, and I suggest to my honourable friend that he presupposes by what he is saying that he's not going to get it, and I suggest to my honourable friend, Mr. Speaker, he should await the Return to his Order and then he can raise the objections if he so desires. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, I rise on a point of order as well, to say that I confess that I'm not intimately acquainted with the standing orders of this House, but it's my under standing that this House does, with respect to motions for the address for papers, have the following procedure as in the federal Parliament, and that is that a motion for the address for papers is not debated unless the government is not disposed to accepting the motion, in which case it is transferred for debate and a debate takes place. Now if that be so, I ask my honour able friend from River Heights: why does he persist in debating it?

We are quite prepared to accept your motion, so there need be no debate at all. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, the Honourable First Minister is wrong in terms of the practice of the House in connection with the rule changes that were made just a few years ago, where it was agreed that if a motion was to be debated by the person introducing it, ..... it was refe1·red to the first Private Members' day and could be debated at that time. I may say,

580 September 9, 1969 (MR. SPIVAK cont• d. ) ..... Mr. Speaker, I have sat in this House for three years. Every thing I am doing is perfectly in order. The Honourable Ho:.1se Leader knows that. He may not want to hear what I have to say and that's his problem, but at least let me have the freedom of carrying out, carrying out my function in the same manner as he did when he was on this side, and as others did. I am perfectly in order in this connection. It has nothing to do with the accepting of the order because I'm going to talk about the ten areas that I am concerned about.

I have a perfect right to do it. -- (Interj ection) -- Well that may very well be, but at this point -- and I'm not sure when we• re going to deal with the es timates of the Department of Industry and Commerce. I notice the speed-up motion is already on the Votes and Proceedings and I don't know when we're going to be able to deal with it. I don• t know whether we• re going to have a Standing Committee on Economic Development sitting this Session. We•ve asked this as well. I don't know when the Economic Advisory Board Committee is going to be appointed.

I don' t know when amendments from the Manitoba Development Fund are going to be introduced, and for that reason, because I have a suspicion that this Ses sion could wind up very quickly, I am going to take this opportunity where I am permitted properly - and I am permitted - to be able to make whatev er remarks I want with respect to the TED Commission. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of privilege, I object most strenuously to my honourable friend imp'.lgning motives to me in order to stop him from talking, because Heavens to Betsy, if anybody can stop my honourable friend from River Heights, no one in this Ho'.lse can, except you and except my honourable friend himself if he will adhere to the rules of the House. And the rule of the House is that the debate must be germane to the motion before us . The motion before us is a request for corre spondence.

My Leader has indicated that the Ol'der will be accepted, and yet my honourable friend takes the opportunity, in violation of all of the courtesies of this House, to suggest, first to me, ulterior motives and of trying to .. ... MR. SPIV AK: . . . . . shame. MR. PAULLEY: Yes, it is a shame that you should do that, and I would suggest a man of your presumed intelligence would be shamed too. He also a moment ago made a statement, following my Leader' s announcement today that the committee will be set up, that he doubts whether it will be.

I've never heard anybody in this House talk that way following the state ment of the Leader of the House. MR. SPIVAK: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I did not say that, and, you kn,ow, the Honourable House Leader should listen. MR. G. JOHNSTON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Honourable the House Leader now has interrupted three times the Member for River Heights to suggest to you, Sir, that you are not making a proper ruling.

I would like to say, Sir, that if you were to allow this precedent to happen, then this means that any member that arises to speak on a motion to table corre spondence, then forever after will only be able to talk about the tabling of tlE corres pond .ence and not for the reasons and not for the content of the correspondence or any other reason except the tabling.

Just because my honourable friends say they accept it is no reason to stifle debate, no reason whats oever to stifle debate, and if any honourable member wants to debate his own motion and give his reasons, he• s quite entitled to, and I don' t think the House Leader should interrupt any more times in this particular debate. MR.

SPEAKER: Some time ago I'd indicated to the honourable member that he ought to limit himself to the purpose of the resolution, or the motion rather, and he had indicated that he would, and I would appreciate hearing what else he has to say, and if he will be out of order we will deal with the matter then. MR.

SPIV AK: Well, the TED Commission recommended that the government use power as a tool for development, and recommended consideration of a policy of supplying industries with incentive power rates for three to five years where significant benefits would accrue to the province, It recommended a mechanism for providing incentive power rates, and I would like to see whether the address for papers will indicate whether the government has decided to. accept these recommendations.

The TED Commission stated very bluntly that the magni tude and complexity of the task facing Manitoba in reaching its targets for 1980 required changes in existing government structures . Now, the government, as I have already indicated, has said that a Standing Committee on Economic Development will be formed. Well, we don• t know, however, if it will sit this Sessi on. The appointment of the Advisory Board was already referred to earlier, but we again do not know when it will be appointed. There are two other recommendations that have not yet

September 9, 1969 581 (MR. SPIVAK cont• d. ) ..... been dealt with in thi s House, and that is the establishment in Ottawa of an office of a Manitoba Eco:1omics Affairs headed by a senior Manitoba civil servant of deputy minister rank, and the development of applied technical and economic research capability for industry in the new institute.

Now, the TED Commission made a specific recommendation of urban planning, urban government, downtown renewal, housing and taxation affecting Greater Winnipeg and Brandon, and I would like to see whether the address for papers will indicate whether the Government has accepted these recomm endations and what steps are being taken to overcome the problem o•1Uined, or whether in fact the address for papers will indicate that the government has reject ed the findings of the TED Commiss ion and, if so, what alternatives they are going to be proposing.

The TED Commission urges the government to take steps to ensure that sufficient housing is available under reasonable conditions, not only for those financially able to find acceptable accommodation on the open market, but also for those unable to afford it.

The Co:nmission pointed out that by 1980 the number of housing units in this province will have to be increased by 60 percent, and it recommended a reorganization of the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation and suggested means of reducing costs for home owners; and I would like to know whether the address for papers, when we receive them , will show whether the government is planning to accept the recommendations of TED and what action, if any, has been started or even proposed.

