Manitoba Hansard — 20 March 1964 (Sitting 51, 27th Legislature, 2nd Session)

27-2-51

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ELECTORAL DIVISION ARTHUR ASSINIBOIA BIRTLE-RUSSELL BRANDON BROKENHEAD BURROWS CARILLON CHURCHILL CYPRESS DAUPHIN DUFFERIN ELMWOOD EMERSON ETHELBERT-PLAINS. FISHER FLIN FLON FORT GARRY FORT ROUGE GIMLI GLADSTONE HAMIOTA INKSTER KILDONAN LAC DU BONNET LAKE SIDE LA VERENDRYE LOGAN MINNEDOSA MORRIS OS BORNE PEMBINA PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE RADISSON RHINE LAND RIVER HEIGH'l'S ROBLIN ROCK LAKE ROCKWOOD- IBERVILLE RUPERTSLAND ST. BONIFACE ST. GEORGE ST. JAMES ST. JOHN'S ST. MA TTHEWS ST.

VITAL STE, ROSE SELKIRK SEVEN OAKS SOURIS-LANSDOWNE SPRING FIELD SWAN RIVER THE PAS TURTLE MOUNTAIN VIRDEN WELLINGTON WINNIPEG CENTRE WOLSELEY NAME J. D. Watt Steve Patrick Hon,Robert G. Smellie, Q. C. R. 0, Lissaman E. R. Schreyer Mark G. Smerchanski Leonard A. Barkman Gordon W. Beard Hon. Thelma Forbes Hon. Stewart E. McLean,Q. C. William Homer Hamilton S. Peters John P. Tanchak M. N. Hryhorczuk, Q. C. Emil Moeller Hon. Charles H. Witney Hon. Sterling R. Lyon, Q. C. Hon. Gurney Evans Hon. George Johnson Nelson Shoemaker B. P. Strickland Morris A. Gray James T. Mills Oscar F. Bjornson D. L.

Campbell Albert Vielfaure Lemuel Harris Hon. Waiter Weir Harry P. Shewman Hon. Obie Baizley Mrs. Carolyne Morrison Gordon E. Johnston Russell Paulley J. M. Froese Hon. Maitland B. Steinkopf,Q. C. Keith Alexander Hon. Abram W. Harrison Hon. George Hutton J. E. Jeannotte Laurent Desjardins Elman Guttormson D. M. Stanes Saul Cherniac k, Q. C. W. G. Martin Fred Groves Gildas Molgat T. P. Hillhous e, Q.C. Arthur E. Wright M. E. McKellar Fred T. Klym James H. Bilton Hon. J. B. Carroll P. J. McDonald Donald Morris McGregor Richard Seaborn James Cowan, Q. C. Hon.

Duff Roblin ADDRESS Reston, Manitoba 189 Harris Blvd. , Winnipeg 12 Legislative Bldg,, Winnipeg 1 832 Eleventh St., Brandon, Man, 2 - 1177 Henderson Hwy,, Winnipeg 16 102 Handsart Blvd., Winnipeg 29 .steinbach, Man. Thompson, Man. Rathwell, Man, Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Sperling, Man. 225 Kimberly St. , Winnipeg 15 Ridgeville, Man. Ethelbert, Man. Teulon, Man. Legislative Bldg. , Winnipeg 1 Legislative Bldg. , Winnipeg 1 Legislative Bldg,, Winnipeg 1 Legislative Bldg, , Winnipeg 1 Neepawa, Man.

Hamiota, Man. 406 - 365 Hargrave St., Winnipeg 2 142 Larchdale Crescent, Winnipeg 15 Lac du Bonnet, Man. 326 Kelvin Blvd., Winnipeg 29 La Broquerie, Man. 1109 Alexander Ave., Winnipeg 3 Legislative Bldg,, Winnipeg 1 Morris, Man. Legislative Bldg, , Winnipeg 1 Manitou, Man, 7 Massey Drive , Portage la Prairie 435 Yale Ave. W., Transcona 25, Man. Winkler, Man. Legislative Bldg. , Winnipeg 1 Roblin, Man. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Legislative Bldg, , Winnipeg 1 Meadow Portage, Man. 138 Dollard Blvd., St. Boniface 6, Man. Lundar, Man. 381 Guildford St., St. James, Winnipeg 12 333 St.

John's Ave., Winnipeg 4 924 Palmerston Ave., Winnipeg 10 3 Kingston Row, St. Vital, Winnipeg 8 · Room 250, Legislative Bldg. , Winnipeg 1 Dominion Bank Bldg., Selkirk, Man. 168 Burrin Ave. , Winnipeg 17 Nesbitt, Man. Beausejour, ·Man. Swan River, Man. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg 1 Killarney, Man. Kenton, Man. 594 Arlington St., Winnipeg 10 412 Paris Bldg. , Winnipeg 2 Legislat.ive Bldg., Winnipeg 1 I I �

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8:00 o'clock, Friday, March 20, 1964. MADAM SPEAKER: We were on the debate for the second reading of Bill No. 99. MR . MOLGAT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I believe I was on my feet at the time the debate adjourned. My only point in speaking at this time, Madam Speaker, on this particular bill was that it seems to me that the provincial governm e nt and the federal government might at this time consider the matter of the home production of wine by a lot of people in the Pro ince of Manitoba.

Now this is a matter which was discussed some years ago when we were amending or putting in the new Act. The federal government permits under their legislation the production of home-made beer and wine. There are many areas in Manitoba, particularly where we have immigrants of fairly recent arrival from Europe, where this is a common practice. Under the Manitoba legislation, this matter is not permitted. The new Act that was brought in some years ago still did not permit it. The federal Act, I understand, does permit it.

I don •t think there •s any question that none of us and no one in Manitoba wants to see a traffic in this product; no one wants to see it sold or made for sale; but it seems to me that under the federal law and under the, shall we say, fairly common practice in Manitoba, it has been admitted that this practice goes on. Yet under our own Act, it is not permitted. , -- I have to say quite frankly that in my own constituency this matter comes up on a number of occasions.

I•ve had some fairly recently in which I was in some contact with the Provincial Attorney-General's Department, where persons who believed they were operating completely within the law, and certainly on consultation of any federal Act completely were so, were found to be guilty of producing alcoholic beverages outside of the Act of Manitoba.

I wonder if the Minister could not review at this time, this situation, to somehow permit in the Act in Manitoba the production of home-made beer and wine, not for re-sale but simply for home consumption, because I do believe that across the Province of Manitoba this practice is reasonably common and that the Act might be made to fit into these circumstances. MR . HILLHOU SE: Madam Speaker, in connection with the matter just raised by my leader, I might say that I was in one_ of the chain stores tonight, and advertised quite promin ently and displayed on the shelves was malt for making home-made beer.

Now if I go ahead and I purchase that and I make it at home, I'm breaking the law, because I'm having in my posses sion liquor which was not purchased from the Commission. I can eve n go farther than that under our law. I can get a licence from the Excise Depart ment to make my own spirits, provided the still has not a capacity of mor·e than 1� gallons, and those licences are obtainable. Even if I make my own spirits lawfully under federal law, I am guilty of an offence under provincial law for having liquor not purchased from the Manitoba Liquor Commission.

Now I realize that there •s a big danger in allowing people who are in the habit of making their own wine and making their own beer, because you don't know w!Ere that kind of traffic is going to stop, but I know the situation raised by my honourable leader, and that is that there's a tremendous number of people in Manitoba from the Old Country who do make their own beer and who do make their own wine. They don •t sell it. It is good stuff.

In fact, some of it's a lot better than the stuff you get at the Liquor Commission, and if there was only some way that we could licence those people in Manitoba -.- licence them in Manitoba under our pro vincial law the way they can be licenced under the federal law, I think everybody'll be happy. MR. FROESE: Madam Speaker, did I understand the Minister to say before that the matter of liquor advertising had been dropped altogether for this year? MR. PAULLEY: Madam Speaker, just before the Minister answers the questions, I have one or two questions.

Seeing as the Honourable th<'J Member for Rhineland brought up about advertising, I wonder if my honourable friend the present Attorney-General has contacted the former member in relation to a promise that was made to me last year that the Commission would take down these terrible looking signs that they have in the liquor outlets and the bever age rooms, advertising the fact that you can purchase within the hotel, generally speaking, eight or nine different varieties.

I pointed out last year, the Minister may recall, that many of these establishments have spent thousands of dollars in order to brush up the appearance of the Ma rch 20th, 1964 Page 1341

(Mr. Paulley cont'd) ..... lounges and beverage rooms only to have the appearance marred by the signs that the Liquor Commission insists that the proprietor display. Last year the Attorney-General indicated to me that I wouldn't have to raise the question this year. I regret to say that either he didn •t have any influence with the Liquor Commission or that orders were not carried through, because the signs are still there;. they still look as terrible as ever.

As a matter of fact, they don't improve with age, I wonder if my honourable friend would take a look at the matter and possibly find out whether the Commission were asked to do it and refused to do It; or if they weren't asked to do it, I wonder if my honourable friend the present Attorney-General would get these signs off beautiful drapes and the like of that that they have in some of these liquor outlets. MR. McLEAN: Madam Speaker, representing as I do the constituency of Dauphin, I'm not as well acquainted as the Honourable Member for Ste.

Rose or the Member for Selkirk with the home-made wine or the home-beer to which they have made reference. I think, how ever, I could assure them that the points they have made certainly warrant the serious consid eration of the Attorney-General and they will receive that consideration. The Honourable Member for Rhineland asked about liquor advertising. There is no pro vision in the bill now before the House to provide for anything concerning liquor advertising.

I can •t say to the Honourable Leader of the New Democratic Party that I received any commun ication from my predecessor about the signs� I'm half inclined to agree with him that they do look like something or other -- an unparliamentary word. I intend certainly to look into the �., matter. I would remind him of course that, by law, the Liquor Commission is sort of at arm •s length from the Attorney-General and I'm not too certain that I have any authority in the matter. It certainly is something that can be considered.

Finally, to the Honourable the Member for lnkster, he asked why it is necessary to bring in amendments each year. Well I don •t really think the perfect piece of legislation has been enacted yet and experience, working with the statutes, brings to light from day to day improve ments that can and should be made in the drafting of the legislation, and that is the reason that you often find what are in effect small matters being brought forward in bills for the more effi cient operation of a statute, and I think perhaps there is no other explanation than that.

Madam Speaker put the question and after a voice vote declared the motion carried. MR. ROBLIN: Madam Speaker, would you call the Resolutions in the following order, if you please: first, the Ways and Means motion; secondly, the Shared Services Resolution; and then finally the motion for the Committee of Supply, if you please. I MADAM SPEAKER: The adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the Honourable the First Minister and the proposed motion in amendment thereto of the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. The Honourable the Leader of the New Democratic Party. MR.

PAULLEY: Madam Speaker, may I have this stand until Monday? I assure the House that if I'm here it will be proceeded with on Monday; if not, I'll pass it on to somebody else. MADAM SPEAKER: Agreed. The proposed resolution of the Honourable the First Min ister. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. MR. MOLGAT: Madam Speaker, I would beg the indulgence of the House to have the matter stand, but I have no objection whatever if any one else wishes to speak on the subject. MADAM SPEAKER: Does any other member wish to speak? Agreed to stand. MR.

ROBLIN: Madam Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Public Utilities, that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Madam Speaker presented the motion and after a voice vote declared the motion carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply with the Honourable Member for St. Matthews in the Chair .. MR . CHAIRMAN: Department X-- 1. Administration. MR . STEINKOPF: Mr.

