Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 158 (29th Legislature, 2nd Session)

29-2-158

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 o'clock, Tuesday, July 21, 1970 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. 4087· MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Re ports by Standing and Special Committees; Notices of Motion; Introduction of Bills; Orders of the Day. The Honourable First Minister. STATEMENT HON. ED SCHREYER (Premier) (Rossmere): Mr. Speaker, before Orders of the Day I should like to make a brief statement that relates to a front page story that was carried in the Winnipeg Tribune this afternoon.

I refer to the several stories that appeared in that newspaper relating to The Pas Forest Complex and a report recently received by that newspaper, either direct or indirectly, by a consulting firm known as Arthur D. Little. The reason I wish to rise now and make this statement is because I regard the story re ferred to as being rather misleading in several important respects.

Without enumerating many of the specifics that arise therein, I think it is necessary to say that while the viability of the project is not under question by this government at this time, and while the actions of the firms themselves have never been under question by the government at this time as to whether or not the actions were legal or illegal, there are, however, other features of the project and the financial agreement relating thereto which this government has questioned and continues to question.

More particularly, it must be said, I think, that the nature of the pay-out procedures by which monies were advanced by the Manitoba Development Fund to the firms in question, the pay-out procedures appeared, in recent months, to be unorthodox and also there seemed to be a time lag in terms of keeping up-to-date accounting of the flow of funds. And I believe thAt it should also be said that in the presence of witnesses personnel of the Arthur D. Little Company, which had the responsibility for pay-out procedures, admitted that there was a requirement that the pay-out procedures be improved upon and tightened up.

In addition to that, I want to disassociate myself from any inference or implication in that newspaper account that would ap pear to indicate that this government was satisfied, therefore, with the pay-out procedures and satisfied with the level of fees. We have taken the position that the pay-out procedures had to be improved upon and we are still insisting on that; in addition to that we still take the view that the level of fees certainly require further explanation.

So far as the baslc viability of the project is concerned, we are more or less in accord with the position stated by Arthur D.Little that the project does have viability. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. GILDAS MOLGAT (Ste. Rose): The Minister has just made a statement. If there are some members on the side of the Official Opposition who wish to speak I would -- fine. If not, then I would take this opportunity, which I think is proper in the House.

I thank the Minister for his statement because yesterday when the first stories appeared, and one of the reasons that prompted my questioning at the time, that the indications were that the area of disagreement - maybe we should put it that way - between the government and the comf)any 'Nas really very limited, strictly the question of accounting procedures, and it has been my understanding that there were in fact some items of greater importance at question.

My sole concern, frankly, in this affair is that the public of Manitoba be properly protected, and from the outset this was my endeavour and that of my party to ensure that whatever was done would be in the final best interests of Manitoba, recognizing the difficulties of having de velopments in that area. And I know how difficult it is to be questioning, I suppose, these things because one appears then to be questioning development, and that certainly is not my object and never has been the object of our group. On the other hand, any development must be a sound development in the interests of everyone.

This continuing - misunderstanding, I suppose, is one way of putting it - between the government position now, the previous government, what's right and what's wrong, I think is very detrimental to all interests in this - the companies, the government, and the public of Manitoba, and I would hope that very soon there will be a definitive statement of some kind arising hopefully out of the audit report, and that an over-all and clear-cut statement can be made to the people of Manitoba, because the continuing concern, I think, is extremely harmful.

I would like, as well as the audit report, if the government would at the same time make a statement of some kind as to the total viability of the project, because there has been continuing

4088 .July 21. 1970 (MR. liOLGAT cont'd.) • • • • • questioning by some people aa to whether or not. in fact, the northern forest resources could sustain the type of enterprise that bas been established there; whether the inventories were adequately completed; whether the Department of Mines and Natural Resources were satisfied that the project in itself can be viable. All of this is of concern to the people of Manitoba in the final analysis, and I'm frankly not interested in the politic::s of it. I think at this stage we have to look upon the project as one in which all of us are involved.

All of us as Manitobans have money involved in it, and we have to get the thing going in the best way possible, but I think it is urgent that there be as clear a statement as we can have at this time on the over-all aspects of it; the accuracy of the present financial situa tion; the viability of the company or the companies in the long run; and a clearing of the air, if I might put it that way, because I think that the present situation, the statements in the paper over the weekend, the questions of the First Minister at the end of last week, whether or not he would meet with Mr.

Reiser, the questions yesterday and so on, I think can only in the long run be harmful, so I would hope that there would be very soon a very definite statement as to where we are going. MR. JAMES H. BILTON (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the authorities on this subject insofar as our party is concerned, I too want to express our appreciation for the opinion given by the Minister tonight, and in a personal sort of a way I would like to see this situation cleared up in the public mind for all concerned.

Being a northerner myself, I would hope that it will progress and come to a happy conclusion, and provide the thousand jobs we are all hoping for. In the meantime, I trust that any further remarks that may be made could be held in abeyance until such times as the newspaper report which the First Minister has referred to has been perused by those in this party. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. JACOB M. FROESE (Rhineland): Mr. Speaker, I too wish to thank the FirstMlnister for his statement.

Because of other activities I have not had the chance to peruse the Tribune to which he referred to, and the articles that are contained therein. However, I certaiuly will take in mind what the Minister has said when perusing the statements tonight. On the matter of the audit, has the audit been completed and has the government already obtained a statement?

I certaiuly, now that we are all in it and I think I am accepting responsi bility too as a member of this House, to the project, because it is now a fact; we are advancing monies; and I think we all have the same interest that this project now be a success, otherwise we will all suffer, and I certaiuly do hope that whatever the report contains, or at least that we try and make the best of arrangements so that it can be successful. MR. J. DOUGLAS WATT (Arthur): Mr.

Speaker, I wonder -- I'm sorry; I was11't in the House to hear only just the last few remarks of the First Minister's statement, and I'm wondering in view of the fact neither the Leader of our Party nor the former Minister ci Indus try and Commerce were in their seats, if the opportunity would be afforded them to reply to the statement at a future • • • ? No ? MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Agriculture. BON. SAMUEL USKIW (Mihlster of Agriculture) (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a Return to Order for Address No. 5 dated March 31st. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for The Pas. MR.

RON McBRYDE (The Pas): • . • further clarification on the CFI situation. I wonder if the First Minister could inform the Houae whether the commentator on c.JAY TV to night. who stated tbat the MDF was not being loaned money by the Manitoba Development Fund, or that the fund was merely guaranteeing loans, whether this commentary was correct or in correct? MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I didn't hear the commentator referred to so it's difficult for me to give any appraisal of the accuracy of wbat he said, but taking the hon ourable member's accounting of it. if it is accurate, I would have to say that the commentator was simply incorrect if he intimated that the MDF was not lending money but merely guarantee ing a loan, or loans. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. MR. USKIW: Mr. Spea.'<er, yesterday the Member for Birtle- Russell posed a couple of

July 21, 1970 (MR. USKIW cont'd.) • • • • • questions relative to Operation LIFT and how it wnl affect our crop insurance program and PF AA exemptions.

I want to say that I did some checking and I find that there would be no loss of benefits as a result of any producer abstaining from produc tion for one year under the crop insurance program, but only if that is the case in two years in succession; and that insofar as exemptions from PFAA payments, I want to say that there is no way in which we can exempt ourselves from PF AA payments if there is no crop insurance con tract, but that the minimum contract required is only 10 acres, so that the producers use their own discretion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. MOLGAT: Mr •.

Speaker, I wonder if I might ask a question of the First Minister following up on the question from the Member from The Pas. Is the First Minister in a posi tion to tell us at this stage how much money the principles have invested in CFI and the other related industries, and how much money the people of U:anitoba have invested? MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, I can take the question as notice, but even then I wouldn't be too hopeful about giving a reply very quickly because it's my distinct impression that it's almost impossible to determine how much equity capital has been already injected that is, private risk capital - particularly if one does not take into account the question of fees and the relationship of the amount of fees paid out to the private risk capital requirements. MR. MOLGA T: I wonder if the First Minister would take it as notice and provide the House with whatever information he can. MR. SPEAKER: The Honotirable Member for Rhineland. MR.

FROESE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the First Minister. Has he had any further word from the federal authorities as to whether they will provide funds for assistance to farmers in southern Manitoba because of flooding? MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge, but I shouldn't say that I definitely have not received word; not to my knowledge I haven't, but I'll check •. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for.Ste. Rose. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Transportation.

In view of some of the problems that have arisen this spring particularly, and early summer, with regard to the maintenance of provincial roads in particular, has the Minister reconsidered the policy of having this established from a central command, as we might put it, with specific times for each road? Is he prepared to give more leeway to the regional offices to take care of local problems, weather changes and so on? - HON. JOSEPH P. BOROWSKI (Minister of Transportation) (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I have given as much local economy as I think I should give to the district offices.

I really have a problem with the House sitting. I can't get out into the districts. I am getting com plaints from MLAs from both sides of the House and from many of our supporters, claiming that our maintenance management program is unworkable. I can't accept it, especially in view of the fact that we spent, or the previous government committed us to spending $180, 000.

I'm not prepared to scrap that program until we have given it a reasonable time to prove itself out, and as soon as this House gets out of here and I can get out on the road and have a look at it and make a firsthand assessment, I'm just going to have to leave it as it is; and if we do find that the system is not working, certainly we are going to have to make some substantial changes. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Birtle-Russell. MR. HARRY E. GRAHAM (Birtle- Russell): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Am I given to understand that the Minister of Transportation is not accepting the opinions and the judgment of his men in the field but he has to do it himself? Is this the

interpretation of his statement? MR. SCHREYER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is asking for an expression of opinion of the Minister of Transportation as to what he thinks about the value of the opinions from his field staff, and that kind of question asking for an opinion is out of order. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister's point is well taken. The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. WATT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I direct a question, then, to the Honourable the Minister of Transportation, and I did the other day and didn't get a sensible answer, and I ask him now: is it his intention to let the roads go, in the words that he would use himself, "go to

(MR. WAIT cont'd.) • • • • • hell" untll such time as he himself has got some time to go out and see what a mess they really are in? No answer? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON (Rock Lake): Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a ques tion to the Minister of Transportation. My district engineer lives in Boissevain and I would like to ask him if he has been in consultation with the engineer as to the condition of the.roads and how the program is working in the past three weeks. MR.

BOROWSKI: May I make it clear, once and for all, that I have no intention of telling those on the other side of the House what conversations or meetings I have with my staff. It's my business and none of your cotton-pickin' business. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. GABRIEL GIRARD (Emerson): A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Honourable Mlnlster of Transportation would consider, when the House is recessed, to come to Emerson constituency first, please. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR.

MOLGAT: I want to thank the Mlnlster of Transportation for the reply he gave me to my original question indicating that he is prepared to reconsider the program, because he has received, no doubt, many complaints, as I have, and I think it should be. In view of the fact that we don't know when the House might rise, would the Mlnlster con sider pairing with me so that he may go out onto the road and see the programs himself and not be held up, because this is an urgent problem in rural Manitoba. MR. BOROWSKI: Mr. Chairman, before the Member for Ste. Rose changes his mind, I gladly accept his offer. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I don't think it's quite fair for the Mlnlster to take up the Member for Ste. Rose. I think the business of the House is of greater importance. If all of us took the same action there would be no one here to conduct the busi ness of the House. HON. SIDNEY GREEN, Q.C. (Minister of Mines and Natural Resources) (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. MOLGAT: Mr.

Speaker, on the point of order, I'd just like to say that obviously the roads in Rhineland constituency are in much better condition than the ones in my constitu ency. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not the case. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order. MR. FROESE: I would ask the Mlnlster of Transportation a question. The question I would like to direct to him is whether he will be so kind, after the House is prorogued, to come to Rhineland and take a drive with me over the provincial roads in that constituency and see whether we cannot do something about them. MR. BOROWSKI: Mr.

