Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 127 (30th Legislature, 3rd Session)

30-3-127

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATNE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 p. m., Thursday, May 27, 19 76 INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS 4305 MR. SPEAKER: I should like to direct the attention of the honourable members to the gallery where we have 17 members of the Cub Pack of the Second East St. Paul group under the direction of Mrs. Evelyn Sawotin. On behalf of the honourable members I welcome you here this evening. BILL 56 - THE FOREIGN CULTURAL OBJECTS IMMUNITY FROM SEIZURE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I do not have much more to say on Bill 56.

I think I have made my point earlier tonight or this after noon, in that I don't feel that this is a bill that should be discussed on the basis of pol itics of any country or on the basis of art exhibits that are coming or will be in Canada or Manitoba from time to time. I think that the point that I made that this particular bill is one that has far-reaching consequences to the people of Manitoba in their privileges in a democratic society.

Just to basically recap I have said that it isn't just the past art that is at sub ject here, it's past, present and future as to what can happen in the province regarding exhibits of this kind. Mr. Speaker, as I said anybody who has now, or five years from now, an ex hibit to be shown and if part of that exhibit has been, let's just say, taken in some way from a person, this bill says it can be shown in Manitoba and the rights of the individual are null and void in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say that I've had a tremendous amount of advice over the supper hour about this bill.

You couldn't have imagined the amount of advice that I received. But I would tell you this that the one thing that was said by the Minister of Mines in his legal position of jurisdiction, that anybody would have the right even today to sue in Russia, France, United States, Britain, anywhere at all. But, Mr. Speaker, let's take another look at the other side of the coin.

Here we are as Canadians, and more importantly Manitobans, and here we are as Manitobans who may have come from Europe in the past while_, and they come here because they want to come to Canada and they want to come to Manitoba and live here in a jurisdiction that gives them the privileges that we accord to them under the democratic system that we have, now why should we basically say to them that if you believe that something is yours you'd better go and file a suit in some other country.

They're here because they want to be here, and that's the credit to us that they came here because of the privileges they have under our society. Now let's not turn around and say to them: "We're going to take those credits away from you. We're going to take those privileges away from you and if you want to decide that the country that you left, whatever it is, and something there is yours, go ahead and sue them over there." We can say that. --(Interjection)- You can do it now, yes. Mr. Speaker, that is the ironic part of it. We say to them: "You can do that now.

You can go and sue in any other country, but you can't do it in Manitoba when you're a Manitoban." That's what we say to them. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier says we can't do it in the U.S. We have gone through the U.S. procedure, and the Premier was not in the House at the time. I say to him that I know that under the Federal Law of the United States that's possible. I'm repeating myself, Mr. Speaker, but to the Premier, under the Canadian Law in the BNA Act there are privileges given to the provinces.

Privileges given to us in this House and privileges given to us as members of this House to defend and talk for the people that we represent. I prefer this system. And I say, why take away a privilege, a credit that we have in Manitoba, giving the people of Manitoba the opportunity to make their decision here as to whether they think something is theirs or not instead of saying to them: ''Well, go and sue in some other country." Mr. Speaker, I would basically challenge the Member from St. Matthews.

4306 May 27, 1976 BILL 56 (MR. F. JOHNSTON cont'd) ••••• He has made a very great issue out of the fact that we who vote against this bill will be saying to people: ''We're stopping you from looking at art that is our heritage." I feel the democratic right is a big heritage, too, in this country. I think that that right is a heritage that we have and I have no intention of takin it away from them.

If there are people within my constituency who want me to weigh the facts, and I will debate it and talk to them anytime and say: ''Well, sure I voted against it, but I had to weigh one thing, the privilege of seeing that is fine and I think that it's a marvel ous display of art that is coming here. But I cannot say I can give you that privilege when I take away your democratic rights." And that's really what you're doing. It's really what you're doing, and that you're not only doing it ••• This bill doesn't just refe to art, it will refer to anything.

Some fellow from Sweden one time sneaks across the border and steals half the paintings in Norway and brings them back home and the Swedish Government confiscates them and says: "Oh, great, we can take them to Manitoba and have them displayed." No. You are really saying that stolen property of any kind, if it belongs to another state or country, can make application for immunity in Manitoba making a Manitoban or Canadian immune from having his rights to claim it if it's his. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of repeating myself to the point that I did earlier this afternoon.

It isn't just art, and it isn't a philosophical thing with me on the basis of countries, it's a basis of what is right and what's wrong, and you have the right in Manitoba at the present time to exercise those rights if you so please. And to argue as we've heard today that there's going to be somebody come back from the grave and say that that Rembrandt that was painted 100 or 150 years ago is mine, that is ri diculous. That's not the argument here today. The argument is the bill generally, and I will not basically vote for it.

I wasn't elected by the people I represent to take any rights away from them on that basis. As a legislator as we all are here, we make the laws, and when we make laws we hopefully make them for the benefit of the people. If we want to say, no more dirty movies, if we want to say that, we do it on the basis of what we feel is best, and nobody can tell me that I should take a democratic right away from somebody who elects me because somebody says we've got an art display coming here and we should give them immunity and take away your rights.

So, Mr Speaker, when we speak about not being able to see an art show that is our heritage, let's not for get the heritage that we have, which is the democratic rights of Manitoba, and let's not forget why people do come here and live in Manitoba to have those rights. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan MR. WILLIAM JENKINS (Logan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really hadn't intended to take

part in this debate but some of the remarks that have been coming forth from the side of the opposition are just a little bit too much for me to try and swallow all in one day. I've never heard so much clap-trap in my life. And that's really just about what you can describe it as. They are hanging their hats on one little

section which is supposedly going to deprive the people of Manitoba of their basic human rights or legal rights. --(Interjection)-- For six weeks, all right, for six weeks. We have had Conservative governments in Manitoba and federally • • • MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. JENKINS: ••• who have deprived workers of their rights. In fact it's too bad that the Honourable Member for Morris isn't here because he was a member of the Diefenbaker Government, when railway employees were going to go on strike, had taken the strike ballot, they weren't even allowed to strike.

They passed bills in the House - they weren't worried about rights at that time. It depends on whose ox is being gored at the time, and you are , •• MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. JENKINS: ••• well I can see that the Honourable Member for Swan.Rive1 is in his usual fine fettle, making the kind of asinine remarks that he usually makes in this House. A very poor example of a former Speaker, who sits and interrupts other g r - r

May 27, 1976 4307 BILL 56 (MR. JENKINS cont'd) • • • • • members when they're trying to make a point in this House. That seems to be his forte, and that's all he can do. He makes his best speeches from his seat, Mr. Speaker, because they don't get recorded in Hansard that way, and so people can't really find out what he is saying. --(Interjection)-- The Honourable Member for Swan River has ample opportunity after I sit down to get up and speak --(Interjection)- Well I'm glad to hear that. Perhaps we'll hear something sensible from that side of the room for once. But, Mr.

Speaker, to get back to the bill that is before us, the bill that it seems that certain members on the other side - and I can't say for the members of the Liberal Party because their leader has stated what he is going to do. This is a free vote, and as such, every member in this House can vote to his conscience, according to his conscience, how he feels on this. But to come along and try and tell us on this side of the House, that we are taking away basic human freedoms from the people of Manitoba I say to you again, Sir, is nothing but clap-trap.

Absolute clap-trap. --(Interjection)- Well read it, there's a dictionary over there. Oxford, or Webster's. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to take too much of the time of the House up, be cause I think too much time has been spent on this subject already. We have the op portunity of a lifetime here for young people, our school children, to see some of the finest works of art anywhere, perhaps 40 of the 150 finest pieces of art in the world are going to be on display in this city. It's just too bad that the Government of Ontario has not got the intestinal fortitude or guts to do it.

But if they won't, then I don't say that we should withdraw. The Minister, the Honourable Attorney-General has introduced this bill, he 's stated that there's no whips on, everybody can vote the way they want. But, Sir, when you heard some of the things that the Honourable Member for Lakeside was saying this afternoon, it's absolute nonsense. There's no other way that you can describe it, when he was describing people, Russian people who had fought in the War, but they were supposedly our enemies, they were our allies during the - not Goehels, or Goering 1 or Hitler, those were the people who were our allies.

But this whole matter should never have developed into an ideological debate such as has taken place in this House, and that's utter nonsense. I had the opportunity two years ago when I was down in Toronto to see the Chinese Art Treasures, and I don't know how they got from here because the Government of Ontario I don't think had any more guts two years ago than they have now, but per haps they come here under diplomatic immunity, or whatever method they come here by, or perhaps it was the fact that they were three or four thousand years old, and nobody could trace who owned those.

And for the Honourable Member for Lakeside to say that he is protecting his constituents, well I defy him, if he's got decendents of the Romanoff family in his constituency of Lakeside; I don't think we have one in Manitoba. The Honourable Member for St. Matthews this afternoon stated that he favoured the bill being self-destructive, and I would say that's fair game. I don't care if it's here five years from now. There isn't an art collection anywhere in the world, if you went to the Louvre in Paris, Napoleon looted 80 percent of that from the rest of Europe. --(Interjection)-- MR. SPEAKER: Order please, MR.

JENKINS: • • • and some of it from even from Russia. So when anything of a cultural or artistic value that belongs in any one of the major museums of the world today --(Interjection)-- Well maybe they left some of it in the snow. The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie is probably quite right. But, Mr. Speaker, in all serious ness I think that this bit of nonsense that the Conservative Party has been playing, has gone on long enough.

I really think that either they want to vote for the bill - they'll have the opportunity to stand up, perhaps they won't stand up, perhaps they'll absent themselves, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, and members of this House, that when that bill comes up for second and third reading my vote shall be a Yea vote. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. --(Interjection)- Order please. HON. EDWARD SCHREYER (Premier)(Rossmere): ••• yes, Mr, Speaker,

4308 May 27, 1976 BILL 56 (MR. SCHREYER cont'd) ••••• I put it to you, Sir, as a point of order that when a bill stands in the Order Paper in the name of an honourable member, and if the honourable member is in the House, then I believe that it is not permissible except by leave for any other honourable member to speak. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The point has validity, but when we started this debate the Honourable Member for La Verendrye wasn't in the House. Now I shall put the question to him whether he's interested in speaking on the subject. Order please.

The member is here, he can't run out, Yea or Nay ••• The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. BOB BANMAN ( La Vernndrye): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I understand. I couldn't be here this afternoon because I had ·to attend a funeral in my constituency and I'm at a disadvantage to somewhat of an extent because I didn't hear the debate that took place during the afternoon, and I understand from brief conversation with the House Leader on this side of the House, I understand that some of the things that I was going to mention have been taken up in debates during the afternoon session.

Now I would just like to say that I feel that by passing this bill we are taking away certain rights of the constituents and of the people of Manitoba. I think also that we are setting a precedent as far as Canada is concerned. The Member from Wellington just mentioned a little while ago that Ontario is sort of posturing and wanting to see what we're going to do over here, Now I think what's going to happen is that if we do pass this bill we will have set a precedent for Canada and of course then everybody's going to say, well Manitoba passed it, so it should be okay.

So I think it's not just a clear- cut case of just passing a piece of legislation and then not worrying about it. I understand that somebody brought forth the suggestion, or a possible amend ment, which would self-destruct the bill after the exhibit had been displayed here, and I think that that was also one of my major concerns about having the bill on the statutes indefinitely and possibly having other exhibits coming in without the Legislature being able to examine certain rights.