Chairman, last evening the Honourable Member for Carillon and the Honourable Member for Radisson brought up a few matters that I1d like to reply to if I may. With the matter of a letter that was written by the Council of Steinbach to The Manitoba Telephone System and dates were given, I've now been able to find a reply under date of Nov emher 12th from the Manitoba Telephone System to me, that for some reason or other was in ·advertently not passed on -- the information in it was never passed on to the Municipal Council Page 1342 March 20th,1964

(Mr. Steinkopf cont'd) ...... of the Town of Steinbach, but the matter complained of was dealt with quite thoroughly by The Telephone System in their usual efficient manner, and if there's any blame to be laid I'm afraid it will have to be in my office.

The complaint, if you'll recall, was in the manner of the service that was being given to the Town of Steinbach on matters of service and repair, and the situation at that time was not good because the re had been a routine change in the manner in which it was being handled, but since that time it has improved considerably and now the program is that service calls are scheduled not to exceed three days in the Town of Steinbach itself and five days in rural areas, and since January 1st of this year these intervals have never been exceeded, and in fact re quirements were usually met on the same day in the Town of Steinbach or on a two-day basis in the rural parts, and I must apologize for that letter not having gotten to the municipal coun cil but I think that they'd be more interested in having the service improved than getting a lot of correspondence from us.

One of the ways I find that I can do these things is to cut out the paper work a little bit. The matter was brought up on the question of loading rural lines. This matter is rather a chronic problem all over the province and it's something that the telephone system is quite conscious of and as a matter of fact it's not happy with the situation but is proud with the record it has made these past few years in trying to alleviate it.

The situation is now that the system •s program to reduce the number of subscribers on rural lines is progressing as planned, and at present the average loading is 8. 2 subscribers per line. At present, 65 percent of all rural lines are eight or less subscribers, and 88 percent of all lines are 10 or less. The remaining 12 percent rural lines with 10 or more subscribers will be substantially reduced in this coming year's program.

You would be interested to know that 38 percent of the outside plant money is being. spent on 10 percent of the subscribers, which is quite a ratio, and these of course are the provincial rural subscribers. The system spent close to $500, 000 in the current fiscal year in regrading existing rural lines, and plans to spend an estimated $700, 000 on reducing existing customers per rural line in the coming fiscal year. In total, the system spent some thing like $2, 300, 000 on rural telephone service and plans to do the same approximate amount this year.

In the last five years and including this year, the sum of over $10 million has been spent on alleviating the situation of the loading or unloading of rural lines. We have, as you know, some 34, 000 rural subscribers and it is these subscribers that all attention that can be paid is being paid to them, but the costs for improving the service are astronomical, and if the telephone system was just to adopt a helter-ske!ter approach to it the cost per rural subscriber would go up so much per month that I don't think any of them could afford to pay for the service that at that time would be pretty good.

To reduce the residential rural lines to six parties per line, just to give you an idea of what it would cost, and business rural lines to four parties per line, would require an immediate capital expenditure on the order of $15 million, The system •s additional fixed cost, maintenance and operating charges for this additional plant would amount to approximately $2, 700, 000 per annum, and in terms of monthly charges if you were to divide the monthly subscribers into that amount you'd get another $6.60 per month per rural subscriber, and if we just eliminated the problem completely we'd require 500 percent more plant equipment, and if this were done why the debt of the province would just keep on going, get out of sight, and someday would be pretty hard to refin ance.

The problem is a serious one, and in the remarks of the honourable member last night he suggested with a smile that it might be a good idea if we all got out on some of these lines and saw what was going on, that if all of the people tried to call the Minister why there just wouldn •t be enough time left to do that, but I know the situation exists.

As a matter of fact, in one case where I had occasion to use it, I tried to get the line for such a long time that it paid me to get in the car and drive the eight or ten miles and get my message across that way a little bit faster, so it is one of the first matters that I tackled with the management when I took on this position, and I was soon confronted with these figures, and the decision, I think, that has to be followed is that of the board and the management to do it as fast as they can.

It looks to me like it's another good eight years before we'll get it to a point where everyone will be reasonably satisfied, but that is the goal, and I can assure the honourable member that every thingwillbe done just as fast as it is economically feasible to do it. We must also r,emember March 20th, 1964, Page 1343

(Mr. Steinkopf cont'd) ..•. that there's a certain amount of imbalance in the cost of this opera ti on between urban and rural, and one must keep that in mind at all times and where that sub sidy should lie and how much that subsidy should -- the balance should be tipped one way or another, because sooner or later there might be an objection from the one side that might con sider themselves being treated unfairly.

This business of extending the Grunthal area, giving them a wider scope, probably bring ing them into the Steinbach exchange, is again another one of economics and will be watched very carefully, and the moment that those toll lines can be eliminated I can assure the honour able member that they will be. There was some reference made too last evening to the editor ial in the Deloraine newspaper.

This is another matter of conversion and at the moment was being looked at by the management of the Manitoba Telephone System with the Chamber of Com merce at Deloraine and the others interested, and this is another case of having to wait until the conversion is complete on the matter of dial telephones. There is still some $18 million to be expended in this field and that is another few years away from being done, and Deloraine too will be receiving close attention.

The matters brought up by the Honourable Leader of the NDP were all so complimentary and flattering that I think I•d better sit down while I'm still ahead on that score, but I do want to thank him for those remarks and I hope that maybe by the end of the estimates, or this time next year, they'll still be forthcoming. MR. MARK G. SMERCHANSKI (Burrows): Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to possibly ask the Minister and make a few observations with reference to the motto of cheap power in Manitoba, and at the outside I find that I do have to find disagreement with the policy and with some of the news releases concerning government policy on cheap power, because I think that cheap power is a wonderful idea. It's a kind of a mysterious catch-all phrase, but possibly taking a cue from our First Minister, it somewhat smacks of politics.

I got a great deal of information together and was very much interested in the recent report indicating the substantial cost im provement in nuclear and thermo power production, and I'm wondering if it could be possible that Manitoba may find an undeveloped Nelson River project which would be too costly to de velop. The advance of nuclear power leaves only a limited time to bring in big new hydro de velopments.

The other problem that might be very interesting to answer is that is it possible that our highly expert and capable .management of the Manitoba Hydro Commission is in constant fear that the government's enthusiasm for hydro development of the Nelson River project may run counter to sound and economic planning?

And I at this time want to give full recognition to the interim conclusions which the First Minister read to us and which were tabled for our infor mation, also giving due consideration to such matters as fully loaded conditions on transmis- sion lines and whether the transmission will be done at a higher voltage compared to what is .I being done today. I also appreciate that decisions of this type, Mr.

Chairman, are not easy to make .and carry out, but they do require re-study and they do require a great deal of re- consideration from time to time. · The problem would appear to be one of markets rather than physical developmen t and construction of the hydro plant itself. I think that even the third phase as shown on page 16 of the report will give us only the final·overall appraisal of the Nelson River potential.

There fore, there is a rather confused image of failing to segregate the economy of sales, the pro motion of sales of power versus the economic cost of development and especially so in view of the fact that, as stated by the Manitoba Hydro annual report and also as quoted by the First Minister in his Manitoba Budget for 1964, to the best of my knowledge and calculation it Would appear that at the present time we have something in the vicinity of 58 percent excess power in Manit oba. · Last spring, during our spring session, the First Minister talked about vision and an agrement that the Nelson River power site would eventually become part of the national power grid.

The First Minister also clearly indicated that there is a need to export power south of the border. He also stated that Hydro power is more economical than nuclear or thermo power plants, but I don't think that he really did mean this and I feel that it is the government's responsibility to take advantage of the ever-changing techiiological changes in power genera ti on. Itis also the responsibility of the government to provide an abundant $Upply of electrical Page 1344 March 20th, 1964.

(Mr. Smerchanski cont'd) ..... power at the lowest possible cost. Doing these things it will stimulate the economic growth and the industrial growth of our province. Now in the report that was tabled Interim Conclusion No. 3 in this report says, and this is rather an important observation, "There are reasonable prospects that the Nelson River power potential may be able" -- it doesn't say it will be, "it may be able to be delivered to these markets at competitive rates 11 and these markets include the North Central United States area and the Provinces of Ontario and Saskatchewan. And I would like you, Mr.

Chairman, to note very definitely that it stipulates Ontario and Saskatchewan. Also that the cost should be considered as indicative only; and yet, Mr. Chairman, we have this being misinterpreted as these costs are a reality and as if these costs are an actual fact. Now one of the big dangers that we have facing our hydro development in Manitoba is the fact that in North Dakota alone there is an estimated 350 billion tons of lignite, or approximate ly 18 percent of the total coal reserves of the United States which are available for the genera tion of cheap electrical power.

When we examine the costs of the various methods of power generation and compare these charges here is the interesting comparison -- and don't for a moment think that we in Manitoba ·are going to take advantage of the entire electrical outlet markets in the United States when the State of North Dakota is sitting on such a potential source of power generation.

Now coal generating units -- and over 80 percent of the electricity in the United States is produced by coal generating units today-- we find that 'presently it costs them approximately 7. 5 mills per kilowatt hour but costs on larger units have been about six, and a good likelihood of a reduction to more like four and four and a half kilowatts per hour. Now I1d like to talk about the nuclear plant on the same comparative basis, where you need no transmission line, or rather limited transmission lines, where you have no line losses and the cost of this is running approximately 5. 9 kilowatts per hour.

Based on an overall cap ital investment such as in Point Douglas in Ontario that was just-recently completed, we come up with a capital cost on nuclear power of approximately $4o"7 per kilowatt. And I'd like to bring this back to you because there's a very interesting comparison coming up. The Ontario Govern ment estimates in their 1962 report of last year that it will be possible to develop nuclear power at 4 to 4. 3 mills per kilowatt hour in Ontario -- and this is based on their Point Douglas Plant that is going into operation as of the present time.

Now our Hydro Power Development taking the average across all of Canada, as of pre sent-day development costs, the approximate average Canadian cost of all hydro electric de velopment is 6 mills per kilowatt power. So on the one hand you •ve got that the old generating units will vary from a 4. 5 to a 7. 5 high; nuclear is running around 5 . 9; and our hydro power develop ment is running at 6 mills.

Another interesting fact; as of last spring there was on the planning board of United States 3, 833, 000 kilowatt hours of nuclear plant design, and if we understand that better in terms of our hydro development at Grand Rapids, that would mean roughly 100 Grand Rapids plant developments in the United States that will be on nuclear energy within the next two or three years. Mr. Chairman, this is a fact.

These plants are not only on the drawing board, these plants have their foundations in and they are constructing them. lf it is the intention of this government to export power, and if my analysis are wrong - they could be a little bit in error, but they are not wrong -- just what are the plans of this government in reference to the Nelson River project? Are we stalling? Are we just going to phase out on our No. 3 phase? Giving full consideration, Mr.

Chairman, to the possibility, to the fact that the United States utilities can develop their own generating sources at a cost of below 6 mills per kilowatt as compared to the average cost of hydro development of 6 mills per kilowatt, and making due allowance for the competitive. cost of nuclear and thermal generating plants, under these conditions the negotiations on the Nelson River project and the National Energy Board as far as export of power are concerned, should be brought to a proper conclu sion, otherwise hydro-rich Manitoba with its Nelson River project may have to face a real showdown with nuclear power.

These are sobering but factual and rather stunning and unfor tunate comparisons, and I dare say even sad conditions, not unlike the disappearance of the buffalo from the prairie. But nevertheless these are actual facts. And I'd like to illustrate that a little stronger in that the other day in our committee on utilities it was remarked -- and there was a new\'paper report after that that ran something to the extent that nuclear development and hydro power on the Nelson River have complimentary March 20th, 1964. Page 1345

(Mr. Smerchanski cont 'd) ... .. features and that we haven •t got sufficient expert advice on nuclear energy. And, Mr. Chairman, when I started to make th\) comparison on the power cost in the l'rovince of Ontario we have got two-thirds of the capacity of the Grand Rapids power plant of today that is being generated by nuclear energy. I use the Grand Rapids as a comparison because this gives us -- we were all there. We saw this tremendous development; we •re only going to utilize two-thirds of it. And this is the same amount of energy that Ontario is developing today from nuclear energy.

