Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 128 (30th Legislature, 2nd Session)

30-2-128

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Speaker The Honourable Peter Fox 'ol.XXll No.128 2:30p.m., Friday,June13th,1975. Second Session, 30th Legislature. Printed by R. S. Evans - Queen's Printer for Province of Manitoba

Electoral Division Name Political Address Postal Affiliation Code ARTHUR J. Douglas Watt P.C. Reston, Man. ROM lXO ASSINIBOIA Steve Patrick Lib. 10 Red Roblin Pl., Winnipeg R3J 3L8 BIRTLE-RUSSELL Harry E. Graham P.C. Binscarth, Man. RO.I OOO BRANDON EAST Hon. Leonard S. Evans NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 BRANDON WEST Edward McGill P.C. 2228 Princess Ave., Brandon R7B OH9 BURROWS Hon. Ben Hanuschak NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 CHAR LESWOOD Arthur Moug P.C. 29 Willow Ridge Rd., Winnipeg R3R 1L5 CHURCHILL Les Osland NOP 66 Radisson Blvd., Churchill ROB OEO CRESCENTWOOD Vacant DAUPHIN Hon.

Peter Burtniak NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova ELMWOOD Hon. Russell J. Doern NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 EMERSON Steve Derewianchuk NOP Vita, Manitoba ROA 2KO FLIN FLON Thomas Barrow NOP Cranberry Portage, Man. ROB OHO FORT GARRY L.R . (Bud) Sherman P.C. 86 Niagara St., Winnipeg R3N OT9 FORT ROUGE Lloyd Axworthy Lib. 132 Osborne St. S., Winnipeg R3L 1Y5 GIMLI John C. Gottfried NOP 44 - 3rd Ave .• Gimli, Man. ROC lBO GLADSTONE James R. Ferguson P.C. Gladstone, Man. RO.I OTO INKSTER Hon. Sidney Green, 0.C. NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 KILDONAN Hon.

Peter Fox NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 LAC DU BONNET Hon. Sam Uskiw NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 LAKESIDE Harry J. Enns P.C. Woodlands, Man. ROC 3HO LA VERENDRYE Bob Banman P.C. Steinbach, Man. ROA 2AO LOGAN William Jenkins NOP 1294 Erin St., Winnipeg R3E 2S6 MINNEDOSA David Blake P.C. I Minnedosa, Man. RO.I lEO MORRIS Warner H. Jorgenson P.C. Morris, Man. ROG 1KO OSBORNE Hon. Ian Turnbull NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova PEMBINA George Henderson P.C. Manitou, Man. ROG lGO POINT DOUGLAS Donald Malinowski NOP 23 Coralberry Ave., Winnipeg R2V 2P2 PORTAGE LA PRAIRIE Gordon E.

Johnston Lib. 26-120-6th St., S.E., Portage la Prairie, Man. R1N 1E8 RADISSON Harry Shafransky NOP 4 Maplehurst Rd., Winnipeg R2J 1W8 RHINELAND Arnold Brown P.C. Winkler, Man. ROG 2XO RIEL Donald W. Craik P.C. 3 River Lane, Winnipeg R2M 3Ya RIVER HEIGHTS Sidney Spivak, O.C. P.C. Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 ROBLIN J. Wally McKenzie P.C. Inglis, Man. RO.I OXO ROCK LAKE Henry J. Einarson P.C. Glenboro, Man. ROK OXO ROSSMERE Hon. Ed. Schreyer NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 RUPERTSLAND Hon. Harvey Bostrom NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 ST. BONIFACE Hon. L.L.

Desjardins NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 ST. GEORGE Hon. Bill Uruski NOP 10th fir., 330 Portage Ave., Wpg. R3C OC4 ST. JAMES George M inaker P.C. 318 Ronald St., Winnipeg R3J 3J8 ST. JOHNS Saul Cherniack, 0.C. NOP 333 St. Johns Ave., Winnipeg R2W 1H2 ST. MATTHEWS Wally Johannsen NOP 418 Home St., Winnipeg R3G 1X4 ST. VITAL D.J. Walding NOP 26 Hemlock Place, Winnipeg R2H 1L7 STE. ROSE A.R. (Pete) Adam NOP Ste. Rose du Lac, Man. ROL 1SO SELKIRK Hon. Howard Pawley NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 SEVEN OAKS Hon. Saul A.

