Manitoba Hansard — 11 July 1972 (Sitting 156, 29th Legislature, 4th Session)

29-4-156

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 o'clock, Tuesday, July 11, 1972 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. 4079 MR. SPEAK ER: Presenting Petitions; Reading and Receiving Petitions; Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees; Minister:ial Statements and Tabling of Reports, The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. HON. LEONARD S, EVANS (Minister of Industry and Commer ce)(B randon East): Mr. Speaker, with respect to questions asked of us regarding the Tantalum Agreement, I have a statement here which is I'm afraid rather long.

I'm quite prepared to read it in the record, Sir, it's almost seven full pages plus a second part which is a little over one page or I could simply table these which gives you and gives members of the House a background of the agree ment. In addition I have copies of an agreement between certain of the companies and the MDC and I have some answers to specific questions in addition. Now I'd like the advice of the Speaker and the House with regard to the procedure. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. EDWARD SCHREYER (Premier)(Rossmere): Mr.

Speaker, my understanding of the place in the Order Paper where we come to Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports is that if there is a policy statement to be made by a Minister of the Crown , then of course this is the appropriate place at which to make it.

In this particular place what is involved is the tabling of answers which are in some detail in response to written questions that were allowed before Orders of the Day during the question period, and as such this is not really -- this is not a statement of policy but merely the written reply to a number of detailed oral questions and therefore the material should merely be tabled along with any agreement if there be one. Agree ment in itself does not constitute a policy statement either and should be merely tabled. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR.

SIDNEY SPIVAK, Q, C. (Leader of the Opposition)(River Heights): Mr. Speaker, may I remind the First Minister that there was an undertaking given to the House that a state ment would be made -- (Interjection) -- Mr. Speaker, and on that basis I assume that the state ment would be both in answer to the questions that have been asked as well as in answer to, or as well as additional information that the government in its wisdom may decide to give us.

And I would suggest that in the interests of clarity with respect to this issue, because I believe it is confused at the present time, I think it would be the wisest course to have the Minister read the statement into the record and give all the members an opportunity to understand it with his presentation and with any comments he may have with respect to the direct presentation as well. MR. SP EAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: If there ·is any confusion it's because of the efforts of my honourable friend.

If there is any undertaking that was given it was that a statement would be given to the House and, Mr. Speaker, here it is. It's tabled. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion; Introduction of Bills. Order, please. Order, please. Oral Questions. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIV AK: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and I rise frankly because of the manner in which the First Minister has handled this matter. Mr. Speaker, he gave the under taking to this House that a statement would be made -- (Interjection) - - Yes, a statement would be given. Mr.

Speaker, the normal course under the revision of the rules is for the Minister to make a statement and for that statement to be presented. Mr. Speaker, we may delay another day before questions that have been asked are answered and it may very well be, as I suspect it will be because that's the only justification I can see for the course of action that the government's undertaken, that the number of other questions are going to be asked based on the information that's furnished.

But surely in the interests of attempting to clarify this matter, the statement itself should have been read because this was, I think, the clear undertaking on the First Minister. MR . SPE AKER: The Honourable First Minister. On the point of order? MR . SCHREYER: Yes. Mr. Speaker, this is a document which gives written replies to a series of oral questions that were asked before the Orders of the Day, yesterday- - correction, earlier today and on Friday. The Member for River Heights is now alleging that I gave an undertaking that there would be an oral statement.

I said that there would be a statement given to the House and, Mr. Speaker, unless something escapes me here, I fail to see what

4080 July 11, 1972 (MR. SCHREYER cont'd) . • . • • substantive difference there can be to my honourable friend opposite whether a statement is made orally or whether it is given in writing. I should think that perhaps he would prefer the latter. But furthermore it is my understanding that Ministerial Statements are generally regarded as statements of policy declaration made at the appropriate time and as such, I say again, that this statement here does not relate to policy, it has to do with answering particulars raised during oral question period. MR. SP EAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. WARNER H.

JORGENSON (Morris): On, if there is such a thing as a point of order at the present time, then I would ask the First Minister because as he has indicated the state ment contains replies to a number of questions that have been asked in this House, then may I ask the First Minister if it would be in order for the statement to be tabled and printed in Hansard so that the record of the questions that have been asked is complete.

Surely I can see no objection to that course of action and if the Minister would suggest that the statement that he now has released form a part of the record of Hansard, I think that would be satisfactory. MR. SP EAKER: Order, please. I would concur that the tabling of the reply will be entered in Hansard and that should close the matter. It is just the answers to the questions that have been posed, the statement has been given. It's been ac cEJpted. The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Minister of Labour)(Transcona): Mr.

Speaker, if I may on a point of order, we have provisions within our rules for written questions, and also for the reply to written questions, which are recorded in Hansard and I would suggest that if the docu ment that we have before us is in reply to a written statement or a written request, then quite properly it would be recorded in Hansard. However, and that is the rules of this House, whether my honourable friends opposite would agree or otherwise. We should adhere to the rules of the House. However, Mr.

Speaker, there have been on occasions a request from honourable members on all sides of the House that statements be recorded in Hansard other than those provided for within the rules. If this is the desire of the House, Mr. Speaker, then I suggest that the same be complied with, but if an honourable member of this House is rising on a point of order that this is automatic, may I suggesttothathonourable member that such is not the case.

There is provision for written questions; there is provision for written answers to be recorded in Hansard; there is no objection that I can see of the statement that has been tabled to be recorded in Hansard for the benefit of the members. I suggest in all due respect, Mr. Speaker, that that would be at the request of the House and not in accordance with the rules of the House, and I have no objections to that being done as a request and not as an order under the rules of this House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR .

JORGENSO N: It's a pleas ant surprise to see the Minister wa nt to invoke the rules of theHouse, and ifh ewa nts toinvoke therules ofthe House , Sir, thenthe questions that were asked orally should be answered orally , if he really wa nts to invoke the rules. I asked as a matter of courtesy in order to avoid any undue discussion on this particular subject to have that report tabled as an appendix to Ha nsard so that the oral questions that were asked will have answers, and ifthat is too much for the Hem se Leader to grant why then , Sir, we 'll take another course of action. MR.

SP EAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. PAULLEY: I'm somewhat surprised to hear from my honourable friend the Member for Morris that he wants to observe courtesies in this House. As far as I am concerned I have no objections at all for the recording in Hansard of the document that has been forwarded this evening. MR. SPEAKER: Oral questions. The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. I.

H. (IZZY) ASPER (Leader of the Liberal Party)(Wolseley) : The resolution is quite acce ptable to me with one caveat and that's this, that the questions that were asked were taken as notice in many cases by the Minister and that because Hansard is running a week late members opposite on this side will not have available to them the statement. Will the Minister undertake -- (Interjection) - - I will, but the members won't.

Will the Speaker undertake, or will the House Leader or the First Minister, undertake to distribute copies to all members so that we can carry on the business tomorrow having these answers before all of us. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, as House Leader I think that is my responsibility. If

July 11, 1972 4081 (MR. P AULLEY cont'd) . . . . . there happens to be the lack of communication within the respective caucuses, in order that that might be enhanced I will see that there are copies available to every member within the caucus. MR. SP EAKER: Order, please. I hope the Honourable Minister of Labour will also have a copy for the Independents who do not have a caucus. MR. PAULLEY: Of course. Mr. Speaker, the Honourable House Leader is the most amiable person in this House. MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENT - TANTA LUM MINE Many questions have been asked about Chemalloy Minerals Limited of Toronto. I would like to stress that the MDC has entered into an agreement with Tantalum Mining Corporation. While Chemallo y is a party to the agreement, it is not to receive MDC funds. Furthermore, its ownership interest in Tantalum does not in any way alter the fact that we are primarily in terested in Tantalum, the company which, after all, our basic security is vested. We do know that shares of Chemalloy are openly traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

This could not happen unless the firm complied fully with the requirements of the Exchange, and also the Ontario Securities Commission which is an agency of the Ontario government. There has been much interest in Chemalloy's ownership. Since the firm's shares can be purchased on the Toronto Stock Exchange by anyone who meets the Exchange's regulations it is not realistic to expect the Government to provide detailed information on this point. It is our current understanding that presently there are roughly 7500 shareholders in the firm made up of individuals and companies from all over the world.

I notice that several questions have been asked about a Swiss Bank. To these I can answer that Handels Bank of Zurich holds roughly 25% of Chemalloy's common stock on behalf of a number of clients. This purchase took place several years ago as a result of a conversion of a $3, 000, 000 debenture previously issued by Chemalloy to Handels Bank. Instead of accepting re payment of the note the bank exercised its option to waive repayment of 90% of the debenture's value and accept in lieu of it 1. 8 million shares valued at $1. 50 each.

Since the debenture had been originally issued against treasury shares of the same total value the transaction was in effect a simple conversion of treasury shares to ordinary voting stock. NOTES ON THE TANTA LUM AGREEMENT In order to clarify the circumstances surrounding the Tantalum inves1ment, the facts will be presented as past, present and future. (

a) PAST: On February 22nd, 1971, Chemalloy agreed to purchase from Northern Goldfield 60% of Tanco to give Chemalloy lOO% of Tanco's equity. The 60% of Tanco's equity was acquired for a total payment of $2 mm plus a substantial participation in any savings derived from a settle ment or a court adjudication below the $7 million claimed by General Host. The last payment of $500, 000 on this purchase was made by Chemalloy to Goldfield in January, 1972, before the MDC loan was made.

On April 20th, 1972, by Order-in -C ouncil, the Government of Manitoba authorized the MDC to make a $900, 000 production loan to Tantalum Mining Corporation. The loan was well secured by inventory of Tantalum oxide held in a bonded warehouse in the name of the MDC. At the time the loan was made, litigation which endangered the mine's market and development projects was in process. The litigation involved a suit by General Host and the Union Bank of California against Chemalloy Minerals and Tantalum Corporation for $7. 0 million which General Host claimed to be due and payable to them by Tanco.

The litigation in Canada was tied into a larger U. S. lawsuit for $77 million brought by Goldfield against General Host. The U. S. law suit is not expected to be resolved for another 3 to 5 years and, as Goldfield wished to use the Tantalum note case to establish a precedent against General Host, the Canadian case would probably not have been resolved for a long time. In the meantime, the continued litigation left little hope for the proper management and development of the mine.

As an added element of confusion, Justice Wright of the Ontario Courts handed down a judgment appointing a Receiver for the assets of the Tantalum Corporation. Since Justice Wright's judgment applied only to Ontario the appointment of a Receiver for assets in Manitoba had to be approved by the Manitoba courts. On April 26, 1972, Mr. Justice Nitikman of the Manitoba court halted all court

4082 July 11, 1972 proceedings and denied General Host the appointment of a Receiver until all appeals filed by Chemalloy had been heard. Instead, he appointed a Treasurer to watch over the assets of the mine. On June 27th, a settlement agreement was reached between all parties. This agreement, inter alia, has re sulted in the termination, with court approval , of all the litigation in the General Host - Tantalum action. (

b) PRESE NT: The terms of the settlement agreement and the MDC /Chemalloy agreement provide for MDC to invest $1. 5 million in Tanco. (This issue appears to have been a source of confusion to some people who incorrectly imply that the MDC is buying shares from Chemalloy.) The money to be invested by MDC will be used for working capital and for the construction of a lithium pilot plant. For this investment, MDC will receive newly issued Tanco treasury shares to an amount which will give the MDC 15% of the equity of the company .