Now, in Ontario their costs were as I mentioned ini tially, $407 per kilowatt. Now Business Week of March 14th, which is just a few days back, comes up with re search and facts on HPower reactors launch business drive. 11 And the amazing thing is that the General Electric Company and that the Westinghouse Electric Company are coming up now and are able to build nuclear thermal plants at $130. 00 per kilowatt -- at one-third of the cost of what it took the Province of Ortario to build their nuclear energy plant.

In other words when we compare it on these basis, this nuclear development power is averaging something in the vicinity of 4 mills per kilowatt hour as compared to the present average cost in Canada of hydro development of 6 mills per kilowatt hour. Now these are very sobering facts and some thing that I think should be brought to the attention of the people that are concerned with the policy of hydro development in the province.

If, on the other hand the development of the Nelson River is going to attract industry to our province because of the more favourable power cost s which the First Minister talked so much about yesterday as to the cheap power -- which I claim is not so -- and if this govern ment feels that this is the right decision and that this is the proper timing, and good timing, then we should hear about. these plans. I don't think we should drag our feet, one way or the other, because it may be a little later than we think.

However, I want to again re-emphasize and bring to the attention of this House and this committee that the power costs to industry in Manitoba are higher in Manitoba from 25 to 40 percent higher than they are in On tario. And I have absolute proof of this. What we did, we sent some of the bills that are being paid to the Manitoba Hydro to Ontario and they came back and the comparison cost is 25 to 40 percent less than it is in Manitoba. And I want to ask you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of this committee, how they explain this cheaper power. May� be the cream is out of the cream puff-- I don't know.

The First Minister was telling us that s.ometimes figures which appear to be so conclusive, but in reality are hidden behind a screen and we kind of glide smoothly over it. I am just as much concerned being a citizen of Manitoba as anyone else is; and I•m just as much concerned that when I find on a feasibility study report in connection with industry in this province, that our power costs are consistently running 25 to 30 percent higher than in Ontario, and then to have somebody tell us that this is not so, this is a very very difficult pill to swallow.

I think that the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce is fully aware of this. I think he is. Let me, Mr. Chairman, bring to the attention of the committee as well the comparison of our power costs in Manitoba. They are based on the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, and I•d like to ask the Minister, and I'm not feing facetious on this matter, but I'd like to ask him this: what is the matter with our own research department? Can we not produce·comparative figures on our own?

Why should we go to the Dominion Government and then say that we are not quite sure what basis, or what the facts were surrounding the circumstances of compiling this type of comparison and averages. Because these are obviously wrong. This comparison shows that the power in Ontario is higher than in Manitoba; and it's just the reverse. Just the ab.solute reverse.

Now it might sound very nice to make these statements in this House but it is not very nice when you are trying to develop industry in the province and when you know doggone well that the power costs to your industry are 30-40 percent. higher and somebody comes andtells you they're cheaper. · Mr. Chairman, I was very much interested and in co-operation with the Department of Industry and Commerce, when plans were announced for the heavy water plant in Canada. This would have produced active operating personnel of about 300 and this would have given employ ment to approximately another 700-800 Ileople.

In other words it would have equalled close to 1, 000 new jobs in Manitoba, and I want to go on record, Mr. Chairman, that we made a Page 1346 March 20th, 1964. I I

(Mr. Smerchanski cont'd) .. . ... complete study of this and we found that our power costs were higher than those that were being offered in Ontario,in Nova Scotia, and those in Alberta. Now then, I ask you this simple question. If our power is cheaper, why wasn •t it made available to us? I also would like to ask this question.

If our power is cheaper, I'd like to know what indus tries are paying less for power than the standard industries in the Pr ovince of Manitoba, be cause this is most unfair to the average businessman and business concern in the Province of Manitoba, and this is the kind of comparisons we get.

Granted, I don •t lmow too much about the details or the finances of this province. possibly in detail, but I think I do know something about the operation, of the costs of business, and being able to make a profit, and being able to employ people, and when somebody tells us that these are not facts, I think I'd like to bring to their attention that maybe they'd better get their pencil and paper out and they had better do . some research and they had better get the actual facts concerning some of these matters.

I would like to have this government through the Minister consider this: If the policy of this government is that nuclear energy is not so cheap, then give free enterprise the permis sion to set up a nuclear energy plant of their own and let them compete against your operation.

If they are willing to spend their money, if they are sold on the idea that this can be a success, give them this opportunity; and I want to go on record that private industry if given an oppor tunity will produce electricity from nuclear energy on a competitive basis and will be able to create a new industry, and I would like you to give this some real good hard consideration.

I believe in public ownership and I think we •ve got a fine Hydro Electric Commission, but let us not get carried away with ourselves that it is cheap power, because we •re only fooling ourselves, and if you would give us power cheaper in Manitoba than in Ontario I can assure the Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce that we would have so many industries in here that it would make everybody's head swim. That•s what you would develop; but this is not the case. The fact -- Business Research Feasibility Reports do not suggest it and they certainly do not point in this direction, and that, Mr.

Chairman, is· all that I wish to say.

I feel that what I have mentioned is rather an important -- a very, very important matter in reference to hydro planning and hydro policy in reference to the Province of Manitoba, and I certainly take most strenuous objection and disagree with the First Minister completely in his statement that power in Manitoba is cheaper than it is in any other Province of Canada, and I think that was corrected and somebody mentioned Quebec, but these are the facts and I felt that I did want to bring it to the attention of the Minister and to the government in connection with the department of private utilities. Thank you Mr.

Chairman. MR . PAULLEY: . , .. .. say while the thought is on my mind. I•m sure that the Minister has many answers to my honourable friend. I was quite intrigued to listen to my honourable friend for Burrows advocating that we return back to private industry or free enterprise in the production of power in the Province of Manitoba. Give them an opportunity, he says Mr. Chair man, and what does that mean but allow them to come back in?

We had competition here for many years between private and public enterprise insofar as electrical energy is concerned, and thank goodness this Legislature, albeit it took a long time to do so, but thank goodness this Legislature eventually came to the opinion that power should be developed in the Province of Manitoba through public enterprise for the benefit of the public. Apart from this, Mr. Chair man, I listened and was fascinated with the discourse of my honourable learned friend in the field of nuclear energy this evening. I hadn't heard him before.

I know he was at the Committee on Public Utilities the other day when I was asking a number of questions of the management of the hydro, and he must have got some ideas from listening to the questions that were asked of the Commission at that time, and I•m glad to see -- yes he did, because up until that time or this evening, none of your group have ever raised a question of power from nuclear energy in this House to my knowledge. And I think, Mr.

Chairman, this is clearly indicative, this is clearly indicative of the fact that members of my group here are constantly giving the lead to the Official Opposition in matters for debate in this House. Apart from this, Mr.

Chairman -- and I suggest this is a truism or what I just said is a truism -- but apart from that I would like my honourable friend the member for Burrows, who has just suggested that the costs of the development of energy from nuclear power are now rapidly becoming cheaper than that of hydro power, and he went on to illustrate in many loca tions in the United States of America to which we hope if we have excess power as a result of March 20th, 1964. Page 1347

(Mr. Paulley cont 'd) ...... the Nelson to export power, he went on to illustrate that many of these communites are in a position to develop nuclear �mergy at less cost than they would be able to receive the same power by export from Canada. If this is so, Mr. Chairman, and if my friend has studied the question to the depth that he appeared to have this evening, I wonder if he would justify the position of the Liberal Party at the Federal level, :iii agreeing with huge expenditures of taxpayers' money in British Columbia for the development of the hydro power in B.

C. and also the export of that power from British Columbia into the State of Wash ington and other parts of the United States My honourable friend •s answer might be: ''well I'm only dealing with Manitoba, " but I say to him, Mr. Chairman, that as responsible legislators here in the Province of Manitoba we should also be concerned with the cost to the taxpayer or possible fiascos, no matter whether they happen here in Manitoba or British Columbia, and I• m sure my honourable friend •s got more influence on the Right Honourable Mr.

Pearson and Company down at Ottawa than I have, but I would suggest if he has got any influence at all, if he can establish to Mike Pears on and Company what he's attempting to establish to us here in Manitoba that nuclear energy is right at our doorstep and it's going to be cheaper, that it would be -- he didn't use the word "silly" -- but it would be uneconomical for us to develop the Nelson because of the close proximity of nuclear energy and our export market would be gone, for heaven's sake, Mr.

Chairman, I say to the Honourable Member for Burrows, tell Mike Pearson and the Federal Liberals -- and Conservatives too -- so that the people of British Columbia will not make huge expenditures on the Columbia River in the hopes of recouping their expenditures from export trade, Also Mr.

Chairman, my honourable friend in his deliberation and his very thorough ana lysis of the power situation, dealing with the Central Plains and also just across the line into North Dakota, he mentioned tonight-- and of course this is one of the areas that hydro if they do develop the Nelson River want to have as a customer -- my honourable friend here told us about - - what was it Mr. Chairman? A billion tons of reserve coal, readily available for the creation of electrical energy? Does not my honourable friend know, Mr.

Chairman, that this has been the problem of our sister province to the west of us, who in the Estevan fields have - I don't know if they•ve got a billion but I would say they have millions of tons of cheap coal, and when we look at the comparative costs of energy we find that the Province of Saskatchewan cost of power is almost triple what it is here in the Province of Manitoba, Surely my honour able friend hasn •t given the study to this question that his voice implied here this evening.

Apart from that, I do suggest to my friend that if he is right insofar as production of nuclear energy being here, and being cheaper, that he not only convince the First-Minister and the Government of Manitoba -- and I know they need convincing on many matters -- but he also convince lVIike Pearson and the Federal Liberals in respect of the development on the Colum bia River, which if memory serves me correctly, is going to cost about half as much again as the development of our own Nelson River.

Then my honourable friend further went on, laying such great emphasis on the cost of power and related it to the industrial development of the community. I just want to tell him, and I'm critical of the government too and they'll hear more about this later. I'm critical of the government too because there has been a lack of in dustrial development -- (interjection). Yes, Duffy's boy, There will be criticisms coming, but I'm going to tell you, Mr; Chairman, unlike the criticisms and the poppycock of my honour able friends to the right, it will be constructive and accurate criticism.

Laugh, There was a song that they used to sing during the depression and if my honourable friends to the rear and to the right of me continue to advocate their policies, lVf_r. Chairman, Manitoba will be back in a depression ere long, if accepted by my friends opposite. But apart from this, Mr. Chairman, my honourable friend was criticizing the government because of the fact that_we are not progressing industrial-wise to the degree that we should have because we have a higher cost, in his words, of electrical energy here than they have in Ontario.

I wonder how my friend would justify that in the Province of Saskatchewan -- where incidentally they're going to have a general election on April 22nd, and this has no bearing qn that -- I wonder how he would justify that in the Province of Saskatchewan, where they have to pay almost three times as much for electrical energy, the users, they have a labour short age because of the inf1ux of industry into that province. People. went away-- my gosh. No, they don •t subsidize them at all, Mr. Chairman. But I say, I 'm only using this as an illustration Page 1348 March 20th, 1964.

(Mr. Paulley cont'd) •...... of how my learned friend from Burrows, as I said to him the other day when speaking on another resolution, I think you had better put in a little more study and a little bit more overtime and consideration. So I come back again. I'm interested in the development of nuclear energy, and I'm sure everybody here in the Province of Manitoba is, but thus far it hasn't been shown, although they are working rapidly toward it, that the energy can be developed as cheaply as our power can be from our water resources.