The TED Co mmission made a number of recommendations for removing tax impediments to development including easing the burden of taxation on estates that adversely affect small business and farmers, a resolution which has already been debated in this House, the provincial tax on building materials and other taxes, to insure that they do not deter continued industrial expansion. Well, I wonder whether we are going to find in the address for papers whether the government is going to be able to give these assurances and recommendations that they will be adopted.

We have already had reference made in the Speech from the Throne to the Manitoba Development Fund, and as yet we have no specific legislation before us. The TED Commission outlined the important role of the Manitoba Development Fund. It recommended the Fund be enlarged and diversify its present programs, and outlined how this should be done.

The Co mmission stated the announcement of such policies by the government would go far towards si gnalling to the public and the business community the dedication of the government to the crucial task of building a strong community, to which all the Commission's recomm endations are addressed, and I would hope that in the address for papers and the tabling of that corres pondence we would find that the government has , in fact, determined that they are going to enlarge the Fund as proposed.

The Ted Commission stressed that the successful growth of the mining indus try would depend in large part on the actions of government in providing a favourable environment for exploration and on the ability of government and the private sect or to cooperate in that develop ment, and it suggested the following: Plan for expenditures on future transportation requirements to fill in the present network in northern Manitoba. Recognize the potential need for a major extension into northwest ern Manitoba. Recognize the apparent need to facilitate improvement of a railway to Lynn Lake.

Recognize the possibility of Lynn La.�e becoming a much more important dis tribution and communication centre for northern development, and Plans for the changing and increasing needs for airstrips, float .... planes and public warehouses for remote areas. I would hope that the address for papers would indicate a series of correspondence between the Minister of Transportation and the members of the TED Commission and the chairman of the Advisory Committee in connection with this matter and the implementation of this recomm endation. The TED Report called for an exciting potential for tourist development.

The recom mendations made included rural and outdoor attractions, urban att ractions, the development of a new major resort complex in the Duck Mountain area which would compare with the major resort areas anywhere in North America. The report also called for closer coordination of the efforts of public and private organization. Well, I don't know whether the government plans to accept or reject these recommenda tions, but I would hope that the address for papers would show corres pondence between the

582 September 9, 1969 (MR. SPIV AK cont•d. ) ..... Minister of Tourism and his department, and those who have been involved in this specific aspect and study of the TED Report. The TED Commission pointed out that Manitoba was in a highly favourable position to become a major free world source of nuclear reactor fuel by 1980. It recognized the problems involv ed and obstacles that had to be overcome, and it made four recommendations. First, the development and operation of an enrichment plant of a type that should be made a project of priority at the highest levels of the federal and provincial governments .

A joint federal provincial task force headed by the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Manitoba should be established to direct this development, and the task force should formulate the actual steps neces sary to bring this project to fruition. The Province of Manitoba should request the Government of Canada as soon as possible to initiate discussion on the subject matter with the United Sta tes and the United Kingdom. The strategy employed must be consis tent with the dedicated delicate nature of the subject from the standpoint of nuclear safeguards and inter-governmental competition.

A quid pro quo seems a reasonable expectation. A joint government industry team on both sides would be one of the kinds of arrangements to explore. Expressions of interest should be solicited cortfidentially but at an earlier date from private industrial firms meeting appropriate qualifications in security criteria as well as from potential customers.

Now, having completed a full-scale review including the appropriate timing of a Manitoba enrichment plant project for Canada, t.lte task force should formulate the best procedure to follow in getting the project approved, financed and under way, and the establishment of a Crown corporation or a special authority might facilitate the close federal-provincial coopera tion which is ess ential.

Now, I reiterate that some senior person in the government must be charged with this responsibility to conduct these vital negotiations in order that Manitoba's chances in obtaining this industry will not be diminished in the face of competitive pressures elsewh ere.

I sugg est to you that this is one of the most exciting developments that could take place in this province, and I suggest that I will be interested in knowing whether the address for papers will in fact have reference to the fact that this has been started other than the one meeting that has already been referred to by the First Minister a few days ago. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one point very clear . I am not asking the government to inform us of the policy negotiations or anything else of a coiifidential nature.

I am asking for the address for papers to indicate a concern by the government for the TED Report and for the implementation of its recommendations and for the acceptance of it s target, and I am hoping that the address for papers will show a positive commitment by the government of this province to the TED target, and for some assurances that the government is actually considering the implementation of them.

Now, how the business of this Ho'.lse is conducted is certainly the government' s business, and I'm sorry that the House Leader is not here to hear that, but the commitment to this endeavour must become public knowledge , and I believe, Mr.

Speaker, that we in the opposi tion, along with the people of Manitoba, are entitled really at this session to ask the govern ment to stand up and state in a very specific and clear manner what they intend to do with the TED Report, and whether they intend to accept those recommendations ; and I would look forward to seeing the corres pondence and seeing the commitments that have been made by the government. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it would be appropriate for me to make some comment in response to the long speech by the Honourable Member for River Heights .

We said. at the beginning of this debate, Mr. Speaker, the government is disposed to accepting the address for papers, and so therefore we shall be tabling this corresp ondence. I should also like to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that I really don' t understand my honourable friend the member for River Heights . He takes the time of the House to argue that he should have these papers we said he shall have them.

He also takes the time to say that he hopes that the corresp ondence, when tabled, will show that there has been an exchange of views between the government and members of the Commission, the chairman of the Commission and so on. Some of the exchange of views has taken place and has taken place in my office, has taken place in other offices, has taken place verbally. Some has been in the nature of corre spondence, that is true.

But if the Ho:J.ourable Member for River Heights is trying to create the impression that the TED Report has been around for awhile, that by now this government should have pretty clearly in

�--- September 9, 1969 583 (MR. SCHREYER co-:1t1d. ) mind just which of the TED Commission recommendations it intends to implement, then I suggest to my honourable friend that he is quite unrealistic . The previous administration had 11 years to move on some of the things that the TED Commis sion Report found to be lacking and wanting in this province, Perhaps it is a credit to the previous administration that they did es tablish the Commission on Targets and Economic Development to 1980.