In addition, MDC is to receive 10 % of Tanco's equity in consideration of its guaranteeing payment of $2 million to General Host by Tanco 18 months from now. No money will be paid to Chemalloy and no shares are being purchased from Chemalloy. Payment from operating cash flows to General Host against its debenture are not to start before January, 1974. All payments are to be limited to 50% of net ca sh flow as described in the agreemen ts. The objective of this repayment formula is to lift the burden of debt payment from Tanco in its earlier years when it is striving towards establishing sound markets.

Terms of the settlement agreement are: 1. Tanco will grant to General Ho st a first mortgage debenture: (

A) Principal: $5, 000, 000 (

B) Interest: 5% simple interest (

C) Term: 10 years (

D) Payments: $2 ,000, 000 within 18 months; 50% of net ca sh flow from sale of Tantalum bearing 10 % of unpaid principal and interest, annually for second five yea rs; balance of principal and interest is due 10 years after date of debenture. (

E) No future infusion of capital will subordinate this debenture. 2. Chemalloy will provide Tanco with $2 , 000, 000 within a period of 18 months, which $2 , 000, 000 shall then be transferred to General Host in reduction of principal owing. Chemalloy's cash infusion will be by wa y of equity to Tanco, but Chemalloy equity in Tanc o is not to exceed 75% of the issued and outstanding shares. Thus, Chemalloy 's in vestment may be recorded as contributed surplus as new shares will be issued to MDC and Chemalloy to maintain the 75:25 balance of equity. 3.

MDC will provide a guarantee for a maximum period of 18 months for the payment of the $2 , 000, 000 referred to in the agreement. As security on this guarantee, Chemalloy will pledge all the shares of Tanco to the MDC. 4. MDC will convert its $900, 000 loan , which includes approximately $400, 000 in advances to date, plus an additional $600 , 000 into 25% of Tanco equity. 5. Tanco will terminate all existing employment or management agreements.

No money will be paid to Chemalloy , its employees or affiliates, except that for any one year duringthe term of the debenture up to $50, 000 will be disbursed to Chemalloy , MDC, their officers, employer s, or agents for actual services rendered for the production or sales of tantalum oxide. 6. Tanco will have a regular annual audit which shall be made available to General Host, and General Host will have complete access to all internal records and manag ement infor mation . 7.

Bes ides the specific mention of tantalum, there is additional reference to cesium sales as follows: Tanco will grant General Host a $2 , 000, 000 income debenture at 5% simple interest, payments of principal and interest to be solely out of the sale of cesium, on the basis of 20% of the gross sales of cesium. Chemalloy is entitled to a royalty on cesium sales (per an earlier agreement), but this money is to b£ applied as a credit against the first mortgage debenture . 8.

Also to be applied as a credit on the first mortgage debenture is 20, 000 lbs. of tantalum oxide valued at $7.00 per pound, owned by Chemalloy - title to be returned to Tanc o, the proceeds of which comprise the credit.

July 11, 1972 4083 9. Chemalloy agrees not to sell a further 40 , 000 lbs. owned by them, giving Tanco the first right to fill such a contract. As a result of the agreement, the Receiver in Ontario and the Receiver -Manager in Manitoba have been discharged, thereby placing Tanco on a better footing to handle markets. VALUE OF TH E MINE : Based on proven reserves of tantalite with an average price of $7 and 6 million pounds remaining at present, the ore body value is estimated at $42 million. This does not take into consideration an estimated 300 ,0 00 tons of cesium oxide - estimated value of $1 00 million - and lithium reserves estimated at 30 years and $260 million. (

c) FUTURE: Alternatives at the end of 18 months moratorium There are two possible outcomes at the end of the 18 month moratorium period: Either (

a) Chemalloy invests an additional $2 mm in equity in Tanco and the debt to General Host is reduced by that amount or (

b) Chemalloy fails to come up with $2 mm within the moratorium period and MDC 's guarantee is exercised. This outcome will result in MDC investing $2 mm in Tanc o to reduce the debt to General Ho st. The debenture will still be reduced to $3 mm but MDC would possess lOO% of Tanco's equity since the remaining 75% of Tanco shares have been pledged to MDC for its $2 mm guarantee. In either ca se, there would remain $3 million payable to General Ho st from sales of tan talite and $2 million payable to General Host out of cesium sale s.

Chemalloy , on the most conservative estimate of the value of the mine , now has an equity in Tanco worth about $1 0 million. If it makes good on its commitments it will invest an ad ditional $2 million in Tanco equity in 18 months time. Th us, Chemalloy may be regarded as having an interest in 75% of the equity in Tanco for $1 2 million. The MDC, on the other hand , will have a 25% interest in the same equity for a ca sh investment of $1 .5 million .

With anticipated rise in demand for tantalite over the next two years and with the pro gramme of vertical and horizontal integration being planned , it is actually anticipated that the debt to General Host will be fully repaid by 19 75. AGREEMENT

WHEREAS General Host Corporation (hereafter called "General Host") , Chemalloy Minerals Limited (hereafter called "Chemallo y") and Tantalum Mining Corporation of Canada Limited (hereafter called "Tanco") are engaged in litigation in the courts of the Province of Ontario and Manitoba; AND WHERE AS the litigation in

part concerns an operating mine in Ma nitoba; AND

WHEREAS it is essential for the continued operation of the mine that funds be pro vided to it and the litigation referred to above be settled; AND WHER EAS The Manitoba Develo pment Corporation has an inve stment in the said mine and is concerned as a government agency for the continued welf are and operation of the said mine; AND WH EREAS it is neces sary before any settlement of the litigation can be concluded that the Supreme Court of Ontario and the Court of Queen 's Be nch of Manitoba approve of such settlement; AND WHER EAS it is understood that this agreement must be implemented by further agreement or agreements implementing in detail the principal points of agreement set out herein; 1.

The parties hereto agree that upon signature by all parties hereto application will be made to the Supreme Court of Ontario and the Court of Queen's Be nch of Manitoba for approval in principle of this settlement agreem ent and that the parties will then draft documentation to im plement this settlement agreemen t as set out above, following which further application will be made to the courts of both provinces for final approval of the agreement or agreements as settled . Following such final approvals the agreements will be executed, such execution to be on or prior to June 30 , 1972 .

Upon such final execution the parties agree to the withdrawal or dismissal without costs of any and all actions between the

partie s, or any of them , in Ontario and Manitoba and to orders setting aside the appointment of the Receiver Manager in Ontario and the Receiver Manager or Treasurer in Manitoba. lA. Tanco shall pay to The Clarkson Company Limited, and to William E. Shields their re muneration , disbursements and legal costs as passed or approved by the proper Court in

4084 July 11, 1972 lA. (cont'd.) respect of the services rendered by them as Manager and Treasurer of Tanco and pursuant to the undertaking dated October 1, 197 1, given by Tanco and Chemalloy through their counsel. Prior to the termination of the appointment of The Clarkson Company Limited as Manager of Tanco and William E. Shields as Treasurer of Tanco, Tanco shall pay to The Clarkson Company Limited and William E. Shields a sum of money equal to the estimated total of the said remu nera tion, disbursements and legal costs and the said sum shall be held in trust by The Clarkson Company Limited and William E.

Shields pending the final passing or approval by the Court of their accounts. lB. Tanco covenants and agrees to indemnify and save harmle ss The Clarkson Company Limited and William E. Shields in respect of any obligation or liability properly incurred by them as Manager or Treasurer of Tanco. General Host shall guarantee the obligations ofTanco to The Clarkson Company Limited and William E.

Shields pursuant to this paragraph and any moneys paid by General Host pursuant to this guarantee shall be at once payable by Tanco, shall bear interest at five percent (5%) per annum and shall be secured by and have the benefit of the charges of the first mortgage debenture on the assets of Tanco. 2. Until the final steps referred to in Paragraph 1 have been taken no party hereto shall make public in any fashion (with the exception of any neces sary applications to Court) the terms ofthis agreement. 3.

Tanco will grant to General Host a first mortgage debenture on the assets of Tanco con taining a first fixed mortgage on all fixed assets and a floating charge on all other assets, in cluding inventory and accounts receivable', providing for a payment of Five Million Dollars ($5, 000, 000 . 00) Canadian plus simple interest there on at five percent (5%) calculated quarterly, payments to be as follows: (

a) At the expiry of 18 months from the date of the debenture Two Million Dollars ($2, 000, 000 . 00) on account of principal; (

b) During the first five years of the debenture a payment on account of accumulated interest and then principal at the end of each period (hereafter defined) equal to fifty percent (50%) of the cash flow (hereafter defined); (

c) During the second five years of the debenture a payment during each period equal to the greater of (

i) The amount which would be payable as calculated under Paragraph (b); or (ii) Ten percent (10 %) of the amount of accumulated principal and interest owing thereunder at the expiry of the first five yea rs, plus interest which has ac crued on the remaining balance during the period for which the payment is made . (

d) The balance of principal and interest is due and payable ten years from the date of the debenture . 4. The "period" referred to in Paragraph 3 (

b) hereof means , at the beginning of the first five-year period the remaining portion of the calendar year and at the end of the first five-year period the elapsed portion of the calendar year . In the interval between it refers to a calendar year. The same meaning is given to the wo rd "period" with reference to the second five-year term, except that in any period which is le ss than 12 months the 10 % minimum payment referred to above will be reduced to the proportion which the period bears to 12 months. 5.

The term "cash flow" as used in this agreement shall mean all funds of Tanco derived during the period from all sales (excluding sales of lithium and cesium) less the costs (not in cluding depreciation, depletion or capital cost allowa nce) attributable to Tantalum production or Tantalum. administration at Be rnick Lake or Lac du Bo nnet incurred by persons working at the mine , sales commissions not exceeding 2% of gross sales, and taxes attributable to the mining, processing and selling of tantalum ores and concentrates for which Tanco is liable.

Sales shall be considered as made at the higher of the actual selling price or the then current market price of ore or other product, and in any event, at not less than $6. 00 Canadian per pound for contained tantalum oxide. Expenses, including payroll , shall be no more than is reasonably neces sary to operate the mine on an economic basis. The word "sales" as used in this paragr aph shall include any disposition of any kind of any tantalum-b earing product in the ground or otherwise.

Should any differences arise as to the terms of this paragraph or any alleged breach thereof the matter may be referred to arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Act of Manitoba by either party and the award shall determine the matter.

July 11, 1972 4085 6. It shall be a term of the first mortgage debenture agreement that, so long as any moneys remain unpaid thereunder the following conditions apply , upon breach of any one of which General Host will be entitled to the appointment, without the neces sity of court order, of a Receiver and Manager of Tanco as well as any other remedies as would flow from a default in mortgage payments.

(1) William Shields of The Clarkson Company Limited, as agent of General Ho st, or some other person appointed in his stead by Genera l Host, shall have full and complete access to all records , transactions and dealings of or on behalf of Tanco from time to time and at such intervals as he shall indicate from time to time, to the intent that General Host will at all times be as fully informed of the affairs of Tanco as if it were the managemen t thereof.

(2) All moneys heretofore or hereafter advanced to Tanco by MDC, Chemalloy , or any other company , companies, person or persons, shall be by wa y of equity participation or shall be subordinated to the first mortgage debenture obligation and not be repaid until all such obligations are satisfied.

(3) No moneys shall be paid by Tanco or permitted by any of the parties to be paid by Tanc o, except ordinary trade accounts, payroll and salaries in the ordinary course of business, legal and acc ounting fees, payments under the mortgage debenture herein, and in no event shall moneys of any description be paid or advanced to Chemalloy, its officers, employees, servants, agents, subsidiaries or affiliates, or any company in which any such officer or servant has an interest, or officers, employees, servants, agents, subsidiaries or affiliates of Tanco or any company in which any such officer or servant has an interest, without the express approval in writing of General Host, such approval not to be unreason ably withheld.