And I do say to my honourable friend, if he has the answer, then I suggest to him that he let his federal friends know it so they can tell the people of British Columbia and save them about three-quarters of a billion dollars that they are going to spend in the hope of exporting hydro power into the United States. MR. SMERCHANSKI: Might I say a word, Mr. Chairman, in reference to the nonsense that was referred to -- (interjection). Okay? MR. STEINKOPF: Mr. Chairman, after I get off my chest what I have before I forget it.

I hope that that continues for a little while because my predecessor here had a sort of help, there were two Ministers on the job. My assistant seems to be across the hall.

It's a little hard to get together with him and some of these things --(interjections) -- When the Honourable Member for Burrows talks about thermal energy and power, I must admit he's got me buffa loed, but when he talks about industrial development he's talking my language because since 1931 when I was chairman of the Made-in-the-West Committee of the Industrial Development Board, it •s been a little bit of a crusade of mine to get industry in this province and I think that he was talking with tongue in cheek when he suggested that if we had cheaper power, in dustrial power or power that was less than Ontario we'd just be inundated with requests for setting up industry.

But while the Honourable Member for Radisson was talking about B. C. he might have gone a little bit farther and mentioned there the tremendous amount of industry that comes to the province because of the natural resources. Good examples of that would be a major operation like Kitimat which put in its own power plant, tunnelled through a series of mountains, brought in power and did it under a lot less favourable conditions than we have here in Manitoba. All along the coast and in the interior of B.

C. you have any number of pulp and paper mills, and matters like that; although power is a major factor in heavy indus try of that kind, it certainly isn •t the prime concern and prime interest in bringing the industry to that point. Other facilities must be there first before the plant can be established.

The little exercise on, again the juggling of rates, is something that I must get used to, but being a little new at this business all I can take and refer you to are the figures that were used which were the DBS figures as of 1960; and unless the Ontario rates have gone down con siderably since then, or the Manitoba rates have gone up - - and I know of no major increase in the Manitoba rates since then -- it still indicates that the overall rate of all services in Manitobf'. was . 95 against Ontario •s . 99 and Que bee •s of . 75.

Manitoba still leads in the domestic and farm service by quite a wide margin with a figure of 1. 15 and Ontario is next with 1. 34 and Quebec goes up to 1. 45. Now in determining what the industrial rate is we haven •t got it set up in our book as you mentioned at the eo m mittee the other day, we talk about power,

whereas On tario talks about industrial rates, it must all average out in the end. But Ontario, with its large industrial complex is using so much more power for industry that it throws the balance all out. Our heavy sale of power has always been in the domestic and farm service; the power or industrial is still not the factor here on a ratio basis as it is in Ontario. But the rates are there for everyone to see and these figures can't be juggled because they go all the way down including every province, all ten provinces, and I think the DBS uses the same factor. It•s not like making shoes.

Power is power no matter where it is and it's a very simple thing to take a look at a bill as you did when you sent the one to Ontario and determine what the rate is. So the overall picture of a . 95 figure as against Ontario's . 99 must stand up. However there must be quite a difference in volume and this I'm perfectly willing to concede. But not to concede that our overall rate is 30 percent higher than it is in Ontario. I also think that this alarming figure is the type of distortion that could be treated to chase away any industry that might come in here.

I have never heard, in all the years I've been pro moting industry, of anyone who has not considered Manitoba because of our power rate being too high or even higher than Ontario and if there was I would certainly like to hear about it because everything should be done to take a look at a situation like that. A very good example March 20th, 1964. Page 1349

(Mr. Steinkopf cont 'd) ....... of heavy and large industry coming into Manitoba certainly must be the International Nickel complex at Thompson, where they came and probably put as much into Manitoba as any number of industries could do over the next number of years. They first of all found the nickel and then got the power afterwards; but the cheap power wouldn •t have been ·worth very much to them if the nickel hadn •t of been very close at hand, or in this pro vince. Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting of course is another one.

And I think that this is - knowing the Honourable Member for Burrows for a long time -- I think this is what we can call quasi-political speech, but not one that really when you come to industry means too very very much; because I know deep down in his heart he is just as interested as the rest of us in attracting as much industry as we can to Manitoba. In the matter of the sale of power that results from the Nelson, this is still in the field of speculation; it is really an exercise in speculation.

I'm sure that I will pass on his well thou ght out remarks to the management of Manitoba Hydro and those involved in the study of the Nelson, but at this stage it is a little bit too early for me to be too technical on the matter and to advise him on that basis. I'm sure as I can be that the matter of the sale of the power will be a prime consideration.

The fact that North Dakota has got 18 percent of all the lignite coal in the United States is a very important factor but one must have to take a look at their present rate of power as compared to Manitoba and I just have a very rough figure but I believe our rate compares very favourably with the present North Dakota rates. All of these fa._t-Jrs when you are dealing with millions of dollars as you would be in a development the size and scope of Nelson, will have to be considered before any major decision is made. Now you can continue the debate with the .••.• HON. J. B.

CARROLL (Minister of Welfare) (The Pas): ...... the member for Burrows would like to give the source of his statistics particularly with respect to the six mill rate for hydro generation in Canada. He might also give the source of his figure 7. 5 mills for coal steam generati on in United States. I'd be interested in finding out where those figures came from. MR. SMERCHANSKI: Well, Mr.

Chairman, a good percentage of this comes from the statistical information from the Manitoba Hydro Electric Board, the Nuclear Power demon stration pamphlet from the Ontario Hydro Commission and going over the last five years of the Ontario Hydro Commission reports; also with the Canadian Atomic Energy Commission that has available these comparative figures. MR . CARROLL: Where does the figure come -- six mill rate for all Canada for hydro generation? Just the one rate that's all I want ...... . MR. SMERCHANSKI: That's the Atomic Energy Commission in Ottawa.

They have these figures on a comparative basis for the nuclear generating power and power from coal genera tion and also on hydro plant generations across Canada. Mr. Chairman, I would first of all like to just bring to the attention of this committee that I have always been very much inter ested in nuclear development and as far back as 1956 I took a very active

part in the develop ment of uranium in Canada and when my friend the Honourable Member from Radisson -- if he would only sit and listen periodically -- I can assure him that I have no intention of making a half hour speech from a two inch newspaper clipping that he is capable· of doing -- and I ad mire him for it. But I can also assure him that I have made a study of this and it is not mere poppycock, because his remarks are truly an insult to an average man's intelligence that has made a study of this thing. I know what I'm talking about.

These are facts that you can analyze, the Ontario Hydro, Quebec Hydro, Manitoba Hydro, Saskatchewan Hydro, these are facts. Any body can check them. On a heavy water project the Minister of Industry and Commerce, his department was most co-operative, most anxious and we did a lot of work, we .did a lot of work on research, we had to .know what nuclear power energy meant, what heavy water meant, and we had their experts, we had their research at our disposal, and we went down into the States and we accumulated a lot of hard, known facts.

I don't intend to talk on technical matters here above anybody's head because this is not fair and I for one moment do not want to pose myself as an expert, but, I do know what I•m talking about and inasmuch as my honourable friend didn't see the member from St. George at the committee meeting the other day, I •m wondering if he's not overlooking something and is not paying enough attention to what's being said. In reference to power rates in Saskatchevian, the only reason that they got the Page 1350 March 20th, 1964.

(Mr. Smerchanski cont'd) ..... Interprovincial Steel Corporation into Regina was primarily of subsidy or reduced power rates which were not available in Manitoba. This is why they got located there and these are actual factual figures. The Winnipeg Free Press on Friday, April 12th, 1963, printed -- and this was the time we had a bit of a tussle with the First Minister in reference to the Nelson River development and it was at that time that I interjected with nuclear development of energy.

This isn•t some thing new; these are actual facts and when you get a research report from "Business Week, " these are also facts. Do you realize that this makes it possible for a large user of electricity to set up a 50, 000 kilowatt plant that will generate power on the basis of a 4. 5 capital cost for your water development, or nuclear development, or your power generating station. And when it comes to North Dakota my friend, Mr. Chairman, this is a

summary of the industrial develop ment of North Dakota. The governor of this state has been to this province asking some of the business people to go into and establish in his state; and power •s an important item to us in business in developing new industries. And they tell us; and they show us; and they compare it, that their energy power costs are cheaper than ours, and yet my honourable friend here, and likely my friend over there too, says that he thinks that they're on a par. I want to tell you right now, Mr.

Chairman, that there •s under consideration a $5 million project of a plant -- it •s a toss-up whether it •s going to be located in Manitoba or North Dakota, and it•s entirely hinged on the matter of power costs. Sure I•m interested in industry in Manitoba, and I •ll back it up to the hilt, 100 percent, and I'll never back down from any other province or state. But let•s not fool ourselves -- and this is not political hearsay, I'm not saying this for political credit one way or the other -- but I am telling you what is an actual fact, and this is the thing that concerns me.

This is the thing that I know what I'm talking about and these are actual facts, actual figures, actual people I•ve talked to, and this is nothing about hearsay whatever. This is about all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. You know, I'm beginning to learn that· in this House sometimes it pays to just talk for a long time about nothing in particular, and it seems, Mr.

Chairman, that this is the kind of advertising that is passed along most and when you have gone to work and you know a subject; you•ve done a lot o.f research, and you've done it with your own hands and you have been able to prove that you can do it, and then you get somebody jumping up like a jack-in-a-box and says, 11Well, now, what does this man know about his subject? 11 It hardly even requires a reply because quite frankly I don't know what kind of a reply to give a question of that nature. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR . E. R. SCHREYER (Brokenhead): Mr.

Chairman, I will speak less than one quarter of the time taken up by the member for Burrows; I will try to make four points, which will be twice as many as he made. I listened with interest to our tireless researcher from Burrows and I take it that the nub of his 11expertese 11 which he gave to the House here a few minutes ago was that the relative cost advantage of hydro power as compared to nuclear power was rapidly deteriorating. Is this one of the points he was trying to make? I might agree with him but for two things. First of all, I have not made as much, or done as much research into the matter.

Secondly, I think that many of the reports which he relies so heavily upon that appear in "Business Week11 - which by the way I subscribe to, as he does -- he will find that it glows with optimism, and that particular magazine has been in the course of the past three or four years just slightly on the optimistic side with regard to technological advance. And I want him to say whether he actually believes that the relative cost advantage of hydro relative to nuclear power is rapidly deteriorating. This is the point. He talks as though it's a matter of imminent possibility or occurrence.

The other point is: he tried to make the point that private capital, private enterprise, co uld if allowed to, develop nuclear power in this province and compete, more than compete, or compete effectively with hydro power generated by a publicly-owned utility. Was he trying to make that point? If he was, I wonder on what basis he makes that statement. He insists that when he ma:kes a statement in this House he•s doing so on the basis of hard facts. Well, per haps he is.

I would like to know what the hard fact is in this particular instance because I am sure he is more aware than almost anyone else here that a utility is one of the most capital intensive industry of all industries. That is to say, utility developme nt unlike secondary March 20th, 1964. Page 1351 I

(Mr. Schreyer cont'd) .... industry or manufacturing requires more capital per labour input unit, it requires more capital in order to develop, to sell a particular block of revenue bringing product than any other industry.

Therefore, if a utility is so capital intensive as we are led to believe -- and I don't think he will disagree with that -:- and on the other hand if it is a fact as COMEF tells us -- and I believe it to be a fact -- that governm-ent or publicly owned utilities are able to obtain capital, borrow capital at somewhere in the order of one quarter to one-half per centum rate cheaper than private enterprise, how in the world can private enterprise compete and outsell publicly-owned utilities.