I understand that the Member from Lakeside also went into some details about different people who could possibly be coming in and asking for different immunities, and I would like to say that as far as legal suits abroad go I've seen how successful the Manitoba Government has been in trying to extradite somebody from Austria, never mind trying to get something back from one of the Communist countries like Russia, I thiTik that anybody as far as having limited financial means, by no way is going to be able to go through the courts ·and try and get an art work or any possession that he feels belongs to him or his family back, because we can't even get a man back out of Austria.

Mr. Speaker, by passing this legislation I feel that we'll be waiving some of the rights of the individuals in my constituency and the Province of Manitoba, and I can not support that concept. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. JAMES H, BILTON (Swan River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I intend to be somewhat brief. By the invitation of the Honourable Member for Logan, Mr. Speaker, on a personal note, there are times when I possibly annoy him. That's my privilege because he happens to hold an office. But I suggest to him, Mr.

Speaker, through you that when he is cornered he should not continually refer to my past service in this House, which is applauded by the Honourable Minister of Health with great glee. A MEMBER: Honourable service of what? MR. BILTON: My honourable service of what, Mr. Premier? I get a little uptight, Mr. Speaker, which may some day be your problem sitting down in this House, and I don't think it's becoming of any member to make reference or make comments in endeavouring to degradate what I have contributed to this Chamber during the last 15 years, and three years, Sir, in your Chair.

I don't appreciate it, and I don't think the people of Manitoba appreciate it. .Because if I do, Mr. Speaker, get a little impudent at times, it's not with any thought of breaking the rules or offending my friend who is the Deputy Speaker. He has a responsibility but, Sir,� from time to time on the most insignificant occasions he has taken the opportunity of speaking of my past services and

May 27, 1976 4309 BILL 56 (MR. BILTON cont'd) ••••• that it is unbecoming of my behaviour on that particular occasion. On my behaviour, Mr. Speaker, in this House I take second seat to no one. I know my place and I keep it regardless of his opinion. Now to get to the matter at hand and that is Bill 56. I think, Mr. Speaker, we've had a tremendous debate in this House this afternoon on both sides of the House. It's been invigorating and enlightening to me, both of whom were impassioned speeches. As the Honourable Member for Lakeside said, it was a little gutsy with some of us.

And that's exactly the way it is, Sir. I am grateM to the First Minister and I am grateful to the government for making this a free vote. It gives us an advantage of expressing our op1mons. And those opinions, as I thought the Honourable Member for Lakeside pointed out today, were the opinions of people that elected him to the House. Mr. Speaker, I represent a very diverse group of people, Russians, Ukrainians, Anglo-Saxons, Irish, German, and in recent years, Mr. Speaker, a good many Chinese people. And you know even 310 miles away, they are cognizant of this bill.

And I'm not going to relate what the Honourable Member for Lakeside said so eloquently this afternoon because, Sir, those are my feelings. Those people elected me here as their voice and I intend to express it in this bill. I thought the Honourable Member for Morris made an excellent contribution this afternoon, and he made a suggestion. And he suggested an amendment, and that was to the effect that as and when this exhibit had come and left this province, this bill would die. And I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why didn't this government seriously think of that? Why didn't they put this in the bill in the first place?

Because like everything else, Sir, they want carte blanche authority to do what they want to do when they want to do it, and how they want to do it. That's what this bill is all about. The Honourable Member for St. Matthews this afternoon brings his daughter into it, we're denying his daughter. You know he prides himself of being the trouble-shooter for that party in the back bench. It was a farce this afternoon. What he had to say this afternoon was an absolute farce. How he could get up and talk the way he talked this afternoon is beyond my comprehension.

He obviously didn't read this bill with the serious thought that he's capable of giving, or he would have suggested the amendment to his caucus that the Honourable Member for Morris was talking about this afternoon. I say to him, this is the same kind of bill that the people of Manitoba got with Autopac and we fought this government to a standstill. Day in and day out the people of Manitoba came here and told you. You denied the people of Manitoba the right to go and buy their auto insurance wherever they wanted to go, and this is part of the same • • . Will you never learn a lesson and stop? MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. BILTON: On a matter such as this you are continuing your attitude and ideology. Mr. Premier, when are you going to grow up? When are you going to grow up and stop this ? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Yes. Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Member for Swan River, a former Speaker of this House, custodian of our rules, addresses me in the second person, that's out of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The point is well taken and I would suggest that honourable members do not address themselves personally to other members of the House. It is not a proper procedure.

The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. BILTON: Mr. Speaker, the First Minister is absolutely correct. He didn't give me any credit that I was getting upset and excited on the point, and I did overlook and I ask to withdraw the feelings, if I may have offended the First Minister, that's the last thing in the world I want to do, and he knows that. But some of that gang around him, Mr. Speaker, I have no compunction)I'll offend them any time I feel like it. However, Mr. Speaker, I haven't a great deal to say.

As I said earlier, everything was said between the two honourable gentlemen, the Honourable the Minister of Mines and Resources and the Honourable Member for Lakeside. --(Interjection)--

4310 May 27, 1976 BILL 56 MR. SPEAKER: Order please, MR. BILTON: And, Sir, I want to advise ••• MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I'm going to suggest to some honourable mem bers who can't stand the heat in the kitchen to get out. Thank you, The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. BILTON: Mr. Speaker, before I conclude my remarks, England has been mentioned several times this afternoon and I would be remiss if I didn't comment on that. England is full of treasures, Mr. Speaker, from all over the world, and you know when these were being gathered together, Mr.

Speaker, there was more peace throughout the world, there was more contentment, and the people came to the fount, they came to the fountain of greatness to Westminister for guidance, and diplomacy counted in those days, Mr. Speaker, and we kept peace throughout the world. So why would you deny England those few treasures from here and there throughout the world, and by the millions, Mr. Speaker, they're going from all over the world to enjoy those treasurers. They may not be available today had not England taken over and borrowed them for a little while. And mention was made of the jewels.

Let's keep it understood, Mr. Speaker, that it's just a few pearls and a few diamonds that's in the Royal Crown, and if India wants them they can have them back tomorrow. But the interesting thing is you know, Mr. Speaker, when the Queen goes throughout the Commonwealth she takes her Crown with her, she takes those jewels and she goes to India and she opens their Parliament, as she opens our Parliament, as she opens the Australian Parliament, as she opens parliaments throughout the Commonwealth, she takes her jewels with her, Has she ever been challenged? No, Mr.

Speaker, and it will be a sorry day if it ever happens, be cause as I have said so many times before it's not the lady that wears the Crown or the gentleman that wears the Crown, it's the Crown that's symbolic of our unity and let nothing happen to disturb that unity, and nobody must demand those jewels back again, not even India, With that, Mr. Speaker, I rise, and I am going to follow the wishes of the people that I represent that came from the land where those treasurers are coming from and I intend to vote against this bill. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Vital. MR. D, JAMES WALDING (St.

Vital): Mr. Speaker, one of the gang about the Premier has been provoked to stand up and say a few words. Mr. Speaker, like the last member I intend to be brief. I believe there have been a lot of irrelevancies dragged into the debate, a lot of harsh words and very hot words too, that really have nothing to do with what is a very simple principle involved in this case. I would like to try to strip away some of these irrelevancies kept down to what is the basis of it, and I believe that the Member for Sturgeon Creek put the matter probably as simply as it has been, Mr.

Speaker, I believe there's no dispute between any of the members in the House as to the value of this art collection that's being brought into Manitoba, value both from a financial basis and from a cultural basis too. I believe there's also no dispute as to the fact that a great number of Manitobans will wish to go to see such an exhibition if it is put on. I believe there is also no dispute about the fact that Winnipeg is the only city in Canada that's being offered this exhibition.

I believe also there is no dispute that the only way this exhibition will be brought to Winnipeg is if this bill is passed, I believe that we have agreement between all members on that point. The Honourable Member for Lakeside has stated this afternoon that he felt that even if this bill was not in fo rce and the exhibition were to come here that there would likely not be any law suits involved, and he felt also that the Courts would be lenient enough not to uphold such charges in any event.

But whether there would be one charge or 100, or none at all, the bill is franldy necessary if we are to give this opportunity to so many Manitobans to view the exhibition. So what we are then offering to many Manitobans is a freedom to view this exhibit that is presently enjoyed by only those few Manitobans who could afford to go to Leningrad to see it in its natural setting. I believe this point was brought out adequately this afternoon by the Minister. There is another point involved here too, Mr.

Speaker, and that is that mem bers of this House do not sit in judgment as to what films Manitobans can see, they do

May 27, 1976 4311 BILL 56 (MR. WALDING cont'd) ••••• not sit in judgment as to what books Manitobans can read, nor what music they can listen to, but what this bill is saying, or those who opposed the bill are saying, is that they are prepared to sit in judgment as to what pictures Manitobans can see. So on the one hand we have the opportunity for so many Manitobans to see this collection, and in allowing them to do so the members of this House would be extending a freedom to the many that is presently enjoyed only by the few.

And also they would be refusing to censor the viewing habits of Manitobans, yet there is a price involved in this, and the Member for Sturgeon Creek put that to us this evening when he said that in order to do so we must suspend one of the democratic rights presently enjoyed by Manitobans. And it would not be abolishing a right that they hold now, it would not be taking away any right retroactively, all that would be involved would be a suspension of those rights for a matter of six weeks.

So for those members who might still be in some doubt as to how to make a choice on this issue the matter is simply clear: do they wish to extend the opportunity for many Manitobans to see a priceless and a once-in-a-lifetime exhibition at the cost of suspending one of those basis rights for a matter of six weeks, a right which would then be restored to them to make whatever legal claim they wish to, wherever they wish to make it. The issue is clear to me, Mr.

Speaker, I do not intend to censor the views of my constituents, nor do I wish to stand in the way of many thousands of Manitobans to see this priceless collection, and I intend to support the bill too. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Wolseley. MR. ROBERT G, WILSON (Wolseley): Thank you,Mr. Speaker. I can't help but wonder how a bill not even one page long could cause so much of a problem, and I probablythink it's a chance to unwind in the middle of everything, but I can't get too excited about the bill.

I have to look at it in sort of facts as they are today, and I keep asking myself, what good will it do, and then on the other hand ask, what harm will it do? And for my area, which is the Wolseley-Midland area, which contains the gallery and which is within walking distance, I think that I basically would want to be one that would ask a couple of questions. I find it very strange that members opposite, the NDP are supporting for the first time in history the Art Gallery.

It really shakes my feet when I think of a few members on that side that contain a little bit of cultural background and appreciation, but a lot of them, I have found in my short time here, have sort of the same type of, sort of working man's champagne background that I come from, but who again through education can get to appreciate the finer things in life. But I can't help but feel a great deal of sadness that this government could have supported the Art Gallery and we would have very fine collections which have been taken away from us.

I think of the 1\IIacAulay collection which this government refused to give any tax concessions and is now being shown to all the citizens of Alberta. So besides all their oil wells they now have one of the finest collections that should have been here in Manitoba. I think of my plea to the Minister of Tourism when I asked him to save a little bit of Canadiana out at Lockport and to make some money. They didn't want to make any money. They had the Dunlop Museum with its Canadiana destroyed. And these are the thing that bother me. --(Interjection)-- The Member from St. John's says it's junk.