Prior to closing, Tanco will terminate all employment or management agreements then outstanding.

General Ho st expressly approves of payments of royalties due to Chemalloy on the sale of cesium under a contract dated November 1, 1967, but until the obligation of Chemalloy under Parag raph 10 is fulfilled, such royalties shall be applied as a credit against such obligation and not be paid over to Chemalloy, and further approves of payments in any calendar year, during the term of the first mortgage deben ture , to Chemalloy , Manitoba Development Corporation, their officers, employees, ser vants or agents, in an aggregate amount not to exceed Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50, 000. 00) for services actually rendered and properly accounted for with respect to the production or sales of tantalum oxide .

(4) Tanco shall have a regular annual audit of its books which shall be made available to General Host. 7. Chemalloy shall execute the first mortgage debenture as agreeing to cause Tanco to carry out the provisions thereof from time to time. 8. The first mortgage debenture shall at all times be open for pre-payment of all or any part thereof without notice or bonus. 9. All moneys advanced by Manitoba Development Corporation to Tanco prior to the execution of the first mortgage debenture shall be considered as moneys paid in under Paragraph 6 (2) hereo f. 10.

Chemalloy agrees to pay Tanco Two Million Dollars ($2 , 000, 000. 00) Canadian at or be fore the expiry of 18 months from the date of the first mortgage debenture agreeme nt. Manitoba Develo pment Corporation agree s to guarantee the payment of $2, 000, 000.00 by Tanco to General Host as set forth in Paragraph 3 (

a) hereof and in consideration of this guarantee Chemalloy agrees to pledge to Manitoba Development Corporation all of the shares of Tanco. 11. Manitoba Development Corporation shall , prior to the expiry of 18 months from the date of the first mortgage debenture , invest a total of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($ 1, 500, 000.00), including advances previously made, in Tanco to develop the mine and all subject to the provisions of Paragraph 6 (2) hereof. 12.

Tanco shall enter into an agreement with General Host by w ay of an income debenture to provide for a payment of Two Million Dollars ($2 ,0 00, 000.00) Canadian plus interest from time to time at five percent (5%) calculated quarterly, payments to be solely out of the sale of cesium on the basis of twenty percent (20%) of the gross sale price thereof and to be made from time to time as payments for such sales are received.

If the obligation hereunder survives beyond the obligations under the first mortgage debenture referred to herein Tanco shall provide to General Host from time to time such information as may be reasonably neces sary to determine the amount of such sales and the payments due .

4086 July 11, 1972 13. Chemalloy agrees to deliver to Tanco or to transfer title to Tanco prior to execution of the first mortgage debenture referred to herein 20, 000 pounds of contained tantalum oxide and Tanco is to give to Chemalloy a credit there for at Seven Dollars ($7. 00) per pound, such credit to be subordinated to the payments to General Host under the first mortgage debenture referred to herein. Chemalloy warr ants that it presently owns a further 40, 000 pounds of contained tantalum oxide located in Rotterdam and subject to a pledge .

Chemalloy agrees that it will not for the' life of the first mortgage debenture sell , assign or otherwise dispose of the said tanta lum oxide without the consent in writing of General Host and Manitoba Devel opment Corporation and without giving Tanco a first right to fill any such contract for disposal out of its own in ventory and on the same terms and conditions. 14 . It is agreed that should this agreement not be implemented by further detailed agreements as contemplated the steps taken hereunder and pursuant hereto shall be without prejudice to the rights of the parties in the pending litigation.

DATE D this day of June, 1972 . GENERAL HOST CORPORATION , per: --- - ---: (,-si-:" . gn'-'-ed-;')'---- :::;J'-. -'::J:_ . ....: C::- AC:::R�T=-:H:=: Y:'=� - - - - CHEMALLOY MINERALS UM ITED, per: :-::-: -::-- - ---' (._s_,ign,__e�d)'--_ C_:._. _L_. :........::..C.:..:Ac:...M::..cP:....::B:..cE= L=L'---- - - - - MANITOBA DE VE LOPMENT CORPORATION, per: _______________ _ THE CLARKSON COMPANY UM ITED , (signed) Receiver and Manager of Tantalum Mining Corporation of Canada Limited, per: D. E . BAI RD TANTALUM MINING CORPORATION OF CANADA UM ITED , per: (signed) ENVER HASSIM ORDERS OF THE DAY- GOVERNMENT BILLS MR.

PA ULLEY: There being no oral questions , Mr. Speaker , I wonder if we can continue with the adjourned debates on Bill No. 59 standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Rhinehmd. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, the member is right outside the door if you would care to wait. MR . SPEA KER : No. 59 , the proposed motion. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. Bill 59. MR. JACOB M. FROESE (Rhineland): Mr.

Speaker , this is giving third reading to Bill 59 , the Mineral Acreage Tax Act which was discussed and passed in Committee of the Whole this afternoon. I adjourned debate in order to check on a few things and also to think on a couple of points that were not clear in my mind and which I had some reservations about. The first one is the principle of applying a tax on a potential asset. As we know the tax will not apply to farmers who own mineral rights but it will ,apply to corporations and other companies .

But it is a potential asset as far as the farmer is concerned and that some day he might find himself being taxed on it. Just two years ago we had a bill tabled in this House which was re ferred to the Municipal Committee in connection with Lax deferral .

This had to do with a poten tial asset as well on farmlands surrounding the City of Winnipeg where certain properties were sold at high prices for speculative purposes and the neighbouring farmer next to the parcel that would be sold or was bought for speculative purposes , his property was assessed unduly at a very high rate as a result, and his taxes were very high as a result, and the returns on the farm as they are , this meant in certain cases that they just couldn't carry on farming. And to me it seems that we 're embodying that principle into this act now and I certainly wouldn •t want to .. . MR .

HARRY E . GRAHAM (Birtle -R ussell): On a point of privilege, I would like to listen to the Member for Rhineland and if these· private conversations carrying on are . . ·. MR. SPEA KER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Mr. Speaker , I was pointing out that here we were taxing a potential asset and that this principle was more or less embodied in the bill that was brought in two years ago by the Municipal Affairs Department , which was referred to a committee and which had hearing s on it and later on was reported on, but as far as I !mow no action was taken.

But it seems tome that we 're embodying that same principle into this piece of legislation and I 'm rather leery of adopting this principle now in this bill and then later on they might come up with another bill putting it in a tax deferral bill, and then having the argument that we accepted it in this par ticular bill , now we will not accept it in another bill , and that we should be consistent. This

July 11, 1972 4087 (MR . FROESE cont'd. ) .. ... is the reservation that I have on this piece of legislation .

I don't object to what they're trying to do here in that they are trying to clean up a lot of things where probably people made certain stakes and never exercised, and a lot of these loose things hanging around that the government might wa nt to clear up and do away with, and most likely by putting on a tax that a lot of these things will fall by the wayside , and that they will not be exer cised, and that under provisions of the act the Crown will acquire a lot of these so-called lands or resources in this wa y.

I don't object to that but I have great reservations that if this principle is carried forward in other pieces of legislation that I certainly would wa nt to reserve my right, by accepting the principle in this bill, to reject it in another piece of legislation that may come forward at a later date. The other point is that it was arranged this afternoon in connection with the exempting of individual farmers yet making the act applicable to corporations.

In the last few years quite a number of farmers have incorporated their holdings, and I take it that these would now be sub ject to the tax under the legislation. I don't think it's spelled out in that way in the bill but I think it can be done so under the regulations if I'm correct, and I would like the Minister to correct me if I'm wrong . Certainly this is one point that I think we should take great care in this House by passing this legislation that we do not trap ourselves as farmers if we intend to incorporate, or for those that are already incorporated.

I think this could probably have other implications that we are not aw are of at the present time and that after a ye ar or so we might find that it affects other things than we know at the present time. So , Mr. Speaker , I know the bill will pass but because of these two principles I cannot accept the bill on third reading - not that I object to what they are trying to do in imposing this tax of 10 cents to the big corporations. I have no objection to that but I have objection to the implications that it could lead to. MR. SPEA KER: The Honourable Member for Souris-Killarney. MR.

EARL McKELLAR (Souris -Killarney): Mr. Speaker , I just wa nt to say a very few words on this bill because the member has brought out a very important point. One of the reasons why many farmers' family , brothers and fathers and sons have incorporated recently is because they try to -w ell it works out better anyway in the father- son deal , or two brothers, or three brothers, as it may concern.

Many of them have done this and many of them find it beneficial both from a farming standpoint and from a business standpoint, and I would ask the Minister , maybe he could exclude everything that's zoned agriculture in the bill, and that would eliminate any farming operations because all the land is zoned nowadays either agriculture or commercial or residential, and if you eliminated the land that's zoned agriculture in the Pro vince of Manitoba from this bill, then this wo uld I think correct some of the problems that are brought up by the Member for Rhineland.

I 'm one of those that do own mineral rights on my farm and while I can't see any great benefit in the next 25 or 30 yea rs, maybe in the next generation there will be some benefit but I don't think it's right and proper that I should have to pay in the meantime , so that's all I have to say , Mr. Speaker . I recommend to the Minister that he exclude all lands that are zoned agriculture so that the farmers who are incorporated , farmers who are inc orporated will be ex cluded from paying mineral rights tax. MR. SPEA KER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? (Agreed) - so ordered .

On Division? the Honourable Member for Assiniboia wish to speak to it? MR. STEVE PATRICK (Assiniboia): Yes, Mr . Speaker. I rise to make a few comments on this bill. I'll be very brief. I rise to support the legislation. I believe this type of legis lation is long overdue. We at the present time have mining companies and corporations holding large acreages, large acreages of land and are not developing.

At the same time these same companies are expanding into other area s, into other countrie s, into Australia, into Dominican Republic , and developing the mining in that area, at the same time they are holding large re serves in the Province of Manitoba. I see no reason that this mineral , the acreages should not be taxed.

I think the tax is most reasonable at 10 cents per acre because the only thing that this legislation can do is start the corporations, or start the mining companies to develop the ore in the Province of Manitoba instead of . sitting on their reserves and doing nothing and expand ing the operation in some of the other provinces. In my opinion I think this is good legislation, it's overdue. I believe the Member for Wolseley mentioned earlier today it should not apply to the mineral rights as such when we are considering the farmers and the farm land , and I agree.

4088 July 11, 1972 (MR . PATRICK cont'd. ) .... . I don't believe that it should apply to the farmers as such, but certainly, Mr . Speaker , it should apply to corporations; certainly it should apply to mining companies. I am sure that we must apprecia te and understand that the ore is a non -renewable reserve in this province and 10 cents per acre is a most reasonable tax. In fact it is much more favourable. it is much more favourable than some of the other provinces in Canada in respect to, I understand , Ontario and the Province of Saskatchewan. So I agree with this legis lation and I rise to support it. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPIV AK : Mr. Speaker , I think, and I think we all realize that we are in a position that many opposition parties find themselves at the end of the session when we are attempting to deal with major and significant legislation, and to deal with the actual sections that are before us, it does not follow nec essarily that the process that we follow through will logically give everyone the opportunity to understand fully the implications of the act and to understand fully the implications of every section.

I think that there has been a concern expressed, and I know it was expressed before, but I think it's been expressed probably more directly by the Honour able Member from Rhineland with respect to the application of the act and not of any future potential that could occur by the adoption of the principle with respect to this act to more than a corporation, than it is to individuals, which may or may not be a government policy in the future , but talking directly with this act to recognize that there is a concern right now that those farmers who have incorporated and who have a corporation as such, as owner of their farm pro perty , but whose purpose is only agriculture, should in fact not be included within this act for the purposes of the taxing act and for the 'objectives that were attempted to be achieved by the Mineral Right Acreage Tax Act itself.