It doesn't make sense even on the basis of the hard kind of facts that the Member for Burrows likes to put in front of us with so much expertese as he shows from time to time. MR . MOLG AT: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the member though would give us the four points he was going to make. I haven •t heard the four points yet, and I'd like to get them. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Chairman, I didn't want to confuse the Member for Burrows. I think two points at a time will do. MR. MOLGAT: Mr. Chairman, the professor who can lecture to everyone surely can proceed to give us these facts.

He said he was going to bring out four points. I beg the member to bring out his four points. MR. CARROLL: Mr. Chairman, it would appear the Opposition might do the people of Canada a great favour and pack up their expert and all his facts and send him down to see the Premier of Newfoundland and the Premier of Quebec, who in tonight's paper ar·e talking about how they're going to split the power which will be generated from Hamilton Falls. They appar ently haven 't heard of the facts that are in possession of the Member for Burrows.

I think he might do your colleagues a great service farther east if you might share him with them. MR . MOLG AT: Mr. Chairman, I realize the coalition that exists between my friends, the assistant Deputy Minister, or is it assistant Minister here and his assistants there. But, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Brokenhead got up and made a very specific point that he was going to bring out four points. My question is: would he please bring out his four points. MR. SCHREY ER: Mr.

Chairman, point one was that I do not accept the statement made by the Member for Burrows that the relative cost advantage of hydro power relative to nuclear power is rapidly deteriorating. I don't accept that. The second point is that I believe that a utility enterprise is capital intensive more so than any other type of industry.

The third point is that I believe, on my own account, and I accept COMEF's statement on the matter, that government, public utilities backed by government are able to obtain money -- they are able to go to the money market and get money cheaper, one-quarter to one-half of one per centum cheaper than private enterprise. And the fourth point was, I wanted the Member for Burrows to explain in the light of this how he could make .the statement that private enterprise could undersell hydro if it were allowed to develop nuclear energy in this province. MR. SMERCHANS KI : Mr.

Chairman, I would like to answer the Honourable Minister across -- and this is the Financial Times of February 17th about Hamilton Falls and where Westinghouse has come in and underbid Consolidated Edison out of the State of New York, and which the Honourable Leader of the NDP made mention in committee the other day, and which the Honourable Member for Brokenhead forgets because his memory must be a little short.

I also would suggest that my honourable friend from Brokenhead all he has to do is re fer to the Hydro Electric Board's Report, March 31st, 163, and if he would total the energy used, the energy sold and the rate for which the boiler fuel energy is sold, and also put in the back of his bonnet the fact that we are 58 percent in excess of power and you make these cal culations and one and one quarter percent interest service charge on capital expenditure is a mere bagatelle. MR. CARROLL: Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out my friend is four days old - He •s quoting a newspaper four days ago.

I •m quoting tonight •s newspaper where they're still talking about the development of Hamilton Falls. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3 passed .. . .. . JVIR. FROESE: Mr. Chairman, first of all let me congratulate the Minister on assuming his duties as Minister of Public Utilities, as well as Provincial Secretary. I have a few items that I wish to bring to his attention. Some of the matters have already been discussed in com mittee the other day so I don •t want to rehash what has already been discussed very thoroughly, Page 1352 March 20th, 1964.

(Mr. Froese cont'd) .... although there •s one point that I want to draw from that, and that is, that we need a change of policy as was brought out in that committee meeting. I still feel that

whereas at the present time we are contributing or taking care of all the costs of leading lines, telephone lines to a certain point, but, when it goes beyond that point the individual is sup posed to carry the whole cost himself, and I don •t think this is right. I think we should still be contributing towards part of that cost if the individual wants a single line telephone.

Then also, as the matter was brought out in committee on these perpetual charges in connection with colored 'phones, in connection with longer cords and repairs that are made to the telephone system apparatus that you have in your home, and once you have purchased one of those, or whether you have a repair item, that you 1ll have a perpetual charge made a gainst your account as time goes along. I. think this is not fair. I feel that there should be a limit to the amount that is being collected in this way from the user, and apparently this prac tice is also followed in the Hydro Department.

When they make a change from a domestic to a farm plan, they have to put in a larger transformer and here again they then charge the Hydro user $20.00 a year and this, too, is apparently continuing in perpetuity, so that they'll retrieve much more money than they invested in the first place and the charges I think are therefore outrageous. Then, I have another matter that I want to bring to the attention of the Minister. This has to do with the matter of insurance. Presently all car drivers, all automobile drivers and own ers have to carry insur:ance on their vehicles. This is mandatory.

This is a requirement under statute, and while I'm not quarrelling with the rates, although I think they're very high in some instances, that is not the point that I want to make at this time. I feel that the biggest trouble is when people meet up with an accident the people are at a loss to know what to do, and the agents that have been selling this insurance very often can •t advise and also m any don •t advise these people as to what course of action should be followed.

They don •t want to be bothered be cause the margin that they have, apparently they feel that it's not sufficient to be bothered later on when accidents come about and they are supposed to give advice, so I feel that there should be a procedure outlined as to the actions that these people are to follow in case of an accide nt. This could very easily be done and it could be included with the policy when the policy is sold. We today have driver's tests.

Young people who come of age to the point where they can receive a driver •s license have to make a test, and why not, at that time also, give them a test and give them the advice that they should follow in connection with claims when they have an accident, so that I think we should take advantage of this situation and advise these young people when they get their licenses and also when they take out their insurance so that they will know what to do when a thing like this comes about. I also find that the insurance compa n ies are taking advantage of the situation.

They take undue time to settle accounts and claims that are made against them, and this also holds true for impoundments. Many people don't know what action to take, what to do, and how to get the vehicle out; so very often they refer to us members or other people who they call on then, and I feel that this should be information that should be going out in the first place, so that there would be no doubt as to what to do and what course of action to follow. I would like to hear from the Minister on this.

I think this is something that should be looked into and I think it is something that can be very easily corrected. Now Il istened with a great deal of interest to the member for Burrows and also to the Minister in replying on the matter of hydro. It hinkthe development of our natural resources is something that we all like to see and certainly Manitoba could do well in deriving some funds from our natural resources to carry on the cost of gove·rnment. I also noted that the Leader ofthe New Democratic Party seemed to be rather worried about B. C.

I think he should be quite at ease, because I don •t think you have to worry about B. C. at all, because when they go into construction they are sure of their sales before they make the initial expense, so that he could be quite at rest. He mentioned that Saskatchewan apparently now has full employment and are looking for people. It hink this is something they should have corrected years ago.

They have been losing people for many many years and now their population has decreased to this point where they now all of a sudden find themselves that they need more people and as a result have full employment, and If eel that, as B. C. , I think we should follow their course, that if further development of our natural resources and especially so the Nelson River, if the power is developed, I would think that we should be assured of markets too, before we make any development of that nature. As the member for Burrows pointed out, March 20th, 1964. Page 1353

(l\Ir. Froese cont 'd) . .. if nuclear power can be develope-d for less, !t hink this matter should be look ed into as well, so that before any action is taken, we know where we stand on the matter. MR. LISSAMAN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the member for Burrows a question. I caught a figure in the first of the speech that I could hardly credit. I think he said that we had 58 percent in excess of capacity than we were curr ently using -- did I understand him corr ectly? Well now Mr.

Chairman, this must then compel me to say a few words on the subject, because the Honourable Member for Burrows the other night sounded very sim ilar to this when he was speaking of lagoons. He sounds about as impressive and factual as science fiction does com pared to actual fiction.

There's enough truth in it to make you think that its plausible and workable, but when you get down to facts, the actual fact of the case is that no matter what the excess is over the normal curr ent usage of electricity, the actual excess that you must safely protect yourself on is the peaks of the consum ption of power within the province, because obviously on a severe winter night in January, then you're going to have the utmost use of electricity, and in this case I think the honourable member will find that the surplus shrinks to somewhere about 12-15 percent and this is accepted as pretty well the minimum in the industry, simply because it represents generally about the biggest machine on the line, and if you have that machine go out you could probably still get through.

I understand one of the utilities to the west took a bit of gambli ng and they had a machine go out, and by chance they discovered an airplane that could carry a part and fly it in, but one of their big machines was off the line for three_ months and the prime and first instruction given to Manitoba Hydro in this province is the adequate supply of hydro electric power to this province. Now if the memb er cafi b.e so far wrong in this point, then we must look with question upon a lot of the other statements that he made.

Now he's talking about comparing nuclear power to thermal and so on, and certainly the very very large thermo plants are getting down to produ cing power at quite acceptable and com petitive rates, but let me -- first of all I want to refer to where this material comes from. This was a speech given publicly by the chairman of the Manitoba Hydro to the Manitoba Electrical Association on January 23rd, and it is interesting to just see what Mr.

Stephens had to say about nuclear power: "A second possible course of action would be" -- and he's speaking about the various things that we must exam ine for sources of power in the province of Manitoba -- "a second possible source of action would be to secure our next substantial block of power, after Grand Rapids that is, from nuclear sources.

We have been following developments in this field rather closely and from am ong all the various means of getting power from the atom , we continue to be impressed by the Canadian system which involves the use of natural uranium for fueling, heavy water as the moderator and also as a coolant. The 25 meg awatt Ralston plant has been operating rather well.

The designers and builders of the Kando Reactor at Douglas Point on Lake Hur on seem to be quite encouraged to date by their experience with the 250 megawatt system but" -- listen to this -- "it will be a year or so yet before there is any actual operating experience available from the Douglas Point station. " Now obviously the Member for Burrows is away beyond these people, who are practi cally experimenting in trying to find out the cost.

Theoretically he has these figures all on paper and very impressive , and I think the Liberal group would be wise to send such an expert to Ottawa because he can certainly save the people of Canada a lot of money. In the meantime, the people who have been most closely associated -- oh, and I might interpolate here, interrupt myself. You will recall during the comm ittee meeting the other morning, the question was asked as to whether Manitoba Hydro were following the situation closely and did they have any experts.

Well the plain fact is that nuclear research, from what I can gather, is not a case of having one expert. This is a case for huge developments which go on -- are ca rried on by governments or by very large corporations such as in the United States, and where there·is probably a whole branch of research workers, experts on nuclear experimentation.

"In the meantime, the people who have been, " _-- I'm reading again -- "m ost closely associated with the Canadian Nuclear program have expressed considerable confidence that 500 megawatt units based essentially on the Kando design on the basis of 2-4 units per station might be installed at a cost of $235 per kilowatt and produce energy for a very high load factor operation at costs that would be com petitive with those applicable to very large conventional thermal units.

" Now when he questions the value of further investigation on the Nelson River we mu st just simply exam ine practical facts as they are and not be car ried away by any scientific dream Page 1354 March 20th, 1964.

(Mr. Lissama n, cont'd) ... that the Honourable Member for Burrows may have computed on paper, and that simply is this fact, that the Federal Government experts have evidenced their interest in this project and ce rtainly we are spending a lot of money on exploration but they have signified that interest to such an extent that they are willing to spend a lot more money to find out what is there .

Now if there were the slightest chance of the Member for Burrows' thinking being right, why it would be foolish to even spend this �xplorational money on the Ne lson, and more than this the Ontario Hydro system, which is as you know, experiment ing with nuclear and large thermal units , has ev idenced their interest to tie in with the exploration of the Nelson River, so Mr. Chair man, it would be ridiculous for this committee to be lieve that this is much more than sci ence fiction that the Honourable Member for Burrows is proposing to this House. MR. SMER CHANSKI: Mr.

Chairman, I don't think it's much of a sci ence fiction unless my honourable friend from Brandon would care to state that the Manitoba budget, which was presented by the First Minister, is scientific fiction. It might well be . It has to be according to the Honourable Member for Brandon. And then the other matter, Mr.