Well for those of us in an economic position where we can't afford a Rembrandt or a Van Gogh, who have to settle for something that's a little closer to us, like a rusty plough, or some thing that has a picture of a football team from 1907, or a Lacrosse team from the turn of a century, that's where we went to see them. If we wanted to see an army uniform from the First World War or one from the Second World War, that's where we went. --(Interjection_)-- MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR.

WILSON: I also find it strange that a government finally has, and I'd like to, as they say, I'm going to check out, when the vote is called, I just want to see how many of those people opposite duck out. Because, you know, it's very important to me, because I'm standing up against some of my colleagues and some possibly, some members opposite, and I'm supporting the bill, because I think that basically - and it's of no favour

4312 May 27, 1976 BILL 56 (MR. WILSON cont'd) • • to you fe llows, let me tell you, because I haven't finished with you yet. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. WILSON: Because some of you are speaking from two sides of your mouth because you have liberalized all the pornography laws in this province, and it's too bad the Member for Point Douglas is not sitting in his chair, because I think he'll go down to defeat, because while he pours tea, he hasn't stopped pornography, and the Main street strip is still there. And I can't understand why somebody on that side of the House has not done something.

Why today I went to my office, and lo and behold a couple of doors away there's a new sign being taken down, Sherbrook Realties coming down and in its place is Fantasy Studios. And that concerns me. That concerns me. Because the government opposite hasn't done anything and they're liberalizing all our pornography laws, and I think it's an absolute shame that they don't do anything about it.

So I find it strange that on one hand we have them supporting the Art Gallery, in their efforts, in their quest to have a fund raising showing, and to get people who may have not been there before to see the lovely gallery, and to see the work a fine group of volunteers can do.

And I hope that gallery does stay in the private sector, because I know, and I had the feeling when I was on City Council, that somehow or other the members opposite wanted to through means of grants and what have you, to - well they were going to have the Art Gallery autonomous, were going to have control over it, were going to actually be able to say it's a part of our assets on the balance sheet.

I often think of the middle income and some of the speeches that are made, you know, we don' t have any more money in our pockets, we seem to just have hope in our brains that something is going to happen, and happen in a positive way. I think this bill is really low priority, but again so many people have unwound, and I just wanted to use this opportunity to think of what kind of a city I want to live in.

And it seems to me that while I'm not a constant attender of many of the cultural functiom I am indeed a supporter of it because I think the type of city you'd want to live in con tains many of these structures that people can enjoy. One of the reasons many of the senior citizens live in my area is because they can, without too much expense, enjoy the cultural amenities of the downtown area. --(Interjection)-- Well, I think one has to ask - well that's an amenity as well to those of us that can get out once in awhile.

I do think that art is long and life is short and I think if we have a chance to see a fine ex hibition such as this, I think that we shouldn't stand in the way. I'm not too excited about reliving two World Wars. The only part about the two World Wars that I'm con cerned about is that they did sort of fight for a freedom to work and an area to live in that was sort of safe, and sort of a freedom of choice.

And I think it's based on that freedom that I'm possibly here today because I think if somehow or other we could con vince members opposite to slow down or possibly even to go as far as to make the state ment that maybe I'll live long enough to see the province return to province and not state ownership, then I would think that's a concept worth looking at.

But getting back to the bill, I'll close and I say I will support it, and many of the things the Minister of Public Works has said made a lot of sense, and I think that based on the facts as they are today, the financial problems that the gallery has, the lack of use that the gallery has, this might be a chance to get more people because I know until many of the people, until we had our Centennial celebrations at - it was called Midland at the Gallery - until we had that function there, many people had lived next door literally next door to the gallery and had never taken the time to walk through the front doors.

And I think if we can get people to walk through the front doors they'll come again when they're shopping at the Bay, fllld go across and have a cup of tea and be madE aware of some of the things that are going on there. I, as I say, am personally speak ing for myself. I now go the:re every chance I get, mainly because of the relaxation. There's something about it that's relaxing and yet it's so cl ose to all the activity of the com mercial hub of our city. So based on the today of the situation, I'm not going to' get too excited about past rights and what have you, and I'm going to support the bill. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. s e

May 27, 1976 4313 BILL 56 MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, because this particular debate, on this particular bill, seems to me to have taken on something of the cast of the Plains of Abraham of the Thirtieth Legislative Session of Manitoba, I must confess, Sir, that I would not like to see the debate passed without in my own conscience having registered one or two of my thoughts and one or two of my comments in the debate for the record.

I am therefore prompted to enter the debate at this stage to simply re-emphasize one or two aspects of the question at issue which has been of most and deepest consider ation and concern to me, and to some of my colleagues as expressed earlier. I would admit from the outset that I'm torn as I go into this debate because I recognize the sin cere and deep-felt positions held by many members of my own caucus, on both sides of the question.

There is some substantial and very sincere division of opinion on the question and members of the Progressive Conservative caucus in particular, I think you would agree, Sir, have given words and evidence to that effect. I therefore enter it with some misgivings because I suppose if one is here in a Chamber and in a debate of this kind for any length of time, one suffers the endemic affliction of politics, and that is being able to see and appreciate both sides of the question.

And I certainly can see both sides of the question, particularly as expressed in the sincere utterances of members who have participated in this debate, and I say specifically, Sir, by members on this side. Be cause it's only on this side of the House that there appears to be a free vote taking place. I very much question the concept of the free vote as it is held and subscribed to on the government side of the House.

We are told that the Whips are off, and yet we have no less a personage than the Deputy Speaker of this House, the Honourable Member for Logan, berating us on this side of this Chamber for what he calls "clap trap" and for participating from a point of sincerity, I can assure him, on a question that exercises many of the members on this side of the House very deeply. I don't mean to be avoiding the microphone, Mr.

Speaker, but I did want to just direct that remark to my friend the Honourable the First Minister, because I think it's a point that should be made, that we ha"l.'e come into this debate on the assurances of the House Leader that we're entering a free vote debating situation. We haven't found that kind of evidence emanating from the government side.

It seems to us that the govern ment benches, the government members are lining up literally in lock-step to take the same position and vote the same way right down the line; and in fact if they can't take that position, I'd be prepared to guess at this point, Sir, and I am a betting man - I'd be prepared to bet at this time, Sir, there'll be some timely absentees from the vote when it is called, if they have not been able on that side to come to a collective and united position on it.

The members on this side, I can assure you, Sir, the members on these benches will be divided and split in our usual independent and aggressive fashion on a question of this kind, and rm sure that you'll find that it will be a free vote in every sense of the word here. So I do want to make that point, Sir, that we are some what dismayed that our colleagues across the way don't seem to be entering the climate of debate in the free vote atmosphere that we thought would take place.

What has hap pened is that the Progressive Conservative legislators of Manitoba are debating this is sue openly and freely and they are being asked to make the decision for a government that did not have the intestinal fortitude to move on a bill that they wanted to be passed. That's really what's happened, Sir. The government would like to see - and I don't fault them for this. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order. MR. SHERMAN: The government would like to see, and I don't fault them for this, Sir, they would like to see this bill passed. I don't fault them for that, that's their right.

But rather than having the courage to bring in a bill and say we're going to grant diplomatic and cultural and legal immunity fo foreign objects coming into this prov ince for a certain period of time regardless of the suspension of human rights and the trampling of individual rights involved, and we're going to introduce that bill in the Legis lature, and we're going to put it forward as a piece of our legislation, they have said in a milquetoast way, well, we'll bring it in and we'll call for a free vote and we'll let the Conservatives do what they always do, stand up and speak independently and probably

4314 May 27, 1976 BILL 56 . (MR. SHERMAN cont'd) ••••• disagree somewhat among themselves and we'll let them fight the issue out. But when the vote comes, by golly, Sir, you're going to see that 30 or 31 member caucus over there, to a man, vote right down the line for this legislation; or, you're going to see those doors swinging like a pool hall, that's what you' re going to see. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. SHERMAN: So that's where we're at at this point, Mr. Speaker, as far as the debate goes.

Now I'd like to return to the free aspect of the debate and say that, as I began, I am torn because of the opinions expressed and sincerely held by many members on this side, particularly those advanced by my leader in the House, the Hon ourable Member for Riel, and his erstwhile companion in legislative crime - and I use 1he word lightly in terms of debate - the Honourable Member for Lakeside.

There were two views that are strongly and sincerely held and are diametrically opposite, and they come from two of the strongest members, two persons who would be acknowledged even by members opposite as two of the strongest members of this House, and one therefore, Sir, cannot fail to be somewhat disturbed and somewhat dismayed by that kind of difference of opinion. It's difficult to come down on one side of the other when arguments of that kind are put forward with that kind of strength and documentation and sincerity.

But I have to say, Sir, that although I recognize that what is at stake for the Winnipeg Art Gallery is a shot in the arm, is support that that institution sorely and dearly needs. I have to say, Sir, that I cannot put myself in a position of supporting the suspension of individual liberties just to achieve that end. I want to see the Art Gallery helped and supported. I think there are many ways that legislators in this Chamber could be helping and supporting it. I think there are many ways that this gov, ernment and this opposition could be helping and supporting it.

I don't think that it is worth the cost for us to close our eyes to a "temporary" suspension of particular rights or liberties in order to effect that kind of pragmatic end. That, Sir, is pragmatism carried to a very dangerous degree. I'm more of an idealist unfortunately, or fortunate ly, than that. I'm not prepared to be that pragmatic.

I am prepared to say that if the First Minister and his colleagues want to bring in a bill offering some kind of support for the Winnipeg Art Gallery, even if it be direct financial support, I would be prepared to support cuts in the Budget in other areas in order to see that that institution gets that kind of support.

But I am not prepared to see liberties and rights sacrificed and trampled, either to help the Winnipeg Art Gallery, or to help the community club to which I belong, or the church, or even a political party to which I belong, and I'm sure that that kind of remark is beyond the comprehension of my honourable friend the Minister of Health and Social Development, because he would have to decide first of all, Sir, which political party it is to which he belongs. I don't have to make that decision.

So, Sir, let us help the Winnipeg Art Gallery, let us bring in the Hermitage Exhibit, let it come, but don't ask us to suspend rights and freedoms in order to let it come. You know, the Minister of Mines and Resources who made an eloquent speech this afternoon makes many eloquent contributions in this Chamber, and I feel in the few years that I've been here I've learned something - perhaps it doesn't show - but I've tried to learn something by listening to him. And he said this afternoon that in his view this whole question was a question of trust. Trust was the word he used, Mr. Speaker.

Well I ask the honourable members opposite, through you, Sir, why don't the Russians trust me? What have I ever done to make the Russians mistrust or distrust me? --(Interjection)-- No, but why, Sir, should the equation be an imbalanced equation? You know trust is a mutually supported thing, and trust cuts both ways; and trust inspires trust, or else it doesn't last for very long.

And if the Soviet Union feels that they can not trust me and you, Sir, and my colleagues and my friends opposite, and the rest of us in the Province of Manitoba without some kind of ironclad guarantee that flys in the face of our traditions of democratic freedom, then I don't think that you can call that being very trusting. And if they don't trust me any more than that, if they don't trust me that they will get those exhibits and those displays back - and I 'm sure they will, because as the Minister of Mines said, as my colleague from Lakeside said, as many

May 27, 1976 4315 BILL 56 (MR. SHERMAN cont'd) ••••• members in this House in this debate have said, there ain't going to be no claim, there ain't going to be no action, they're going to get it all back - but if they don't trust us enough to feel that out of the tiny province and community of Manitoba, somewhere in the hinterlands of the northern part of North American, that they can trust the people there sufficiently - the people, the people, we're talking about; we're not talking about the government or the opposition, or the institutions, we're talking about the people.