Now our pro blem, Mr . Speaker , at this point is that we are in third reading , the Minister has only an opportunity to speak once . I think there is a statement that may be forthcoming on this which will clarify it. I think it's necessa ry because I think some legitimate doubts have been raised at to whether because of the definition and because of the lack of change that's occurred, that there is a possibility that an owner , meaning a corporation , owning farm land will in fact come within the purview of the act now and come wi thin the terms of the act, and therefore would apply. I don't see , Mr.

Speaker , necessa rily that there's a position here where the Minister is going to be in a position to exclude that, and it may mean that they're - if that was not their intention, if it's the government's intention to in fact apply the act to a corporation formed by a farmer for farming purposes, then I think that this is not the objective of the act, and I don't think it w as understood by the Members on this side.

Our difficulty is that the only opportunity we are going to have , unle ss someone answers for the First Minister, the Minister of Financ e, would be to ask him whether there is a specific exclusion intended and how that would apply , or whether the understanding that's been given is correct and if it is, is he prepared to put it back to committee to amend it so that there will be an exclusion put in , which we would be prepared to accede to, or whether it's the government's intention to include agricultural land under the control of a corporation. MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. DONALD W.

CRAIK (Riel): Mr . Speaker, might I just ask the Minister for a com plete clarification on this, because in the definition of minerals in the first

section of the bill this would appear to include agricultural lands, to the extent that if the farmer were to sell his mineral rights in an area which would normally not be considered in nearly all cases to come under mining , or a claim for mining purposes, you could have the condition where a person had for some reason or other without little inve stigation had simply gone in and bought a farmer 's mineral rights expecting that at some time there might be sand or gravel there.

Now as I read it, sand and gravel is excluded providing the owner of the surface rights also owns the mineral rights and the sand and gravel is therefore excluded, but in the case where a person has bought on an agricultural piece of land the mineral rights in the hopes that there was sand and gravel there , this is normally done say on a whole quarter

section of land, or half, or a full

section of land where the sand and gravel itself may well only be a small deposit that they have a future interest in. Therefore again it wo uld appear that this act should be categorized so that it applies only -I assume that you 're after the mineral rights that come under the claims that are filed for mining purposes , and therefore it wo uld seem incongruous to try and apply it across the-boa rd, including agriculture . MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House ... The Honourable Minister of Finance.

July 11, 1972 4089 MR . CHERNIACK: Well, Mr . Speaker, I'm .. . MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order please . . . the Honourable Leader wish to speak? MR. ASPER: Mr . Speaker , I wonder if I can ask on a point of order , can we ask without abrogating our right to speak for the Minister to make a clarification , there's no procedure .. . MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. JORGENSON: It's not third reading of the bill .. . MR. SPEAKER: This is third reading . MR. JORG ENS ON: . . . there's nothing stopping you from speaking if you have not alre ady spoken, from speaking after the Minister has spoken.

Every member is entitled to one round on this particular debate. It doesn't necessa rily mean that the Minister speaks last or closes debate. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rock Lake . MR. HENRY J. EIN ARSON (Rock Lake): Mr. Speaker, we have been discussing the matter that I brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance earlier this afternoon.

I think it's a subject matter that concerns all rural Manitobans, that is the farmers particularly, and I think that it's a matter, and I ask the Minister because we are not certain as to the clarifi cation of this legislation, insofar as this mineral tax is concerned, and we have no assurance that he 's going to stand up and state in the House that farmers, whether they are farming on an individual basis or whether they have sought to incorporate their farming business - and I in dicated a number of reasons why farmers are doing it today. One of them, and I must repeat, Mr .

Speaker , is the tax jungle that the Federal Government brought into this country as of December 31s t last that have forced farmers to take another look at their farming business because of economic reasons, also the tax measures that this government has brought in in the Province of Manitoba .

While they have indicated that they're, you know, paying out the $100.00 to each farmer for certain reasons, and they know best themselves, assisting in some small wa y to putting in sewe rs, and what have you, but this does not offset the tax measures that this government has imposed upon the people of Manitoba and for these various reasons farmers have incorporated their business . And there 's one other important reason, Mr .

Speaker , I want to stress and that is, that if we want our young people to carry on in the footsteps of those ofus who have been farming, and our forefathers or our fathers, that this is one of the ways of get ting your son involved in the farming business in such a way that he can afford to start, because if a farmer , or a young fellow , wants to start farming today there 's no way he 's got $50, 000, $75, 000 to start that business, and as a result this is one means by which he can start farming where his father can incorporate and bring him into the business in a small way and over the years develop to the point where he increases his holdings on that corporation.

So , Mr. Speaker , I think it's a very valid position that we are trying to stress before the Minister of Finance when he talks about taxing mineral rights as it pertains to a far mer 's pro perty. I think there's a difference here as opposed to the taxing of minerals which are being explored and being expro priated, or operated on a business-like license where it's a busine ss. I would like to hear the First Minister rise and make some comment as to the position that his government has on this particular point before the Minister of Finance makes the closing re marks on this bill, because, Mr .

Speaker, I think it's a very important one, in order that we can come to a decision as to how we can vote on this measure , and I for one am not opposing legislation that may be good, and I want to leave that thought with the government. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR . AS PER: Well , Mr . Speaker, I don't wa nt to be lengthy because I detailed the Liberal Party position earlier in the day in the committee. Howev er, I think it needs to be said before the whole House exactly what our position is here and that is: No . 1.

The principle of a mineral tax is acceptable, not only it is acceptable it is long overdue and we welcome this proposal from government. No. 2. A tax which is discriminatory in that it is only applied to those who choose to hold their rights in a corporate manner rather than in an individual manner is unfortunate. Never thele ss since the error is made not in favour of taxing somebody but is in exempting somebody, we will still support the bill . No . 3.

We would like to hear from the Minister an assurance that it is not the plan of the bill nor the scheme to tax under any circumstances the mineral rights which are attached to land used primarily for farming, which is my understanding of the bill . No. 4. That an assurance from the Minister that he will consider amendments, either at

4090 July 11, 1972 (MR. ASP ER cont'd.) • . • . . this session or next year, to (

a) bring the tax up to where it ought to be, which I think is at least the 20 cent level; and (

b) to exclude from the tax, or rather to include in the tax those individuals who are clearly dealers in mineral rights. If we could have some explanation from the Minister as to his future intent on those matters we could finalize the bill I think rather expeditiously.

But as long as there is the dis crimination against the individual who holds his mineral rights by a corporation who will be taxed, and the partnership who hold their mineral rights in partnership and they will not be tax ed, there is a blatant loophole in the law and surely our sense of co -operation to the Minister should not be misunderstood as being opposition but rather an attempt to be helpful , and to get legislation which will have the respect of all taxpayers, who will not then observe some taxpay ers being hit because of the way they do their business, and some being excluded from the tax because of the gimmick of not incorporating.

So we would ask for some statement of intent from the Mi nister which would enable us to support this bill even more enthusiastically than we now do. And finally, Mr. Speaker, the point that is made by the Member from Rock Lake , I believe, and I think by my friend from Rhineland, that the mere act of incorporating a farm by a family shall provoke a mineral tax,

whereas the act of carrying on a family farming business in part nership amongst the family wi ll not provoke a tax, is inequitable. And while it is an inequity in favour rather than against the taxpayer, it still enables us to vote for the bill but it encourages us to urge the Minister at the earliest opportunity, whether it's now, or next session , to correct this anomaly in his own intent. And that is to tax --(Interjection)-- Yes, the ability to correct it right now exists. And in so doing he will earn praise and the applause of this House.

But in any event the act of incorporating one's farm for limited liability purposes, which is every man's right under this law , for estate control, estate planning purposes , and there are literally hundreds of Manitoba farmers who have incorporated their family operations for a variety of · reasons, because banks prefer to lend sometimes to corporations , and so on. Only corporations can give to bankers certain kinds of security , such as floating charges in

Section 88 under the Bank Act , in many respects. And so here we would impose an unwarranted tax penalty on some and an unwarranted tax lessening on others, and I know that's not the intention of the Minister. So while I have exhausted in this presentation my opportunity to respond again, I urge the Mi nister of Finance to accept the hand of co -operation that we hand him in a most unusual cir cumstance of approving a tax bill in this House. It would be very simple, Mr. First Minister and Mr.

Speaker , for an opposition party to take advantage of these proceedings to rant and rail and to say, you are driving resource developers out of the province , you are again imposing a tax, and we don't say that. We say that this is a warranted, a proper tax. --(Interjection) - I' m sorry the Minister of Labour asked a question? If the Minister of Labour considers this an unusual practice, then let him celebrate it with us instead of interjecting. --(lnterjection)- Button, Button on the other side. Mr.

Speaker, I conclude my remarks by repeating my appeal to the Minister of Finance to not only earn the support by having produced the bill in the first place but to earn the enthu siastic support by correct ing its anomalies. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. SAUL CHE RNIAC K, Q.C . (Minister of Finance) (St. Johns): Would the Honourable Member permit a question?

Would the honourable member care to elaborate on the theory and philosophy which might be involved in the concept of a person using land for his livelihood in tents of use let's say of a farm, having paid for it on the basis of its productivity and having in one case two neighbours, one who acquired the mineral rights along with his title, and the other one who didn 't.

Does the honourable member feel that there should be a distinction made in the taxation or whether it wouldn 't be something worth considering whether given the option to give up his mineral rights a person shouldn't be taxed if he wants to retain it? If he understands my question could he deal wi th . . . MR . SPE AKER: The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR. ASPER: That's a fairly ornate question and I' m not sure I understand it. Please interrupt me if I haven't grasped your meaning.

If you 're suggesting that where farmer A has mineral rights and farmer B has no mineral rights, I would assume a fair taxation system, bearing in mind that both pay real property tax, would take into account the absence of or the possessio n of mineral rights. We don't do it. --(Interjection)-- Yes. The value of land I' d say , which is a wealth tax, real property tax, should take into account farmer A has 640 acres

July 11, 1972 4091 (MR . ASPER cont'd) .. ... with mineral rights, farmer B has 640 adjacent acres without mineral rights . A fair taxation system would assess farmer A higher than farmer B obviously. Because the value of the we alth is greater --(Interjection)-- I know it doesn't do it, Mr . Speaker. I didn't make the law I 'm only talking about it. MR . CHE RNIACK: .. . and so I' ll just interrupt him for the moment if I may. MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. I wonder if we 're getting into an irregular procedure here. I do wish - we should direct our address to this Chair.

If that's not possible we 'll just have to discontinue what is going on. We had the opportunity I believe in committee to do this; I don't see why we have to do it in third reading again. Does the Honourable First Minister wish to address his remarks? Order , please. Is the Honourable Member for Wolseley com plete wit h his remarks ? The Honourable First Minister. MR . SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order if I may have your guidance, Sir.

It's my understanding that in order to attempt to deal with the point that was raised earlier in this debate by the Member for Rhineland, the Leader of the Liberal Party, and the Member for Rock Lake with respect to this bill, it would be necessary to revert back to Committee of the Whole stage , and that would require leave . And therefore, Mr. Speaker, if I may I would like to move adjournment so that the matter can be consi dered and dealt with tomorrow. I move , seconded by the Minister of Finance , that debate be adjourned. MR . SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried.

MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR . PA ULLEY: I wonder , Mr. Speaker , whether you'd call the adjourned debate on third reading on Bill No. 12 standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Rhine land. MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Rhineland. Bill No . 12 , third reading. MR . FROES E: Mr . Speaker, Bill No . 12 , is the Act to amend the Pharmaceutical Act . It's some time ago that we dealt with it in committee and also previous to that on second read ing .

In discussing it on second reading I took very strong exception to the bill on certain grounds and then when we came to committee the government offered a certain number of amendments to the bill and while some I think are good nevertheless I took strong exception again in committee, Law Amendments Committee , on one point and I brought in an amendment to 46 (2) .

This has to do with substitution of interchangeable products and where it's now under the amendments that have been passed , mandatory for a pharmacist to when filling a prescrip tion, and when the doctor hasn't ordered a certain drug by its brand name, that the pharmacist has to take the lowest priced drug on hand, I guess , because certainly he cannot give us any other drug if he hasn't got a lower priced drug on hand. This to me , Mr .

Speaker , means that the druggist or the pharmacist will have to have a full stock of the lowest priced drugs on hand and that he is now required , or will be required after this act goes into force, that the lowest priced product has to be given to the person under those circumstanc es . I disagree with this principle and I made the amendment that it should - instead of "shall" it should read "may", so that there would still be a matter of choice . It wo uld still be a choice that would be left open to the person.

And I feel this is very important, because if w·e apply that on other matters , other matters than drugs, and this, once we accept a principle of this kind , certainly can be incorporated into other legislatio n , and there's no saying or no such thing that it cannot happen. And I rather suspect that if we allow it to happen once it will happen more often, and I certainly - if I went to a store I wouldn 't want to be in a position where I would have to buy a certain kind of goods that I didn't want because it was the lowest priced goods that they had.

I would want to have my choice , and this is denied under this legislatio n . If the doctor doesn't prescribe a certain brand name of a drug the pharmacist is required to hand out the lowest priced drug that he has of that kind . I think there should be other ways and means of providing low er priced drugs than to make it mandatory in this way and not leaving the people of this province a choice in the matter . Therefore I still take exception to the bill and I will oppose it on third reading as a result. This doesn't mean that I 'm opposed to lower priced drugs for that matter.

This doesn 't mean that I am for high priced drugs at all times , not at all . But I don't believe in compulsion of this type that an individual has to be compelled by legislatio n to a certain thing of this type. We had representation made by the Manitoba Medical Associati on, as well as by some drug companies from . . . MR . SPEAKER: Order, please. I wonder if I may appeal to members who are having their little meetings to tone them down a bit so I can hear what 's going on. The Honourable Member for Rhineland.

4092 July 11, 1972 MR. FROE SE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The other point that I wish to raise has to do with the dispensing of a drug, or a prescription , and the information that is to be included on the prescrip tion. And we find that under the various items listed that the identity of the manu facturer of the drug dispensed has to be on it. And when asking for information on this in committee we were told by one of the manufacturers here from the Winnipeg area, who actually in my opinion was not a manufacturer but just a packager of goods , and that he was importing his drugs from another area.

Now we say in the legislation here, the identity of the manu facturer. Well to me manufacturer means a different thing than just a packager, and I think there should be a definition in the bill whether we mean manufacturer or just a packager of goods. And therefore I think that an improvement could have been made. If we mean a pack ager certainly we should state so and not say manufacturer. Here again there were other amendments proposed. I did not take exception to them. I think some of them are valid and are good.

I noticed an amendment was brought into committee after the official amendments had been brought forward so that the quantity of the drug dis pensed would also be put on the container. I thought that was quite in accord , but again I wish to point out and I don't want to go into detail on the Doctor Klass Report from which the recom mendation originally came forward in connection with prescription of drugs by their generic name , and as one of the recommendations from that report.

There are many other numerous recommendations in that report; most likely some of these will be implemented at a later date , at a later session. I also discussed some of those on second reading because I think they are clo sely associated with the bill. I do not want to go into those matters at this point either. I have had correspondence and received submissions from certain people who pointed out a number of matters that I could have brought to the attention of this House but I don't think I should do that at this late date.

But, and I won 't prolong the debate on third reading on this particular bill at this time , but I certainly cannot subscribe to the compulsion that is brought in in this particular Bill 12 and therefore I oppose it. MR . SPEAKER put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. (On division) MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable House Leader. MR . PAU LLEY : I wonder , Mr. Speaker , whether you would now call third readings on bills that have been passed starting with Bill No. 67 . It may be, Sir, that you haven't the list available to you. I 'm sure the Clerk will accommodate you.

Bill No. 67, in the name of the Honourable the Minister of Tourism and Recreation for third reading. BILL No. 67 was read a third time and passed. MR . SPEAKER: Bill No. 79. The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. A. H. MACKLING, Q. C. (Attorney-General)(St. James) presented Bill No. 79 ,

an Act to amend the Law Society Act, for third reading. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE : On this particular bill. --(Interjection)- I didn't hear. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. FROESE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I haven't got the bill before me but I recollect the particular bill that we are giving third reading now, which amends the Law Society Act , and which has to do wi th certain funds on which interest is acc ruing and which shall now be used for the purpose of legal aid.

We had a full discussion on sec ond reading. I took exception on certain parts. Amendments have been introduced to that particular bill and I think some of the matters that we disagreed with have probably been lessened but I think the main principle is still being carried forward in the bill dealing with

Section 30 as a whole. I disapproved of it in committee and I still have those reservations. I thought that the amendments were brought in so that we would get an annual report on the moneys that are so colle cted and will be made available to the Law Society for the purposes named in the bill ; this will be a matter of record and we will get a record of it, so I think improvements were made in committee on it.

But nevertheless, I disagree with the principle of it; that we are taking money that rightfully belongs to others and I think this could be termed a tax in other words, which in my opinion is not proper and which I could not subscribe to. MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR . EDWARD McGILL (Brandon West): Mr. Speaker , I also wish to record my reserva tions about the bill as it is now constituted , and particularly that part of the bill which provides for the interest on accounts held for clients by members of the legal profession , the interest

July 11, 1972 4093 (MR. McGILL cont'd) ..... accruing being accumulated for the purposes of the government and legal aid. We have no objection to the purpose for which the interest is to be put, but we do object to the principle involved here that the interest does not properly belong and should properly accrue to the person for whom the estate or the moneys are being held.

We did introduce amendments hopefully to the committee stage, wherein it would be required that every client would be given complete information as to his rights, and he would be required to give his signature as to his intent; whether he wishes to include his interest in this fund for government purposes , or whether he wishes it to be retained and accumulated in the estate .

I still feel that that was a reasonable amendment; it was not accepted by the com mittee , but I am nevertheless still convinced that this is not a proper principle and I am some what surprised that the law society are endorsing this bill in its present form. I realize now that we have done what we could to prevent the bill being passed in its present form but we still have reservations as to its propriety. Thank you. MR . SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. BILLS Nos. 91, 100 , 82, 94 , 103 and 111 were each read a third time and passed. MR.

SPEAKE R: The Honourable House Leader. MR . PAULLEY: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whE'ther you would kindly call Bill 104 , the adjournment in the name of the Honourable Member for Emerson. MR . SPEAKER : The proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Labour. The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR . GABRIEL GIRARD (E merson): Mr . Speaker, I beg the indulgence of the House to have the matter stand. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR . PAULLEY: Bill 98, I believe, Mr. Speaker, stands in the name of the Honourable Member for Roblin. MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Roblin.

The honourable member has approximately 25 minutes left. MR. J. WALL Y McKENZIE (Roblin): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr . Speaker, it' s a very formidable task to leave the meat of your speech at 5: 30 laying on the table and have to come back here and be told by the clock that you have 25 minutes left. But, Mr. Speaker, I' ll abide by your rule and do my best. Mr. Speaker, in my remarks this afternoon I tried in various ways and on several points tried to draw to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and this government why this bill will not work.

And the first words that I drew to the attention of the First Minister and his government is the wo rds "import" and "export" where they were national wo rds that were used for many years in this province and in Canada, now those two words "import" and "export" are being Balkanized and being made to be a little cell in Manitoba, that' s what import and export is going to mean to the farmers of this province if we pass this bill. I went on, Mr. Speaker, further on in my remarks , and I talked about the dream of the so -called people that believe in this type of marketing today.

And I think beyond any shadow of a doubt, Mr. Speaker, I proved that there is no way politic ally where you can get ten ministers of agriculture or ten boards and commissio ns to sit down and talk about a national scheme at any level and make this bill meld into the problems of agriculture in Nova Scotia or Bri tish Co lumbia or Ontario or Quebec; it just can' t be done politically because each political juris dictio n has its own wisdo m , and therefore that will not work politically. Mr. Speaker, I went on in my remarks and I said , further on, I drew the remarks of this great economist, Dr .

Warley, recognized nationally in Europe and the United States as one of the most outstanding agriculture economists in the wo rld today who said this type of legislatio n and this thing that we have before us today is a farce , and he meant it. He was sincere be cause he said this rise of provincialism that we have today in agriculture is alarming to him; not only to me, but this man is an economist, so you think - well he's alarmed, well I' m alarm ed.

Here we have the dying days in the sessio n , like the Labour Bill, they bring it in late - the farmers are busy baying and they're busy people , they have to make a living, and here's a bill I would suggest , Mr. Speaker, there '11 be very few farmers if any have a chance to come and debate this bill . So while we may be quarrelling on the labour bill, I am sure going to quarrel on this bill. Mr .

Speaker, if this government and this City of Winnipeg is fair to the agriculture and the farmers in this province, I challenge the Mayor of this City, Juba, to come here and figbt the battles of the farmers of this province on this type of legislation, because you can' t have it

4094 July 11, 1972 (MR . McKENZIE cont 'd) •.... both ways . You can't build this big city -w hat it is going to be, grants in lieu of taxes, convention centres , Man and Museum; look at the money that went out of this treasury bench since we opened this House up. And what has the farmers in Roblin constituency got ? Nothing - got a piddley little bill here that tells them they 're going to be nationalized. And so , Mr . Speaker, I challenge Mayor Juba to co me and help the farmers in this province fight their battles; they're haying, they're busy people out there today.

They're not going to be in Law Amendments, no way, cause this bill was brought in the dying days of the sessio n , so I hope that His Worship will come . If we 're going to make one Manitoba, let's make it fair for all. And I'm all for Winnipeg, all the way, but I think a lot of this legislation is unfair. This is unfair coming in late like the Labour Bill, and I ask the Mayor if the farmers can't come and give us agricultural guys on this bench a hand to fight this bill. Because this is defeatism, this is the end of agriculture in this province. Mr. Speaker , I' ll go on in my remarks.

Let 1 s look at hogs and beef. Mr. Speaker, if we impose the restrict ions that's in that bill and the controls that's in that bill on production of those products in this province , you know what 's going to happen? We'll condemn the farmers of this province, Mr . Speaker , as sure as I'm standing on my feet, to nothing but poverty and frustration. And how , how can we of this province deal with Ontario in an equitable manner? A province of several million people - we althy. What are we ? How can we meet them on equal level ?

How can we meet Quebec on an equal level - politically , economically , any way ; no way, Mr . Speaker, it's not going to happen. We must stand up and demand from the Federal Government a national agricultural policy that will look after all Canada. How are we going to go out and trade in the wo rld with the little Balkanized systems we have in this bill ? It can't be done. Mr . Speaker, I ask the First Minister and I ask the Leader of the Liberal Party here and the leader of my party, let's not get hung up on this type of philosophy and wisdom for the future of this province and all of Canada in agriculture.