Chairman, again I say Twelfth An nual Report of the Manitoba Hydro Elec tric Board year ended March 31, 19 63, must also be part of this fictional sci ence propaganda, because in this report of the Manitoba Hydro Commi ssi on it says that the total amount of energy sold in terms of fuel hours consumed and sold and that's revenu e. Now these are the facts on which I make my comparison.

Now if the Honourable Member from Brandon feels that this is fictional science then I am very much concern ed about the fictional science that the First Minister of this province is trying to force upon us , because the figures which he sho:ws in his presen tation are 5, 565, 442 kilowatt hours expre ssed in thousands. The An nual Report says that the total amount used is 3, 241, 300 expressed in thousands. Now you co mpare that and that's a difference of .... MR. STEINKOPF: Where 's that figure? What page? MR . SMER CHA NSKI: On page 4 of your Statistical Highlight in your An nual Report. MR .

STEINKOPF: ....... ... nine . MR. SMER CHANSKI: I don't follow you as to what page 9 has to do with the statistical comparison of actual facts which I'm replying to the Honourable Minister from Brandon and that this is not fictional science, because on the one hand the First Minister of the province makes a statement which I would hope to think is actual fact, and I would also hope to think that the Annual Report prepared by the Hydro is an actual fact and this is the comparison I used.

Now this is not fictional scien ce, and as far as the rest of the matter of peak loads, peak consumption and so forth, I appreciate what he is talking about and I think that here 's where I'll take my hat off possi bly to the First Minister in that he did make allowance for peak loads and peak consum ption in his present ation of the budget. He is quite right in that point, and therefore if you put the label of fictional sci ence on me I think you will have to put the label of fictional science on him. And the other part, Mr.

Chairman, is that when we are talking about the Point Douglas reactor, there was a news report in the Telegram Staff Reporter and it's captioned: "A Light is Dawning in Ontario ," and this was a visit that went through the nuclear plant at the time of its initial opening.

And this is the figure where I used, together with the Ontario Hydro Com missi on that prepared a special booklet on nuclear power demonstration and production, and this is where the actual fact is that it's $407. 00 per kilowatt on a capital cost, and the other is based on figures that are be ing quoted by General Elec tric and Wes tinghouse today which have been followed through on very competent figures, and these are $1 30. 00 per kilowatt per capital cost -- one-t hird.

Nobody can deny these and all I simply do is that -- if you read my prelimi nary remarks on the Nelson River Project, you have put in a lot of adjectives and adverbs into it which are not so. You read it and all I'm trying to do is to bring to the attention of this gover ment to be fully aware of what is taking place, because I feel this is something that I should rightfully do and this is all I'm endeavouring to do, Mr. Chairman. MR . USSA MAN: Mr.

Chairman, I think I see where the honourable memb er has rather made an error and I think it springs from not taking cognizance of his own figure of 58 percent surplus, because costs in all these stations must be assessed on the basis of a high load factor that's continual production. How he 's admitted that at tim es we have a surplus of 58 percent, so it means that a very expensive machine sometimes is only producing to 58 capaeity, and March 20th, 1964. Page 1355

(Mr. Liss aman, cont'd) ... then he averages the cost through that to get this high mill rate which is certainly, I would suggest, not the way in which he figures his atomic producer that he designed on paper.

I might go on to say further in relationship to hydro thermal production, this might be of interest to the honourable member: "The position of Ontario Hydro, as it has been made known to date, is the best utility ......... prepared to do some expe rimenting with 500 mega- watt nuclear units if the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario would jointly provide something well over one-half the capital cost of the station.

This is another way of saying, I presume, that as of today's vantage point Ontario Hydro is not prepared on its own to embark upon a large nuclear project or that as of today this sort is not sufficiently developed to stand on its own feet and compete against alternative sources of energy for power utility purposes. " And this is based on the operations of the Ontario Hydro and from the viewpoint of a hydro man. MR. SMER CHANSKI: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabour the fact.

Al l I'm going to say to the honour�ble member from Brandon is that when he says mill rate of high cost, there is only one way that you can compare this and this is on the amount of consumption versus the amount of revenue that you've sold it, and this is the same basis that I'm comparing it with the Ontario Hydro Commi ssion.

Now if the method of comparison might be slightly out on the Manitoba An nual Statement, you are comparing it on the same basis with the Ontario Annual Statement, so that those errors are allowed in both situations, and on a weighed basis this is a fair comparison, plus the fact that this is further subs tantiated by the actual fact of comparing the figures where bills were sbumitted to the Ontario Hydro and costed out in com parison to the costing out that was carried out by the Manitoba Hydro Commi ssion, and they are in comparison with each other. MR.

LISSA MAN: I propose that this isn 't a fair method of comparison that the honourable member has used because I would presu me, and I think members would agree with me, that because Ontario is a very highly industrialized province , that the load factor in Ontario would be much greater than the load factor in Manitoba, and so to compare them on dollars and cemts receipts and power generated is not a fair way of asses sing the mill cost, in my opinion. MR. SMERC HANSKI: But then, Mr.

Chairma n, all that the Honourable Member for Brandon is saying is that our power in Manitoba is more expensive than the power in Ontario and this is all l' m trying to say. MR. LISSAMAN: The method of comparison is not quite fair. MR. SMERCHANSKI: Mr. Chairman, might I take a little time to give a little illustra tion to my honourable friend from Brandon. I have before me here a bill from the Manitoba Hydro Comm ission on which we have consumed 61, 440 kilowatt hours and. you've got 4 x 6 blocks of power on a graduating scale .

The same bill was sent to Ontario and their reply was - now the cost in Manitoba was $57 0. 76 to the cent; from Ontario we got a report that this cost on thE! same comparable basis $396 .9 0, and it says: "This type of a load, if you owned your own step-down facilities, there would be a further allowance made so that your net bill would then become $343 . 33. " The only thing is that the step-down facility is provided by Hydro in this instance and therefore we have to take the figure of $39 6. 90. Now if that isn't a 30 percent reduction I don't know what is then. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. MR. MOLGA T: Mr. Chairman, before we leave the matter of the Hydro, I'd like to say a few things about the Nelson River Development, and in fact about the Hydro matters in the Province of Manitoba, because you know, Mr. Chairman, as we sit here in this House, we find my honourable friends across the way, whenever something is not too good or something that they want to evade,_ you notice that they immediately blame this side of the House -- I should say this corner of the House -- and notably they blame my honourable friend the Member for Lakeside.

They say: "Well, you remember those days. Nothing was done and there was no action in those days," and so on. Whenever anything is, in their opinion, favourable, they want to take full credit for the whole thing. And nowhere is this more noticeable , Mr. Chairman, than in this matter of Nelson power . I want to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that you and I and the other members of this House were involved in an elec tion campaign a little over a year ago. You remember that one , Mr. Page 1356 March 20th, 1964 .

(Mr. Molgat, cont'd) ... Chairman. You remember the First Minister was playing little games at that time. You know his cute little under-t he-table political games that he likes so much to do. Down here in La Verendrye cons tituency where he was enticing certain members to run, where he was going to call two by-e lections at the time rather than three because he thought there was some political gain for him in the situation. When that little cute ploy of his didn't work out, what did my honourable friend the First Minister do? .

Well, he got annoyed, short tempered, as he's wont to do, proceeded to call a general el ection. Mr. Chair ma n, what was the reason for his general elec tion then? What was the basis of it? We ll, according to his own statements -- not mine, Mr. Chairman, his own -- it was going to be "Cheap Electricity is Elec tion Issue -- Roblin's Plan. Roblin gives details of cheap power plan. " This was going to be the issue of the campaign. He asked the voters to give him the green light to go ahead now with Nelson River Development, and so on. This was the purpose and the main basis of the elect ion. We ll, Mr.

Chairman, I think it's time that the record was set straight in this House, and that this constant ballyhoo and publicity by my friends opposite be put out clearly so far as the people of Manitoba are concerned. Mr. Chairman, I want to say at the outset that I' m not opposed to the deve lopment of the Nelson River project. I think that properly engineered, properly developed, properly planned, as long as there are markets, as long as all the details are worked out, it's an excell ent plan. But I want to make it very clear; Mr. Chairman, that this didn't develop because of my honourable friends opposite .

One need only to go back, and I notice , Mr. Chairman, that the First Minister has evidenced a great deal of interest in research.

It's unfortunate that he is more interested in other people doing research than in doing some himsel f, because if he had been prepared to do some research and give the people of Manitoba the facts , the full facts, and not just a part of the facts or the part that he likes to demonstrate, he would have said to the people of Manitoba that back in 19 48, the Manitoba Government of the day -- the Manitoba Government that was later headed, I don't think he was the premier at that time, but very shortly after that, by my colle ague the Member for Lakeside -- that the Hogg Report was commiss ioned at that time, and it reported at that time to the Honourable Stuart Garson, the Premier of the Province.

And it was a very good report, Mr. Chair man. It went through the whole matters of power development and power production in the Province of Manitoba. And I quote , for example, from Page 3 of that report, and I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that this is 19 48, 19 48, quite a few years ago, and it says, "The lakes and rivers of Manitoba are probably the most marked physical feature of the province . Two of the largest river systems, the Nelson and the Churchill drain an area of 557, 000 square miles, or an area more than twice as large as that of the province ," and so on.

Then later on , same page, "The rivers flowing into and from Lake Winnipeg together with the Churchill River are the source of most of the potential hydro elect ric power resources of the province. These two river systems, the Nelson and the Church ill, are capable of producing between three and four million horsepower, depending upon the stage of river discharge." A little later on, "The important sources of potential hydro elect ric power in Manitoba are concentrated on four main river systems, namely, the Winnipeg, the Nelson, the Churchill and Saskatchewan-Dauphin systems.

" I'm not going to read all of the report, Mr. Chairman, although it would make excellent reading and I commend it to the First Minister -- I think if he would read it and do some of his research that he would find in here a great deal of useful material, material that I think, Mr. Chairma n, he should tell the people of Manitoba because after all he should tell the people of Manitoba, Mr. Chairman, the full facts. He shouldn't be superficial in his approach. He should make sure that when he makes a statement to the people of Manitoba, and particularly, Mr.

Chairman, when he calls an el ec tion in Manitoba on the subject, that he at least be fair to the people of Manitoba and give them all of the facts. So , skipping through the report, but neverthe less picking on page 20, "In future planning hydro elec tric development for Manitoba, it is vitally important the great value of Lake Winnip eg, Winnipegosis and Manitoba as regulating reserv oirs making possible the greatest utilization of the power resources of the Winni peg, Nelson and Churchill Rivers be kept constan tly in mind.

" And then further on at that time the Hogg recommended the development of the Dauphin River project in conjunction with the Saskatchewan River. "Next in the line of develop ment, depending upon industrial and mining requirements are the power site of the-Nelson and March 20th, 1964. Page 1357

(Mr. Molgat, cont'd) ... Churchill Rive:r:s, each capable of generating from 50, 000 to 250, 000 horsepower, with from two million to two and one half million horsepo wer available on the Nelson River and over a million horsepower available in the Churchill River the power require ments can be met for some years to come, providing the organization and planning are conducted on a sound basis. " Mr. Chairman, this is back in 1948 . 1948 is the date of that report. Mr. Chairman, what went on after that?

Well, this report recommended a complete overhaul and re-organization of the power industry in the Province of Manitoba. .And my coll eague , the present Member for Lakeside proceeded with this re- organization. This was done in the period 1950 to 1952 , and at that time there were special sessi ons of Legislature called. My honourable friend the First Minister can't say that he doesn't know about this because he was a member of the House at that time, Mr. Chairman. He sat in the House then and he knows full well the facts about the situation.