Speaker, unlike the previous administration, this Minister wlll visit every constituency in Manitoba. ORDERS OF THE DAY- GOVERNMENT BILLS MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether any members in the Opposition benches can indicate that we can proceed with Blll No. 148, which is now standing in the name of the Honourable Member for St. Vital. I believe that the Minister wishes to speak to it and I'm sure that, even after he speaks, according to the rules there will be an opportunity for the Member for St. Vital.

I don't want to talk about the latitude of that opportunity lest I be shouted down by the membet'S on the opposite side. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. GIRARD: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking to the Member for St. Vital prior to this and he suggested that if he wasn't in the House, possibly I could make a few comments and let the blll go on to committee. ! have had a cha!!.ce to read the blll and . . . MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, the blll has not been called, has it? MR. SPEAKER: I • . • the Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. MOLGAT: Mr.

Chairman, I thought we were still in the period before the Orders of the Day and that the Leader of the House was simply asking for information from this side,

July 21, 1970 40_91 (MR. MOLGAT cont'd.) • • • . . because if it is the intention to proceed to the bill I wOuld like to ask a question about the procedure first. Is it the intention of the government to refer the bill, if it goes through second reading here, to a committee? And if so, when might that committee sit, because there are some municipal people who are concerned and who want to appear before committee. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I had indicated that- let me put it this way- that the bUl will not be referi-ed in such a way that people will not be able to make representations.

We wlll not sit, for instance, if we do go to Law Amendments Committee tonight, which I hope we wUl, it will not be to discuss this bill; that there will be no proceeding with this bill without people having an opportunity to make representations. MR. MOLGAT: . . • regardless of what happens to the blll, if it passes second read ing, it will have the opportunity of having public representation? Fine. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for ED'erson. MR. GREEN: I wonder if the honourable member would just hold .his fire. His Honour is here to -- well, His Honour is waiting to enter the Assembly.

ROYAL ASSENT DEPUTY SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. MR. SPEAKER: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly, at its present Session, passed several Bllls which, in the name of the Assembly, I present to Your Honour and to which Bllls I respectfully request Your Honour's assent: MR. DEPUTY CLERK: No. 10 -

An Act to amend The Optometry Act. No. 36 -

An Act to incorporate The Manitoba Sports Federation - La Federation Manitobaine des Sports. No. 63 -

An Act to amend The St. Boniface Charter, 1953. No. 64 -

An Act consenting to the merger and amalgamation of the Manitoba Farmers Union with the National Farmers Union and Others. No. 65 -

An Act to amend The Commissioner of Northern Manitoba Affairs Act. No. 67 - The Privacy Act. No. 88 -

An Act to amend The Registry Act. No. 89 -

An Act to amend The Child Welfare Act (2). No. 90 -

An Act to amend The Wives• and Children's Maintenance Act. No. 94 - The Expropriation Act. No. 96 -

An Act to amend The Queen's Bench Act. No. 97 - The Suitors' Moneys Act. No. 98 - The Health Services Insurance Act. No. 100 - The Museums and Miscellaneous Grants Act. No. 101 -

An Act to amend The Intoxicated Persons Detention Act. No. 104 -

An Act to amend The Public Schools Act. No. 105 -

An Act to amend The Education Department Act. No. 110 -

An Act to amend The Housing and Renewal Corporation Act. No. 111 -

An Act to amend The Child Welfare Act (3). No. 115 -

An Act to amend The Mining Royalty and Tax Act. No. 123 -

An Act to amend The Wildlife Act. No. 126 -

An Act to amend The Real Property Act. No. 127 - The Age of Majority Act. No. 129 -

An Act to amend The Metropolitan Winnipeg Act. No. 130 -

An Act to amend The Municipal Board Act. No. 133 -

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

An Act to amend The Winnipeg Charter, 1956, (3). No. 138 - The Development Corporation Act. No. 140 - The Law Reform Commission Act. No. 141 - The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1970. No. 144 -

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

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

An Act to amend The Municipal Act. No. 150 -

An Act to amend The Revenue Tax Act.

4092 .Tld.y 21,. 19'70 MR. CLERK: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to these bills. (His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor was then pleased to retire.) GOVERNMENT BILLS (Cont'd.) MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 148. The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. GIRARD: Mr.

Speaker, at the outset may I confess that I am certainly not an ex pert on municipal affairs but I find this interesting because it is dealing with a problem that is, in my view, very acute; not only acute in the areas that this bill will be able to serve, but rather it's an acute problem in suburban Manitoba as well as rural Manitoba. On first reading of this bill, my impression was simply that this is a very feeble effort in remedying the situation, and will in fact do very litUe to improve the lot of the farmers or the gardeners that are caught in this assessment squeeze.

I'm still convinced that it really will do very litUe in terms of remedying their real problems. I wish, however, in all honesty to offer to the Minister my sense of appreciation for the effort made in trying to get to the problem in spite of not reaching a solution that is worthwhile. I realize that this is a very complex problem. It's not an easy one to remedy. I think we must be honest and recognize that it's not easy to get to that kind of solution unless you study the whole idea of tuation based on assessment.

I would suggest, as I have suggested two times at least before in this Chamber, that this is one of the most pressing problems as far as Manitoba is concerned, and unless by this fall, unless the government has studied the matter sufficiently to become sufficiently aware of the problem and come up with some kind of remedy to this kind of problem by this fall, I would suggest that they are dragging their feet, because it is the most pressing problem in the area of tuation that we're facing now in Manitoba.

The Act, basically, attempts to help the people who are going to remain gardeners and scare away the people who are going to speculate in property surrounding the city area. The two assessments might work but I am rather skeptical. I am afraid that the deferral of taxes might lead to indebtedness, might lead to indebtedness more than it will lead at present, and the nine percent interest, Mr. Speaker, is one that will make the debt accumulate quite rapidly.

I can only see benefit in this bill for those who keep the property for eight years or so and at the end of that period sell it, having. deferred the total amount or more, the total amount of the taxes that is possible to defer under this bill. In selling this property, I understand that the taxes must not exceed the amount of assessment between the two assessments, and in that way it's possible that the landowner who will sell the property at that particular time will stand to gain. Mr. Speaker, I submit that that is really not helping a great number of people and it's really not a very significant kind of help.

I can't be too critical of the bill because I can't pro pose something that is more constructive. I would not suggest that we vote against the bill in that it really doesn't do enough, because in fact it's an effort; it's not a good one, but it's an effort, and I would recommend that we support the bill, but not voice satisfaction in that it does what we would like it to do. I'm a litUe bit skeptical about the fact that it ties property that can be collected for land taxes but that's really no change; this is what we've got right now. I'm certain, Mr.

Speaker, that there are more learned people in my caucus on municipal matters who will be offering comments to this bill as it gets to committee. May I suggest, just in closing, that I share the concern voiced by members of my caucus and other members on this side of the House, who said on previous occasions that really, may be we are not giving sufficient time and notice to the people who want to appear before our com mittee. I wish to indicate that I am not satisfied with the way our committees have been oper ating; that we haven't got sufficient notice out, of which committee is sitting when.

I don't think that the people of the Opposition and I don't think the public ought to be satisfied with the way our committees have been operating of late. I wish that, rather than dig in their toes and say we are going to force the issue to be this way, that the House Leader and the members of government decide to be a little but more humane and a little more co-operative and decide to hold committees in such a way that the putlic oan make representation at their convenience. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Minister of Mwiicipal Affairs is closing debate? HON. HOWARD R.

PAWLEY (Minister of Municipal Affairs) (Selkirk): Yes, unless there

July 21, 1970 4093 (MR. PAWLEY cont'd.) are other members who would like to speak further on thtB matter. Mr. Speaker, we've heard a variety of comments and complaints in respect to the bill, and I appreciate particularly the words expressed by the last member that spoke because I think that his comments did make a great deal of sense in respect to his analysis. At least it was a constructive analysis tnSofar as the contents of this bill was concerned. I only wish that he had been with the previous government.

I wish also that the Member for Birtle- Russell had sat with the previous government during the decade or so that the previous government had formed office; because the Member for Emerson made a statement that unless a solution is arrived at by this government by this fall, then this government would be dragging its feet.

I can only assume that the honourable member indicting this government being in office a little more than one year would therefore by comparison agree that the previous government that sat in office for eleven years and failed to deal with the baoic problems of assessment - in fact didn't even have its feet on the ground- I would have to assume that that would be the honour able member's analysis as well when he made such a comment in reference to our government after it being in office a little more than one year compared to the previous government's being in office over eleven years.

But I think that probably if there had been this spirit and this attitude that's expressed by the Honourable Member for Emerson in the previous govern ment that the previous government would in fact have taken action along these lines • . There are just a few areas that I think should be detailed. One is some suggestion that has been made that the tax deferrli.l would eat up the complete value of the property.

I would just like to give an example what the situation could be if the assessed value based on agricul tural purposes of a farm was 10,000 and if because of the influences introduced to that farm as a result of urban sprawl increased that value to 20, 000 dollars and the accumulated tax deferral and interest say amounted to $15, 000 before the property either ceased to be farmed or in fact was sold, then the basic level would not fall below 10, 000.

In other words there would be 10, 000 of the 15,000 dollars that had been accumulated in taxes and interest applied to the de ferral but not the remaining five, so that there would be a constant basic level - constant, that would not be eaten into; the value insofar as farm assessment would remain constant, lt would not be eaten into by the tax deferral account. There has been complaint in respect to interest. I do share the concern that bas been expressed by the honourable members about the question of interest.

Certainly nobody likes to pay interest in the modern commercial world, commercial transactions, but this money will be advanced by the province and considering the cost to the province in the administrative handling of this money it would not be possible unless the province is prepared to subsidize this program and certainly this is something that we may wish to look into to provide thtB interest at a lesser sum than nine percent. It just would not be possible under the circumstances.

There has been a suggestion by the Official Leader of the Opposition that thtB matter should be withdrawn, the bill should be withdrawn and should be further studied.

This matter has created some concern in respect to myself and others because we are going to be dealing with Municipal Affairs in Committee between this session and the next session and I don't want to proceed from here with any rigid mind in respect to this problem; however, I do think that before we make ·a final decision in respect to that we should hear what is said by way of public submissions, public representations, then evaluate our position from that point on. So on thtB basis I would suggest that we give this bill support to committee stage, see what the public submissions have to say.

If as a result of those submissions it is felt that more time is re quired then I think that we can hopefully by consensus agree at that point to refer it to the Municipal Affairs Committee that's been set up and to deal with matters of assessment in total between sessions. If on the other hand we find that the attitude expressed through the public submissions is such it would give us some encouragement, then we might proceed to finalize this bill through third reading this session. So with these few words, Mr. Speaker, I would conclude my remarks. MR. WALTER WEIR (Leader of the Opposition) (Mlnnedosa): Mr.

Speaker, would the Minister permit a question? Would the Minister tell me what committee the bill is being re ferred to? MR. PAWLEY: The bill is being referred to Law Amendments, Mr. Speaker. MR. WEIR: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell me when the hearing on Law Amendments will be held to receive submissions?

.Tlily 21, 19'10 MR. PAWI$Y: Well I possibly should permit the House Leader to upress ~1$, but 1 would hope that we could make arrangements after the hearings have been completed in respect to Publlc Utntties Committee so that we could give reasonable opporiunity for people to be heard. MR~ GREEN: Mr. Chairman, this will be - I indicated to the Member for Ste. Rose that adequate notice would be given.