Let those three men go down, and if they haven't the guts in Ottawa to put a national policy, let us write one ourselves, and put it on the record . Surely somebody, somebody must be able to write a national agricultural policy for Canada. And I respect the First Minis ter , he's smart , alert and let us attack the problem that way rather than this piddley little bill that we 've got before us tonight, Mr . Speaker. In stead of dealing with this type of legislatio n , Mr.

Speaker , I said we should be condemning Ottawa and nailing them to the cross; because it's complete failure on the part of the Govern ment of Ottawa , because they have never provided leadership for the farmers of this country and they never will , and I hope that we will meet that challenge at the elec tion. They've never come up wit h an agricultural policy . Certainly I saw a couple of members react over there this afternoon , Mr . Speaker , - (Interjection) -- when I 'm finished I will . But, Mr .

Speaker, as I said earlier , due to our political imbalance - you know , how can the Premiers of the ten provinces sit down politically and agree on anything. Impossible. Impossible. They just can 't meet that challenge because its political. And that's the structure of our society, and that' s fair, I don't quarrel with that. So let's look at the direction at the national level, and what do we find? We find provinces to day in this country, they're turning back from that challenge to try and meet at the table political ly .

You know , a constitution ; if you can't solve a constitution , how in the devil are you going to solve an agricultural policy wit h this type of an agreement and bring in protectionism , isolat ionism , Balkanization. Mr . Speaker, at this day and age in our history , it's interesting. We've got political leaders , we 've got farm leaders , believing in some kind of a gospel about marketing boards . Isn't that interesting ? Farm management, supply and management, I' ve heard all kinds of words; provincial self sufficiency . My God, provincial self sufficiency in this province, in agriculture ?

It's got to be a dream . That's why I asked the Mayor to come and give us a hand. What a regressive step in Manitoba today with this bill that we' re debating today wit h this bill that we 're debating here tonight. In the history of this country, do you mean to tell me that I'm going to have to isolate ourselves in little cells , and talk about the wo rd "import" ? The wo rd "import" means importing into Saskatchewan, or Ontario; or exporting back, that's what the wo rd means today. That word, Mr. Speaker, to the average farmer out in the country is a national word.

When he 's talking about importing, he's talking about Europe; or exporting he 's talking about Russia . But here the whole philosophy of Balkanizing is brought out . . . Mr. Speaker , with this province in agriculture is going to move into a shell , it's enforcement.

July 11, 1972 4095 (MR. McKENZIE cont•

d) The Canadian Federation of Agr iculture, they're hung up on this brief too. And the National Farmers Union, I• ve heard Atkinson -- he comes from where my wife comes from; I don't know where it is -- (Interjection) -- yeah he does, he went to school out there, the Presid ent of the National Farmers Union. He never was a great genius in school and I suspect he never was a great genius at farming, but here he's heading the National Farmers Union in this country today and setting agricultural polic ies. Why don't they listen to the great econo mist from the University of Guelph, Dr. Warley ?

Why don't you listen to that man, a national economist, recognized all across Europe, all across the United States ? Why don't the NDP or the Farmers Union recognize a man of that calibre ? But no, they're hung up on a guy by the name of Atkinson, because it's political. And of course, Ottawa, through its much heralded programs, and we•ve got all this data coming out of Ottawa. They're talking about a National Farm Marketing Products Board; the Leader of the Liberal Party knows about that, and he likely has it memorized. But they're in support of this program too, so are the Grits , and that's interesting.

The Liberals want to Balkanize Manitoba, they want to isolate Manitoba; they're talking about it every day. And who's going to gain, Mr. Speaker ? Who's going to gain from all this ? --(Int erjection) -- Yeah, Wally McKenzie . Yeah, I happen to be a little country storekeeper depending on agriculture for my livelihood. I'm going to be the loser. And, Mr.

Speaker, when the debate's all over, when the shooting's all over , and they try to put this thing together and they try to make, you know, these marketing boards sit down at a national level - first of all I say they can't meet because its political ; secondly I say they can't agree, because how is Manitoba going to deal with Ontario ? We are a million people , they are what ? Ten, eight, they've got all the wealth. How are we going to meet with Quebec, at any level ? Not only the political level. How are we going to deal with the problems of Maritimes?

How are we going to deal with Alberta who are talking expansionism ? And yet we •re joined together in a group and we 're talking about cut-backs, supply management with control. Is there any way, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Agric ulture in Alberta can sit down with the Minister of Agric ulture in this province, and deal with any subject? What's the number one priority ? Politics . Politics is the number one priority so it won't work. So , Mr . Speaker, I submit to you that the high population areas of Canada such as Ontario, Quebec and B.

C. will make some gains if this kind of legislation is passed and provincial self-s ufficiency will be established, but we 're going to be the losers . By controlling imports and by boosting price s those big provinces can gain. But who 's the loser. We are the losers in this province because we•re small. In the long-term interests , Mr.

Speaker, I say that we should to back to where we started, day one, and get the Federal Government of this country to get with a national policy, a policy to look after all the provinces, rather than have to come into this kind of a piddley legislation, and I challenge the Leader of the Liberal Party to go down and bring us back for the first time in the history of Canada a national agricultural policy. You're brand new, you're fresh, maybe you can get to those Grits down there.

But I challenge this to the Leader of the Liberal Party to get his bag packed and go down and for once in two or three decades give us an agricultural policy for all the farmers of all Canada. Mr. Speaker, wheilwe get to that day in society we 'll have a farming industry that 'll grow and grow and grow and we 'll build better markets , we 'll build a better society, and we '11 have a better world for all the farmers of this province. Mr. Speaker, in the last few moments thati have, why would this type oflegisl ation retaliate against Ontario?

Or why should we retaliate against Saskatchewan, or Alberta, or British Columbia? You know what that is ? We 're retaliating against our friends. We 're setting up provincial barriers that shouldn't have been there in the first place. We 're retaliating against those provinces and saying, "Look, you can't buy chickens from Manitoba," or "You can 't sell pork in this province. " That's unfair, Mr. Speaker, and we 'll never build a Canada on the basis that is established in that bill. So, Mr.

Speaker, as I close I say: for Canada as a whole I want a policy of self-sufficien cy for all the farmers of all Canada, and I ask the Leader of the Liberal Party to go with my senior and for the first time in three decades get to those Grits in Ottawa and say, "We want a national agricultural policy. " MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Liberal Party. MR . AS PER: Mr. Speaker, will the honourable member yield to a question ?

Inasmuch as he's invited me to lead the charge for a national policy for farming, and which is tied of course to a national policy for the west in many other respects, do I have the member 's support for the other aspect that must be accomplished in the renegotiation of the whole position of the

4096 July 11, 1972 (MR. ASPER cont'd) ••.•• west , which includes banking. I'd like to hear the view of my honourable friend and the position of the Conservative Party on banking -- (Interjections) - MR. SPEA KER: Order , please, MR. ASP ER: .•• and the other aspects of western development ••• MR. SPEAKER : Order , please . I should like to indicate the honourable member can have 40 minutes - Order please. Order pleas e, I should like to indicate the honourable mem ber has an opportunity to speak for 40 minutes if he so desires.

Questions , as I' ve repeated occa sionally , and must repeat, are just for questions of clarification, not for opening up further areas of debate, I do wish the honourable members would co-operate. It would save a lot of time ; I wouldn't have to admonish the House or any other member. The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. LEON ARD A. BARKMAN (La Verendrye) : Mr . Speaker, thank you, I will assure you that I cannot debate this bill with the eloquence that we just heard from the Honourable Member for Roblin, but I want to share with him the concern concerning this bill.

I'm sure that other members previous to me , including the Member for Roblin, have stressed some of the points that are the concern of anyone that is at all concerned as far as the problems of agri culture are concerned.

Over the last year or so I have never been as confused in my mind when it comes to com mis sions , when it comes to boards , and I know the intention of this bill is perhaps more con cerned with the processing, the buying and the purchasing, or the offering to buy or to purchase, than dire ctly dealing with commissions , but indirectly we are dealing with commissi ons , we are dealing with boards , because we can only attain that goal through commissions or boards if this bill, or actions similar are taken, So I would like to say to the honourable member, Mr.

Speaker, that he is certainly not alone in his concerns . I think that, as I started saying, when it comes to commissions or boards I have become very confused at times as to what really a board can achieve, or what can a commission really achieve ? You take some of the examples, and I'm not trying to say this to favour the Honourable Member for Rhineland, you take some of the controls , the consideration that takes place in the Province of B.

C. when they start paying prices up to $3 .0 0 per head just so that they can raise broilers , and we realize that as far as the poultry business is concerned perhaps -- (Interjection)-- this is correct - perhaps this is one of the more viable businesses in Manitoba espec ially when you take into consideration the egg-laying producers , I think one must weigh the thought that what is it really.

Take our own dairy condition in Manitoba, We seem to have a very viable industry, It looks like perhaps we can expect in the near future that certain principles will be attacked or approached or changed as far as the control of quotas , and I would like to say here that I agree with what was said by the Honourable Member for Morris the other day.

I think a three-year period or a trial period for establishing our quotas , especially in the manufactured milk, is not enough, and I think if this bill passes the Minister should make sure, try to get more leverage or a longer time for this problem alone, Now I do not want to dwell on all the agricultural aspects that are concerned in this bill because I happen to be one of those members that wishes to go home this summer as soon as possible, and I won •t be very much longer .

I would like to say this that the negotiations between the provinces that are going to take place if and when the Marketing Act is completed , I'm very much afraid that we're fighting an uphill battle when we want to compete with provinces like Quebec and Ontario , and I'm very much afraid that this whole National Products Marketing Act , including the federal end of it , will be set up so that we will not be gaining what we should be gaining.

After all we happen to be a province that can 'way over-produce, perhaps more so on a percentage basis than any other province, We have much more production than we can con sume in this province. And I know it will be a great task to try and negotiate and try to equal the deals with some of the greater provinces or the larger provinces , and I think, Mr .

Speaker, that while we 're on this Agricultural Committee we 've heard many recommendations , and I don't intend to go into them at this time , but I was very sorely dis appointed and I realize that it has not been tabled, but I realize during the committee stage that an attempt was made, that we want to do the best we could , but so little was really mentioned in the proposed report and it 's not at all satisfactory to some of the problems that exist in agriculture today, And I wish to bring this to the attention of the House, Mr. Speaker.

In my mind there is a great concern as far as the bureaucracy of government on various levels , whether it be provincial or whether it be federal, and I think it is very hard for many members in this House

July 11, 1972 40 97 (MR. BARKMAN cont•d� ••.. to try and put our trust into a setup, or to try and say that this Natural Products Marketing Act will work, when we'v e seen so many things happen that are completely opposite than what we wish them to obtain. I'm sure the intention of the Minister is honourable; I'm sure the intention of the bill is even honourable , but it can't be if you take certain aspects into consideration, and I hate to disappoint the Member for Roblin when he kind of prejudged this group here on this side.

I certainly agree with him that my leader should rush to Ottawa as soon as possible and take him along , and many others, and start fighting this battle, but I think he probably prejudged this group a little bit when he said that they may be voting for this bill. At this time, taking into consideration that as long as these commissions, as long as these boards are not operated by the producers themselves, I for one cannot support this bill, and if we get to that point , that to me is a completely different setup.

Then we can go into these negotiations with an open mind and I think we can get to some worthwh ile conclusions, but I think I would like to leave this thought - I'm sorry the Minister's not well and not here today - I would like to leave this thought with the government. I think we must warn the rest of Canada that we should not tolerate the restriction on agricultural production in our province. We cannot afford to.