Tbe Commission so established held hearings and decided that many things in our Manitoba economy needed stimulation if we were to achieve a more desirable rate of economic growth, and I certainly agree. That, to me, is anindication that the previous administration had not set the world on fire, to put it kindly, in terms of economic development in our province.

I say to my honourable friend that if he is trying to set up a straw man here and say that because in two months of government we have not moved already to implement some of the recommendations of the TED Commission, he is to understand from the very title of the Commission that it is an 11 -year forward, economic-planning proposal, the whole commis sion idea, its recommendations as to what can be done by the province for the next 11 years and beyond. And so we have a right to expect at least 11 months, and it' s about as simple as th� . MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? MR.

SPIVAK: If no one else wishes to speak, I will just say a few words in closing the debate. I intend to close the debate. I may say, Mr. Speaker, I was quite amused by the Honourable First Minister's remarks. No one was suggesting that you were going to be able to implement the TED Report immediately. What is immediate and what I have stressed and what I think is important, is that the govern ment stand up and say that we are prepared to recognize the TED target and accept it.

The previous government has done that, and I would hope that, before the Session is finished, that the government would stand up and say that we set the targets. Well the Honourable First Minister is shaking his head. And, you know, this is fine. I think, then, the people are entitled to know that. HON. SAUL CHERNIACK. Q, C. (Minister of Finance)( St. Johns): Would the honourable member accept a question? MR, SPIVAK: Yes. MR. CHE RNIACK: Do you accept all the targets and all the recommendations in the Report? MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, I .... difference between targets and recommendations, that the First Minister did not want to make. I said we accepted the targets. The recommenda tions obviously are going to be required consideration and I have given an indication of some, not all by any means, and for the benefit of the Honourable Member for St. Boniface, I could have probably spoken all night if I wanted to talk in detail of the various targets, but in order to accommodate him and not to concern him, I decided that it would be wise just to deal with specifics, with some.

And I am going to be very interested to see whether, in fact, there is any correspondence, because the suggestion of the First Minister that he has had conversations is very interesting, but we in the House do not know about this and nor does the public know about this. The TED Report involved some 300 Manitobans who are active in the economic life of this province.

Now, to a large extent they have been left out in limbo simply because there has been a change and there has been no contact made with them, and I think it's very important and it would be an error and a mistake not to mobilize these people, and I find it very amusing to find others from outside this province who are supposedly going to be coming here as consultants in economic development, when many, many Manitobans who are here, and many professors at the University who were involved, are still sitting here, waiting to work, wanting to be called, and in fact as yet, from the knowledge that I have, have not been involved, and I am suggesting that a great opportunity would be missed if the government did not forthright take action on the TED Report.

I recognize there are other priorities as well but I think this is one of them. I recognize as well that there are other considerations that are now taking place within the government, but I am looking forward before the end of the Session to some kind of commit ment from the government which will say, "We accept the TED target. We are prepared to work with the people who were involved in the determination.

We are prepared to try and see whether we can carry out those recommendations that referred and possibly others that are not actually in the actual document of the TED Report but may have been discussed in the various

584 September 9, 1969 (M R. SPIVAK cont'd . ) .... . committees, and we are prepared to be able to get our Manitobans involved to try and in effect help in a system of development of our economic life. " I may suggest to the First Minister that we do not need outsiders in this provinc e; we can use Manitobans. We did it successfully with the TED Report and we can continue to do it. MR. SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: Order for Return. The Ho:'l.ourable Member for Morr is. MR.

SHERMAN: As the Honourable Member for Morris is absent on important business, I wonder if we could have that matter stand. MR. SPEAKE R: Stand? The Honourable Member for Churchi ll. PRIVATE MEMBERS• RESOLUTIONS MR. GORDON W, BEARD (Ch urchill) : Mr. Speaker, when we closed off the other evening I believe we were talking about how we could bring some of the, or solve some of the problems of Port Churchill.

There are only a few minutes left and I would like to pass along some of what I believe are the immediate solutions, not wide-ra nging ones, and I think possibly a giant step forward for Port Churchill would be the establishment of a year round import and export office in Port Churchill to promote business through Port Churchill, because I know that it will be easier for government to say, well we can do it here, but they can' t actually do it here. If they want to put the emphasis on the Port its elf then I feel that the office has to be established in Port Churchill and have thu business conducted in that area.

I think that there would be several good reasons why this should be done. For one thing, people in that area could contact world markets. They could compete with eastern promotions and eastern lobbying. It would complement the ac tivities of the Hudson' s Bay Route Association and, in fact, be closer to the areas which this port services. It could become an established world authority on northern navi gation research, and this the First Minister touched on when he was speaking·at Port Churchill. It also would prepare for programmed eastern Arc tic mineral and oil explorations that are going on at this time.

I think also, in respect to Port Churchill and our wheat problems, that certa inly grain storage areas , not only at Port Churchill must be considered but also in those countries in which we sell wheat, because this is an important product to Canada . If it was done under private industry, then I am sure that they woul d have storage areas .not only in Canada but in the areas where the wheat would be available to the customer when they wanted it, and I think this is important to complement Port Churchill, particularly in the short shipping season.

If the grain was made available or stored overseas in those markets which we could anticipate would be buying from us, it would be there available on a year-round basis and I think that it is something that we should seriously consider. I believe that also, of cour se, this office would also establish a year round tourist infor mation centre to further again our friend Mr . Shoemaker's appeal to have tourists "L inger longer in Mani toba" .

I think that a little imagination certainly will go a long way towards assisting the Port, from the Provincial Government• s position, in making itself into a viable product, not only provincially but federally. And in suggesting this type of an office, I don• t want to leave the impression on this House that this is an empire-building program . It' s just something there as an information and as a service to people generally and to business generally throughout the whole of the world. This is not only on our overseas markets but on the markets with in the bounda ries of Can ada itself.

I believe these government port services must be prepared to complement and service both private and publicly-owned ind ustries throughout the whole of the north; throughout, in fact, the whole of the expanding north, I might say. And I turn to the First Minister's Churchill speech, because when I listened to it, and when I listened to the people in Churchill, I felt that they rec eived this as a warm introduction for the government' s proposed policy for the development of the north and the emphasis that this government was going to place on the development of the north.