The Minister of Mines and his colleagues are great ones to support the idea and the concept and all philosophy built around the people, and they tell us the people of the Soviet Union are people just like us - and I believe that - and if that's the case, then the people of the Soviet Union surely must have some distress with their own govern ment if they know that their own government is so untrusting of the people in Canada, who are so like them, the people of the Soviet Union - and I believe that that analysis holds, to quote the Minister of Mines - then I say, Sir, that that government is certainly doing a disservice to the people of the Soviet Union.

Because they are showing an abject and pretty deplorable, and I think - if I may use the term - a rather insulting mistrust of us here in Manitoba if they insist that to bring that kind of exhibit in here they've got to have everything signed, sealed and delivered and our democratic rights ignored and suspended. So I ask the Minister of Mines, if he wants trust and if he thinks this whole issue turns on trust, to let's have a little mutual trust across the ocean, a little bit of hands across the ocean, if he wants that kind of response from us.

I'm prepared to give it, but I'd like to see some give and take and I would like to see a gesture. . • I see no reason --(Interjection)-- I'm prepared to give them --(Interjection)-- Well the First Minister asked me what I'm prepared to give. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR.

SHERMAN: I'm only prepared to give the First Minister one answer - and this is all I could give the First Minister in any situation - I'd give the First Minister my word as a citizen of the Province of Manitoba and as an elected representative of the Province of Manitoba, that if there was any attempt made to unfairly intrude upon the ownership and the passage of those articles that were coming into here, that I would stand with the First Minister and everybody else in this province to ensure that that action had a fair legal hearing and a fair legal examination under the jurisprudence of this jurisdic tion.

That's all I can give them, that's all I can promise them. --(Interjection)--If that isn't good enougl!, they don't trust me very much. So, Mr. Speaker, let me repeat, that we are not opposed to the exhibit. We'd like to see it come here. We know it would be good for the Art Gallery; we know it would be good for the people of Manitoba; we know it would be good, not only for the children of Manitoba to whom the Member for St. Matthews referred, but for all people of Manitoba.

But we don't want to do it at the expense. • • We say why can't it come in anyway, why can't they trust us as good citizens and good people - as their people are, as described by the Minister of Mines, and to which I subscribe - why can't they trust us to send the exhibit in here and rest assured that there will be no untoward actions that will deprive them of any part of it. I think the Minister of Mines himself in his own remarks agreed that that whole question is really academic.

Nobody in this House expects that there is going to be any claim or any action, and I think that --(Interjection)-- Yes, it's academic. --(Interjection)-- No, I think it's not sufficient to ask us to waive individual rights, suspend them for even how briefly, and I believe also that there is a danger in those so-called brief suspensions. And as the Member for Sturgeon Creek attempted to point out, this legislation doesn't simply apply to this art gallery and this exhibit, how long are we going to be stuck with this kind of legislation, Mr. Speaker?

The First Minister has said he would agree to a self-destruct amendment - I hope I'm not misinterpreting him, I gathered that he implied that he would certainly be interested in --(Interjection)--Well I would like to hope that if we can't stop the bill in its present form at this stage, that there will be support from the First Minister and others for that kind of an amendment, because it cer tainly would be our intention to bring that kind of amendment in, if the bill reaches that stage.

Because there is too much inherent danger, Sir, and too much immeasurable danger in these suspensions of liberties and rights for pragmatic ends. No one knows how long

4316 May 27, 1976 BILL 56 (MR. SHERMAN cont'd). • • • • they're going to be on the books unless it is clearly spelled out that it is to destroy itself and disappear from the books within a specific and limited and known period of time . Mr. Speaker, just before I reach the conclusion of my remarks, which I'm swiftly approaching, Sir, let me just refer to a couple of things that the Member for St. Vital suggested. The Member for St. Vital suggested that this House is sitting in judg ment.

He suggested as much by saying that we're not asked to sit in judgment about movies or about books or about other cultural materials that come before our community. But we're not sitting in judgment on the culture involved, we're not sitting in judgment on the Soviet Union or the Soviet people, we're not sitting in judgment on any of the art works involved, we're not sitting in judgment on the exhibit and its purpose and meaning to the Winnipeg Art Gallery.

All we're asking you to do is think about the principle that you're prepared to sacrifice in order to accommodate the request of a government which apparently doesn't trust us, and also the request that comes from the Minister of External Affah:s, the Honourable Allan MacEachen in Ottawa, whom I suggest should have perhaps had more backbone and more integrity than to surrender to that kind of a request. He should have had more faith in the integrity and the honesty of the people of Manitoba him self to accede to that kind of a request.

He simply should have assured the Soviet Union that under our system of rights we could not in good conscience, in good heart, take the kind of steps that was asked for, he would give his pledge. And I suggest that if there is really a spirit of co-operation and there is really a spirit of detente and there is really a spirit of peace-seeking between our government and their government, that that kind of pledge is valuable and should be respected. A MEMBER: Why didn't they do that in the United States? MR. SHERMAN: The United States? I'm not concerned with what the United States is doing.

The First Minister reminds me that I promised to conclude, and I'm just about at that point, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say to the Honourable Member for St. Johns that what the United States has done in this particular situation is of no concern to me. Their decision as to what kind of accommodations they have to make to meet and fulfill and profit and benefit from cultural exchanges, is their decision.

What we're talk ing about here is .a mutual understanding and respect between two peoples, the peoples who own that art exhibit at the present time and the peoples who are going to be given the opportunity to view it without threat or danger of stealing any part of it, or attempting to win away by various means and methods any part of that exhibit.

So, Sir, let me just say in conclusion, that there were many references made in remarks that went earlier in the debate to antecedents and to historical origins, and I cannot lay claim, as the Minister of Mines can and the Honourable Member for Lakeside can, to origins in what is today Russia, to historical origins that included persecution of my family by one or another of the governments, of successive governments of Russia.

But what I can say, Sir, is, since we've got onto this subject, that my ancestors came to this continent in 1642 from England and went to Connecticut and settled there because they believed in the kinds of freedoms that were being conceptualized and then realized under the New World and the democratic system being constructed here.

So in concert with my colleagues, Sir, and I use the term "concert" loosely, I want to evoke the immortal lines of the Battle Hymn of the Republic and close on this note, Sir, that "lV!idst the beauty of the lillies, Christ was born across the sea, with a glory in his bosom that transfigures you and me; as He died to make men holy, let us live to make man free, his truth goes marching on." MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK, Q.C. (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the honourable member would permit two questions. The first question, Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to know just how the honourable member would expect Mr. MacEachen to be able to stand behind and guarantee the kind of pledge he describes in the face of an individual in Manitoba starting an action in the Court of Queen's Bench with a replevin action attached to it which would actually seize an object of art until the trial takes place over a matter of months. Now how would Mr. MacEachen honour that pledge that he suggests he ought to give?

May 27, 1B76 4317 BILL 56 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: I can't assure the honourable member of any specific methods in which the External Affairs Minister could guarantee to honour that pledge. All I can say is that he could make that pledge in the name of the people of Manitoba - it would be an offer, it would be a gesture , and it would be up to the Soviet Union, their representatives to trust MR. PAWLEY: It's hollow and empty. MR. SHERMAN: The Attorney-General is interjecting from his seat that this is hollow and empty.

I say to him this is no more hollow and empty than for his col leagues to insist that this right of action has always existed . How is anybody with that kind of claim that the Member for St. Johns refers to ever going to obtain rightful access to that exhibit or any part of it after it goes back to the Soviet Union ? That is simply a hollow and simplistic and superficial argument. . • MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order. MR. SHERMAN: No, but that is what the Attorney-General's colleagues have said. I say in response to the Attorney-Gener al, and I'm saying to him and to the Member for St.

Johns that we, the people of Manitoba, through their elected representa:' tives can assure the Minister of External Affairs that we would like to have that exhibit here and he can make them that assurance on our word. I agree it's not guaranteed in writing, but I say we want the exhibit, but we don 't want to suspend our freedoms, and he would have to make that point to them. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: ••. question that the member agreed to permit.

What was the position which he took, and I believe he took one , on the ques tion of giving special kind of status to a swimmer who wanted to compete for Canada in the Olympics ? I believe it involved special immigration or citizenship rights. Did he take a position on that ? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: I didn 't take a position on it, but I say this, that the Olympics are governed by their own rules, and the rules that apply to the Olympics in the Common wealth specifically state that there can be interchange of that kind on a residence basis. MR.

CHERNIACK: I'm not talking about Manitoba ••• MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. SHERMAN: Well, we 're not talking about suspension of your rights or my rights, we're talking about -- (Interjection) -- well we're talking about somebody who wants to compete here and who wants to live here, we're not talking about suspending any rights. MR. CHERNIACK: You'd give him special rights . MR. SHERMAN: But in direct answer to the Member for St. Johns, I didn't take a position on it, I didn 't participate in that. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minis ter. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, to use a colloquial express ion, "I'm fit to be tied, " because when this bill was first brought forward I suggested at that time that it would almost, as sure as night follows day, evoke pre cisely the kind of reaction that we have seen here this afternoon and this evening. And I don't particularly fault anyone that's spoken so far, except perhaps the Honourable Member for Wolseley, for entirely different reasons . In his case it's because he has no respect for the truth, but that is a little ironic because he apparently is supporting this bill.

What I have to say in his regard has nothing to do really with the substance of the bill, but since he was allowed to make reference to the funding of the Art Gallery, which is indirectly involved here, then I think I should be given the opportunity to put the facts straight as to what the level of funding for the Art Gallery has been this year, last year, five years ago, ten, fifteen, etc. There's no use letting a member in this Hou se, even if he is a rookie, get up and have such complete contempt for the facts as he does , and get away with it.

But to get back to the immediate subject matter of Bill 56 , it was entirely predictable in my mind, that given a bill that has the rather esoteric title, Foreign Cultural Objects Immunity from Seizure Act, how could you expect that they would come

4318 May 27, 1976 BILL 56 (MR. SCHREYER cont'd) • • • • • out of the woodwork to speak on it, against it in particular ? There is a very tempting political target here because there would certainly seem to be, from a superficial analysis, some setting aside of due process and the rule of law, and as such it is a tempting target. Honourable member!:! spoke earlier this afternoon, took us way back to the Czarist regime, the interim regime of Alexander Kerensky, the six or seven months that it lasted, and the Communist regime that gained power by revolution in late 1917.

We covered the waterfront in terms of what constitutes legitimacy for government, whether one or another government elsewhere on this planet governed with the consent of the governed and therefore have legitimacy, or whether they don't, etc. , etc.

Honourable members live in the Year of Our Lord 1976, and whether they want to have a pristine pure view of our relationships with other countries, some of them far less democratic than ours, the fact of the matter is they cannot have a pristine pure view, because even those who seem to be the most excited as to what is proposed here seem to have been quite content to support increased commercial intercourse with those countries, including the Soviet Union in particular, and, Mr. Speaker, this is all part of a continuum, a matter of degree.