And, the then government re-o rganized power production in the Province of Manitoba. True , it didn't go exactly according to Plan C, which was developed on the basis of the Hogg Report -- there were some difficulties that arose -- but nevertheless the power was reorganized and the whole of the Winnipeg River sys tem was co -ordinated into a sound plan. Mr.

Chairman, it was very ev ident at that stage, and it was quite clear in the plan of the Hydro Elec tric Board and the Government of Manitoba that the next stages would be either Grand Rapids or the Dauphin River deve lopment, both of which basically are the same arrangement, because one is simply diverting the waters of the Saskatchewan into the northern end of Lake Winnipegosis and then using the Dauphin River - it's the same water basically that you 're dealing with. Neverthe less those were the plans. And that beyond that, of cours e, based on the Hogg report, WOLlld be the Nelson.

We ll, then my friend's and his then colle agues in Ottawa had a great deal to say, Mr. Chairman, about a "national power grid" -- remember that one . So much was made about a national power grid in Canada and the great pot ential for northern development, and all that could be done on a national power grid. Mr. Chairman, who originated the idea of a national power grid in Canada? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say that the man who originated the idea, who first announced it, was my coll eague, the Member for Lakeside . And I get fed up in this House , Mr.

Chairman, when I hear the members across the way constantly berating my colle ague and his government of the day for having done nothing. Because let me read to you, Mr. Chairman, what was said back in 1957 at a Dominion-Provincial Conference by the Honourable Douglas Campbell, Premier of Manitoba. And here was his statement at that conferenc e. I'm not going to read all of the state ment; I'm reading only the portion, and these are pages 47 ,4 8 and 49 of the report.

I commend it to my honourable friend the First Minister as basiC research, background material that he should check into before he gets up and makes statements on the Province of Manitoba. Here is the statement: "One important remaining area where such a national development policy could be applied is in the electrical power field.

In the entire southern half of our country a rapid growth in power requirements has almost exhausted nearby sources of hydro elect ric power and is forcing many areas to consider a much greater use of thermo power, yet the northern half of Canada still has a very subs tantial hydro elec tric power potential.

One has only to mention Mica Creek, Frobisher and the Rocky Mountain Trench in British Columbi a,· the Saskatchewan Rivers in Al berta and Saskatchewan, the Nelson and Churchill Rivers in Manitoba, the numerous streams running into the Hudson's Bay in Ontario and Queb ec , and the Hamilton River in Labrador, to emphasize the truth of this statement. At the present time these power sources are not being developed because they are so far from our centres of population.

Studies by Manitoba's own experts, however, indicate that if subs tantial blocks of the power available on the Nelson could be brought to southern Manitoba, even the cos tly transmission facilities would eventually be highly economic . These studies show that a 75 percent load would enable this northern power to compete with alternative sources .

In the ten to fifteen years needed to build the load up to this leve l, however, the carrying charges on these trans mission lines would be so heavy that unless subs tantial government help was forth coming our utilities could not afford to finance them and would instead be forced to turn to thermo power sources. Moreover as additional thermo stations are constructed, their very existence might serve to delay the development of these northern power resources indefinitely. "We suggest, Mr.

Prime Minister, that a sound development policy in this field would be one in which your government would undertake to construct in areas where they would become Page 1358 March 20th, 1964 . I

(Mr. Molgat, cont'd) ... econo mic, long distant elect rical power transmission lines over which power could be transmitted on a toll basis , the toll to be set at a level which would cover inter est and carrying charges once the line was being used at 75 percent of capacity. In the mean time, during the period of de mand build-up , the federal government would meet these charges. If such a proposal were implemented it is possible to visualize a vast el ectric power grid which would eventually be interconnected from the At lantic to the Pacific . Such a policy would have many advantages.

The construc tion of these transmissi on facilities by making possible the earlier development of the power resources in the north would give a sharp stimulus to the development of northern Canada. It would hasten the utilization of one of our remaining undeveloped natural resources ; a resource which is completely renewable and now simply runs to waste. With the federal government's .role restricted to the ownership of the transmission facilities, the decisi on as to whether private or public interest should generate and distribute the power could be left in provincial hands .

By he lping to promote uniform standards of trans missi on this policy would ultimately facilitate the interconnection of our many Canadian power systems. Our experts in this field have suggested that such a scheme might well involve the construc tion at different points across Canada of 3, 000 to 5, 000 miles of north to south trans mission line at a cost ranging from $500 million to $750 million. Construc tion over a period of ten years would involve an expenditure of from $50 million to $75 million a year.

We believe this proposal to be so important that we intend to send immediately a copy of my re· marks on this subject to Mr. Borden, the Chairman of the Royal Commi ssion recent ly appointed to inquire into the power .field. A number of these northern power sites involve very large expenditures in the cons truction of dams and other facilities, and consideration should be given to providing federal assistance for these very costly projects during the early load building period.

In this connection Manitoba has noted with interest the recent announcement conce rning federal aid to the Beachwood project in New Brunswick, the South Saskatchewan Dam in Saskatchewan, and also the statement of government policy regarding the Mica Creek project in British Columbia. We assume that similar federal assis tance will be available for projects underway or soon to be undertaken in Manitoba." And that, Mr. Cha irman, was the then Premier of Manitoba, the Honourable Douglas Campbell, the present Member for Lakeside, spe aking at the Dominion-Provincial Conference in 19 57. Mr.

Chair man, could there be any clearer statement of power deve lopment here in Manitoba on the Nelson and Churchill watersheds ? But further than that the policy re com mended of a national power grid. What do we find now, Mr. Chairman? My honourable friends opposite cl aiming this all for themselves. They dreamt it up. This just hatched itself, Mr. Chairman, right in my little friend's head all by itself at the time when his, you know his cute little political play didn't work out. So what do we find, Mr. Chairman? He calls an elect ion. And what are his state ments in that election?

What did he say at that time? Well , Pm quoting now from the Tribune of Nove mber 13th: "Low cost elect ric power for Manitoba's housewives, farmers and factories has emerged as one of the main issues in the Provincial elec tion campaign. " Just out of the blue. "This was apparent today when Pre mier Duff Roblin el aborated a little on his campaign-launching televis ion speech of Monday night which outlined his Govern ment's record but gave few details of what he planned for his next term if re-elected.

Monday night he pro mised 'important measures to insure low cost elec tric power in Manitoba until the end of the present century. 1 TorJ.ay he said he was referring to the planned $800 million development of power sites on the Nelson River. He said it was possible such a project could ·be started in time to see power pulsing southward to the Winnipe g area within the next four years with Federal help. " Mr. Chairman, the same thing hag been said -- this was 1962 -- yes, the same thing had been said, Mr. Chairman, several years before that back in 1958 by the then-p re mier of the province.

The same thing had been said, Mr. Chair man, some 12 to 14 ye ars before that by the Hogg report but the main point, said Mr. Roblin, is for the voters to decide if we should start on the project. Mr. Roblin has stated he ranks Nelson power in the same high category as education and social welfare." Then we have another one , Mr. Chairman, on the 20th of Nove mber, where he says, or at least he's quoted: "He asked voters to give him the green light to go ahead now with Nelson River power development. The first stage of field March 20th, 1964. Page 1359

(Mr. Molgat, cont'd) ... investigation would cost a million dollars and the seco nd stage three to five million. " Mr. Chairman, at that time, my honourable friend was not being truthful to the people of Manitoba. He had not done his research, Mr. Chairman, because he didn't tell the people of Manitoba that this had been a long range plan in the province , that it dated back to 1948 , the time of the Hogg report; that step by step it had been imple mented by his predecessor in this House and by his predecessor in the Government of Manitoba. But worse still, Mr.

Chairman, he wasn't being truthful to the people of Manitoba, in that at that very time, in fact some mo nths before that, he had already committed himsel f to the Federal Govern ment He was saying at-this time, "Give me the mandate to proceed with the Nelson River power developme nt, " but I have the letter here , Mr. Chairman, dated Septe mber 21 , 196 2, from my honourable friend opposite to the then Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Honourable John D.

Diefenbaker, Sept. 21, 19 62, and it says, "My Dear Prime Minister: You will recall certain discuss ions and corres pondence which we have had regarding the Nelson River 'power potential in Manitoba and the extent to which it's early development must depend upon long distance transmission.

Foll owing upon your conference on long distance transmission on March 19th I have had discussi ons with several of your colleagues in the government, and arising out of these our officials have had discussi ons with Federal officials with respect to mapping and other technic al aspects which require investigation before an overall economic appraisal could be made. I now enclose a brief submissi on which I make on behalf of the Government of Manitoba.

I'm sure you will find this submissi on to be in harmony with the views which you have frequently expressed, and that it reflects what you had in mind when you addressed the conference on March 19t h and when you spoke in Winnipeg some weeks later." Well there was considerable delay, Mr.

Chairman, between that and the reply of the then Prime Minister, I must confess that the previous Prime Minister didn't reply as quickly as the present Prime Minister because my honourable friend was in Ottawa on Wednesday and asked three questions and he had the m answered today, but in this particular case he wrote on Septe mber 21 st and he got a reply on January 16 th of the following year: "I refer to your letter of Septe mber 21 st in which you transmitted the submissi on" and so on, and the Prime Minister indicates that they are prepared to go ahead. So Mr.

Chairman, my honourable friend back in Septe mber had made a submission to the government in Ottawa, he outlined what the province was prepared to do, and yet in the month of Nove mber he's calling an elec tion supposedly to get a mandate to develop the Nelson River power project. Mr. Chairman, I say to my honourable friend, be frank with the people of Manitoba. Don't try and fool them. Don't attempt at elec tion time to get up and give them just part of the facts . Give them the full facts.

Tell them that this business of power production in Manitoba is a long-range development, that it started back in 1948 at the time of the Hogg report, it was imple mented by your predece ssors , and that you are continuing that; and Mr. Chairman, if my honourable friend would be prepared to make that sort of a statement, the people of Manitoba would be prepared to have more con fidence in my honourable friend than they have at this time. MR. ROBL IN: I would suspect, Mr. Chairman, that my honourable friend the Leader of the Oppos ition is almost inviting me to take some

part in this little discussi on we've had on power, and I gather from the edge in his voice, an edge which I'm happy to say is usually absent when he take s

part in these debates, I gather that there is something under his skin. It seems to me that some of the procee dings of this House with respect to our debate registered in his mind in a way just a little more emphatic than usual, and I rather gathered from what he had to say that there was something biting him and he wants to get it off his chest, and he thought tonight would be a good chance to do so and .he has repeated what be has said on other occasions about the Hogg report, the Nelson River, and other things like that.

Of course you know that the point he is making is hardly worth all the effort he put into it, but seeing he made it, I haven't the sl ightest objec tion in disc ussing it with him, because he produces the Hogg report in his com, ments on the Nelson River as if he'd found something. He produces it as if he had discoven ; d a piece of information which was not public information in Manitoba for many years and which it was perhaps ·wrong of me not to have spoken about, even though it was in the public domain for all these 12 years, 14 years, or what since Dr. -Hogg's report ..

Well I've got news for him, because the ques tion of the Nelson River and the power of the Nelson and the power of the Page 1360 March 20th, 1964.

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd) ... Saskatchewan wasn't invented by Dr. Hogg any more than it was invented by me. It has been a com mon fact, well- known by anybody who takes any interest in elec trical development. I'm willing to bet it was a fact well -known to the Honourable Member for Burrows for many, many years. It's well- known to me; it's well -known to other members of this House; it's in the public domain.

There 's no question about it -- (Interject ion) --Well I don't think Henry Kelsey did, because I'm afraid that Farraday hadn't got quite so far with twirling his magnet when Henry Kelsey was roving around, so we can't really say that it goes back that far, but neverthe less it goes back quite far enough for my honourable friend to have no embarrasment whatsoever in bringing the subject up. Everybody knows about it. All right.