The procedures are going to be that we are going to be - when we finish what we have before us now or substantlally what we have before us now, the House will be called into Session 1n, let us assume, a period of five days; it would seem that that woul!i be a good time when the House is called into session to hold Law Amendments Com mittee immediately after the same day as the House is called into Session to hear the repre sentations on this particular bill. MR. WEIR: Mr. Speaker, if the House Leader is permitted to make a statement in that matter perhaps I would be permitted to respond. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, I only tried to answer the honourable member who asked when Law Amendments Committee would be called. MR. WEIR: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of order, I think I was entitled to ask the ques tion of the Minister of Municipal Affairs because he had just spoken. I don't think that the House Leader was required to answer within that rule, but having been given that permission to the House Leader may I say that I would suggest that what he has suggested is reasonable assuming that two or three days notice is given to the other people outside the community.

I'm not tnring to argue, I'm just saying that I would hate to come back, to find the House being called, to find that we were going into Law Amendments Committee that there hadn't been ade quate notice given to those that were possibly to make representation; that at the same time that the House was called, that publicity might be given to the fact that representation would be received on this bill. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I did indicate not three days I indicated five days.

For my honourable friend's information, I spoke to the Executive Secretary of the Wildlife Federation and he did not wish to make representation before it. MR. WEIR: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would like to know that if the -- well, Mr. Speaker, may I accept the opportunity to respond to the statement that was made by the House Leader? I don't require leave because, Mr. Speaker, the House Leader didn't have leave to make a statement about speaking to the Executive Director of the Wildlife Federation.

It just so happens that I had an opportunity to speak to the Executive Director of the Wildlife Federation, too, Mr. Speaker, and he thanked me for the position that I had taken in the House, that the position I had taken in the House was quite an accurate one. MR. SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, it's my desire with concurrence of honourable members if it's available) that we move into Law Amendments Committee to consider the ~dlord and Tenants Act clause by clause.

I had indicated to honourable members that this is what -- (In terjection) -- and the Dental Services Act. The reason that I want to proceed in this manner is because if we do get back to committee, if we do get back tonight and wish to move into Committee of the Whole House, then we can consider the bill that was left over from this after noon plus anything else that we pass in Law Amendments Committee, if that's agreeable. MR. SPEAKER: I'm then leaving • • • MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Epeaker, I wonder if I might ask the House Leader a question? What is there still to appear before Law Amendments Committee? MR.

GREEN: The Landlord and Tenant Act and the Dental Services Bill, Dental Services, those are the only two. MR. MOLGAT: That's it? MR. GREEN: Well the Municipal -- (Interjection) -- Yes. The Municipal will not be considered tonight. I'm trying to give accurate information. I indicated that with regard to the tax deferral blll that we would meet on the day that the House was called back into session which would be five days, and we would give adequate notice. MR. WEIR: Mr.

Speaker, has the H::>use Leader given an indication that from the time of adjournment we wlll be adjourning for five days and returning in five days? You know this is the first information I've had. MR. GREEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, not more than five minutes ago I indicated that it is

July 21, 1970 4095 (MR. GREEN cont'd.) • • • • • likely tbat we would be talking about a period of something like five days. -- (Interjection) -- Well, Mr. Speaker, we will be back in the Bouse tonight. I have indicated to my honourable friends the other day that we would be asking for an adjourn ment of that nature. I don't know the exact day that we are coming back so I don't want to give him misinformation; I'm asking for concurrence of the Bouse to now move to Law Amendments Committee to consider the two bllls that are pending before that Committee. MR.

SPEAKER: I am now leaving the Chair to return when the Bouse is prepared to re sume tonight's sitting. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair. -- (Inter jection) -- Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, just let us get the report of the Committee of the Whole Bouse. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. WILLIAM JENKINS (Logan): By leave, Mr. Speaker, I beg to present. MR. FROESE: I don't think this is proper to bring in a report at this time. -- (Inter jection) -- No it isn't. -- (Interjection) -- It's out of order. -- (Interjection) -- No there was no agreement.

A MEMBER: No agreement. No agreement. MR. GREEN: • • • honourable member understood that I had indicated that we would go into the Law Amendments Committee • • • MR. FROESE: Yes and report back. MR. GREEN: ••• we would come out of the Law Amendments Committee and take it in to the Committee of the Whole House. -- (Interjection) -- Mr. Speaker, I don't know that there's anything that can be done about it, if my honourable friend insists that he objects I'm not sure that there's anything we can do. · MR. FROESE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to consider the amendments that were placed before the committee.

Some of them were brand new, we hadn't had a chance to consider them and I feel on that ground I'm not prepared to grant leave to bring in that report at this time. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I just want the members to know he has the right to take the position that he's taken. My colleague the Minister of Labour says that he believes there was an agreement that leave would be given but if the honourable. • . -- (Interjection) BON. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Minister of Labour) (Transcona): That's right. MR. GREEN: Pardon me? MR. FROESE: I agreed to go into Committee but not that the report woUld be brought back tonight. MR.

GREEN: Well my honourable friend- there's nothing that we can- want to do to suggest this. MR. PAULLEY: I think there is. MR. GREEN: The alternative would be to suggest that we be here at 2:30 tomorrow after noon to consider the report of the Committee of Law Amendments. We have already called delegations for 9:30 in the morning on Public Utilities Committee but we can move into the House at 2:30 tomorrow afternoon. MR. PAULLEY: But he granted leave. MR. GREEN: He denies that he granted leave. MR. PAULLEY: He did grant leave. MR. FROESE: Mr.

Speaker, we'll have to come back regardless for third reacliDgs of other bllls. I can't see the rush, I certainly can't see the rush in this matter. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, spea.<ing to the point of order raised by the Honourable Member for Rhineland. I see his point about his right as a member of the Assembly to refuse leave to take under consideration in Committee of the Whole amendments that were moved and accepted in Law Amendments on the same day. So I'm not questioning that at the moment.

But there is another procedural point before us and that is as to whether or not it is not in order for the Chairman of Law Amendments to at least move his report at this time, bearing in mind, honouring the honourable member's refusal to grant leave to have the report of the Committee, the blll considered further in Committee of the Whole this evening. BON. AL MACKLING, Q. C. (Attorney-General) (St. James): Mr. Speaker, on the point of order.

I want the House to know that this morning as soon as the amendments were avaUable in print I gave copies, and I gave the Honourable Member from Rhineland a copy, so he had the amendments as soon as any other member had them avaUable, and I think he had ample time to

4096 .July 21, urro (MR. KACKLING cont'd.) .•••• consider them. The amendments, Mr. Speaker, were thoroughly explained in Law Amendments Committee and there was no rushing there. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. I wasn't necessarily speaking of the Blll the Attorney-General was referring to. I'm referring to the amendments of the other bUl. I'm quite agreeable to go along with the First Minister in accommodating him and having the report brought in but on the condition that I can adjourn it so that I can then look into the amendments. MR. PAULLEY: You granted that leave.

Let's not accommodate him, he's right or he's wrong. MR. ·GREEN: Is the honourable member suggesting that he wants to adjourn debate on the report of the committee being received- because that's what I heard him say. You have no objection to going into Committee but you wUl not give leave to considering those two bills tonight; is that what you're saying.? MR. FROESE: That is the point. I don't want those two bills considered here tonight because I want another chance to look at the amendments that were presented in the Committee. MR.

GREEN: Well there's no point in getting the report moved, it can be moved tomor- row. I move, Mr. Speaker - and I'm indicating to honourable members now that I will be ad journing the House tonight to tomorrow afternoon at 2:30, tomorrow, 2:30 in the afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. • •• MR. FROESE: I can't be here tomorrow afternoon. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, there is one other problem that I want to raise just before we move into committee. That is that I previously asked that the Minister of Transportation be changed for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation on the Public Utilities Committee.

I would llke that reversed so that the Minister of Tourism will continue to sit on the committee. I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair •.• MR. GIRARD: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order I wonder if I could ask the Hon ourable House Leader why it is that we could not on our return after the five days, and assum ing that this is going to be so, consider the bUls in Committee of the Whole? Why is that it has to be done tomorrow? MR. GREEN: It's not Ulegal that we couldn't do it but we wish to proceed with it tomor row - we would like to proceed with it tonight. MR. FROESE: Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order. I should inform the Minister that I have to attend a funeral tomorrow afternoon and I can't be present. -- (Interjection) -- MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable the Minister for Cul tural Affairs that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into Commit tee of the Whole to consider the following bUls: No. 43, 134 - those are the only two. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole with the Honourable Member for Elmwood in the Chair.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE MR. CHAIRMAN: BUl 43

an Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act. We are deal ing with the amendment of the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose that

Section 61. 1 (1) be amended by substituting the word "two" for the word "four". Just to clarify then, we have first an amendment by the Honourable First Minister that the proposed new subsection 1 of

Section 61. 1 • • • MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I appeal to you, Sir, to ask hon ourable members on both sides of the House to observe the usual requirements of decorum. It's impossible to even hear the Chair from here. MR. CHAIRMAN: On the motion of the Honourable First Minister that the proposed new subsection 1 of

Section 61. 1 of the Legislative Assembly Act as set out in

section 3 of BUl 43 be amended by striking out the word "five in the third line thereof and substituting therefor the word "four"; and then we have a sub-amendment proposed by the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose that

Section 61. 1 (1) be amended by substituting the word "two" for the word "four" where it appears in line three. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, the sub-amendment calls for two positions rather than

J1dy 21, 1970 (MR. FROESE cont'd.) . • • • • four and it seems to me that on the surlace that 1 would glve support to the sub-amendment because it seems to me that the need for these positions bas not been established in my opinion. We've had previous governments and they've been able to function without any assistants wbateTer and now within a year the new government is •sking for four assistants. 1 don't know how come all of a sudden we have such a large need for people in this area and for these positions. I would certainly like to hear more of the need if it does exist for these positions.

I know that the Honourable Memler for St. Boniface certainly bas done considerable work as far as I know and what has been related to me. I don't know so much about the Member for Osborne who is the other assistant. I don't know what services he has been performing and just what functions he is serving in this capacity. Certainly I would like to hear - he is not in the House at the present time, he is not in his seat, but perhaps we could have some explanation given as to what the functions are of the assistants and just what duties they do perform and whether there is a real need for th.3se positions. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable First Minister. · MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the member that the Honourable Member for Rhineland was referring to, I'll take it upon myself to give a very brief explana tion of the function of a L~islative Assistant. It is that of a parliamentary secretary, at the provincial level in effect, to assist the Minister with respect to administrative work and also with respect to representing the Minister on such occasions as the Minister cannot be present at himself.

So that there is work involved in -wearing in certain places in the province from time to time, representing the Minister, if the Minister is unable to attend; there is also the function that of assisting in administrative work, enquiring into the operations of the depart ment in a way that is helpful and useful to the Minister. As such, the help given by a legis lative assistant removes or obviates the necessity, I think, of hiring additional permanent staff, at least to that extent it does.

Much of what is contemplated in the way of function of the legislative assistant could be performed by an executive assistant hired from outside, but doing it that way I remind my honourable friend is more expensive and I mean what I say when I say that I believe this is less expensive to the public purse than a number of alternatives that have been considered.

It might be of interest to the honourable member to know that if we adopted the practice of the Government of Alberta and appointed 17 ministers, then we would not of course require any legislative assistants at all, because 17 ministers is that number which we would have with 13 ministers and 4 legislative assistants, but the cost to the Crown I would estimate doing it this way would be at least 60 to 75, 000 dollars less. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Souris-KUlarriey. MR. EARL McKELLAR (Souris-KUlarney): Mr.