If some other country is under a regime that is so contemptible, then it would seem to me that one should not be content with one's own country if it even recognizes that regime, much less trades with it to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars per annum - if they don't complain about that, how can they become pristine pure with respect to a subject matter such as this ? And indeed the pragmatists in the United States, in Congress, must have held that kind of reasoning, and that reasoning does stand up, Mr. Speaker, I suggest.

But according to the Member for Lakeside, the Member for Swan River and others who have spoken, it would seem as though rights of individuals, all of the fund amental fr eedoms of people living under the Constitution of the United States died on the 19th of October 1965 because - 11 years ago - they passed

an Act to render immune from seizure, under judicial process objects of cultural significance imported for temporary display or exhibition and for other purposes. So there we have it, they have succeeded in arguing themselves into a conundrum.

But now in order for them to be consistent they have to say that fr eedom and rights of individuals shine more brightly in Canada in the last 11 years than in the U.S. , but all those people who have a passion for freedom and democracy are celebrating their Bi centennial in the United States and I don't think that they feel that they have some lesser quality of freedom or democracy than we in what used to be British North America or Canada.

It all becomes a kind of sill y, stupid xenophobia, a self-centred egotism, where we think we are better than our closest neighbours and far better than others across the sea. That is part of what they have succeeded in arguing themselves into.

One need not be overjoyed with the contents of Bill 56, but one thing certainly is clear, that for all practical purposes freedom and democracy in the United States, in all of its general application, is at least as tangible and concrete under their laws as it is under ours - or are we now going to set ourselves as to be a paragon of virtue insofar as democratic rights and freedo ms, fundamental civil rights are concerned, equalled by no other place in the world ? Presumably there is that kind of egotism that would argue that. But that is merely a part of what is at issue here, Mr. Speaker.

I am particularly annoyed, because all of this was so predictable. I knew, that given the subject matter, that those who are of a sort of a more fanciful and mischievous nature would not be able to resist the temptation to roust up a little bit of fun with respect to the sort of superficial political issues here. I want to make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that I couldn't care less if this bill passes or doesn't pass. If you don't believe it, vote against it, and if suff icient colleagues of mine vote against it, it will not pass. That is not going to bother me, Sir, and I say that very crassly and very bluntly.

We are assembled here, in my view - and I'm entitled to my personal opinion - to deal with literally hundreds if not thousands of matters having to do with health, edu cation. social development, northern development, support for cow-calf operations at a time of inadequate price, with occu pational health and safety, and a thousand other things that have to do with, as the prayer says each day, ''thewelfare and prosperity of the

May 27, 1976 4319 BILL 56 (:MR. SCHREYER cont 'd) ••••• people of this province". And whether or not there is an exhibition of foreign art, whether it be from the Hermitage in Leningrad or from Santiago, Chile, or any other place on God's earth, is not something which has to do with the terms of reference of this Legislature. And as such it is not something which looms large, I can assure you, in terms of the priorities of this government. Somebody over there said it's a matter of low priority. I would say that that certainly is an understate ment.

If the Minister of Finance in Ontario says that patriation of the Cons titution, if there were 86 things on his agenda it would be 85th, I say if there were 86 things on our agenda , this is 86th, in fact I would think that it's even less than that . Now, how did this get here ? It got here • A MEMBER: It's 56. :MR. SCHREYER: Well it should have been 86.

It got here because of a prior unders tanding entered into by Canada and the USSR, I think, although I'm not certain, at the time of the Kosygin visit to Ottawa in 1971 or 1972, at which time Canada and the USSR signed certain protocols of commercial and cultural exchange. And pursuant to those protocols certain exhibitions and exchanges were to take place from time to time, and this is but one of them.

When it was worked out - and I'm sure they had many people, I can just see the number of civil servants that were working on it in Moscow or Leningrad and Ottawa, etc. - they came to a point where it had to be formalized. And according to the nature of our British North America Act, matters of property, civil rights , property right claims, are provincial in jurisdiction, and therefore in order for effect to be given to a Federal Government of Canada undertaking with the USSR it requires the ratification if you like, or much the same as the ratification process , of any given provincial Legislature.

And that's why it's here. If the Honourable Allan MacEachen, it seems to me, if he had perhaps started on this earlier and attempted to give this diplo matic immunity in the same way as other activities of foreign embassies are given immun ity in our country, although I'm no lawyer, Sir, it seems to me that it may have been possible to have avoided any provincial legislation in the matter. But if that process is not started in time, then the only other alternative - and perhaps it is the more concrete one in any case - is to pass legislation of this kind. It certainly is not legislation which sets a precedent.

Some honourable members opposite would like to leave the impression that this legislation sets precedent for the entire English speaking world, we use almost Churchillian phrases in describing the dangers of this legislation. Well, in every politician there is a frustrated orator, Sir, and I admit this bill is one of the few occasions when it is po ssible to orate with very few restrictions in terms of subject matter.

One can cover the entire gamut of human history from the days of the Grecian civilization on through to the time of the looting of the Egyptian treasures by the French and the British • A MEMBER: The French ? MR. SCHREYER: Yes, the French, most emphatically the French. How ironic it is, Mr. Speaker, because weeks ago, .S ir, I ventured to predict to certain colleagues that we would have inje cted into the debate reference to Kerensky , and I was not proven wrong because this afternoon he certainly was. Mr.

Speaker, I believe that the Honourable Member for Morris, the Honourable Member for Steinbach, took a different approach, although one of opposition to the bill . as it's worded, but a different approach than the Honourable Member for Lakeside, in the sense that the Honourable Member for Lakeside was referring to the sort of Soviet conn ec tion of this art, these cultural objects, and some of the other honourable gentlemen who were opposing this were opposing it at least as much, if not more, because of its con tinued application indefinitely into the future, and as such it constit uted an extension or delegation of authority from this Legislature to Cabinet that really ought not to be counte nanced.

If that is the concern, it is at least a rational intellectually defensible concern. And I would say it ought not to be difficult to deal with that problem by deleting or by having a provision in this bill that it terminates as of date X in the Year of OUr Lord 1976. In a way I welcome it, because as I read it further, it would seem to me rather amusing as well as , in a sense, dangerous to have the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Co uncil determine that the work or object is of cultural significance. I think there are few bodies less well

4320 May 27, 1976 BILL 56 (MR. SCHREYER cont'd) ••••• suited, Sir, to determine what is of cultural signifi cance than a Cabinet. We are for the most part, Sir - I should only speak for myself, a cultural boor, I have no particular knowledge of or appreciation for objects of art, particularly paintings. I wouldn't know the diffe rence between - I would probably think a "Holbein" is a cow.

We have-only to tell the truth, just to show how ill-suited we are, Sir, to be determining the merit of a work of cultural signifi cance, we have only one resident expert in the person of the Minister of Public Works, and we would have to go by his advice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: On a matter of questionable personal privilege. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. If it's questionable, then the honourable member shouldn't ask it. The Honourable First Minister. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, then on a question of privilege.

Insofar as the First Minister specifically indicated that I was among those speakers that hadn't taken note of this particular aspect of the remarks that the Minister right now is making, this transfer of cultural judging that should be left to Cabinet, I would remind the Honourable Minister that in my remarks, I made precisely those remarks, they may have been lost ••• Some of the other eloquent remarks that I did make • • • MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member di dn't have a matter of privilege. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, I didn't raise a matter of privilege, I raised a matter of order. I heard the First Minister say that the Minister of Public Works under stood something about art, and I'm sure he wouldn't want that to go on the record as such. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, what I meant to say, if indeed I didn't say, is that if there was any expertise in the Cabinet in determining matters of artistic merit, if there was, it was the Minister for Public Works. And even that, I suppose, Sir, is questionable.

But if I may be serious, then, Sir, again I would say that perhaps I did an injustice to the Honourable Member for Lakeside.

I think on reflection he did make re ference to the general standing concern in having this bill continue as statute law indefi nitely into the fu ture, that I think he would agree that his principal preoccupation really had to do with the specifics of legitimacy of the present non-democratic regime in the Soviet Union - there is no other wa y to describe it, why mince words - and that this regime in the Soviet Union was of such a nature and such a piece that really we could not countenance having even cultural intercourse with them, and that therefore we shouldn't have this bill, and in any case apart from that, that this bill delegating to the Cabinet the right to make these decisions was excessive.

I would be repeating myself, Sir, if I were to say that indeed it is perhaps on reflection - just as well - let's hope that these cases are so rare that every time they do occur will be so rare that this Legislature can well manage to deal with it on the merits of the particular case. And if that is the compromise in terms of solving this problem, I have no problem in reason or logic in voting accordingly. But I resent, Sir, the suggestion that there is something in this bill that is so important that it is a matter of policy confidence to this government.

It came here, and I think I will excuse myself, with your permission, Sir, to repeat how it got here. It got here as a consequence of the Canada-USSR cultural commercial protocol of '72, and also on the request of six or more art galleries in Canada making application for having this exhibit shown in their respective galleries. It could not go to all so some means of selection was used and it ended up being a case of Toronto and Winnipeg.

We were briefed , I shouldn't leave the impression we were all briefed, but certain of my colleagues were brief ed, that this was all as I say, and that those provinces in which the art galler ies were located would be asked to pass this legislation, and that there was every indica- tion this would be done. We find that it wasn't exactly so. The Member for Fort Garry is entirely wrong if he thinks that there is some kind of subtle persuasion or pres sure being exerted on colleagues to vote for this bill.

In fact , in case there is any doubt, let me ask the colleagues who are here to make sure to remind each of their other col leagues that they are certainly completely free to vote as their personal inclinations are

May 27, 1976 4321 BILL 56 (MR. SCHREYER cont'd) •••• • on this matter, as indeed I would like to think they are in all cases. It is quite silly to s uggest that it is of importance to us . I should say, too, that maybe I'm overly suspicious , but the main request for this comes from those people who are giving of their time and energy to the support of the Art Gallery . There is a mutual accommodation going on with respect to support of the Art Gallery. It is supported by the private sector, by private subscription, by the patrons of the arts, aficionados of the arts so to speak, and by the Crown.

I think it's only fair to say that we appreciate the efforts of those who are patrons of the arts. I think I would be naive if I did not believe that for the most part their political persuasion is, as in the operetta Gilbert and Sullivan, that every one of them born is either a little liberal or a little conservative.

And it would be the height of irony, Sir, for these people to be putting the pressure on this government to get this bill passed so that they on that side can work us over in the process. -- (Interjection) -- Well, if that isn't the kind of scenario that is afoot here, I'd like to know what is. -- (Interjection) -- Well, I'm quite prepared to live with the outcome of this bill; if it passes, fine, if it gets defeated, as far as I'm concerned personally , that's fine too.

In the meantime there will be people who will wonder what kind of, sort of anti-rational, anti-reason, anti-intellectual approach we take here in this Legislature, Has it become the kind of cute infighting to see who can jockey for position on an issue that is admittedly loaded with emotional overtones? I don't need any lecture to know that in that kind of situation you can seldom win. Never theless one hates to be driven into anti-rational actions .

The Member for Wolseley, as cutely as you please - I'l l try not to talk about him too much - as cutely as you please leaves the impression that we are starving the Art Gallery. My honourable friend ran for a political party that had responsibility for the administration in this province for eleven years. And in those eleven years the peak, the dizzy heights and peaks that they achieved with respect to support of the Art Gallery in our province and in our city was $25, 000, a miserable $25 ,0 00.