Well, my honourable friend doesn't listen to my speeche s, except the one I made the other day -- he evidently" listened to that one , and I'm glad to see that that registered, but I can see that it may produce useful results yet and if it does my time the other afternoon was not entirely wasted. But let me go on to deal with this matter.

I want to say there is a great difference between talking and doing, and in connecti on with the development of our northern rivers I think I may fairly say -- and I don't say this as any direct criticism of the former Leader of the Oppos ition or the former Leader of this House -- but there is a great difference between talking and doing. Now when we came into office there was no decis ion made for the development of hydro elect ric power on the Saskatchewan River. No decisi on made . That river had been flowing down that bed for centuries. Everybody knew it had a power potential.

Studies had been put forward to estim ate what power was available and how m:.�ch it would cost and a great deal of work had been done but no decisi ons had been made to develop that river. One of the first decisi ons that my colleagues and I had to make was whether or not the Nelson or the Saskatchewan River would be developed or whether we should have recourse to a re latively small thermo power unit, because Ipoint out to members of this House that in the development of hydro elec tric power in this province , after the Winnipeg River had been pretty fully developed, the next projects were thermal units .

They weren't hydro rivers at all; they were thermal units . They were developed at Brandon; they were developed at Se lkirk; and there had been no decis ion made to develop the rivers of northern Manitoba. And I can say, beyond any fear of contradiction, that it was this adminis tration that " did" in respect of the deve lopment of hydro power on the Saskatchewan River. We had to make that decision and we made it.

I say that because when I came into office my co lleagues and I were informed by the Manitoba Hydro Board that no decision had been made respec ting that, and they asked us what the decision ought to be . Now we worked -- and I must be frank about this -- we worked very closel y on the figures and the information presented to us by them. We relied very heavily indeed upon the technical advice we got; but when the chips were down it was the cabinet of this government that had to dec ide whether or not the Saskatchewan River should be developed.

Now we didn't claim to invent the power on the Saskatchewan River but we do claim to have made the decision to develop it, and that is the whole difference be tween my honourable friend's . case and mine . That is the whole differen ce . He laughs. The Saskatchewan River , the river of northern Manitoba the Nelson River, has been running down to the sea for ages. It was in Dr. Hogg's report. It's been in many other studies long before Dr.

Hogg came along, but we were the people who had to make the decisi on as to whether we should proceed with this expensi ve -- and I think they're expensive in terms of millions of dollars -- these expens ive studies to develop that river. We had to make that decisi on and we had a right, I think, to ask the people of Manitoba to give us a mandate to do so . My honourable friend quotes a letter from myself to the former Federal Prime Minister, making some sugges tions in this respect. I don't deny that. That's true.

I also say that long before any pub lic statement was made by me, we had many studies into the Nelson. Of course . We had to; and we had to sound out all the possible courses of action in that respect. What other sensible course could we take? We had to est ablish the basis for our decision, and we had to make a proposal, and we had to have some idea as to whether there was a reasonable pros pect of going ahead with that, and that we did and that took time.

When we had made up our minds about that and when we had decided what to do, it was a matter which we did place before the people , among others, in the course of that gene ral elect ion, and we did say that if all went well in these studies that we were making within the four years -- and I think I can still say that -- within the four years from that time we hoped to be bLtilding on the Nelson RiveF so what's March 20th, 1964. Page 1361

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd) ... wrong with that? The essential dillerence between my honourable friend and me is that we had the res ponsibility of making the decisi ons about what to do and making the decisi ons to do something, and that's precisely what happened, and we made the decisi ons and we asked the people to support us in the decisions that we made . · Now I'm not claiming, either, to have invented the national grid. The national grid had been talked about long before the Honourable Member for Lakeside made his presentation to the Federal Government of that day. I think he made a good presen tation.

I had the privilege of reading it after he made it and on several occ asions, and I am quite willing to hand him whatever credit there is due to him for making that proposal at that federal-p rovincial confer ence. I don't think he would claim that he invented the idea but he is cer tainly entitled to take the credit for having made the proposal. I'm going to give him more credit than that.

I'm going to say that one of the most outstanding developments in public affairs in this province is the development of the Manitoba Hydro itself insofar as it serves rural Manitoba, and I think one must in fairness say that the architect of that policy was the Honourable Member for Lakeside . I have always given him the full credit for that, and I think the people have too, and this is a monument to his foresight in the development of power in this province and no one should try and take that away from him .

Cer tainly I will not, and I'll be happy to accord to him the full credit for having been the author of what has been a most valuable public development in this p1�ovince and I think everyone in this committee would do the same. But coming back to the point here , the point as to whether or not we were responsible for having taken the action in these matters . There can be no dispute about it, we were . At the time he made his proposal, the Province of Manitoba was doing nothing in this matter. I pass no judgment on that. There were circumstances at that time.

The Federal Government of those days did not accept his proposal as far as I know. I never heard of any suggestion on their part that they would take up his idea and proceed with this national grid. So we. were in a situation there when proposals had been made all right but no decision to take action followed. That's where we come in because we had to take those responsibilities and those decisi ons .

And I say to my honourable friend that the facts that I gave to the people of Manitoba at the· time of the general elect ions are facts which are completely accurate, there's no question about that; that we had been in the thermal power generation business to a large extent; before we came in we- had to make the decision as to whether or not to go ahead with Saskatchewan. We made it and the plant will be producing power this year. We had to make the decision as to whether to proceed on the Nelson.

We made it, and we asked the people to confirm that this decision was wise, because even at that time and even today, let's not underestim ate this, even today we do not know for certain whether we are going to develop the Nelson. We haven't sold kilowatt of power from the Nelson River and until we have sold that in sufficient quantity to make it an econ omically viable proposition, no one can stand up and claim that the Nelson is going to be built. I think it will, but I have to wait until all the facts are in.

But we are going to spend several millions of dollars·in conjunc tion with the Federal Government and with the Hydro itself for this particular matter, and I'll be interested to see how my honourable friend decides to vote when that particular item of capital expenditure does come up, for the deve lopment of the Nelson. So my feelings on this are perfectly clear. I feel that even though he did lose the elect ion, it is perfectly true he did lose it, he lost it quite decisivel y , when we get down to the facts of the matter, and the government was returned.

And I venture to say that the people of Manitoba have just about the same confidence in the Government of Manitoba as they had at the time of that election. We are going to find out one of these days whether they have or not but I fancy the situation hasn't changed very much at the present time -- (Interject ion) -- We ll, I'll admit it gets a littl� cold when you 're campaigning at that time of the year. But I just want to get back to these charges that my honourable friend likes to make about Dr. Hogg and who thought of the Nelson and all that kind of thing . No question in the world.

Many many people knew about the Nelson and its possibilities . No ques tion in the world. I don't dispute that my predecessor tried to interest the Federal Government in the development of these northern rivers . It's a fact, it's on the record; I never said it wasn't on the record, for it wasn't so. But I do say that we are the people who decided to act on it. That is where we rest our case and that I think is indisputable. Page 1362 Jlilarch 20th, 1964,

MR. MOLGA T: Mr. Chairman, at the time that the previous government was in office, there was no need for the Grand Rapids Power Development. The previous government pro ceeded to build the ther mal units on the recommendations that were made then.

In fact, if my honourable friend will re member, he sat in Public Acc ounts Com mittee and we then ques tioned the Chairman of the Hydro Elect ric Board, still the present chairman, on whether we should proceed with thermal deve lopment rather than with further hydro development at that time and he explained in great detail to the Commi ttee that thermal development in the Province of Manitoba would permit better use of the hydro development and my honourable friend then voted for it. So let him not come now in this House, Mr. Chairman, and say that he had to make the great decision. Mr.

Chairman, the whole point in power development in Manitoba is that under the Hydro Elect ric Board and under the studies that were made and the preparation that was made by the previous government and by the Hydro Elect ric Board this was all planned very long into the future, and that the Grand Rapids or the Dauphin project, as I mentioned in the Hogg report, were matters that were clearly outlined for development as the need arose. There was no need at that time for the government to make a decision.

In fact if the govern ment had proceeded with.the Grand Rapids deve lopment at that time, they would have been wasting money because they would have gone into it before it was needed. And Mr. Ch airman, I think there is some doubt in the minds of a lot of people whether this government didn't jump into the Grand Rapids project before they needed to. There is some doubt when you look at the costs in some of the matters that we brought up in this House last year whether this govern ment didn't push the Hydro Elect ric Board into this project a year before it was planned by them. MR. ROBLIN: Of course Mr.

Chairman, my honourable friend can't have it both ways. Either the situation was planned by the Hydro Elect ric Board and they made the decision themselves as he said in one breath -- or as he says in the other breath, we made up their minds for them and pushed them into something they didn't want to do. Well, I want to tell him that we had two proposi tions put before us , one for thermal development, one for Grand Rapids.

Both had their merits but we had to decide and we decided on Grand Rapids and not on thermal; and we did so because we thought that this would be best in the interests of devel oping our northern country and best in the deve loping of the interests of the province as a whole . My honourable friend stands up and makes these statements of which he can have no possi ble knowledge because he did not sit in the cabinet where these decisions were made and I very much doubt if anybody who did sit in that cabinet room in those days confides in him in these particular matters .

He's talking without his brief; he doesn't know what happened; he's ignorant of the fact and yet he has no hes itation in standing up here and dec laring in a most emphatic manner what his vers ion of events are. We ll, I simply have to tell him that the facts are as I stated them and they are the facts that are -- the recipes are on the record as far as our cabinet decisions are concerned. There is no ques tion about it.

And he can stand up and he can make all the observations and statements that he wishes but he can't get away from who.t actually happened, because like the Honourable Member from Burrows -- I see he 's not there -- he would probably say, "I know" -- what's the famous expression? "I know what I'm talking about, "h e says. We ll, in this particular instance, I think I can claim that I know what I was talking about because I was very closely involved in the decis ions that were made. So my honourable friend the Leader of the Oppos ition will have to start all over again and find something else to complain about. MR.

MOLG AT: Mr. Chai rman, we strongly recommended to the government last year that they have a full inves tigation in this matter. My honourable friend was very careful not to do this . MR. ROBLIN: I certainly am vary careful in what I do and I want to say this that I have great confidence in the management of the Hydro Board and in the affairs that they conduct - great confidence.

If I felt that we didn't have that confidence I'm sure I would be recommending some changes in that particular respect but I have confidence in that board and I sugge st my honourable friend would be well advised to share some of that confidence with me . They are not perfect; we are not perfect. We all make mistakes but under the circu mstances of the March 20th, 1964. Page 1363

(Mr. Roblin, cont'd) ... deve lopment of these state projects I am satisfied and I be lieve most people are satisfied that all things consi dered, the Manitoba Hydro Board have done a good job; have continued to do a good job; deserve our confidence. They have my confidence and if they carry on in the way that they have in the past and the way that they are doing in the present, they will have our confidence in the future . MR. MOLGA T: Mr. Cha irman, we have never said that we didn't have confidence in the Hydro Board -- (Interjecti on) -- Never, never !

You look back on the record; you find once when we said we didn't have confidence. Mr. Chairman, I have confidence in the Hydro Board but I don't have confidence in the decisi ons made by this government. My honourable friend just admitted that it wasn't the Hydro Board that made the decision; it was the government who made the decision. And I say if they're so certain about their facts then let them have a full investigation as they said they would last year. MR . ROBLIN: Mr. Chair man, the government accepts respons ibility for policy decis ions in connection with Hydro.

That's the point that I've been trying to drum into the head of my honourable friend over these past few days when he's been

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	27-2-51
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	27th 2nd hansardpdf 51.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a0d402225f93003d15ce45467fb98c124def2c83

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