But I hasten to warn the front benches that they cannot feel that their job is now done as far as the north is concerned. They will still have to be prepared to produce, because they'll always have to remember that they said that the other government had always promised to produce and had failed to do it.

And I couldn' t close without considering back again the Jones Report, which really re ceived the backing of all parties in this House, and I again state that the Minister of Municipal Affairs had promised that huge investments would be placed within the area of Port Churchill and this was withdrawn by the government the following year. And again I would say to the

September 9, 1969 585 (MR. BEARD cont1d) .. . .. First Minister, unfortunately we too in the Churchill constituency have to wonder whether his song in the future will be, "Sorry, no bananas today, " as it has been in the past. The government has got to learn to either put up or shut up when they• re courting northern votes and the promotion of the north. In the last month I suppose we•ve had more written, more said about northern development than we have for quite a few years, and yet we• re living in the Churchill constituency where it is only reaching a small portion of the north and of half of Manitoba.

Thompson isn't the answer for the whole of the north; neither is Gillam, nor will Port Churchill, but certainly each and every one of them have their contribution, but let• s not be prepared to hide behind one large development and say, "This is the answer for the whole of the north, " because certainly you can see for yourself in southern Manitoba that Winnipeg, the large area of Winnipeg, is not the answer for all of rural southern Manitoba. I say let's be honest and let• s be astute, and let• s establish a foundation of government services that will assure our children of a future in the Province of Manitoba.

And Mr. Premier, we'll have to look to your government, your front benchers, as the ombudsmen for the north. I believe it is the government who will have to be responsible for these things. If you fail, you will have suffered the defeat that past governments have had to face when they said one thing and did another. We are not an optimistic people in the north - rather, we are or we wouldn't be there, and we still live in hope. Mr. Premier, will you help us to help Manitoba?

We must" remember that in this appeal there is room for all that wish to participate in Manitoba's second century of expansion and prosperity. We are neither greedy nor jealous of our bountiful resources. We want to share them with the rest of Manitoba. Only good government can make this become a reality. A strong government approach to Port Churchill problems will be a welcome change to the threat of all Port Churchill being studied into obscurity.

We suggest that they openly negotiate with the federal authorities; that they include the Port of Churchill in their conferences and confi dence, and I think you'll win their support. I think if there's one message I'd like to get through to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and some of the others is the fact that the people of Port Churchill have never been taken into the confidence of government when they're considering what should be done about the area of Port Churchill, and I remind them that after all, all the brains of this province are not located in southern Manitoba.

So, if all this fails, then we still have two alternatives. One would be to incorporate so that both governments can deal with the people directly, so that their obligation then -- pick up their obligations in respect to what they're doing for the Churchill area today.

Incorporation does not mean that governments can hide behind the cloak of incorporation and say, "Now our responsibility is over with, " and this is what bureaucrats keep saying to the people of Churchill: "You can't afford to incorporate." And I say after all these years then, with the help that governments have given to the Churchill area, there must be some other answer and I can only see the one real answer is, of course, incorporation so that government can deal openly with the people of Churchill rather than behind closed-door confiding between Ottawa and Winnipeg and not letting the people of Churchill know what is going on.

The other alternative is one that has been talked about, and I suppose it takes a little courage to say it, but if the confidence of Manitobans does not prove to be in tune with the needs of Churchill, I suggest that this government consider asking the Federal Government to accept Churchill area into the Northwest Territories. I have already been assured that the Northwest Territories Councillors, or some of them, are in favour of this, and I am sure that we would see action in Port Churchill if it became part of the Northwest Territories.

This is only saying to people that if you are not in tune with this, if you think it's too much for Manitoba, then let•s let Manitobans off the hook, and if the Churchill people can go to the Northwest Territories, then I believe that they would start to come into their own. I don't advocate this drastic step, I only suggest it. But to wind up, Mr.

Speaker, I'm really not in favour of going back too far in Hansard, but I looked back in '68 on Page 2486, and that was the time that I submitted another resolution in respect to Churchill along the same lines, and I won't bother reading it out but there was an amendment by the Le ader of the Liberal Party, the Member for Ste. Rose, and he ended his speech, which was supporting us, by saying: "And so, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. George, that Resolution No. 20 be amended by adding the words •M anitoba Government• in the first line in the operative

section immediately. after the word 'urge. ' " This meant that actually I had asked that the Legislative Assembly urge the

586 September 9, 1969 (M R. BEARD cont•d) ..... prairie committee of the premiers to look into this, but it was rather amusing.

When we get down to the second adjournment, the House Leader, the now House Leader felt that maybe they should go a little further, and on Page 2491 he ended by saying: "Therefore I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Ethelbert Plains, that the resolution as amended be amended by the following: •Be it further resolved that this Assembly regrets the federal and provincial governments have failed to provide the proper development of the Port of Churchill for the benefit of citizens in the locality and for the well-being of the Province and our Dominion. ' " By that amendment, Mr.

Speaker, it places the blame where it belongs properly, on present and past provincial and federal governments, and I agree entirely with the House Leader. MR. PAULLEY: Did you vote for it? MR. BEARD : I believe I did, yes. Yes I did. Yes I did. And I would hope that, now that we have got that into the record, that when we go into next session that the House Leader will be able to smile over to me when the Throne Speech is read and they see, "We have been able to accomplish what other governments have not been able to do ." And with that, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Birtle Russell. MR. HARRY E. GRAHAM (Birtle-Russell): Mr. Speaker, I have not had the privilege in previous sessions in sitting in the House with the Member from Churchill but I must say that his conduct in this House as I have witnessed it so far has been one in which the constituents of the constituency of Churchill could well be proud. His concern for the people of his constit uency, his concern for the north are elements that can only be commended by one and all.

I as an individual am a farmer, but as a farmer, and also as a Member of this body I too am quite concerned about this one port that we have in Manitoba which is not being, in my estimation, utilized to its fullest extent and a short while ago I had a discussion with the Mem be r for Churchill regarding the use of this port.

Now just being a farmer, I'm not too familiar with the operations of seaports and the legislation that is enacted to make these seaports operative, but I do know that in other places throughout this world there are seaports with various categories and there are in some cases seaports which have no category and are desig nated as free ports .