Chairman, I would like to just say a few words on the motion of the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. I plan on supporting this motion, because I think if there ever was a time to save the taxpayers money it's right now; never in history are the people in the rural parts of Manitoba any harder up than they are right now. MR. SCHREYER: I just want to know if four Ministers would cost them more. MR. McKELLAR: I would like to say to the First Minister here that we have enough Ministers in our province to look after 960, 000 people. MR. SCHREYER: You had more.at one time, you know. MR.

McKELLAR: Thirteen is all we ever had, thirteen- twelve and one. This in my opinion- I can see the duties, I can see them right now. These people can go out cam paigning, they can go out campaigning, they can start the day after the session ends and they can come into every area of the province. Now can you visualize a legislative assistant in the Province of Manitoba fUling the same duties as Ottawa, I can't. I can see the need in Ottawa where the distance is a real problem, the ministers can't get away because it's a year round job.

This is not a year round job, it's about a four month's session on the average and this is a little longer. I can't see the need at all of any Legislative Assistants, but if the First Minister wants Legislative Assistants I agree with the Member from Ste. Rose that two is suf ficient, and I would like him to think about this. We are always concerned about the taxpayer, I think everyone of us should be concerned about the taxpayer, but this $3,000 is only going to be a small part of the total cost.

I can visualize a car being part, which will cost at least $1, 500 a year per man; I can visualize an office, I can visualize a couple of people in the same office with him, so when you add it all up, you have a lot more than $3,000.

~-.,__._, 4098 .July 21, 19TO (MR. McKELLAR cont 1d.) Now, Mr. Chaf.rman. lt's true that in the past we haven't bad this and I think times were a lot better than they are right now. Had J'DU been in the government three or four years ago and brought this in I would say yes, but you are going to ff.Dd the revenues are gof.Dg to be down and down considerably this year and I think it would be the wise move on behalf of the govern ment to keep these costs. down on behalf of everyone.

Sure $3,000 lsn't very much and it won't be very much out of my pocket for each one of the salaries of these leglslative asslstants, but ·tt will mount up by the time you figure all the added costs. That's all I have to say at this time, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to vote for the Member for Ste. Rose's amendment. and if it's defeated l'm voting against the bill. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. GORDON W. BEARD (Churchlll): It's late enough anyway, Mr. Chairman, so we may as well kick around for awhile longer. I missed my elevator.

I guess we are here be cause we are not all there in the first place anyway. I can't understand the real arguments that were placed to us just now because if it was necessary to have them three or four years 'ago then I don't know why it lsn't necessary to have them now. I suggested three or four years ago it was necessary- but on the other hand, perhaps the mlnlsters aren't as good as they were three or four years ago and • • • MR. BARRY ENNS (Lakeside): Yes, we had capable guys that ••• MR.

BEARD: • • • one of the past minlster's sitting over in the loges there, maybe we could throw a bouquet his way and say well we have to make up for it some way or another. But there lsn 't any logic really in this move, because if we're going to agree to two, and if two 1s not at sin, then why ls four a sin; because it's a minority government? And they haven't promised me one of those positions. I doubt very much whether I will get one and I don't think I want one anyway. Probably I'd end up on Bill 56 and I wouldn't be happy in the first place. But I really don't see any evil in it, I honestly don't.

I can't see that much money being spent by it and as I said before, I had always.maintained that this was a good approach, not only when this government came in, but in the last government and in the last two premiers I have said that I felt that executive asslstants should be appointed and they should be - at that time I had taken the attitude that they probably could make good use of the city members in thls case because they were closer to government than the rural members wbo were out in the country.

There's not much point in bringing a rural member in as an executive asslstant but where members are sitting in the city itself and where we sometimes hear representation by popula tion, etc. , then maybe executive asslstants will cool the hounds that are baying at our heels when they say they want all the representation of the Province of Manitoba to come from Metro Winnlpeg. But I think that four people is not too much to add. I think we will all agree that no one minister can look after the department of health and soclal development.

We all remember What George Johnson said at one time "take it away, I don't want welfare because it's too much." And the Member for Souris-Killarney will recall thls. This is right. Be said one Minister cannot handle it so this is what was done. The Member for Lakeside held one or two portfolios, then lo and behold where did he go to? The Minister of Government Services was not satlsfied nor was the Minister of Agriculture satlsfied until there'd been a mlnlster appointed to look after each of those departments.

I think that all th1s comes back to the fact that government 1s big business and there are a lot of us that think they are big enough now, they shouldn't get any bigger. The New Democratic Party feel they should get bigger, bigger business. I suppose that if they go through wlth Bill 56, they'll need another two next year to look after that. In all seriousness, I'm going to support the four members and I don't think it will hurt. I hope they will be used properly.

If I felt that it was being used for political purposes, if I felt that they were going to be used to be sent out to make political speeches for the New Demo cratic Party until election time, then I certainly would be up and speaking against it very much so.

If I felt that it was going to relieve a Mlnlster to go out and make speeches for the New Democratic Party then I would be against that, but I think there is a lot of work to be done, I think that the elected person is much closer to the community and to the thinking of the people of thls province than those that are hired by government as executive asslstants or civil serv ants, whatewr you may wish to call therp., so I do support the fact that they've taken this type of approach.

July 21, 1970 (MR. BE4RD cont'd.) . . . . The only thing is that we've all sat down with mathematics and by the time we add up Manitoba Hydro, :Manitoba Telephones and all the rest, then, we find that they've alLgot jobs but God bless them, maybe they. need it. I suppose we'll get along in Opposition without those jobs; maybe they'll throw some crumbs our way some day. Butldori'tthink we're preaching for a cause.

If we're going to vote for two, let!s let them have four; If they come back for siX next year we can say ha, ha, we told you so; you need them for political reasons maybe, or maybe they've proven to be so good that they can show us where they can cut costs by adding a couple· of other members. But I really have no objection to it and I'll stick with the four. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. EN'NS: Mr. Chairman, just briefly I'd lUre to take this opportunity to speak lntl mately to the government opposite.

The press has long gone and left us and we have an oppor tunity- oue of those rare opportunities - to speak about matters that concern ourselves directly and quite frankly I'd like to disassociate myself from the remarks made by the Honourable Member from Souris-Killarney, his frugality is one that perhaps we should understbd. I'm not suggesting for a moment that his legitimate concern for the taxpayers Isn't real and his points perhaps valid from that point, but it's been mentioned before and I'd like to mention it just once more and it won't take more than three or four minutes.

I don't quite feel that the government doesn't fully appreciate the fact that along with the acceptance, the unanimous acceptance of the Redistribution Blll prior to the last election the considerably heavier oms placed on those rural constituencies and the members representing them. I'm coming at lt from the back door with respect to one of the objections raised with this particular matter on this Blll.

And I say lt with no malice or any unkind thought, but the present government is made up of primarily urban members - not exclusively- and then those who are not of urban areas - primarily again and not exclusively - are members who are recei¥' lng some special consideration for very legitimate reasons; northern members for the extreme problems of transportation costs and so forth. - (Interjection) -- by statute, correct.

And on top of that, and we've raised some additional objections, we have established such things as the Northern Task Force which aside from doing a worthwhile job - and I'm prepared to accept the fact that they are doing a worthwhile job, having read their first report and having listened to the apparent response of northern communities to that Task Force that I would have to retract some of the statements that I made at the time, if you will remember, at the time of the setting up of the Task Force- but what I'm getting around to with this particular clause in addition we're talking about the possiblllty of four additional assistants or means of providing additional income for four or two, whether the amendment passes or not, additional people of the NDP caucus.

I would ask, and I wlll sit down after having asked this question, the First Minister to do a bit of arithmetic and to look at it from a non-partisan point of view and taking into account the personnel that he has been in a position or the government has been in a position to appoint to various boards such as Telephone or Hydro or Water Commission, in addition to the special allowances that members of his caucus are receiving because of their position by statute in northern ridlngs, in addition to the fact that most of - for me to provide anywhere near the same service to my constituents I have to put on 40, 000 miles on my car, at my expense, and I do that largely- you know a year ago lt was probably only 30,000 or twenty-five because my con stituency of Rockwooc}-Ibervllle was-- (Interjection)-- no, my constitnency was half as small.

My constituency now stretches from Brooklands, 90 miles into the Interlake and lt stretches past Portage and south of Portage and this can be said - unfortunately the political geography of the map is so divided that those of us who are facing moSt of the expenses are sitting on this side of the Houae. There are exceptions to it. I'm saying those that face similar burdensome expenses on that side of the Bonae, have by statute, at least some allowance is bei.Dg made- I'm making reference to the northern members recognizing that that's possibly not even enough, but Mr.

Chairman, I'm trying to hold the First Mlnlster's attention for a brief moment on this floor and suggest that the suggestion that has been made from this side that - and perhaps it was made unfairly- that this may in fact be or provide you, Sir, with a means of augmenting the incomes of the members within your caucus without doing anything that applies to the House as a whole, has some validity in it, and I suggest that the real basis for the validity is not any action that you have taken or haven't taken; in fact the validity lies in the acceptance, the unanimous acceptance of some years ago of the Redistribution Bill, which has considerably increased by the scope, the siZe and the type of expenses that constituents, all rural constituents ,[ I

4100 July 21, 1970 (MR. ENNS cont'd.) ••.•• now face. As I say, it's not at all uncommon for a rural mem ber to go through one car and 40, 50 thousand miles in the service of h1s constituents, and that based agalDBt an urban setting with different expenses but I'm Sllre not anywhere near the kind that I'm speaklng about. So Mr. Chairman, I wlll Sllpport the amendment and intend to Sllpport the Bill, but I take this qtportunlty to interject that plea, 1f you may.

I have to say the press is stlll far removed from us so as I sa:v this was an q»portunlty for m lntlmate tete-a-tete with the members of the treaBilry bench on this particular question and perhaps in the wisdom that I know is present there, although often not exhibited, you may choose to consider this matter at some future time. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how lengthy reply the honourable member wanted but I wlll try and satisfy hlm with a brief reply.

First, by saylDg to him that 1f he is bemoanlDg the fact that he has a relatively large riding now to travel and to service, that is a fact that I personally, for one, have had to Uve with too at times. In fact for a period of time I represented a riding that exteDded from the City of Wlnnlpeg aU the way east to the Ontario border, from the Trans-Canada highway all the way north to beyond the fl.fty-third degree of north latitude.

I don't know how many thousand square miles that represents but there was no extra allowance paid for that fact even though it was at the federal level; uevertheless, many members represent relatively small urban ridlngs, there is no distinction made between the two. I don't know how relevant that is, Mr. Chairman,- at the provincial level we do make a distinction between the large northern ridlngs and the smaller oues in the rural south and city. There is a statutory extra allowance paid and I don't think anyone in this Chamber really objects to that. Well, for years, Mr.

Chairman, I sat on the opposite side, Uke the honourable member is now and received a legislative iDdemnity considerably less than the honourable member is getting now, representing a rural rf.dlng, uevertheless, and there was no extra allowance for travel costs. I'm suggesting to the honourable member that perhaps he has a point when he suggests that it would seem to be diaproportlonate, the treatment that seems to be accorded this side relative to the other side.

But on the other hand the honourable member should know that my colleague the Minister of Labour did move a motion just a few days ago to refer the matter of MLAs indemnities, and that includes the question of travel expenses, to the appropriate Standing Committee of this House in turn to be taken up, we hope, in a systematic way by an independent committee, outside committee. I don't mind saying for the record that I regard the present provision for travel allowance for MLAs to and from their riding to be anachron istic.

I believe it covers the mileage to the session at the beginning of the session and to the home at the end of the session and I don't know in v.bat way that can be reconciled with the requirements of modern day demands put on an MLA and it is not in keeping with the practice in other provinces and the Parliament of Canada, and so I would hope there would be some changes made. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR. ARTHUR MOUG (Charleswood): Mr. Chairman, I just wanted one or two questions really of the First Mlnlster.