This province is set up so that all of us know we cannot afford to do this, I hope the Minis ter keeps this in mind when he goes either with my leader or with other members of this group, or whatever group it may be, I hope they keep this in mind. MR, SPEA KER: The Honourable Member for St. George. MR, WILLIAM URUSKI (St. Geor ge): Mr. Speak er, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Ste, Rose that debate be adjourned. MR. SPEAKER presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER : Mr.

Speaker , would you call Bill 10 9. The Member for Sturgeon Creek ? MR. SPEA KER : Proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Fi nance . The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker , Bill 10 9 are amendments to The City of Winnipeg Act, the act that created the greatest percentage tax increase on the people of Greater Winnipeg that's ever been had in the Province of Manitoba, the act that created a system of government in the City of Winnipeg that is almost impossible. (I wish you'd either move or leave me alone .) Mr.

Speak er , when the Minister introduced this biil he mentioned that he had spoken to different delegations or officials of the City of Winnipeg. In the information that I can receive during the past couple of days I found out that there is an official delegation policy which is directed by council in the City of Winnipeg. It is made up of the Mayor , the Deputy Mayor , chairmen of the three official committees, the standing committees, Mr.

Speaker , plus other members of that council who may be interested in the particular subject, and to my know ledge and to the information that I can receive , that official delegation has never met with the Minister regarding the re commendations the City of Winnipeg made to the province on the changes to the City of Winnipeg Act. So , Mr.

Speaker , we are experiencing in this House for the past few days some very great inaccuraci es, and unless these things can be cleared up I would say that until the Province of Manitoba decides to approve or disapprove the recommendations of the councillors, the elected members of the City of Winnipeg, they should first speak to the official delegation on that subject which is directed by council to speak on that subject. Mr. Speaker , this bill, or the amendments to the Winnipeg Act, Bill 109, is almost devastating in the respect of its definition of the word "s upervision" . Mr.

Speaker , the Winnipeg councillors who were elected last fall, have worked very hard to make this legislation work. They took seriously the statements and the great speeches of the government side in the province to say the community committees would be the marvelous part of the government. This would be people legislation, this would be people designing the legislation that they must live under. Mr. Speaker , why did they do that? They started very diligently to try and give some of the authorities to the community committees.

In fact, at the present time there is a committee or a recommendation that will go to council, that will designate the authorities of the community committees, and it will also delegate the authorities of the central committees. This particular report will no doubt have a certain amount or considerable debate by the city alder men as to these delegations of authority. But there is no sense them even putting in the report

4098 July 11, 1972 (MR. F. JOHNSTON cont'd) ••••• because the definition of the word "supervision" strips , absolutely strips the community committees of any reason for being there, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, it strips any thought of people-participation in government.

It makes them side walk superintendents peeping through a hole in the fence , and I assure you this is the reason why the City councillors decided that they would try to work to make this bill work, to work to make this legislation work, and now they've had the rug pulled from under them as the people of Winnipeg have had it pulled out from under them, And why do I say it's been pulled out from under them? I am reading from Page 23 of the White Paper , the Urban Reorganization in the Greater Winnipeg Area Proposals - I believe it's page 19 on the small booklet, Mr. Speaker .

And it says, it is explaining why there'll be 48 members of council just ahead of that; it gives - the reasons for this are simple and particular : "In light of the proposal to establish a system of community committees to function, to be assigned to them, has deemed essential that no municipality area should have less than three representatives. " I will come back to that in a minute because it's under a hea ding of 48 councillors , and I would like to comment on that , but to carry on.

"As it will be explained subsequently it is expected that substantial administra tive responsibilities and powers will be retained at the local level. In addition the community committees will have important and permanen t duties onerous for one or two councillors, too onerous for one or two councillors to fulfill." In other words we 've heard from this govern ment again, as we have heard from 1969 the empty promises of White Papers that are changed when it becomes legislation, The community committees, Mr.

Speaker , when I think of the glowing speeches from the Minister, the Attorney-Gen eral, and from the Minister of Education on how this will be wonderful people participation as far as the City ot Winnipeg is concerned, and now you make the definition of the community committees to supervise which makes them nothing more than people with no faces. Mr. Speaker , why this government seems to allow this sort of thing to go on and seem ingly enjoy it, is for one reason, They stood and said, Mr. Speaker , that Bill No , 36 was not total amalgamation.

We said it was , Now we have legislation the following year that just about makes it complete total legislation, the stripping of the community committees, It's complete amalgamation right at the present time, Mr. Speak er, the amendments, some of the amendments in this bill, now , what do we have ?

The Minister explains many of his amendments in this bill, and I can agree with him, certainly I would agree with subdivision control, I believe that that will give at least some dis cussion with the people , although they have no authority, to have the sub-division control to be more in the hands of the city than it is now , and the system they are setting up seems to be rather good, but also rather ridiculous in that they are giving this kind of control to sidewalk supervisors, but that particular

section of the bill I can certa inly have no quarrel with, and it's a very large

section of the bill, Mr. Speak er, getting back to where I said a council with 48 members surprisingly enough , surprisingly enough, Sir , and it's not surprising because there's all kinds of inaccur acies in this bill, Surprisingly enough , Mr. Speaker , if we leave the legislation the way it is , I believe under sections 687, which says , towards the end of the bill, "n otwithstanding any other legislation, the Mayor will be elected on this occasion, for this occasion only, and there will be fifty members of council" . We revert back to the original legislation after the first election of the mayor, and all of a sudden in

section 6 of the legislation -- or some -- maybe I'm not sure, I believe somewhere in that section, or at the beginning of the bill, Anyway, it can be found very quickly, Mr. Speaker , it says : "There wil l be 48 councillors", so if we don't change that particular

section towards the end, we 've got two guys floating in limbo, And by the way , Mr.

Speak er , I think it's rather disappointing to the people of Winnipeg to now find that after a year , after a year of this legislation working in the election of a mayor, and the tremendous turnout there was at the polls at the Unicity election for the mayor ; and with the direction that has been given by him, especially letting this council work hard to make this legislation wo rk, which is almost impossible; but now we turn around and we say we aren't going to elect him, We argued that last year when the bill was brought forward, Mr.

Speaker ; we argued that the system under this particular legislation might be better if the mayor was appointed, but the government at that time decided to have the mayor elected for the first time. We said then and we say now if you hav<J him elected once, you have him elected forever , but I assure you this government wants to hold an axe over the head of any man that's the head of the City of Winnipeg with this type of legislation that is before us.

July 11, 1972 4099 (MR. F. JOHNSTON cont'

d) Mr. Speaker , we now have the Municipal Board -- there is no change again. We have a group of people in the present government who firmly believe that the Municipal Board should have -- we should have a board set up to complete control of spending. And Mr.

Speaker , I being one who came from a municipality who appreciated the Municipal Board, who was our last resource against Metro, can say that I can appreciate the Municipal Board today, but I certainly can't appreciate the Municipal Board when they put a limitation of $500,0 00 on the City of Winnipeg's spending, capital spending; or they must refer to them over $500, 000 and over.

It happened this year that the Municipal Board was able to knock off part of the capital spending of the City of Winnipeg, and it had happened to be that part of the City of Winnipeg's spending that the province would participate in -- and it's almost a tool, it's almost a tool at the present time to have this government reach in and keep trying to control the City of Winnipeg. This government never gives up trying to have control, Mr.

Speaker ; they're famous for it, and it's pretty obvious that the legislation that we continually see put before us , and even the legis lation we just spoke of on marketing boards that this government wants control. Mr. Speaker , we have before us some amendments in this legislation also, that basically also reach in and tell the elected city members that they're going to run it this way. They're saying , you know , you 're not running it the way we want you to, or the way we think the bill should be set up, you 're going to run it this way. Mr.

Speaker , when the Province of Manitoba was constituted by the Federal Government, they laid down rules and regulations for elections, and after those elections were held we were basically a free Manitoba to make many of our rules and regulations. And I don't recall at any time that the Federal Govern ment started to tell us the duties of the Attorney-General, or the duties of the Minister of Labour , or the duties of any of the ministers in this province. But what have we now ?

We have an elected body of men, elected by the people, who under the commissioners' system have basically made decisions that because one person is more close to a subject than another ; that he should probably handle that subject, or he should probably handle that particular affair. And now because of the close ness of the work that this man is doing in assorting and stacking up in other departments, that this man should handle that; and the authority given to these particular gentlemen in the city is there, and the city councillors have been trying very hard to work this out so it works smoothly.

But no, now we have amendments that says oh no , oh no, let's do it my way, let's do it the way I tell you to do it. Let•s really have a system where the head commissioner is the only one that can speak to the executive committee; let's have a system where the chief elected member is the only one that can speak, or should I say can't speak to other commissioners but must speak to them through the chief commissioner. You know , Mr. Speaker , when we get this type of thing carrying on, that all these rules and regulations for the City of Winnipeg after you've had an elected body come forward, I say to you, Mr.

Speaker , that it's rather disgusting and it's rather hard to understand why somB body doesn't tell the Premier that when the Member from Inkster resigned , and he decides to put the portfolio of Mines and Natural Resources onto the shoulders of the Minister of Industry and Commerce, I don't really think that there was somebody running around telling him what to do. When he gave the Minister of Higher Education or Universities the portfolio to look into health and social welfare and education, I'm sure there was nobody running around telling him what to do.

Yet we have a group of people here in the Province of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, who want to reach in, reach in, and keep running and governing a body of elected members that they have set up. Mr. Speaker , they won't let go. Strangely enough they're going to have to let go ofthe City of Winnipeg one of these days , because the people of the City of Winnipeg told them in no un certain terms that they didn't want party politics in city affairs; they told them in no uncertain terms that they weren't wan ted, weren't wanted as far as party politics were concerned in the City of Winnipeg.

Well , if they're talking about -- you know , Mr. Speaker , the government members have a very very funny way of putting things, they say that the Independent El ection Committee is made up of Conservatives and Liberals . Let me tell them something, Mr. Speaker , the Independent El ection Committee is made up of men who do not believe in party politics in civic government; and do you know that there's one heck of a pile of NDPers in this city believe the same thing, and all you have to do is look at the election results to find out. Take a look at it. Take a look at it. So , Mr.

Speaker, real ly what would happen, what happ ened is the government goes by the same old rule of theirs, everybody's out of step but us; do

41 00 July 11, 1972 (MR. F. JOHNSTON cont'd) •.•.• it our way, and you're wrong , this is the basic principle, "We know better" is the philosophy of the Provincial Govern ment, and my desk mate here realizes it also. Mr. Speaker , the obstacle course that was set up by Bill 36 was started to be smoothed off by the elected members and made look very much as if it could possibly work with some 'changes and some recommended changes.

What really bothers me when I took a look at the recommended changes that was put forward by the city, they rece ived it back with a letter; and the committee that rece ived it back is a constitutional committee, or the recommendation of the legislature committee; all they did was take the letter, and write, ye s, no, no , no , yes , no, on what the government would approve, and what they wouldn't approve, and certainly there were many more "nos" than there were "yeses ". And I assure you, Mr.

Speaker , that to my know ledge there's never been any discussion with an official delegation from the city with the Minister -- and I explained the official delegation set-u p of the city -- but one of them that real ly irked me , one of them that really bothered me , was the request to enforce housing stan dards in the City of Winnipeg.

Here we have a government that wants public housing, better places to live, and the City of Winnipeg requested that they be able to enforce housing standards that would make the slum landlords start to abide with a standard that would give the people living in those houses a good place to live. And what do we have from the NDP government ? A "no" on that request, I think probably , Mr.