Now I don't know whether there is any merit to any movement towards the establishment of Churchill as a free port, whether this would increase trade, whether it would increase the use of the port to the benefit of those that are actually using it and for the benefit of the province as a whole. I simply ask these questions. But I think that all avenues should be explored which would possibly benefit the use of our one seaport facility; and if the designation of the Port of Churchill as a free port would be beneficial to each and every one of us, then I would respectfully submit Mr.

Speaker, that maybe we should be working towards that direction. With this remark I . . . MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Minister of Tourism and Recreation. HON. PETER BURTNIAK (Minister of Tourism & Recreation)(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Cul tural Affairs that the debate be adjourned. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Assiniboia. The Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I take

part in this resolution very briefly to indicate support for the resolution. It's a very simple resolution where we are asking for provincial legislation to increase the pay vacation period from two weeks to three weeks after five years of service. I think the Honourable Member for Fort Garry placed his finger on the problem, when he expressed concern for some industries and some small businesses that cannot maybe quite meet the requirement for one reason or another.

Possibly one reason could be economic ; possibly another reason could be that the owners or the proprietors were not prepared to go that far, so I can understand that there is a fear in this direction. But still Mr. Speaker, I don't think that that should be allowed to stand in the way of equalizing what is an accepted practice in this country. I don' t think there are any of the larger industries, any of govern' ment, provincial or federal or municipal who do not give three weeks pay for a vacation period

September 9, 1969 587 (MR. G, JOHNSTON cont1d} . . . . . after five years of service. So this means then that one group of citizens who have a good union or a good association, or they work for an accepted benevolent employer, have these rights, and I believe it is a right; and on the other hand we have a group of citizens who are not fortunate enough to have good representation or to have an employer that sees it in that manner. So for this reason I think the province has a responsibility to pass legislation so that there is uniform treatment for all, and for that reason I support the resolution. MR.

SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. FRANK JOHNSTON (St urgeon Craek} : Mr. Speaker, to this resolution I would like to refer to my colleag ue the Honourable Member from Fort Garry when he mentioned the con cern about some of the small businesses in the area that this may have some harm on. There is another aspect to this that I think has to be really looked into. There are many bargaining units today who the unions would not even ask for this type of legislation. They haven't bar gained for it because they have got concern for the industry they are working in.

The bargain, ing by the unions is one of the best and most respected that there can possibly be and I think in a lot of cases this has to be left up to them, There is no doubt that we'd all like to see every body with three weeks' holiday after five years. When the Honourable Minister of Finance asked my colleague, "would you vote for this or vote against it, " it was almost putting him on the spot, And I would say this. If he would ask me that right now I'd say right now, I would say no, I wouldn't support it.

But I would ask the Honourable Minister of Labour, and certainly he knows many factors of labour that I don' t but the industry that I'm in receives six percent for holiday pay on their negotiating- this has just been previous; another two percent which has been negotiated for holidays. There are many different factors.

I would be very glad to consider this resolution but only much more seriously after the Minister has had the opportunity to come into this House and say that he has investigated all aspects and avenues that are involved in this with business, small business, with the unions that are involved or the labour that he wants to talk to about it. But as the Honourable Minister of Health and Social Services said the other day, he was quite disappointed at this previous government for not placing all the information before the members before they were asked to vote.

This is just not quite as easy as saying there should be three weeks• holiday with pay after five years. There's much more research would have to be gone into and I would ask that the Minister of Labour look into it, as I know he will, and place it before us then. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Would the last speaker permit a question? MR. F. JOHNSTON: Yes. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Who does he think should ... for the employee who does not have an association or a union to bargain for him. MR. F.

JOHNSTON: Well, the employee who doesn't have anybody to bargain for him, certainly you're speaking of a large area -- I think there's only about 33 percent being bar gained for-- but he has to represent himself to his employer in some way. Now all employers are not bad people, all employers are willing to listen, and certainly there are some that should maybe have this type of legislation, but there are also some people in business who realize that the people they're working for, the business they• re with, it would be more harm to them than to just say this.

I'm not saying everybody is perfect, but I am saying it has to be looked into much more seriously than it is now. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON (Rock Lake) : Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Souris-Killarney, that the debate be adjourned. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the mot ion carried.

588 September 9, 1969 MR. SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Assiniboia, The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. PETER FOX (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, may we have the leave of the House to have this matter stand? MR. SPEAKER: (Agreed.) The adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the ·· Honourable Member for La Verendrye, The Honourable Member for Souris-Killarney. MR. EARL McKELLAR (Souris-Killarney): Mr. Speaker, I'll be very very brief.

I understand the House Leader is anxious to get on with the business of the day so I'll try to ac commodate him. -- (Interjection) -- That brought a smile out of him. Well I have studied this amendment very closely, and after giving serious consideration, along with my caucus, we have decided to vote in favour of this amendment when the time comes.

Now I think that many of us are quite aware of what has gone on in the past with the way the Manitoba Hydro have set their rates , and during this past year and half there has been a review of the increase that they have made and the final result has not been announced. So with that understanding, I along with the members of our caucus will vote in favour of the amendment. mr . speaker: Are you ready for the question? MR . BARKMAN: Mr. Spea.J,:er, if there's no one else that wishes to speak on it - I did expect a few more possibly would take

part in this debate - I will be very brief. I want to thank my friends to the right here, I can see, and I like to witness this in my life as often as possible when changes still can take place. I don't wish to say this sarcastically, I believe conditions have changed to some extent as far as some of the boards are concerned, but I do appreciate the attitude taken to my right here.

I would also wish that perhaps to the left of me a change had not taken place, although I do understand from the amendment - I hope at least I am correct in thinking that it is a matter of possibly taking a little more time and then they will be serious and possibly supporting the idea. I think there is no question in anyone's mind as far as the integrity of Hydro is concerned, It was never my intention. At the time the resolution was presented there certainly isn't, but I have had the honour of witnessing some of these boards in action and I learned a lot of les sons.