He mentions that the cost of an extra Mlnlster in comparison to the four members as mentioned in his amendment. I was wondering would this take into consideration for these legislative assistants the several costs and the same privileges maybe that go with a Minister in the way of cars, desks, secretaries and allowances and the Ukes of? I was wouderlJ~ what level that would stop at? MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the provision here ls to authorize an emolument which I can advise honourable members 1n no case would exceed $3,000, and furthermore, for actual out-of-pocket expenses, there is no provision here for entitlement to automobiles or the like. Secretarial service would be that of the department of the Minister's office; just the barest of essentials 1n terms of office space. MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member is continuing. MR. MOUG: A subsequent question.

I would wonder then 1f a department became involved where it would look realistic to have representation to Europe and so on Uke that, of course this would be an expense as though it ~re a Minister? MR. SCHREYER: Out-of-pocket expenses, Mr. Speaker, as Sllbmltted by actual voucher. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member from The Pas. MR. McBRYDE: Mr. Chairman, I'd just Uke to make a couple of brief comments here in terms of the nature of the debate. I think that.to discuss the proposal before the House 1n

July 21, 1970 4101 (MR. McBRYDE cont'd.) • terms of supplementing the Income of backbe~hers on . the government side is not what was intended by the legislation. Certainly I don't kaow of any backbencher on this side that couldn't earn more by not being a legislative assistant In some other line of work between sessions, so the purpose of the legislation is to allow the back- . bencher to be able to get involyed in the process of government and to share some of the. responsiblllties in a minor way with some of the Mlnlsters.

The purpose of this legislation lB not to supplement the income because all of us could make more in some other way between legislative sessions. MR. CHAIRMAN: The proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. All those in favour ... The Honourable Minister of Transportation. MR. BOROWSKI: I'd just like to take a minute to make a couple of remarks.

Every member is entitled to express his opinion and say why he's voting for it but I resent the remarks made by the Member for Souris-Killarney when he suggested the mlmlte we put these assistants on the. payroll that they're going to start campaigning the very next day.

I want him to know that I Btlll remember a February b:r-election when your government used executive assistantJJ to campaign against us and in fact when Ministers, under the pretense of being in an area for certain departmental work were used for campaigning and I think we all, the Liberals are aware of it and we're aware of it and I think you're the last person that should come into this House and accuse us of this. At least allow us to make that mistake, to com mit· that sin which we haven't done yet. Allow us that courtesy and then he can come in next year and say look what their guys are doing.

All we're asking for here is really- we shouldn't be proud of it, it's cheap labour - because $2,500.00 a year to me almost is, you know as one who has talked about the minimum wage for years, is an insult. I've bad the Member for St. George working in my office for two months for nothing and I suppose when the session is over he's going to go back to the farm, but should this thing go through and he continues to work, he's going to work day in and day out for the rest of the year for $2,500, which I think is cheap labour.

If the Member for Souris-Killarney is interested in economics and saving money, he should be the first one to get up and say let's get this bill passed, because it's going to save the government a heck of a lot of money. You know an executive assistant starts off at $8,400. 00. What does he do? You know, in terms of real work, what does he do? These guys will be workhorses aDd I think if you're really interested ln what you said, you shonld vote for the Bill. MR. CEAIRMAN put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion lost. MR. MOLGAT: Ayes and Nays, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Call in the members.

MR. McKELLAR: Mr. Chairman, before you ..• I'd like a ruling on whether the members who are going to be appointed Legislative Assistants are ellgJble to vote or not. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry that's not in order at this time. The Members have been called in and we are now ready to vote. MR. McKELLAR: It is a particular point of order. I would like you to make a ruling on it. MR. GREEN: ... order. According to the blll everybody is eligible to be leglslatlve assistants, so on that basis nobody could vote- including you people, that's right- so I would think that the point of order is not relative. MR.

CHAIRMAN: On the Proposed motion ... Order. MR. McKELLAR: Mr. Chairman, this is spelled out right here on Page 8,

Section 12 Page 8. "A member shall not vote upon any question of which he has a direct pecuniary interest and the votes of any members so interested shall be disallowed. " Now I want a rullng on it. MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe that there is no discussion at this stage. I've called the question and the members . . . MR. BUD SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Well Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order. I think that by the admission of the Honse Leader, all members on the government benches .• MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. I don't believe, I do not believe it is in order for the member to speak at this time. MR.

SHERMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the government House Leader has said that anybody on that side could be appointed a legislative assistant •.. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege, on a point of privilege •..

4102 D. SBEilJIAN: 8Q tUt rules all of them Gilt, Mr. Chairman, except thC)II8 who beloag to the cabblet. .... .MR. (lBEEN: Kr. Chairman, on a point of prlvllege I don't want to be misquoted by the hoDOII1'8.ble member. I said ewry member of this HOWle, I did not say on the governmeut side. IIR. SIIEBIIAN: Well on that polut of order then no member of this HCW18 shoWd be eBtlt~ to vote on tbJ.a question. · KB. CHAIRMAN: ()rder please. I thiDk that we'w Ud- would tbe member sit down. It seems to me that when a division Is called for tbere Is no polut of order on any other discussion ihat Is in order at that tlme.

KB. McKELLAR: You haven't calJed the vote yet. KB. CHAIRMAN: On the propoeed motion of the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose . A COUNTED VOTE was taklln the result beiag as follows: Yeas . . • KB. CHAIRIIAN: OrdeJ' please. KB. mLTON: He went from 9 to 11 that's the • • • KB. CHAIRMAN: It's late ln the evenlng, would the honourable members please rise •ain, so that we can have the correct count. KB. CL~K: Yeas 160 Nays 26. KR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the subo-amendmeut lost. The Honourable Member for Asslnlbola . .MR. STEVE PATRICK (Asslnlbola): Mr. Chairman, I was paired with the Member for St. Boniface.

Had I voted I would have voted for the motion. KR. LEONARD A. BARKMAN (Ls Verendeye): Mr. Chairman, likewise I was paired with tbe Honourable Member for WlnnJpeg Centre. Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment. KB. CHAIRMAN: Order. The Honourable Hoose Leader. KR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, while honourable members are 1n the House that may have other thiags to do for a mameut, tbe Member for Rhineland has agreed that he would give leave to the House going out of committee, getting a report, to came back lnto committee and hear the Landlord and Tenant Blll, so I just want members to know that we will also consider that. KR. McKELLAR: Well Mr. Chairman, have I got a right to ask for a rullng on that motion that I made? We have another vote and I want a rullng. KR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. I don't understand the member's question. MB.

McKELLAR: ~11 I don't understand you either but I want a rullag. MB. CHAIRMAN: What ruling would you like? The Honourable House Leader. KR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, again, ln an attempt to expedite matters, we are going to have to vote on a similar question. The honourable member is challenglag the right of people to vote because they may- well let him make his challenge. I think we should have a rullag and have It beard now bec81188 we are going to have to vote on It ln a few moments. KR. GORDON E. JOHNSTON (Portage la Prairie): On the polut of order, Mr.

Chairman, I believe the Member for Sourls-Klllarney Is challenging the chairman's ruling as to whether or not his motion was ln order. KB. CHAIRMAN: May I just clarify the situation and then the honourable member may challenge If he so wishes. The Honourable Flret Mlnlster. KR. SCHREYER: I suppose it is 1n order for an honourable member to request the chairman to make a ruling, but lt seems to me that he can do so only If tbe honourable member Is on a polut of order questlonlng the right of someone to vote. In that case then it comes before the chair for the chair to make a ruling.

But If the honourable member Is merely asking for a ruling In the absence of any challenge on his part or any polut af order on his part, co&- 18nding that a particular member or members might not be eutltJed to vote, then I fall to see how It can came before the chair for a ruling. KR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mlnlster of Labour. KR. PAULLEY: If I may, Mr. Chairman.

As I understand lt, the blll before the House dealt with matters of tbe Legislative Assembly and the reason that we deal with that ln Commit tee of the Whole Is becllllSe it concerns the conduct or the lndemnlty of members of this Assembly. - (Interjection)- That's r~ht. And it is within, only within- well may I ca& tlme without Interruption? MB.CHAIRMAN: Orderp~ase. KR. PAULLEY: I don't give a contlneutal where the Interruption comes from. We have dealt In this Hmaa slnce I became a member of tbe Hmse I think on four or five occasions, at

July 21, 1970 (103 (MR. P AULLEY cont'd.) . • • • . leut, deallng with tbe matter of indemnltles, pt~ODS ud other emoluments of the members of this House, and that is what we are deallng with at tile present time and on these occasions the question as to whether or not a member has a pecwdary interest are cast aside and set aside. The only time that the pecuniary interest of an lndl't'ldaal member of this House arises is whether or not that interest prescribes to a coudnct of a mem ber deallng with

an Act before this House. My honourable friend, the Member for Portage la Prairie shakes hls head. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Is the Mlnlster of Labour questioni.Dg your rullng? I understood you made a ruling. Now the Mlnlster of Labour is suggesti.Dg perhaps that you made a wrong rullng. - (Interjection) - Well what are you speaking on then. MR. PAULLEY: I'm trying to lndlcate to my honourable friend the Member for Port.p la Prairie that insofar as the application of pecuniary interest is concerned, that we have • . • MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

You made your rul1ng on thla matter. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm afraid that my ruling has been misunderstood. I would l.lkB to repeat it for the clarification of members of the House and particularly for the Member for Souris-Killarney. We called a division and after the division was called and we were prepared to vote, the honourable member got up and asked a question about pecuniary interests. I am not concerued about what the content of hls question was; I suggested to him that he had no right after a division was called to raise any question on pecuniary interests or any other subject matter.

I refer him to Rule 10 (1) which says "when members have been called in preparatory to a divi sion no further debate shall be permitted. " I was not objecting to a question on pecuniary interest, I was objecting to "a question", so that ls my point. Now we are at this stage where I am about to move the vote on the motion of the Honour able First Minister and I believe that when I do that it is in order for the Member for Souris Killarney to get up and to make a speech on pecuniary interests or any other question.

I wollld just like to clarify that I was objecting to his question in a sense of any question, not the con tent of his question; so perhaps I could proceed to pnt the motion and the HonOilrable Member for Souris-Killarney can raise a question at that time or make a speech. I therefore call the motion as proposed by the Honourable First Minister that the pro posed new subsection (1) of

section 61. 1 of the Legislative Assembly Act, as Bet outln

Section 3 of Blll43 be amended by strlki.Dg out the word "five" in the thl1"d line thereof and substltutlDg therefor the word "four". The Honourable Member for Souris-Killarney. MR. McKELLAR: Mr. Speaker, at this time I will ask you to make a ruling on

Section 12, Page 8 on the motion we are going to .deal with at the present time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Tbe Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: I just want to clarify my own position. If the ruling is passed lt will reduce the mmber from five to four. Does the motion then have to be pnt as amended or would then the bill pass with No. 4 in it? The motion now ls to reduce the mmber from 5 to 4, I take it, and the

section would read four instead of five? All right. Mr. Chairman, I would submit in answer to my honourable friend, the Member for Souris-Killarney that this is not a question in which a member has a direct p8CUJilary lntl8l'eat. I repeat what I said before: lf that were so, no member could ever vote on a question of 1llJ.s kind. The Honourable Member for Fort Garry takes that as a suggestion from myself 1ILat DO member can vote. Well I really think that the honourable member is belDg facetlou ln bder pretlng my words as such; sorely members can vote on legislation which deal with~ tion.

This is not a question ln which a member has a direct pecuniary interest; It is a ~ as to what the remuneration of members of the Legislature shall be. The fact that he happens to be one does not lndlcate a direct pecuniary interest to that member and I would ask you to rule accordingly. MR. CHAIRMAN: Tbe Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. MOLGAT: Mr.