And since then the annual support for the Art Gallery from this province went from $30, 000, 39 , 000, 39 ,0 00 , 212, 000 with a lOO, 000 special grant; $233 ,0 00 the next year, 233 , 000 the next year with another $100 ,0 00 special grant; $350, 000 the year before last; $385 ,0 00 this year, and $250 ,0 00 special grant. My God, Sir, where is his head ? Mr. Speaker, he asked me where all the art has gone. I can only give him information with respect to the funding that is provided by the Crown and the right of the province. I can't answer questions as to where the art has gone.

I know that one of the former directors procured art which was in the nature of 15th Century altar pieces, different peoples conception of art differs. The only point that is relevant here is that we have funded by the Crown to the Winnipeg Art Gallery an amount which in one year is equal to 14 years of accumulated grants by the previous administration. Now how ridicu lous can you get, Sir.

And I'm not including there, by the way, the grants that went for capital construction; nor are we including in those figures the amount that went by way of special grant for the purchase of the Twomey special highly vaunted Eskimo art collec tion. For anyone to suggest that we have been parsimonious with respect to the financial support of the Art Gallery, is obviously ignorant of at least the previous 15 years of history. It is, to put it bluntly, disgusting, Sir, that particular passage in the Honour able Member for Wolsel ey's speech is disgusting.

In one year we have provided more financial support than in 14 accumulated years, prior to our coming to office. What does he want ? Does he want it to be thirty times as much, or what ? And if we do, then he is among those who criticizes us for increased government spending.

Well I want to say that if we are going to take criticism for increased government spending, we know we have to sustain that criticism or to suffer it, we would just as soon it has to do with bread and butter issues that have to do with the working people of this province and those in less fortunate circumstance , and no matter how much we may think that it would be nice to have various paintings by Rembrandt and Holbein and Rubens , and by • • • A MEMBER: Holstein. MR. SCHREYER: Holstein, yes. That, Sir, most assuredly cannot be our priority.

But it just goes to prove, Sir, that indeed the priorities involved in the admin istration of government in our time are not as simple as they're made out to be. Because

4322 May 27, 1976 BILL 56 (MR. SCHREYER cont'd) ••••• we are criticized for excessive spending. We give priority to bread and butter issues, and to the lot of those of average and lower income. And yet we know, we would be irresponsible if we did not continue to finance by increases at least as great as that of our GNP or our provincial budget as a whole. The financing of universities has to escalate. The support of our Art Gallery has increased. I know we don't have any choice.

We can't go back to the good old days when the Tories were in offic e, when they gave the Art Gallery 25 , 000 bucks a year -- (In terjection) -- Yes. All of a sudden art has become of monumental importance in Manitoba. Twelve years ago it didn't seem to matter a damn, that 20, 000 bucks is what they got. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. SCHREYER: One other point, Sir, I can't let this escape. I didn't quite understand the relevance, but it was raised in the debate, and that is the absolutely snide remark made by the Member for Wolseley that this government was somehow soft on pornography.

He obviously doesn't know then, he is obviously ignorant of the fact that the Attorney-General has caused charges to be laid in quite a number of cases , and we have won some and we have lost so me in the courts. Now what does he want us to do, pass some kind of legislation that will predetermine in a way outside that of the courts, as to what constitutes pornography? Definition of pornography, as I understand it, comes under the Criminal Code of Canada, isn't that right ? And if it's under the Federal Criminal Code, what does he want us to do, rewrite federal law ?

I say that by def inition, the hardness or softn ess of our stand on pornography in Manitoba is exactly the same as it is in every other province in Canada because it is federal law interpreted by judges. So what is this nonsense about pornography? Whether it has to do with movies or whether it has to do with books in the news-stands, it is federal law interpreted by judges.

So I want the Honourable Member for Wolseley to know that the almost unique habit he has in this legislature of having such complete contempt for the facts and for truth, that he cannot indulge forever in the luxury of that kind of practice , because as soon as he is no longer a rookie, he will have to stand up and account before the bar of integrity for what he does here, and so far he has a failing grade. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR. PA TRICK: Thank you , Mr. Speaker. I wish to make a few points on Bill 56, The Foreign Cultural Objects Immunity from Seizure Act.

The vote may be close and some may indicate that I didn't take

part in the debate or skipped out of the House, and I do n't want to indicate that I'll not vote on the bill. I don't believe I ever skipped any bill to this House at any time, so I wish to put my points on the record now and take

part in the debate. I believe that we should accept the fact that the world today operates in the politics of realism, and perhaps we should approach this fact from realism. Because the world is divided into three areas, Mr. Speaker, your Eastern, Western and Asia, and we have to say that we may not accept some countries' systems of government, by no means. But we still have to live in the politics of realism and what takes place in certain parts.

I know that I find myself in somewhat of a diff icult position to vote on this bill, but I don't think it's that difficult , because my point of view is that I see nothing wrong with the bill going into committee . I listened to the Member for St. Vital speaking, and I accept much of what he has said. I believe that this would be certainly of great benefit to the Winnipeg Art Gallery. And it's not that I would accept something taking somebody's rights away. I have checked with some lawyers, I have checked with some other people, and I don't think this would be the case.

I know the debates have been quite wide and varied in the House. We'v e talked from Napoleon conf iscating all the arts across Europe; we heard about the Americans, and I think we have to accept the fact that ever since man has existed there has been problems, there have been wars, and so on. And I think it's time that we come to the conclusion and to the point where we have to at least show some leadership to our young people, that it's time that we forgive or for get some of the hatred and forget some of the prejudices and bigotry that existed in the world years ago.

And I don' t think that we would be right in continuing that kind of leadership in a negative positior That doesn't mean that I accept any form of government that exists in a country and in n

May 27 , 1976 4323 BILL 56 (MR. PATRICK cont'd) ••••• Russia, that's not the point. The point that I'm trying to say is that I think what took place many years ago, and taking place now , if we don't show the leadership, and I think the young kids today are showing probably better leadership than the grown-up people . If we don't I think that man will be the cause of his own destruction. because if we look back in history, we'r e told that Napoleon went across and took some of the greatest arts in Euro pe .

We know that the Americans in Massachusetts they put out all the United Empire Loyalists, they confiscated their property, and sent them back to Canada. They had to go back to the Maritimes. The family of my colleague from Portage la Prairie, his family lost all its property during that time. So this has taken place all over the world. I know the member also has spent some four years in a concentration camp as a prisoner of war. I don't think it would be right for him today to hold animosity against that country. These things have taken place in the world.

So I think that this is not ••• that we can show leadership if we say, well this is the way we 're going to treat ••• because what happened. The other point I know that has been mentioned by somebody on that side of the House , that En gland perhaps today is in posses sion of some of the greatest art trea sures in e1e world, the Greek art treasures. And this is probably true. In fact much closer to home, Mr . Speaker, you know, our own hands aren't that clean when it comes to the Japanese . What did we do ?

Did we not confiscate most of their properties in British Columbia and send them to the interior of Ontario and they've never got paid for their property up to date. This is what happened . So we could continue on that ••• I didn't want to take the poin t of debate on that tone but this is wha t's happened , Mr. Speaker.

So I believe that as much as I don't like the government of the country of the art that is coming here, at the same time I think that the only way that I could accept the bill - and I will be supporting the bill on second reading to go to committee, with reservations - if there is a clause , a self-destructive clause in the bill, that the bill will be finished after the art treasures, then I will support the bill on third reading. If there is no self-destructive clause in the bill, then I'm reluctant and I'm indicating right now that I would not be prepared to support the bill.

I know that there has been considerable debate in the House and everybody has had their point of view, and I accept totally everybody's personal opinion, everyone 's point of view, and I don't hold it against them because everybody has a right to speak on this thing and to express himself in the way he wants to. I don't begrudge anybody and don't disregard their points of view very lightly. I take them quite seriously. But I took some time out - and I would have hoped that the Member for Sturgeon Creek would have been in, but he probably knows most of these people - I've sort of taken a poll in the St .

James Y Businessmen's Club, and there were quite a few members in there, probably 15 or so, and I didn't give them any spiels or anything, that's when the news first broke in the pa pers , and I said, should the art treasures come to Winnipeg? I said, you know, there is great concern because there's a lot of people - you know, the pres sure comes from many ethnic groups , and there'•s large groups in Winnipeg - but they feel the bill should not be passed in the House . It was a strange thing that everyone in that club indicated, yes we'd like to see the treasures and we want the treasures to come to Winnipeg.

You know, it was a strange thing. which had some influence on me. I also contacted some teachers in my constituency. I contacted one - in fact I contacted one today who I have the highest regard for, he's probably one of the best educators in this city, in the province, and he's had his property confiscated . He's of the same background as the Member for Lake side . In Russia his parents lost all their property, and he indicated to me .• • well he says we can't carry grudges for what took place many years ago.

He says, I would like to see the art and I think the kids should have the right to see the art and it should come to Winnipeg. So that was just a couple of polls that I've taken, you know, amongst two groups . I know there's pressure from some areas and the position that I am taking may not be a good position, but I think it's a right position. I could not support the

4324 May 27, 1976 BILL 56 (MR. PATRICK cont' d) ••••• bill in its entirety the way it is at the present time but if it 's amended in committee that it will be self-destru ctive after the art treasures are shown, then I see no problem in supporting the bill at the second reading. So tha t's the position that I would like to take , Mr . Speaker. Again, it 's something-that I would like to indicate also that the othe r reason I think that is influencing me to some extent , is that I believe in cultural exchange. I do believe in exchange of arts , of culture , of sports , of every kind.

And I think that this would be a regressive step if we said no we don't want any communications, we don't want any kind of exchange, I think it would be wrong, I think it would probably do humanity more harm in this world than good. Again I say that unless we can change some of our att itude s - I'm not talking of us in this House, I'm talking of people, people in the world - not only of greed but of the old prejudices, and so on. And if we don't , man may be the cause of his own destructi on.

To me I think it would be a wrong thing to do if we said no we don't want any kind of exchange of culture , of sports , of arts , of any kind. I think it has a purpose and for that reason, more than anything else, I'm convinced and inclined to support the bill into second reading, but again with the reservation that the re must be a self-destr uctive clause , If the re isn't, I know that I may have some reason not to . I know there 's pressure on perhaps many members in this House from differen t groups, and there 's pressure on me from individuals and groups and the position I'm taking .

We can go back in history in many areas: We know for a fact that the negro has not been properly treated in the Unite d State s. So again, from the Member for Fort Rouge, I understand that Wales hasn't been properly treated by England, and his ancestors have some storie s to tell. I'm sure that every member in this House can go back and dig deep, and I know this isn't the kind of a debate that I would have liked to get involved but that 's the way the debate started out and if we wan ted to debate on that line, I think that every single one of us can go and have a story to relate of what happened. So, Mr.

Speaker, because I believe so strongly in the exchange of arts and culture and sports and partici pation and communication betw een countries ••• It 's not too long ago that probably China was the greatest enemy in .the world and nobody wanted to accept it into the United Nations and I think , what hypocrisy. That was the worst thing we could do. You've got a third of the population of the whole world and the att itude was that it shouldn't belong or shouldn't be in the Unite d Nations .