I think it was last fall when I sat in on one of these hearings when a gas company was presenting their briefs, and of course this board was trying to find out the costs and all the other things involved in establishing prices. So I really see nothing wrong, with the Hydro becoming such a terrifically large corporation, if possibly the elements and all sides of the story are presented in each case. As we know, the Hydro has been that kind of a company that nobody is questioning their integrity. As I said before, that's not why the resolution is here.

It's simply a matter of giving the trust to the customer, giving the -- and I believe Hydro itself would not mind going through these hearings. I don't see why they should. After all, this gives them an opportunity also to see the picture from both sides of the story. So in closing I wish to thank those that took

part in this debate and I hope, even with the amendment being there, I hope it will be able to come into force soon. MR . PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may be permitted to say a word on the amendment because I believe that that's what we're dealing with. Is that not correct? -- (In terjection) -- I appreciate the remarks of my honourable friend who introduced the original resolution and I want to thank him, because at the time of the introduction he mentioned the source of the contents of the resolution having been the former Member for Radisson who sat on the other side of the House.

And I also want to express appreciation for the contribution of the Member for Souris Killarney, which indicates at least to some degree a change in approach, or possibly thought, because those of us that were in the House this spring knew that the resolution as suggested was defeated. -- (Interjection) -- Yes, you're very flexible and I'll make no further com ment.

But I appreciate the remarks of my honourable friend who has just taken his seat in giving us the opportunity of finding out what has really transpired during the hearings to the present time, and I jo in with him in a tr ibute to the management of Manitoba Hydro and the way that they have conducted their operations. And also I think, Sir, that we should express appreciation to Hydro that whether or not it was as a result of the resolution that was intro duced this spring, and a year ago as well, they did see fit on their own volition to request a review of their proposals by the Utility Board.

It does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that we 're unanimously agreed on the motion as amended, or at least on the amendment. I'm sure that I

September 9, 1969 589 (MR. P AULLEY con t•d. ) . . . . . can assure the House that there will be no undue delay on the part of government in bringing into effect what the Honourable Member for La Verendrye has requested. MR . SPEAKER put the question on the amendment and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER put the question on the motion as amended and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR . SPEAKER: The proposed res olution of the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. The Honourable Leader of the Official Opposition. MR . GRAHAM: Mr.

Speaker , I had originally intended to follow my Leader in speaking on this res olution, however he is absent and I would seek your advice in how to proceed at this particular time, whether you would want me to speak now or later on. !vL"lt. PAULLEY: We have no objection ori this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, to my honourable friend speaking, and then if agreeable to the House to allow the motion to stand then in the name of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. MR . JAMES H. BILTON (Swan River): ... the House Leader that the res olution remain in its same place or go to the bottom of the . . . MR .

PAULLEY: Possibly you could take that under advisement, Mr. Speaker. Oh no, this is the second -- (Interj ection) -- That's right. The Clerk has pointed out quite properly if the mover was the one that was standing it the second time then it would go to the bottom. In this instance it doesn't. We'll leave it where it is anyway. MR . BILTON: I wonder whether the Honourable Leader of the House understands what I'm after, that the Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell speak and the res olution remain in its same position on the Order Paper by leave. MR. PAULLEY: Yes . MR . SPEAKER: . . .

Leader of the Official Opposition could lose his turn to speak. This is not his res olution. The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell. It's not a problem confronting us at the moment. MR . GRAHAM: Do I understand it then, Mr. Speaker , that if I speak now my Leader loses his right to speak? MR . SPEAKER: No, it will stand in the name of the Honourable Leader of the Official Opposition. MR . GRAHAM: Very good. May I then proceed ? Mr.

Speaker , the estate tax is of quite concern to me and to many of my constituents , many of whom are engaged in the farming trade and many of whom have been engaged in the farming trade for many years. We all know today that the younger generation have found it may be to their advantage to move into other fields, with the resu lt that in many cases after the young people have grown up the father is still left on the farm and the chickens have flown the coop .

Today, with the situation in the agricultural industry being not the best that we have seen in the past and with concern about spiralling costs, the increased cost of living, many farmers are reluctant to retire because they'r e not too sure of what the future holds for them. So we find today that we have quite a number of farmers who are still farming who would probably like to retire but who in effect will probably be farming right up to the end of their existence.

And this poses a problem for the survivors, their widows , their children, that the farm that their father bought many years ago for $10, 000 or $5, 000, with the spiralling costs has changed in value ; the equipment that he used 40 years ago, which was a four horse team or a six horse team and two or three hundred dolla::.·s worth of equipment, has now mushroomed to the point where he has many thousands of dollars involved in the equipment that's necessary to carry on his farming operation. So when he leaves the farm, or is removed by death, the family and the successors are faced quite often with an estate tax.

Now this is of quite concern because we do know that many of the farmers today are not legally inclined. They are rather unsur e of their position as far as succession duties are con cerned and they are quite vulnerable to the legal profession and to whom they go for help , and if their affairs are not in immaculate order quite often the estate ends up paying considerable money to the federal treasury.

This in essence we have no argument with, because if the estate is sufficiently large they are quite properl y supposed to pay their tax, but in order to do so, with the rising cost of living today, they might find themselves financially in a position which is far from being secure for the rest of their lives.

590 September 9, 1969 (MR. GRAHAM cont'd. ) The proposed legislation which is inherent in this bill of rebating the share of estate tax collec ted in the province would do much to reaffirm the confidence of these people, and this I think is so ess ential today in our unsettled and troubled times . For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time in support of this res olution. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question ? MR . PAULLE Y: . . . stand in the name of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. MR.

SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the proposed res olution of the Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party. The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr. Speaker , may I have the indulgence of the House to have this res olution stand. MR . SPEAKER: (Agreed.) The adjourned debate on the proposed res olution of the Honourable the Leader of the Official Opposition. The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. FOX: Mr. Speaker, if I may have the indulgence of the House I would like to have this matter stand. If anyone else wishes to speak they may do so. MR.

SPEAKER: (Agreed.) The proposed res olution in the name of the Honourable Member for Riel, standing in my name . MR. CRAIK: ... in reading Hansard if I indicated to you that we had re considered this before you made your ruling. I don't know what you wish to do on it, but I think it was left by a number of members that it would stand under consideration of a revised part of the resolution. I think that there was some -- it was left rather up in the air.