Chairman, I wou.ld question whether members at large would be affected in any way by a vote on this question, becmse members who are not preaently labelled as legislative assistants are purely in the stage of bei.Dg hypothetical assistants so I think &D7 member would vote. I would mspect. ho'Yt'eftr, that there may be a dlflereDt posltfon for the

4104 (lfB. KOLGAT cont'd. ) . B0110111'able the Kember for St. BODiface COilBtltiUtJICfiiDd the Kember for OaborDe CODBtltu.ency who haw been designated already by a declsiOD of this Boase as being legislatiw assistants, aDd now because 1t was not in the original Act, because lt"s not in the estimates, because it's not in a:iJ.y other provision, except I bellew this bill, who niay then be in a queattoiUible posWon - those two I think there may be a question on. I wCJald.tlllnk for other members that there ls no problem. - JIR. GREEN: On the same question.

I want the honourable member to be serious, and I know he is being serious, but to seriously consider the following; that we all as mlnlstsrs haw seen on DIDlerous occaslons the salary of a Kinlster sugested to be reduced to one dollar, aiMi lf one were to follow the logic of my honourable friend's position to a conclusion it would mean that the lllnlster could not vote on tills question.

I submit that that is nOt a logical lnterpn~tatlon of the rules; that mlnlster apparently has a direct pecuniary interest in hls salary and yet the rules are not to be interpreted as deall.ng with salaries which are paid as a matter of remuneration to members. I 'WOilld therefore suggest, Mr. Chairman, that there is a nice distinction that the Mem ber for Ste. Rose has made, but I would suggest that everybody can vote on this question. MR. MOLGAT: On the same point, it seems to me that there ls a difference though, because it is accepted that ministers are paid; it is now part of the estimates of the Bouse.

It's been part of the structure that they are paid salaries, we might question the amount but it is newrtbeless a part. What we are doing here now is we are saying that a certain category of lndi vlduals who has not at this stage been paid, is now to be paid, aDd the question is v.hether the individuals who are going to benefit from this should vote or should not vote. This is my only considera tion, whether those two individuals in the light of the fact that we are really creating something new, something that doesn't exist at the moment in which they haw a pecuniary interest, should vote or not.

Really I don't think it will make any difference to the final vote in the Bouse, but It seems to me there may be here a questton because of the fact that we are lnsti~, tntlng a new practice in which two members at the moment do haw, because of the way it was handled, a direct interest. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, after the statement made by the Honourable the Minia ter of Labour I didn't think it was really necessary to say anything more on the matter, but unfortunately- unfortunately we don't have instant reply so members don't have before them the explanation that was given by the Mlnlster of Labour, but it is one that bears repeating therefore.

That is simply this, that the Legislative Assembly Act - over the years it has been well UDderstood that matters pertainlng to members' emolument obviously are matters in which members have a direct pecuniary interest and yet members have always dealt with that question and voted for and against measures of indemnity and expense allowance and even pen slons- matters of pension are a matter of direct pecuniary interest; they have all voted. Now what is before us is an amendment to what? To the Legislative Assembly Act,

an Act which has in lts bearing on matters of direct pecuniary interest to members, have been voted on by members notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 12 of our Rule Book. Now I put that to the side for members to consider and I want to refer to the remarks of the Honourable :Member for Ste. Rose. Usually he ls wry logical in what he puts forward but tonight I think he will on reflection have to admit was not one of his better exercises in logic, because the Honourable Kember for Ste.

Rose tried to draw a distinction as between whether or not a Minlster got paid at all or whether there was a motion to reduce hls salary by degree or an amount. Either way, the Mlnlster when he votes against a motion to reduce his salary, is 90t1ng on a motion that is of direct pecuniary interest to him and h1m alone. Now members can argue that that motion is pro forma aDd therefore doesn't mean that much. But I want to certainly disagree completely with the Honourable Kember for Ste.

Rose's contention that a qaeatlon as to whether or not there shall be any salary is a question of direct pecuniary inte~ est, but a question as to whether it shall be $1.00 or $2,000 or $8,000 ls not a matter of direct pecuniary interest. That to me ls just, you kliow, to me is not logical. And I say in concluslcm, Kr. Chairman, two other points. · In a way I 'WOilld welcome a ruling on thls question of members voting on direct pecanlary interest.

First of all I would llke it defined more precisely just what is meant by "direct pecuniary Interest" becaase lt might be of interest with respect to other measures that come

July 21, 19'10 (MR. SCHREYER eODt'd.) . . • . . before this HOWI8 from time to time. But I '1'8~ c»D~ expect a ruliDg becaUse I am In full agreement with the position taken by the Minister for- '· Labour that it is really not necessary to have a ruliDg beellWie the practice ls well uncierstood. and has been long standing, therefore why should we offend our understanding of the rules aDd· practices.

Finally, I say that what we are arguing about in a sense has become academic because there are, in any ease, only two members that could be said to have a known peCUDJa:rY Interest and they're not here, they're not here, and no Others are therefore in the same pOsition. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable :Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: :Mr.

Chairman, despite what's being debated at the moment, I WOilld hope that the review that was promlsed just a few moments ago that I understand will be taking place In between sessions on some of the matters that I referred to just a little while ago will In faCt take place and be presented at the uext session so I can vote on it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Rhlneland. MR. FROESE: :Mr. Chairman, on the point of order. If Rule 12 does not apply In this case, when can it be made applicable? It seems to me it can never be applied. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Chairman, it seems to me that the suggestion of the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose was in reality eminently logical because it grew out of a request that was made a few moments earlier by some member on this side - I'm not quite sure now who it was- but a question as to v.ho the prospective appointees were that the governmenfhad In mind and although that appeared to be perhaps an inflammatory and a questionable enquiry at the time, I think the logic of it is now substantiated by the point raised by the :Member for Ste. Rose. It seems to me that what is at issue here is the question of the

interpretation of our Rule 12 In this Chamber, and if anything, the rule as it's specified and spelled out on Page 8 should be submitted to the Rules Committee for examination and

interpretation and for identlflcatlon as to what a direct pecuniary Interest involves. The First :Mlnlster has touched on this point and it seems to me it could well be submitted to the Rules Committee for examination between sessions because this is the key phrase and it's the polntat issue here. I was interested In the remarks of the Mlnlster of Mines and Resources. He sugestacl that my lDterjection In the debate was a facetious one, and perhaps to a degree it wu, bat I think he created the situ.atlon for himself when he said that the appointments were open and available to any member of this Chamber.

Now that is true, but lf he hadn't Said that I waaldn't have raised the point I did. What we are concerned with is the people that the govermnent bas In mind for these appointments. If they've been notlfled, lf they've been advised, they have an unquestionable direct pecuniary Interest In this clause, in this

section of this blll. If there has been no suggestion to anybody in the government's ranks that they're In line for thls kind of an appointment then they don't have a direct pecuniary Interest; but lf there are two or three or four members of the government ranks who have been so advised, then I submit - I would expect my friends in the Treasury Benches to concede that those two, three or four people do knowingly have a direct pecuniary Interest, and the Rules Committee of this House ahald COID8 to some kind of a determination between sessions as to what that pbraae means. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Chairman, I love to listen to my honourable friend the Kember for Fort Garry.

I said the other day, 110gpsted to my honourable friend that he llhouldn't pcmtUI cate In 1hls H011Se and we've just listened to a pontlflcatlon from my honourable frleDd. -(In terjection) - I don't know how to spell lt; and I may not be able even to prODOUDCe it c~, but I do love to llsten to my honourable friend the :Member for Fort Garry because I know - and also the :Member for Souris-Killarney- because both of them hue been in respectiw jarladlc tlons, one Federally, the other Provincially, that have had a pecuniary flderest ln the sala:rles of members of Parliament or members of thls Assembly, and both of them have votBd on them. - (Interjection) - Yes you. did.

Because your salary was Increased . MR. SHERMAN: • . . before I got there. MR. PAULLEY: Before you. got there? MR. SHERMAN: Yes, before I got there. MR. PAULLEY: And how about the other :MPs? MR. SHERMAN: I don't know, but I went In .•• MR. PAULLEY: Oh you. don't know. That's exactly :Mr. Chairman, what I'm~ to my honourable friend that he doesn't know.

4106 Juiy 21, 19'10 MB. SHERMAN: No, no. On a polDt of prlvllep Mr. Chairman. That is not wllat my honourable friend is sagestlDg to me. What my honau-abla frleDd is sugesUDg Is that I voiBd to raise my aal.ary In parliament and I did not. I went to Pu-Uament after that raise had talren place. MB. PAULLEY: Then I say to my honourable frleDd he went there afterwards and got all of the beneflta as the result of 1ndl viduals within the Asaembly who obtained the beDBflts of a pecuniary llderest In what they were voting upon; and that 1$ the proposition that we've got here today.

My honourable frleDd the Member for Souris-Killarney, to my knowledge, and he's not going to dl$pute me, vo1Bd In this Assembly for Increases in his particular emolument. ADd I· want to say, too, as far as the Member for Ste. Rose Is concerDed I do not recall that when an Increase was gran18d to hlm as the Leader of the Official Opposition, that he obsolved himself or vo18d against the Increase that he was granted as Leader of the Opposition at that particular time. My honourable friend the Member for Souris--Killarney, nods his head in assent.

Now then, Is that right? - (Interjection) - Sure, my honourable frieDd says - (IIr 18rjectlon) - That's right. And Mr. Chairman, isn't it true that the honourable the present Leader of the Official Opposition by not opposing when we were considering the estimates of the Legislative Assembly this year by hlm not voting against or absenting himself from the provision of his emolument as Leader of the Opposition • . . MR. WEm: How about yours as Minister of Labour? MR. PAULLEY: That's right, that's right. Exactly- this is the point that I'm trying to make. MB. mLTON: Ditto. MR.

PUALLEY: Oh yes, and my honourable friend the Member for Swan River now when he was Speaker of the Hruse - (In18rjectlon) -- he did not • • • MR. WEm: Buzz, we voted two for you. MR. PAULLEY: That's right, that's right. I agree with this, but the point that I'm trying to make Mr. Chairman, Is that so far as the application of Rule 12, "pecuniary in18rest" does not apply Insofar as the Members of this House are concern.ed.

So I suggest that with the blll that v.e're dealing with now Rule 12 does not apply, Rule 12 only deals with pecuniary Interest rutside of this House and the application thereof to the Members of this Hruse. And I would suggest that this is the context in which we should consider my honourable friend the Member for Portage la Prairie 'Mlo as Leader of a third Party presently receives an extra emolunient, if I am correct, of $6, 000 a year by virtue of the fact that he Is the recognized leader of a party within this House.

I wruld venture to say, and I think that I am correct, that when this particular matter of the appropriation of the estimates was before the Hruse in the consideration of the Legislative Assembly appropriation that my honourable frieDd the Member for Portage la Pralrle dld not say well now, I can't take any

part In this and I object to it, or, I do not vo18; because It is not recorded as far as I am aware In the journals of the House of the suggestion of the Honourable Member for Portage Ia Prairie that he should not vote on this because of the fact that he may have a pecuniary in18rest. So I say, Mr. Chairman, this is the basis on which this proposition ls before us. ~re has been and there Is historical precedence on this and to suggest that two individuals, namely the Member for St.

Boniface or the Member for Osborne should not vote - 'Mlether they do or whether they don't, that's their baby- but the nggestlon that ttJ,ey should not vote becauae of pecuniary Interest on this partlculu- resolution I think is going beyond precedence that has been established In this House in previous years. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Swan Rher. MR. mLTON: Mr.