And toda y, it 's a strange thing that China is the greatest thing because they 're in the United Nations - maybe they should have been in there much quicker and much earlier. At the same time , Mr . Speaker, I do not deny that there 's concern about liberties and fr eedoms and I'm one of those that believe in complete libertie s and fr ee doms.

But again, as I indicated first , the world today operates on politics of realism and we can't control what goes on in some country, but we may still have to trade , we may still have to communicate, we may still have to have cultural exchanges with these countrie s because th at's the way the world is today. So, Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to be too long on this bill. I wanted to put my point s of view on record and so I'm supporting the bill on second reading to com mittee and hope that there will be an amendment to it . MR. SP EAKER: The Honourable Member for Birtl e-Russell . MR. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Mr . Speaker, when it comes to the question of a bill of this nat ure, I think I have to apply to this bill the basic principle that I've used in many othe r bills that have come before the Legislature , and it involves my basic concern about the type of legislation that is being brought into this House and put on the statu tes of Manitoba . I think that we have to view the legislation on the basis of whether or not the legislation will benefit more people or whethe r it will deny certain rights to more people than those that receive benefits from the legislation.

In that regard, Sir, you also have to take a look at the type of legislation that is there and what effect it will have on the total statu tes that we have. It's my belief , Sir, that we have at the present time far too many pieces of legislation on our statute s which have been introduced for a very specific reason and remain there for considerable time after. I think that we have _quite often m brjnging fozward legislatimt., have tried

May 27, 19 76 4325 BILL 56 (MR . GRAHAM cont'd) •.... to deal with a specific item and maybe dot the ''t's" and cross the ''i 's "in our legislation rather than trying to enunciate a principle, when we develop legislation. Now if it is going to be a principle that from henceforth and hereafter all art will forever after now be granted immunity from any type of action taken against it, whether it be local , Canadian or foreign, then I could debate that principle.

But the First Minister in his debate said that he would welcome the opportunity to put a clause in there that would have it self-de struct after a certain period of time . And I don't think that that type of legislation, Mr. Speaker, is good legislation.

If you 're going to enunciate a principle that is going to be placed on the books in the Province of Manitoba for 10, 20, 30 years , and it's a principle that can be very clearly debated on that basis without specific reference to the Russian art exhibit or any other art exhibit, if it's going to be a principle, then I am willing to debate it and vote on that particular principle. On this particular case though, Mr.

Speaker, there is every indication that this is going to be just for a specific item and will be maybe on the books for many years after or may not be, because there is a possibility of an amendment being introduced which would give it a self-de struct attitude . For that reason, Mr . Speaker, I don't think that this is good legislation, I'm not making any reference to the art exhibit at all, but dealing with it purely from the point of a type of legislation that we would like to see in our statutes. And for that reason, Mr . Speaker, I am inclined to oppose this type of legislation. MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson. I recognize him but the hour being 10 o' clock, I am now adjourning the House .•• Very well, I'l l put the question. The Honourable Member for Riel. MR . CRAIK: If the members wish to adjourn then it might be possible that the House Leader might wish us to move into Capital Supply again or into Supply. MR . SPEAKE R: Does the Honourable Member for Thompson wish to speak on the sub ject ? MR . KEN DI LLEN (Thompson): Yes I do , Mr. Speaker . MR . SPEAKER: Would the honourable member move the adjournment . MR .

DILLEN: I move , seconded by the Member for Logan, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried . MR . SPEA KER: The Honourable House Leader. MR . GREEN: Mr . Speaker, I move seconded by the Honourable the Minister of Health and Social Deve lopment , that Mr. Speaker do now le ave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a commi ttee to consider of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MR . SPEAKE R: I have a procedural problem, the hour is after 10, and I can only extend the hour by leave . MR . GREEN: By le ave, Mr . Speaker. MR . SPEAKE R: Do we have leave ? Very well.

MOTION presented and carried and the House res olved itself into a Committee of Supply with the Honourable Member for Logan in the Chair.

4326 May 27, 1976 COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY - CAPITAL SUPPLY MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please .

Schedule A, Manitoba Hydro Electric Board, $2, 700, 000-- pass . Manitoba Telephone System, $49, 500, 000-- pass . The Honourable Member for Wolseley. MR .

WILSON: Under the Telephones , the thing that I wanted to raise at this time was I was concerned because of the publicity regarding the existence of the Public Utilities Board and many public statements made by the Minister of Consumer Affairs re garding the disbanding of this particular vehicle of examina tion, and I was hoping tonight that we might get the First Minister, to somehow or other get a commitment from him that we could be assured that the Public Utilities Board will continue in existence and be a profes sional vehicle to examine the Manitoba Telephone System and its other operations as a check on behalf of the public to ensure that rates and what have you stay within a reasonable means of the average working person, and I would like to see that particular commitment made .

I have in front of me a report in which they have talked about a numb er of things that have already been made public . I'm very concerned because of the nature of the Minister of Consumer Affairs that the government seems to be getting more and more in volved in the telephone systems and cablevision systems and the compu ter systems, as we are getting to know them today .

I look back to the Manitoba Telephone System where there was absolutely nothing but 100 percent confidence in that utility by the public and it is only as of late with the in volvement of, and I would consider an aggressive involvement by the Minister of Consumer Affairs into the activities of the telephone systems , that we have had these concerns raised by the public, and this is one of which I'm deeply con cerned about mys elf.

His sort of position, a position which would be one of non-debate, in which he has taken adamant stand that the government is going to own all the hardware pertaining to cablevision, and also that the government intends to get into centralized compu ter systems and charge up the loss of the obsolete computers to the Manitoba Tele phone System .

So without delaying too much because the hour is late, I would want to hope that this new forced policy, this new partnership through the Public Utilities Board can be examin ed, and that the public can be assured that the Manitoba Telephone System will be the same as it was before with the modern improvements but there will not be that sort of government takeover, complete government takeover, and that's what I mean when I say the existence, I'd like a commitment tonight that the Public Utilities Board will be able to remain in existence • MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Chairman, I believe that I can indicate in very few words to the Honourable Member for Wolseley that without necessarily accepting as valid some of his other observations as to the findings of the Utility Board vis-a-vis the Telephone System, that on his specific request that some assurance be given that there would not be a removal of the jurisdiction of the Utility Board relative to the Telephone System , I can assure him without· hesitation and without equivocation that there will not, there cannot be any such removal without a bill, in which case it would have to be brought to this Legis lature and he and all others interested and concerned would have ample opportunity to debate the pros and cons of it, so that he can stand assured that nothing is imm inent in that regard.

If and when in the future this might be proposed to be changed, it would require the advice and consent of this whole House . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mem ber for Fort Rouge. MR. LLOYD AXWORTHY (Fort Rouge): Mr. Chairman, there is really a lot of items that should be looked at under the Manitoba Telephone System because I think while we have been concentrating our gaze on the issue of Manitoba Hydro and its capital ex penditure, Manitoba Telephone System has been finding itself in the same kind of capital trap that the other large utilities are getting themsel ves into.

I think that the value and effect of the Public Utilities Board, which we have argued about in this Hous e for the last week or so, having some jurisdiction or responsibility for review is well borne out in terms of being able to apply some learned and intelligent eye upon the capital programs of public utilities, because I think that the evidence that has come about as a result of their hearings, I think should be brought to the attention of this House, and does require

May 27, 1976 4327 SUPPLY - CAPITA L (MR . AXWORTHY cont'd) ••••• some very specific answers from the Minister of Finance and perhaps from the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System. The first thing that we have to take a look at, Mr . Chairman, is the fact that the Utility Board in its interim find ings of last October said that they found the prospect of a 50 percent increase in capital expenditure over the next three years, some $250 million, to be startling.

And I quote from them, they said, ''to be startling" and further went on to suggest that that particular expenditure far, -- (Interjection)-- Well, they said, and if the Premier would like the direct quote, it says, "that the board freely admits that it has found the capital expenditure proj ections of $250 million for the next three years to be at first sight at least 'startling' ." Quote . Unquote . Page 5 from their October 29th findin gs . And, Mr.

Chairman, they went on to say, in that particular report, that further more what they even found more diff icult to accept is that these expenditure s far exceeded the Anti-Inflation Guidelines that had been set down. Now what is intere sting, Mr .

Chairman, is that somebody obviou sly got to them between that particular expression of opinion and when they reported on May 12, 1976, because in the meantime, they spent about ten pages going through a very large mea culpa about how as a Public Utility Board they must realize the limits of their commentary and that they do not have the respon sibility to necessarily decide what the capital program of the MTS should be, because that is the responsibility of the Government of Manitoba. But they go on in that report, Mr . Chairman, to point out something which I think is even more important.

They get down to the basic formula of capital financing of public utilities and how it relates to the question of rates .

And this is the thing that they point out, is that while the government likes to say, and does say with great frequency, that all these public utilities are so designed as to be self- supporting, what they point out is that a self-su pporting public utility is therefore totally dependent upon its degree of capital expansion, and if in fact it expands its capital base and its capital assets in ex cess, then it is going to build in an automatic multiplier in terms of rate structu res; that because of the requirement to be self-su pporting, the larger the capital foundation and assets, that is the determining factor in terms of setting rates .

And that therefore to try and say, well, it 's self-su pporting, really isn't an answer, it simply says that some control and guideline must be therefore set on Public Utilities in terms of their capital expenditure in order to try and retain their rates with • • • in some responsible control . Now, Mr .

Chairman, the point that I think the Board goes on to suggest is this, and I guess it's a fundamental que stion that should be raised - if you read the report, what they say explicitly in between the lines, they say Manitoba Telephone System is pres ently launching into a number of relatively peripheral, exotic somewhat dramatic kind of exercises, the data proces sing activity, the attempt to set up new cable lines, take over the cable business, and buy new equipment to connect hospitals, when in fact the capital should be going into providing their telephone ser vic e in the Province of Manitoba.

And again to quote from the Board's hearing, they say that the multiple line service is atrocious, it's the worst in Canada, and that there has been absol utely no capital being devoted to what should be the basic fund amental responsibility of the Manitoba Telephone System; and rather than putting their capital in those areas, which is the primary respon sibility of the MTS, they're off lost in a number of kind of intere sting and perhaps more exotic, ephemeral, and I suppose even the kind of activities that would give the Minister himself something more exciting to play with rather than simply providing good old tele phone lines . -- (Interj ection)-- Well I suspect that the Premier probably built his political base upon those party lines, and that it provided him with all kinds of leverage against his political opposition.

But aside from the fact, Mr . Chairman, the Board itself is saying something very important, and that is, we have a Manitoba Telephone System that is designed to provide telephone service; that there is a serious area of weakness of lack of service being provided in the rural areas; that it would require a degree of capital improvement in order to bring it up to a minimum standard, because it's far below the minimum .

4328 May 27, 1976 SUPPLY - CAPITAL (MR. AXWORTHY cont'd) • • • Furthermore, there is a capital requirement in order to provide for a con tinuation of the services of telephone supply and to maintain the equipment, keep it up to date , and that requires a fair amount of capital expenditure.

In the meantime we 're off launching a number of new ventures, highly expensive ventu res, ventures which have a lot of questions attached to them about the jurisdiction, such as in the cable areas, and instead of launching into these kind of will-o-the-wisp sort of aspect, Manitoba Telephone System should be doing what it was set up to do in the first place . Therefore, Mr . Cha irman, that would be the first question we would have, is really the allocation of priorities about the Manitoba Telephone System .