Possibly there was a misinter pre tation, but I gathered that we were to reconsider the res olution and let it stand, and I think there was some indication that you were going to make alternatives to that but you would make a ruling . If you wish to make your ruling on it, that's fine and I can sit down. MR. CHERNIACK: It was suggested I think in several parts of the House that if it were out of order that it might be better that the honourable member should withdraw it and bring in another motion.

My understanding was that his Leader himself had gone along with the sug gestion but at the end the honourable member had not withdrawn it, and as I re call it - and I don't have Hansard here - as I recall it, you, Mr. Speaker , said, well if there is no definite indication of withdrawal then I will have to make a ruling. I think the honourable member, I suppose at this moment, still has the choice to ask for unanimous consent to have it withdrawn or he has the choice of hearing your ruling. Either way I think it is his choice. MR. CRAIK: Well, Mr.

Speaker, we were quite willing to withdraw it and re ..,submit it, providing it occupied the same position on the Order Paper , if that would be agreeable. MR. PAULLEY: Oh no, a new res olution would be placed in its proper position. MR. CRAIK: Not a new res olution, same subject matter. MR. PAULLEY: It doesn't matter. I would like to point out to my honourable friend, Mr . Speaker, I believe I am correct , if you make a ruling that's it, but if my honourable friend is desirous of having unanimous agreement for withdrawal before you make your ruling, he had better do it now or forever hold his peace. MR.

CRAIK: Well, Mr. Speaker , that's exactly the reason I stood up at the beginning before you made your ruling, to indicate that we were prepared to make minor changes to the wording of it on the understanding that it would remain in its pres ent position on the Order Paper, otherwise I think we will have to await your ruling on it. MR.

SPEAKER : ... changes are made, and in order to be resu bmitted it follows the same proc edure as any new res olution appearing on the Order Paper , and I don't see any pro vision in our rules that would enable a member to make it possible for his res olution to retain the same position on the Order Paper . MR. BILTON: Mr . Speaker, if I may make a comment on this, it appears to me that the circumstances surrounding the handling of this res olution is somewhat different to the general withdrawal of a res olution.

It was my understanding, following on with what the Minister of Finance had to say the other day, that you asked, or at least you were willing to accept advice from the floor. This advice, as I heard it, was given from the several points around the House, and at that time I got the impression that you would consider what was said and give your ruling out of that and I think that's what we await. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, may I point out, and I am sure my honourable friend who has just taken his seat as a former Speaker will agree , that if Mr .

Speaker makes a ruling then there is no opportunity for a member to withdraw after that. What we are

r�--- - ------- ----- --- -------- --------- ----- --- -- --- September 9, 1969 591 (MR. PAULLEY cont'd. ) ..... suggesting is that if my honourable friend wishes to with draw it it should be done before a ruling is made by Mr. Speaker. I would make this observa tion, that if it was desirable or deemed desirable for Your Honour to withhold for another day the announcement of your ruling, it may not meet with any obj ections, but I do think that I would be correct Your Honour in saying that if your ruling was made there is no chance for my honourable friend. MR.

CRAIK: . . . fact that we had considerable difficulty finding any prec edents in Beauchesne for such a change, It wasn't a regular withdrawal of a resolution.

The cir cum stances that preceded the request to have it changed being what they were, that the resol ution was on the Order Paper for several weeks before this was actually brought to anyone's atten tion, and considering the fact that the subject matter is the same but part of the wording is different, we felt that it did not fall in the regular category of a withdrawal , and as a result we were prepared to withdraw it and change it providing it did occupy the same position on the Order Paper. MR. PAULLY: Well, we would not agree. MR. BILTON : Mr. Speaker, maybe we could hear your ruling. MR.

SPEAKER: I have considered the subject matter of the proposed res olution standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Riel. I have also taken under advisement the opinions stated by various honourable members of this House on the question of whether the proposed res olution could properly be brought before this House as a motion. I thank the honourable members for their contribution. The second parag raph of the

preamble speaks of "these promis es" , apparently referring to the first parag raph of the

preamble and of "many other such commitments". Now although the word "such" may appear to relate commitments to these promises , but the prec eding phrase "many other" could extend the meaning of commitments to indefinable limits and thus render it impossi ble from reading the res olution to asc ertain its meaning with precision. The reference to "other important matters" in the operative portion of the res olution adds to the vagueness just mentioned. The res olution appears to be based on events past and future.

The past event is a peti tion of the Manitoba Assoc iation of Students purportedly signed not by the government but by a number of political candidates. This is proper in the sense that the mover intends to base his motion on the oc currence of this event. The second paragraph of the

preamble, and I am quoting, "And

whereas it appears that these promises along with many other such commitments of the New Democratic Pa rty will not be honoured," speculates on something in the future which may or may not occur . The House has no power of predicting which promises contained in the first parag raph of the

preamble the government will honour, nor can it predict which of the "many other such commitments" will it or will it not honour. In my opinion, a motion cannot be based on a future event, the likelihood of the occurrence of which is uncertain at the time of presenting the motion. The operative portion of the res olution calls upon the government to explain a certain state of affairs. The key question in my mind is whether a call for an explanation can properly be br ought forward by way of res olution.

Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fourth Edition 1958 , Citation 191 subsection (1) defines a motion as foll ows: "A motion is a proposal made by one member in acco rdance with certain well established rules that the House do something or order something to be done or express an opinion with regard to some matter or thing. " I interpret the phrase "that the House do something or order something to be done" to mean definite action by the House or government as legislators and not merely an explana tion of action or lack thereof.

I should also add that the resol ution calls upon the government to explain its position on a matter of policy, which request is contrary to our accepted prac tice and rules. For the three reasons aforementioned, which in

summary are: No. 1- vagueness ; No. 2- reference to an uncertain future event; and No. 3- not calling for definite action but rather an explanation of government policy; I must rule the motion out of order. I wish to make it clear to the House that while I am ruling this motion out of order I am mindful of Citation 193 of the same text and which I wish to draw to the attention of the House. It reads in part as follows : "If a motion is ruled out on the ground that its wording is objec tionable or its allegations are irregular, the mover is not thereby deprived of the right to move it again after having made the necessary corrections and given a new notice ."