Chairman, I've been very interested In everything that's been said tonight and those members that have spoken thus far know the reason for pargraph 12 that Is In our rules; and they know very well that lt goes beyond the confines of this Legislative Aall8mbly when that rule was put in there. I know my honourable friend from Souris--Killarney is a reasonable man, a good living man and a high thinking man and he's put hls flnger on something that be thinks be can tickle the government with. This is all to the good.

But at the sune time, at the same time, I think enough has been said on this particular matter and that we should deal with lt at the earliest possible momeout lL. order to get on with the business of the Province of Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR. MOUG: I think, Mr. Speaker, that lf the front bench of the government slcle of the

July 21, 19'l0 (MR. :MOUG cont'd.) • . • • . HOUBe is good enough to keep staDd1ng up for a'Mllle ,and liMp talklug, it'll get the First :MlDleter off the hook and we'll be able to saw off by three, becaluNl· he'll probably haw to replace scane of them. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear those remarks, I tried to listen. I'm. not sure whether anythl:ug said was intended as an insult or not, but it's late and my callOWiness . · to insult grows better with the passing of hours. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mlnlster of Transportation. MR. BOROWSKI: Mr.

Chairman, as Rule expert Numher 56 in the House, I would like to make a brief comment and I'd llke the Chairman and the Honse to consider the lmpllcatlou of the ruUng that is gol:ug to be made. There are several Insurance agents which wlll be ellglble for the compensation the Premier has mentioned. Will they be allowed to receive this compensation when - will they be allowed to vote on compensation on Bill 56? MR. G. JOHNSTON: On a point of order Mr. Chairman.

On a point of order, I bellew that I raised this matter some months ago and had a rull:ug from the Speaker that any member of the HOWle who had operated as an insurance agent would - whether or not he shCIIlld haw the right or not to vote on Bill 56. I specifically asked for the rullug and the Speakar made the rull:ug. · MR. GREEN: Just on that point of order. There was no ruUng. MR. GRAHAM: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman. We are deall:ug with the pecuniary interest not the picayune interest. . MR. CHAIRMAN: . . . I intend to make a rullng in connection with Bill 43.

I think that we've heard sufficient discussion. I can quote from Beauchesne lf honourable members would care, but I would simply· make this simple distinction which has been made by other members that I believe a pecuniary interest applies to the interests of honourable members outside of this HOWle and that when it relates to matters concerulng the Indemnities of mem bers or pensions or other such matters, salaries, that this in fact does not constitute a pecuniary interest as understood in

Section 12. I believe

section 12 prohibits a member from voting for something which would benefit him in terms of a bllslness or other interest outside this Chamber. I would therefore g1 ye that as my rull:ug. MR. CHAIRMAN put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 3 - pass . . . MR. WEm: Nay. MR. CHAIRMAN put the question on the pasaage of

Section 3 .••

Section 3inchldas the recent amendment which was just adopted by the . . . MR. WEm: All I'm dolng Is keeping up with my commitment to suwort all qf the ame» ments all the way down the line but vote against the sections. So really all I'm dolllg is maiD talnlug my commitments to the House earlier. - (Interjection) - Yes, and I did. lost. MR. CHAIRMAN put the question on

Section 3 and after a voice vote declared the motion MR. GREEN: Ayes and Nays, Mr. Speaker. MR. CHAIR:MAN: Call in the members. A COUNTED Vote was taken the results belllg as follows: CLERK: Yeas 24; Nays 16. MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the

section passed. (Section 4 66. 1 to 66. 2 (~ were rud and passed. The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. <:;halrman, I would like to move an amendment followt.Dc on 86. S(S). I beg to move that a new

section to be mmbered 66.2 (3) be added to read as follcnm: "Witlabl 30 days after the commencement of each session of the Legislative Anembly, t1ae )(~. shall lay before the Hwse a report showing a breakdown of all paymeDts made to or· oa belaalf of all the members of the Leglslatlw Assembly," - I'm readl:ug frcan a traucrlpt whlcll Ia dlfflcult to read "by way of indemnity, allowance, salary, relmbur•ments for expenses ad any other purpose whatever and not prevlwsly laid before the assembly." :MR. CHAIRMAN: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for ste. Rose. The Honourable First Minister. MR.

SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, lt might save time lf the honourable member would indicate whether it's his understanding that information which he requests in this uaendmeat ls not forthcoming in any case in the form of the Publlc AccOIUil statement? MR. MOLGAT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't believe lt does come in pabllc .ccoants

L 4108 Jttly 21, '1970 (MR. MOLGAT cont'd.) • • • . . In that fortt~.. I think Public Accounts shows what ls paid to members by way of I.Ddemnlty, by way of tr8.118portation allowuce, bttt lt does not llhow 'Mlat it pald for attendaDce at committee meetings and expenses attendlDg committee meetlJ!ga. Now I may be wrong. -(Interjection)-- Well before the Mlnla18r of Labour shakes his head too vigorously, it may fall off, I would recommend that he look at public accounts. Because Mr.

Chairman, I believe that the format of public accounts that I have seen does not show that, lt shows, true eDOUgh, the indemnity, the standard expense allowuce, that is the one-third, the travelUJw allowance to the Legislature, 'Mlich is a very small amount, bttt I don't dllnk lt does show any other expenses pald for committees and so on. I think that In view of the fact that we are making some ch-.es here that rather than ask for it by Order for Return, whlch can be done obviously, that we slmply est8bllsh it as a stand ard rule that thls be deposited before the House ammally.

Furthermore, public accounts as the. MR. CHERNIACK: Would you permit a question? MR. MOLGAT: Yes certainly. MR. CHERNIACK: I'm havf..Dg difficulty reading the- you also had difficulty? Could you lDdlcate whether there's any date, as of what date you wish that Information or is it- (In terjection)- no, no I understand the deadline, but what is the effective date? MR. MOLGAT: For the previous fiscal year is what I have 1n mind. Mr. Chatrman, what I have 1n mind is. slmply this. MR. CHERNIACK: Well let's just clarify that.

If it is on Aprll 4th then it would be for the year ending four days prior to that, is that correct? Is that 'Mlat the honourable member has lnmlnd? MR. MOLGAT: Well it may be difficult to produce it that quickly. I'm not really co~r cerned about the- you know the technicalities, whether it's April 4th ... MR. CHERNIACK: .•. legislation we're dealing with, are you not concerned? MR. MOLGAT: Mr.

Chairman, lf the Mlnlster of Finance wants to discuss the techni calities, fine; I wlll reword it or ask the Legislative Counsel to reword it 1n such a form that it meets that, but I think what I'm concerned about here is that as a general principle, lf we are going to have payments made and expenses pald for members of the Legislature, outslde of the normal Indemnities and so on, that it be reasonable, that rather than ask members of the House to put In an Order for Return that it be established as a standard practice that this be tabled every year.

Now this year, for example, I did table such an order for return and I got my answer as to what members were pald for attending committees and so on. All I'm suggesting is that 1n the lnterests of the House, and again the public, that the disclosure should be made. I think lf it was simply a matter of course there would be no problem. MR.

SCHREYER: I want to lndlcate to the honourable member that there is no disagree ment In princiPle wUh his proposal However, it would expedite matters I'm sure lf instead of saying "within 30 days after the commencement of'' each session, it were to read that "during each regular session" because the requirement that it be done within 30 days would make it awkward wltb respect to the end of the fiscal year, etc. And furthermore, there are special sessions and the like, so during each regular session and then go on with the provision.

I'm wondering lf there would be time now to check In a systematic way to see whether Public Accounts really does provide this Information. I mean, would the honourable member really insist on moving this amendment lf he were to be shown 1n public accounts that the very Information which he is requesting here is already provided in public accounts? We are havlng a copy of public accounts bell~ brought down now. MR. MOLGAT: Mr.

Chairman, lf In fact Public Accounts did reflect this In that way, a breakdown of what was paid by way of indemnity, allowance, salary, relmbursemeut for expenses, attendance at committees- lf this was shown In public accounts this would be acceJ* able to me, but the publlc accounts I have seen don't show that. I'll be happy to go and get my copy. MR. WEIR: Mr.

Chairman, In terms of public accounts may I say that my recollection oi public accounts is that it would show the tob&l, 1he total of expenses that were comlDg to any member of the Legislature, over and above his Indemnity and his regular expense allow ance, lf it amounted to over $1, 000; lf it amounted to over $1,000. If there is anytblDg under $1,000 lt is not listed 1n public accounts because of the magnitude of the number- lf you

July 21, 1970 '"'()9 (MR •. WEIR cOJJt'd.) • ~ded all the way you would have a book llke so, ad I think that the limit that shows up in public accounts, for members u for other. acCOILDta, t. $1,000. 00. MR. CHERNIACK: Would the Honourable Member permit . . . MR. WEm: Yes, I'd be. more than happy to . . . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, I'm looking at Page 204, Publlc Accounts for the year ended March 31, 196-9, and the first line re~ ''Member Baizley, Bon. 0., constituency Osborne: indemnity $4,800, expense allowance $2,400, living allowance and area allowance nil, mileage nll The next one ls Barkman, L.A., Carlllon: indemnity $4,800, expense allowance $2,400, living allowance and area allowance $1,200, mileage $8. 00. Shall I read this llat? - (Interjection) -- Well, but it comes down to $58. 60 ud $13. 20 on mileage. Now what ls there missing from this. MR. WEm: All of those things are statutory. , MR. MOLGAT: Mr.

Chairman, what's missing from this is what's pald for attendance to committees between sessions, expenses relative to committees between sessloDS ud any other expenses which we may now be paying under thls Act for people attending te special fano tions, or per diem allowances or anything else. All I'm seeking is that there be one place where the total amount paid to every member of the Legislature be so labelled, but It ls not. MR. PAULLEY: You haven't read Public Accounts. MR. MOLGAT: Well Mr.

Chairman, maybe the Minister of Labour could attend some other place at the moment and allow people who agreed to deal with the matters before. us. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, I rise, because I think that the intent of the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose is being misunderstood. The purpose is to obtain information in a session relating to the activities of the honourable members for the period leading up to the session.

The information that's contained in the Publlc Accounts is a year behllld, ud it's not full information to begin with, and the purpose is becanse the honourable member hu already indicated, he asked and received an order for return bringing it up to date so that be would be in a position to deal specifically in the debate in this session, or in the session ln which the information is required, with accurate and pertlna:at iDformatlon with reJIPitct to the members.

I don't think that there is anything wrong in the intent and I would think tlaat the government would be as interested in seeing to it that there is some degree of restraint shown with respect to the allowances ud expenses to be attributed or allocated to the members of the Assembly, and particularly the members on their side, and therefore would not in any way suggest that that information should be withheld.

I believe as well that the wording would have to be changed to accomplish that intent but I think that that is the objective and I think the objective of having information right up until the time of the session is valid,

whereas the Public Account information is one year behllld and is not valid. If we follow the suggestions of the Honourable Firat Minister, we are simply going to have to follow the procedure that the Honourable Member from Ste. Rose suggested, which is to file an order for return immediately the session begins each year asklDg for infor mation up to date. MR. PAULLEY: Ah sit down you pompou.s poppycock. A MEMBER: Oh come now. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

It's with a great deal of tolerauce that I have allowed the Honourable Minister of Government Services to interrupt and to act in a manner which I consider not respectful and in a manner which does not suit a member and I wish- and I said this before- he makes very little contrlbutlon to the debate after 10:30 each evening, he makes less of a contribution after 12 o'clock and it would in fact, . . • MR. CHAIRMAN: The member ls going beyond a point of order. MR. SPIVAK: Point of order or point of privilege, Mr. Chairman.