Speak er , that's probably one of the most depres sing things I have ever read; it's probably one of the most ridiculous things that I have ever read; it's probably one of the most hypocritical turn-downs I have ever seen from an NDP government, that they would not want the· city to ha ve better housing standards than they pre sently have, Now really, Mr.

Speaker , there are many other places whe re they were turned down, many of them were technical changes, etc. , but here we have a situation where the city wanted to do something to help people living in certain types of housing, and it's turned down by the ND P government, Isn't that amazing ? Mr. Speaker , there 's another

section oi this legislation, and I remember very clearly when we were in committee, there was a large

section of the Winnipeg Act referred to the Law Reform Committee, I have Sir , Mr. Speaker , the Law Reform Commission Report, the City of Winnipeg Act, and this report is dated Jan uary 197 2, those gentlemen got right to work. We have before us a report that comments on licensing powers , powers of answering inspection and search; powers of seizure , confiscation, and expropriation; powers to compel furnishing of information, city's liability on damages and important miscellaneous comments from this com mittee, the Law Reform Committee of this province, We have before us -- I must say they found many things. In

section 89 I would say, and it's one of the sections that's generally in this amendment, Mr. Speaker ; it real ly questions the section, you know . The Law Reform Committee said, you know , it doesn •t seem right that if the city is working on a project, and they happen to damage the neighbor's property or something, that the neighbor should be com pensated, You know , it real ly -- I would question this section, and I would say to the minister, would damage to an adjoining land they harmed, would it be compensated ? When we look at

section 89, or 646, 1. 3 of the existing legislation, but that's not really -- that's one , Mr. Speaker , it's in the amendments; but real ly what is devastating is this, what is left out, Let's take a look at what 's left out, On the

section that says "licen sing powers" they left out com ments of the original act on 532, 524 (1 ) (m), that is, basically (1 )(

m) is a redraft for natural justice, I am told by a consultant , natural justice; this government seems to shy away of any amendments that come to natural justice, 524, stricter guidelines were wanted regarding the licensing for the benefit of the people ; 524 (1 ) (aa) , the power to enter and inspect without a warran t -- that hasn't been change d, recommended changes by the Law Reform Committee, 524 (2) . No appeal for suspended -- and there should be an appeal for suspended people. If you've got your licence cancelled there's an appeal, but if it's suspended the Law Reform Commission does otherwise. Mr.

Speaker , the power of entry and inspection. You know , we have sections 14 5, 432 , 433 , 434 , right down and I say there's at least twelve or so here, and what did they put in the new bill ? The Law Reform Commission makes recommendations and what do we have ? One. one of their recommendations as far as power and entry and inspection is concerned, You know , Mr. Speaker , it's getting rather insulting to the people of Manitoba ; or Winnipeg, that this would happen. Power of seizure and confi scation, The re's three sections that the commission com mented on.

Powers of expropriation basically, and the right to expropriate personal property

July 11, 1972 41 01 (MR. F. JOHNSTON cont'd) . . • . • is something in

Section 144 that the Law Reform Com mission commented on, and real ly it is not that clear in this bill. Mr. Speak er , when we get to the other

section here - Power to compel furnishing of in formation - on Page 33 of this report there's an extensive explanation by the commission and all of the powers that are furnishing information, there 's six we have a comment on. Well there was no recommendation in the bill that came from the Law Reform Commission on that particular powers of information. This- is the government of the people who said, "We will refer this to the Law Reform Committee. " Now we have city liability and damages - none . Didn't go into any of those. Didn't think that was really good.

But basically the Law Reform Committee said should the City be responsible the same as anybody else when there's damages to other people 's property. And they have a very extensive

section on this, not in the bill. The miscellaneous sections of the bill which were recommended by the Law Reform Commission, Mr. Speaker , here we go. We have reference to the Metro Act, that because we couldn't get time to get Bill 36 completely drafted we were told that we could use the City Act or the Metro Act and we would put it back in there last year but this would all be changed in the One City Act, And now what do we have ? We have still reference to the Metro Act and when you go on and read the Metro Act it refers to the Greater Winnipeg Sanitary District or the Greater Winnipeg Water District section.

And so what are you doing ? Administration-wise you look at the City of Winnipeg Act, it says to go to the Metro Act, and from the Metro Act to the City of Winnipeg Water District or Sanitary District, and what 's been done about that? You know , these gentlemen finished this report on January 24, 1972, and these people over here have been sitting on their prats ever since, telling us, for goodness' sakes, that we can't get it back. We can't get any answers from the City but they had the answer from the Law Reform Commission on the request made of them by Ja nuary of 1972. Mr.

Speaker , the Minister ought to be ashamed of himself. Mr. Speaker , the financial base of the City of Winnipeg at the present time is getting very serious. We know that if this government is going to keep passing legislation that elimi nates people from paying local improvements and taxes, etc. such as the new cultural centre in St.

Boniface ; such as the cultural centre on Main Street; and on all of these things that you have public buildings within this city; if you are going to continue to scrounge off the City of Winnipeg so that you can save provincial bucks that will have to be collected from the people of the city and you'll sit back and say, "Oh, it wasn't us that raised the taxes, it was the City of Winnipeg." Mr. Speaker , I assure you this is the old game of the Minister of Finance playing mambo-j ambo again and he's dancing all around the subject of taxes. Mr.

Speaker, the City of Winnipeg if this continues is going to have to look for a different tax base. When we had the situation of the cities and municipalities in this Greater Winnipeg area, or the Metro area, nobody really approved of Metro being able to level taxes because we would have then had a fourth taxing body; we'd have had, well probably five: the Provincial Government, the Federal Government , the City of Winnipeg, the School Board and Metro would have made five , if Metro had have been allowed to tax to pay for some of their projects.

It wasn't desirable, but at the present time there is no more Metro , there is no more regional government there is one large city which this government put together and they are now trying to reach in and control this city and at the same time say: "We'll control the way you get your tax base from; we'll control what you do." I think the people of Winnipeg should have more control over their governing power s. It really gets me back to memory, Mr.

Speaker , when I think of the answers that I've heard from the Minister of Urban Affairs in this House when he has been questioned on the affairs of the City of Winnipeg from time to time, the standard answer is: "Oh, I don't really meddle in the City of Winnipeg's affairs. " We 've seen meddling, Mr. Speaker , as far as I'm concerned, where they buy their buses; and we've seen meddling as far as control on how you're going to operate this thing is concerned, with no, with absolutely no regard for the members who were elected, who have been doing an excellen t job of trying to make a mess work.

And now , and now you say, "I don't like what you're doing; you're going to do it my way again. " I can say that we get two sides of the story every time we speak to this government, Mr Speak er , and it real ly makes me laugh when I say, when I read "as will be explained subse quently. " This is what was said at all the meetings that were held around this city. "lt is expected that a substantial administrative responsibility and powers will be retained at the local level. " And this bill kills it.

41 02 July 11, 1972 (lVIR. F. JOHNSTON cont'

d) Mr. Speaker , this government has the tricky little habit of presenting bills to the Legis lature that you can agree with probably 85 percent of, which you have to say is good legislation or you have to say is probably legislation which is housekee ping, and really how could you oppose it? But they always put a kicker in there. They always put a kicker in a bill that just makes it absolutely smelly. That 's just about the proper word for it. You just make the bill stink, because you turn around and tell the people of Winnipeg they no longer will have any con trol in their community committees and they're sidewalk superintendents. Then you go out and you say, well, we voted against this

section of the bill. They wouldn't pass this bill. How could anybody, unless there are changes to these amendments -- quite frankly I would have to say that I'm looking forward to the subdivision legislation, I•m looking forward to much of the legislation in there. I'm still looking forward to legislation in the bill that the Law Reform Committee put in that I don't think we'l l ever get, Mr. Speaker. But then we turn around and we put in the little stinker all the time that makes it so hard to vote for the bill, and what are those little stinkers most of the time?

It's usually taking more freedom away from some mem ber or citizen of this province , and we keep continuing to have them put in. Mr. Speaker , I assure you that to try and amend the amendments that we have before us would be the largest task that I would ever try to accomplish, because to amend the amendments you would have to probably get rid of the complete act. We should be in, Mr. Speaker , the committee system in the city, we should not be in the commissioner system. We should very definitely, Mr.

Speak er , be looking to the elected people having more control over their destiny or over the people of this city, the elected councillors, and it is almost impossible to really conceive that the commissioner system, which was sold by the people of Winnipeg , by the people of Metro, that the commissioner system was not a desirable way of operating this city but they insisted on it. So therefore they should be in the committee system. It's time you started to take a look at amendments from that point of view.

It's time, Sir, that they should start taking a look at amendments to get om of this mess where they should look to more of a representation from the community committees on council , say 13, 14 members of the central council. It's time that they admitted they were damn well wrong . It's time they got rid of those eastern boys that wrote the bill, and it's time they got sitting down with people wi th experience in municipal affairs and city affairs in this city and listened to them, because they've let it go a year too long now. Thank you, Mr. Speaker . • •• continued on next page.

July 11, 1972 41 03 MR . SPEAK ER : The Honourable Member for Charleswood, MR . ARTHUR MOUG (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker , after the good job that the Member for Sturgeon Creek did I'll just speak briefly, and it will be on taxes outside the old Metro area and in the controversial Headingley area. The amendments, I believe, that are in the bill in front of us are mostly those that were recommended by the City of Winnipeg Council, and certainly not all that were recommended by the Council but, as I say, those that we have in front of us are some of the ones that they put forward to the government.

The complaints that I seem to receive from time to time from the existing administration of the City of Winnipeg , the community committees seem to be classed as nothing groups.

The advisory groups that they have work ing with the councillors are too large and certainly the advice that is taken from the advisory groups to the councillors on the community committee goes on down the chain to the ladder up to the executive groups and to the City Council, ends up getting lost in the shuffle, so the grass root work that was being done over the years by the councillors of smaller municipalities has been lost, The advisory groups in a good many in stances are told that when they are needed for advice they'll be called by the councillors and invited into a community committee meeting, and then they'll be asked for advice.

The problem outside the Perimeter area is the high increase in taxes that came out with the 1972 tax bill, I think it is the responsibility of this government to see that the City of Winnipeg does something for these people, They don't know where to go. They've had meet ings, I know particularly in the Hea dingley area although this is not the only area in the City of Winnipeg now that has the problem.

The Hea dingley people have had meetings time after time, They don't know what to do, It's pretty hard for a group of citizens to get together, try and sum up what the assessment is in the area in question, try to figure out what a budget would be in the way of public works , what they would have to pay towards schools , what the administration would be , what it's going to cost for snow clearing, road maintenance ; they don't know , They're sticking figures together , discussing them with each other , but there's nobody there to advise them, if they could manage on this, would it be cheaper if they got out of the situation they're in ?

I think the government, the Department of Municipal Affairs, some body should go out there and help these people to see if they're wise to stay in or wise to get out. I have tax bills here, they've been coming in to my place literally by the dozen, and the reason the people are in trouble , they're farming, they've been in trouble for a few years but now it's starting to hit them, A man with 285 acres of land , he paid a tax to the Municipality of Charleswood for $751, 72; he 's now suddenly hit with $1, 22 1.4 0. He gets a subsidy on that of 14 7.0 0, so he has an increase of 55 percent .

It's a little hard to take with today's economy ; we hear that agricultural groups on this side of the House when they get up and complain about the economics that farmers are facing in the Province of Manitoba - they have

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	29-4-156
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	29th 4th hansardpdf 156.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	87d4e80e916e12ca7283dfd1ebdb621d0060f33f

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