592 September 9, 1969 (MR. SPEAKER cont•d.) The proposed resolution in the name of the Honourable Member for Churchill. The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. BEARD: I think one lesson on Churchill is anough in one day, Mr. Speaker. If you don't mind I' ll ask the indulgence of the House to let it stand. MR. SPEAKER: The proposed resolution in the name of the Honourable Member for Lakeside. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. A MEMBER: .•. indulgence of the House to have the matter stand. MR. SPEAKER: (Agreed. ) The proposed resolution in the name of the Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party.

The Honourable House Leader of the Liberal Party. For the. information of the Leader of the Liberal Party I have just called Resolution No. 14 in the honourable member's name on Page 7. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, seconded by the honour able Member for La Verendrye,

WHEREAS the Premier of Manitoba has charged that previous administrations received political kickbacks on government contracts, AND

WHEREAS this is a serious charge that strikes at the root of our democratic system, AND

WHEREAS the charge has left a cloud of suspicion over the integrity of many pres ent and former honourable members of this Assembly, AND WHER EAS this charge implies that unjust inflationary costs have been inflicted on Manitoba consumers to finance the political activities of the governing party in the province, AND

WHEREAS this charge implies graft in government and is not to be confused with regular and normal donations to political parties which are perfectly legal, AND

WHEREAS no evidence has been presented to date to substantiate this charge, THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Premier be requested to immediately table in this House his evidence of political kickbacks having been received by previous administra tions in this province, -- Mr. Speaker , by leave, I would like to correct or make a change in the operative part and it would read like this: AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House consider the advisability of establish ing a special committee immediately to investigate this matter fully and that it be empowered to call witnesses, hear evidence and make a report and recommendations to the House. MR.

SPEAKER: I believe I should determine whether the honourable member has leave before presenting this motion to you. Does the honourable member have leave to make the change? MR. PAULLEY: ... to make that change, Mr. Speaker, but I have a comment to make to the resolution after its presentation. MR. SPEAKER: Moved by the Honourable . MR. PAULL EY: Mr. Speaker, before you present the motion to the House, may I raise a point of what I consider order in respect of the resolution.

The other day the Honourable the First Minister, in reply to certain questions that were raised pertaining to part of the sub je ct matter of this resolution, indicated to the House that the subject matter would be referred to a committee of the House for consideration of the subject matter of so-called political kick backs, of so-called contributions, and indicated, as I say, Mr. Speaker, that this would be done.

I think that under the rules of the House that where an indication of this nature is given to the House then that would be an obligation on the administration to introduce the resolution, and I want to repeat, or say to you, Mr. Speaker , that it is the intention of the government to give formal notice within the next day or two. It may be, Mr. Speaker, that some may have another observation to make on the point that I am raising, but again I repeat that the govern ment has indicated that the proposition will be advanced in the House, and you may desire, Mr. Speaker, to take this matter under advisement. MR. G.

JOHNSTON: Speaking to the point of order, I have two points to clarify. The first one is that on the day that the discussion took place and the Premier indicated that he was going to take action by way of sending a similar matter to the Committee, not the same matter but a similar matter to the Committee, I believe I stood in my place and indicated that I had filed the resolution some minutes before. So that is my first point, Mr. Speaker , that I was not anticipating government action, that I had filed the resolution before the announcement by

September 9, 1969 593 (MR. G. JOHNSTON cont•d. ) .. ... the First Minister. The second point is that it was indicated by the First Minister at the time that he was referring to the matter of political donations and practices of funding political parties , and I think he was differentiating between the terminology that I have used in the resolution and what he had in his mind was the funding of political parties. So on those two points, Mr. Speaker , I suggest that the resolution is in order. MR.

SPEAKER: I wish to consult with the Clerk of the House for a moment, I have just consulted with the Clerk as to the date of filing of this resolution and I am in formed that it was filed before the Honourable the First Minister made his statement and hence it has priority. MR. SPEAKE R presented the motion. MR. G. JOHNSTON : Mr. Speaker , before I begin I think I should make it perfectly clear that the matter under discussion is in no way a reflection on the Premier of this province.

I think he is highly regarded as a person and he's held in highest esteem by the majority of the people in Manitoba and elsewhere, and I would not want what I have to say to be construed as an attack on him.

But I think that this matter deserves a clearing because there are other people involved. who cannot speak for themselves and who feel quite upset about what has hap pened and this is the reason for the resolution . .., The political people - and I'm referring to former members of this House, former Cabinet Ministers, former Premiers indeed - while they may not be here are quite able through statements and through dialogue with the Premier and others to obtain apologies if they felt they were needed or to ignore it. This was their privilege to treat the matter in which ever way they wished. But, Mr.

Speaker , there's a large community, and I'm speaking now of the business and professional community, some of whom are quite upset and feel that there's a cloud upon their name and they would like to have this matter cleared once and for all. Now I know it's rather difficult for the Premier to individually apologize to anyone that takes exception or he should decide not to, this is his personal opinion on what he should do and I'm not quarrelling with that, but I think that people who desire to have any clearing of their name made, I think they should have the opportunity to do it.

I took the opportunity of checking a dictionary meaning of the word "kickback", and I don't know if I looked at the same dictionary the First Minister did but the wording that I find and the meaning that we have taken out of it is, and I quote: "To return a portion of money rece ived as a fee, often as a result of coercion or prev ious arrangement. " Now I think this is exactly what we're talking about in this province, whether the practice is widespread, and if it has gone on in the past then it should be exposed and the people that have taken

part in it should be exposed. This is to say that the members of the business community and profes sional community should also be exposed to public scrutiny as well as the political people who may have been operating from the governmental end. So for this reason, Mr. Speaker , I propose a resolution that I find it's very difficult to talk about. I don't think that there can be any confusion between a political kickback and a political donation. These are e

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-1-25
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 1st hansardpdf 25.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6b68fb3da2545e40cb985a0ed09c52d78fcbfe31

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