I do not belleftt that I have to have the Honourable Minister of Government Services Interrupt me in the way be did now, in the way he has done in the past few days. It doesn't lead to a worthy discussion, aDd in addlt~on Mr. Chairman, it simply prolongs the debate and at the same time llldlcates that what I've suggested before, that the Honourable Minister of Government Services shonld fall asleep after 10:30 and allow the proceedings of the House to commence if we are going to get anywhere. MR. PAULLEY: I want to say, Mr. Chairman, of all the pompou.s asses I've ever sat

----- . ~ 4110 July 21, 1970 (MB. P AlJLLEY cout'd.) . In this Houae - the Honaarable Member for River BeJchu la the mOJit pompCIIlfl ass that I've eftr sat with. MR. CHAIRMAN: Tbe Leader of the Official Opposition. MR. WEm: On a point of prhtlege. Is pompous ass a parliamentary word? I just wonder ..• MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, the Hononrable Leader of the Opposition has no point of pririlege. Possibly the Honourable :Member for River Heights has, but not my hononrable friend. MR. SPIVAK: Point of pririlege Mr. Chairman, it's not necessary . . • MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Wonld the honourable member sit down.

I believe that the MiniJiter of Labour is using unparliamentary 1auguage and I would ask him to withdraw. MR. PAULLEY: I will not withdraw. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to ask the Honourable Member to withdraw, because In law drunkeness is a good defense. MR. PAULLEY: I beg your pardon? MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. MR. PAULLEY: Here is a point of pririlege. I am not drunk; I'm absolutely disgusted with the performance of the Member for River Heights. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would think that we've heard enough on both sides and I would- I realize ..• MR. PAULLEY: He'll rue the day he said that. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Order please. I believe it's quite late at night or early in the morning. I think that onr . . . MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman, precisely for that reason ..• MR. CHAIRMAN: Tbe First Mlnister. MR. SCHREYER: . . if you permit, Sir, I'd like to suggest that in light of the amend- meut moved by the Honourable Member for Ste.

Rose, the principle of which amendment we're Inclined to support but we want to make sure of two things, one the wording which we'd like to discuss with Legislative Counsel, and also we'd like to find out whether the kind of accounting that be is suggesting in his amendment is the kind of accounting that can be carried out without undue difficulty to the Provincial Auditors office and Department of Finance, whichever of the admlnlstrative agencies deal with this. We'd like to check that.

So I'd ask that the blll be stood, and we could perhaps proceed with the other measure that the House Leader referred to earlier. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, it will be necessary for the Committee to rise, for us to get a report from the Law Amendments Committee by leave, then by leave go back into Commit tee of the Whole House, since we are rising we'll have to get leave to go back, and if that pro cedure is agreed to then we wish to proceed. MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I believe that there is a ruling on your part that was put forward here and has not been dealt with. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, I move that Committee rise. MR. GR.AHAM: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order. You did make a ruling and I wonld like to see that ruling either substantiated or dealt with in some manner before the committee rises. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well the member is referring to my request to the Minister of Labour to withdraw his comments and I would once more appeal to the Honourable Mlnister to please • . • In the interests of . . . MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Chairman, I have no intention of withdrawing my remarks insofar as they awly to the Honourable Member of River Heights; and if it is the desire of this House to ask me to withdraw I will. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I believe that a member who has felt that a question of privilege has been raised against him is entitled to say that there is no question of privilege, which is what the Honourable Member for Riwr Heights said; and lf he doesn't insist on a withdrawal I don't think that the Chairman need insist.

If the Member for River Heights does insist that's a dlfterent proposition; but the Member for River Heights is shaking his head. He raises no question of privilege and Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that under the circumstances there's no necessity to have the question raised. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Official Opposition. MR. WEm: On a point of order. May I suggest, and whatever disposition I'll go along with, but we're only a few hours, maybe 72 or 100 hours from the First Minister standlllg In his

July 21, 19'10 · 4111 (MR. WEIR cont'd.) .•..• place and suggesting to the Chair, Mr. Chairman, that~ or not a member, whether or not a member raised a matter of privilege when 1UIP&rliamenta:ry language was used, lt wasn't a matter of privilege lt was a matter of responslbillty, matter of responslblllty for the Chair to see that the matter was carried out. Now Mr.

Chairman, I don't really think in the number of hours that we've had since that that matter has really changed - and it's a matter for you Sir, It's a matter for yon to arrive .at a conlnslon at and to deal with as yon see fit- that the decision as I've understood it up to this point was yours and that it was one that was raised by the First Minister just a relatively few hours ago in terms of days. MR. PAULLEY: Again, Mr. Chairman, I will not withdraw my remarks. If it is the desire of this Honse to appeal to the Speaker and he names me, I'll leave the Chamber.

But I am convinced that the statement that I made is a factual and true one. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Honse Leader, MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I Sllbmit that what .the Honourable Leader of the Opposition is saying is quite correct with regard to the general use of unparliamentary language but what the Member for River Heights and the Minister of Labour were concerned with was a charge by the Minister of Labour ·against the Member for River Heights and I Sllbmit that. on that kind of a specific charge lf the Member is not ralslng it, that it needn't be raised by the Chair.

I respect what was said about the First Minister's remarks and I respect what the Leader of the Opposition says, but I say that in the circumstances lf the Member for River Heights is not raising the question and the remarks were directed at him that it needn't be proceeded with. The Member for River Heights is not raising it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CHERNIACK: Do I understand now that this Bi1143 stands, so that I could have an opportunity to check the wording on; I'm not clear on just where we stood. It has been stood? All right. MR. WEm: That

part is settled, it's a matter of the Chairman clarifying the position that is his, that essentially, it seemed to me, he'd made a decision on. I'm not trying to press it one way or the other, I just indicate that as a result of what was said the other night I think that we abide by that responslbillty, being one who believes in lt, that the Chairman is put in a position of arriving at a decision in some way. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman, about the only thing I could add to the advice given you on this point of order ls as follows: I must agree with the Honourable Leader of the Opposition. My

interpretation of the rule governing "point of privilege" and the enforcement thereof is not changing simply because of the change in circumstances. It is my distinct understanding of the rules that Mr. Speaker, or Mr. Chairman as the case may be, is the custodian of the decorum of this House and that lf he deems a remark to be unparliamentary he does not require .neces sarily any member to insist on a retraction for the Chair to ask for it, and that is stlll my posi tion.

I can say in addition to that that really the onus is either on the person to whom the allegedly 11DParliamentary remark was directed and to the Chair itself to take the initiative in asking for the retraction of such a remark. I find it passing strange that it should be some other member of the Assembly. I have no particular vlsw on that. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if to resolve your difficulty, and I admit it ls ODe for you, lf we simply couldn't agree by leave to let the matter drop where it is. I think it's sufficiently embarrassing as lt is, Jet us simPly drop it. That would clear your position, Mr.

Chairman, and I would be prepared to move that by leave the matter be dropped. MR. CHAIRMAN: I might just point out that my own inclination is to refer to the Speaker, but lf the honourable members wish to, by leave, agree to let the matter rest without further procedure then that ls in their hands. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well I'd like to clear this point up. The Member for Ste. Rose haa Sllggested that by leave we do not deal any further with that question but set lt aside.

Are the members in agreement with that suggestion? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for Birtle Bussell. MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I'was the member that raised the question; I wlllsecODd the motion of the Member for Ste. Rose. MR. CHAIRMAN: Then the matter is at an end at that point. The Honourable Roue Leader.

4112 MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I move 1hat 1he committee rise. MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee rise. Callln the Speaker. IN SESSION July 21, 19'10 MR. RUSSELL DOERN (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for KlldOIWl that the report of the Committee be received. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a YOlce vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. WILLIAM JENKINS (Logan): Mr. Speaker, by leave, I beg to present the 13th report of 1he Standing Committee on Law Amendments. MR.

CLERK: Your standing Committee on Law Am.e:od.ments beg leave to present 1he following as their 13th report: Your Committee has considered Bills: No. 87 - The Manitoba Dental Services Corporation Act. No.l39-

An Act to ameud The Landlord and Tenant Act. ADd has agreed to report the same wi1h certain amendments. All of which Is respectfully submitted. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Matthews that the report of the Committee be received. MR. SPEAKER presented 1he motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, by leave, seconded by the Honourable the Attorney-General1hat Mr.

Speaker do now leave 1he Chair and the Bouse resolve itself Into Committee of the Whole to consider the following bill, No. 139 -- and, what's the one we've just been dealing with - 43? 43. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion . . • - (Interjection) -- MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Rhineland seems to have some question about 43. 43 1s the one we've just been dealing with and we have to get back Into dealing with it. MR. SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared 1he motion carried and the Bouse resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole with the Honourable Member for Elmwood in the Chair.

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 43,

an Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act. Bllll39,

an Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Section 1-passed;

Section 2(a)--passed; (b) ... By page? MR. GREEN: Page by page please, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: (Bill No. 139 was read page by page and passed.) MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder lf we can just remain seated for a few moments until they come back with the amendment on Blll 43. I wonder lf they can be told that we moved rather quickly, maybe they can get back. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman, in order to expedite matters, I wonder lf I could by leave while we're waiting for a touching up of wording on the amendment proposed by the Mem ber for Ste. Rose lf I might by leave Indicate to honourable members that there is an amend. ment that will be proposed to the last

section of the bill, Bill43. The subject matter of which has been brought to the attention of leaders of the opposition parties and which I'd llke to read now to inform honourable members of the content. MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the Honourable First Minister have leave? (Agreed) MR. SCHREYER: I would propose to move that

Section 5 of Bill 43 be struck out and the following

section 1111bstltuted therefor: This Act comes into force on 1he day It receives Royal Assent, but 1111bsectlon 1 of

Section 61. 1 of the Legislative Assembly Act and subsection 2 of

Section 61. 1 of the Legislative Assembly Act except Clanse (

a) thereof are retroactive and shall be deemed to have been In force on, from and after the first day of April, 1970. In other words the beglnnlng of the current fiscal year. This is what I propose to move when we get to the last

section of the bill. MR. FRCESE: By way of explanation, what is the Import of making certain parts retroactive to first of the year? ·

4113 July 21, 1970 . _ , :MR. SCHREYER: Well does-the honourable member- I understood that the hollOIU'&ble member was provided with a copy. If he has a copy, if he will check the aubll8ctlons referred to in the proposed amendment which I will move, I haven't formally moved it yet, he will aee · that it refers to the paying of the out-of-pocket expenses to the Legislative Assistant but not beyond the beglnnlng of this fiscal year, only as of the beginning of this current fiscal year, ln other words, April 1, of this year. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Leader of the Official Opposition. :MR. WEm: Mr.

Chairman, if I might just enquire and I realize we haven't reached it yet, but helping, I think, maybe flU ln time at the moment and not trying to debate it, my understanding was that lt was - well I see it's retroactive from the standpoint of the whole section. :My understanding was that the retroactive part was to look after a particular case, and I'm not asking for a definition of the particular cue but my understanding is that It's not a general thing to be applied in terms of a number of instances or a munber of lndlviduals; it's a retroactive feature designed to look after a particular case that has been in existence since April 1st of this year. :MR.

SCHREYER: :Mr. Chairman, that is basically correct except it does not apply to one particular case, it applies to two; but ln the case of one of the two the amOUDt is uegllglble, if not no:rt-exlstent, so that . . . :MR. WEm: All I knew of was one, so I •.. MR. SCHREYER: Well, in terms of its practical effect it really applies only to one although theoretically it applies to two, but there would be no amounts of money lnvol'fed except a nominal amount in the purest sense of the wordnOm.lnal. I'm wondering, ln the absence of the Honourable :Member for Ste. Rose who mo-ved a

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-2-158
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 2nd hansardpdf 158.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	70824a84d9a7e39edd919f8b83852f49d2e293ed

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