And asking the question, shouldn't it be back in the telephone business and really restraining itself in a period when everyone else should be restraining, in terms of the capital expenditure in these other areas . Now it leads to the other question, Mr. Chairman, about the actual intervention in these two lines of new businesses, or activities that the MTS has gone into . One is in the cable activity.

There is first a question I would want to raise with the government about whethe r the end result of the policy that the government seems to be following im plicitly, cause it has never explicitly said what the policy would be, is really to get itself into a new line of business which is not only going to cost an awful lot of money, that it is also I believe unconstitutional.

Because when it begins to take over the full control of the cable lines, it really is in the area where it is taking over responsibility for program ming, and the decision that was made by the Canadian Transport Commission on Bell Telephone last year said that total ownership of a cable system really implied a form of control over programming which is really under the federal jurisdiction. So that would be one question Mr. Chairman.

But I would want to raise something which I think in part has been a little bit of a lack of forthrightness on the part of the government in dealing with its cable policy� that the Minister brought forward a paper about eighteen months ago, two years ago, where he said May 1974, a paper was brought forward on cable syste ms, and at that time the Minister promised with all the contingency that he could muster that we were going to have a major debate, discussion, examination of that cable policy . Never anything more was heard about it, Mr . Chairman.

There were never any committee hearings, there was never any attempt for representations . It seemed to drop from sight, and then lo and behold we find this year that that policy is in fact being implemented .

So we went through a period where the province was going to get itself involved in a very major activity and again we find ourselve s in a pos ition where we don't know why or how, where we haven 't had an opportunity to fully examine it with proper public hearings • So again we 're getting ourselves into a policy area without really having had an opportunity to de bate and to discuss that policy in a public fashion. And I think that that, Mr.

Chairman, is not really living up to the responsibility of what the government initially said it was prepared to offer, which was to provide that white paper or green paper or whatever they described it, and then invite public participation on it . But we didn't have any of that, Mr. Chairman, and now we have a policy. And I say the policy is fraught with both an expense to the government which perhaps should be looked at more carefully, and certainly is fraught with a number of jurisdictional problems. And so, Mr.

Chairman, I would really say that I think that the Minister really has a responsibility to explicitly state what the cable policy of this government is and to l.a;y it out in very firm and direct ways . Now a third question dealing with MTS, Mr. Chairman, is on the data processing area, because that is one area which again has been covered with a great deal of con fusion and expense, that we again find out that the government has gone into the data business, setting up its own computer services .

And again it brings into that area of fine line as to whether we in fact are setting up a government operation that could be better handled by private firms in the area, and we 'll never know because, Mr.

Chairman, as we understand the policy, as we 've been asking questions, they're never given the op portunity to find out; that the business is never bidded upon, tenders are never offered, it is simply a matter that one government agency goes to another government agency and says do it for us • There is no cost control, there is no accountability, and therefore we don't know whether in fact this new data processing is going to be a major white

May 27, 1976 4329 SUPPLY - CAPITA L (MR. AXWORTHY cont'd) • • elephant in terms of the kind of multitudes of govern- ment enterprises we've found ourselves engaged into, and doing so at an exp ense again both capital and operating, that we 're going to be providing deficits, covering them off in different areas . We even had our own Phoenix Data Processing which we found out this morning wasn't even being allowed to tender or bid on many of these contracts, which again is surprising. You've already set up a business, now you're setting up another business, and you're not allowing any business to contra ct. Mr.

Chairman, I think that the government is jumping through a lot of hoops on this one, or getting us into a magic mirror house, where every time you turn around you get another reflection, you don't know what you 're getting into . So, Mr . Chairman, what I'm simply suggesting is, that when the Public Utilities Board says that they find $250 million a startling figure, I agree with them . It's an awful lot of capital, and the cost of that capital is going to have to be borne by the users, the ratepayers . We 've seen the kind of heavy increases in rates that have gone on.

And what the ratepayers, the telephone users are paying for, is a lot of pretty exotic experi ments being conducted by the government. That's what they 're paying for, because all the extra surpluses have run out.

The Public Utilities Board itself said, that if the Telephone System has some surpluses to invest in these things, they could understand it, but in fact they're having to go into very heavy debt, they're going to have to go in the money market, paying very heavy interest rates, and so why for goodness sake are they getting into these sort of exotic adventures and enterprises and investments when in fact they're not even able to properly finance the pro vision of proper services in rural Mani toba . Mr .

Chairman, I think that those are questions which really relate very funda mentally to the operation of the telephone system and its capital borrowing, and I think it deserves some answers . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. MR . TURNBULL: Mr . Speaker, I don't know whether it's the late hour that provokes the Member for Fort Rouge into what has to be from an informed point of view, the most incredible rantings about the telephone utility in this province that I have ever heard uttered by any member of the Legislature.

The Member for Fort Rouge purports to claim that there are three major areas, telephone service, cable extension and com puter services which the Telephone System is into, and which he claims has not been enunciated as clear policy . Mr . Chairman, I can only say that the Member for Fort Rouge has been operating with blinkers on his eyes and cottonbatten in his ears because the policy for each of these areas has been clearly enunciated over the last number of decades, not just while I have been the Minister for the last three years has this policy been enunciated in these three areas, but for decades .

And I hope to now get into some of the details of what I mean by the enunciation of policy over the last decades . But I hav e to say, Mr . Chairman, that I'm really flabbergasted at the Member for Fort Rouge who at times seems to be able to display an ability to ignore what he simply does not want to consider, when he makes a presentation to this House . One of the ways in which he tends to ignore what has happened, of course, to go back to the Interim Report of the Public utilities Board and not really get into what the final report had to say .

The fact of the matter is, and it was clear, should be clear to him as well as to all members, those members who were in government on the opposite side, that the Cabinet of this province retains the final authority and the Legislature retains the ulti mate au thority to approve Ca pital Expenditures , not only for the Telephone System, but for Hydro and for other utilities in the province that are owned by the Crown.

That surely is the principle of legislative responsibility and it is something that clearly the Member for Fort Rouge chooses to ignore when he wants to get into citation of the Interim Report of the Public Utilities Board and their expressed concern at that time about Capital Expenditures by the Telephone System . Mr. Cha irman, the expenditures on Capital by the Telephone System are made simply to provide improved telephone service to the people of this province.

What the Public Utility Board found during its hearings after the Interim Report was: in a series of meetings in rural Manitoba, that the people out there wanted improved telephone service,

4330 May 27, 19 76 SUPPLY - CAPITAL (MR. TURNBULL cont'd) • • • • • it's as simple as that. That's why we have Capital expenditures for that service and for othe rs . And if the Public Utilities Board had chosen, and it chose not to, if the Public utilities Board had chosen to go to northern Manitoba, to go to Berens River and Pine Dock, Shamattawa and other areas of northern Manitoba, they would have found in those communit ies, too, that there was a demand there for ser vice, and a demand for that service wouW have entailed increased capital expenditure. Mr .

Speaker, the Member for Fort Rouge seems to think that there has been no) relatively small anyway, expenditure on rural line service in this province, and he simply doesn't know what he's talking about if that is his point. He indicated that the Telephone System should get back to proViding telephone service . And I can tell him that in the time-frame 196 4-1974, that decade, the Telephone System spent $20 million on reducing line-loads primarily in rural areas, $20 million, Mr. Chairman, dollars that were based not on today's inflated costs but on the costs of the decade 19 64-74 .

In the next five years there will be approximately $25 million spent by the Tele phone System , that is in the period from 1976 - 198 1, $25 million spent on four party and individual lines in this province. Mr . Speaker, that's the size of the expenditure that the Telephone System is in curring to provide better rural line service in the Province of Manitoba . And for the Member for Fort Rouge to say that the Telephone System doesn't seem to have a sense of priorities in this regard is just not true, it just is not factual .

There is a number of other services that are provided, and if the member wishes and if I had the time I could go into a citation of them, and perhaps that is what he needs, but the demand for service is there, the capital expenditures have been made in the past and will be made in the future. The fact of the ma tter is, Mr . Chairman, that until the Telephone System got its recent rate increase, just approved in the last few days, it did not have the money to provide for great capital expenditures to provide impro ved service in rural areas .

With the rate increase there is every possibility of accelerating the improvement of rural line service, rural line loadings and I expect that the system will be undertaking a review of that service to see if it can provide some acceleration there. That's always a possibility. With regard to those two areas of service which the Mem ber for Fort Rouge seems to think are exotic, that of cable service and computer service, I have to say a few remarks about them , too .

He seems to think that cable service provided to Manitobans in Brandon, Portage la Prairie, Se lkirk is somehow an exotic service, something that the people of those communities should not be entitled to have, and I couldn't disagree with the Member for Fort Rouge more on that point. It is a Federal agency, the Canadian Radio Television Commission, that has allowed cable signals to be imported from America to this country, and to the extent that that policy of the Federal CRTC has damaged the financial viability of the Canadian Broadcasting System it has been done.

And for the CRTC to de lay over the last five to six years a calling of applications for rural communi ties such as Portage, Brandon and Selkirk, is in my mind the fact of eastern discrimina tion against western Canadians, it's as simple as that . The cable policy of the Telephone System is not a new policy, it is a policy that was set really in a contract signed in 1967, a contract signed between the cable operators in Winnipeg and the Manitoba Telephone System .

That cable contract spells out very clearly that the Telephone System here owns the cable, right here in Winnipeg, it's the Telephone System 's property and through the Telephone System it is the property of every man, woman and child in this province . What the cable compani es want to do is use that property to satisfy their own desire, to do with MTS property, to do with the property of the people of Manitoba what they the private cable compani es want to do with it .

And in that they may well be aided and abetted by the Member for Fort Rouge's Liberal frien:ls in the CRTC and the Federal Departmen t of Commu nications, that's just a possibility, and I don't think that that kind of use of public property by private corporations is really the kind of policy that is in the best public interest . The policy on cable ownership, hardware ownership, that is set out in the 19 67 contract is one which is designed, basically, to provide for the integration of the trans mission of telecommunication services over the cable, to have one cable which can carry

May 27, 1976 4331 SUPPLY - CAPITAL (MR. TURNBULL cont'd) ••••• every conceivable signal that I can imagine, and likely the Member for Fort Rouge can imagine, it can carry cable, entertaimnent signals, it can carry data information, it can carry point to point information of various kinds, it can carry telemedical information, it can carry shopping information or stock market in formation, it can carry weather information and all of this can be provided on the one cable system that the Telephone System has owned in the past and as far as I am con cerned will continue to own in the future.

That policy is clear, the ownership of the cable surely spelled out in a contract between cable companies and the MTS could not be more clear, it is a legal document, it's a legal document; and for the Member for Fort Rouge to say that that policy somehow has not been enunciated, somehow is unclear, somehow is anew, somehow is not forthright, is just sheer nonsense .

The prospectus paper, the policy paper that the Department of Communications here in Manitoba issued in 197 4 indicated again very clearly that the new cable contracts that would be negotiated in this province would be based on the idea that the co=on carrier here would continue to own the cable. And I thought that was very clear, the Member for Fort Rouge had the paper, he surely has access t

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-3-127
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 3rd hansardpdf 127.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	718f41189d3ae9325eaf5bf85567d71955c1992e

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