Miller NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C ova SOUR IS KILLARNEY Earl McKellar P.C. Nesbitt, Man. ROK lPO SPRINGFIELD Hon. Rene E. Toupin NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 STURGEON CREEK J. Frank Johnston P.C. 310 Overdale St., Winnipeg R3J 2G3 SWAN RIVER James H. Bilton P.C. Swan River, Man. ROL 1ZO THE PAS Hon. Ron McBryde NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 THOMPSON Ken Dillen NOP 84 Pintail Cres., Thompson R8N 1A6 TRANSCONA Hon. Russell Paulley NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 VIRDEN Morris McGregor P.C. Kenton, Man. ROM OZO WELLINGTON Philip M.

Petursson NOP 681 Banning St., Winnipeg R3G 2G3 WINNIPEG CENTRE Hon. J.R. (Bud) Boyce NOP Legislative Bldg., Winnipeg R3C OV8 WOLSELEY Vacant

THE LE GISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 o'clock, Friday, June 13, 19 75 Opening prayer by Mr. Speaker. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS 3941 MR . SPEA KER: Before we proceed, I should like to direct the attention of the honour able membe rs to the gallery where we have 30 students of Grade 7 standing of the Lillian Berg School at Vermilion Bay, Ontario, under the direction of Mr . and Mrs. Fossey. On behalf of all the honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon.

Presenting Petitio ns ; Reading and Receiving Pe titions ; Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Co mmitt ee s; Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Repo rts ; Notices of Motion; Introduction of Bills, Questio ns . The Honourable Member for Virden. ORAL QUESTIONS MR . MORRIS McGREGOR (Virden): Mr. Speaker, I direct this to the Minister of Labour and it's regarding an ad that was put in at least the dailies, "We want your views on the shorter standard work week ." And the question is, was it put in the weekly paper s and per iodica ls ?

And a supplementary questio n, how many replies were received as a result of this requesting brie fs ? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Labour . HON. RUSSE LL PA ULLEY (Minister of Labour) (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my honourable friend for giving me advance notice of his quest ion. It is appreciated when that is done . My answer to the honourable memb er' s questions regarding the adver tisement which appeared in the papers, a two-column by 3-1 /2 inch deep insertion was sent to all Manitoba dailies and weeklies with one insertio n only in the Manitoba Business Journal s.

The first ad appeared early in September just after Labour Day and also in the final week in Septe mber . I sent also a letter to many organizations direc tly that I thought would be involved, in order to solicit their opinions directly. The invitation was sent to the Mining As sociation of Manitoba, Federation of Labour, Canadian Manufacturers As sociatio n, Winnipeg Chamber of Co mmerce, to Mr.

Mel Mayer the Chairman of the Labour Relations Subcommittee of the Canadian Bar Asso ciation, to Prof ess or Wood s, Prof es sor of Industrial Relations and the Chairman of the Woods Review Committee, the Winnipeg Builders Exchange and the K-Mar organizations.

We rece ived, I believe it was somewhere in the neighborhood of around about 100-odd replies to the letters, and I indicate to my friend that there was quite a diverg ence of differ ences of opinions as to the adoption or not, but after we had assessed the replies, that there were 109 individual letters and 2, 50 0 in the form of signatures on petitio ns representing 91 percent of public response.

In the urban areas in the balance of the province 60 persons res ponded and in the rural areas 180 individuals indicated their preferences - and I must say that this included such things as store hour closing and Sunday closing as well - and on the basis, as I unders tand, direc tly insofar as the work week is concerned approximatel y 60 per cent of the replies were in the negative in oppos itio n to the 40-hour week. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MR . LL OYD AXWO RTHY (F ort Roug e): Mr. Speaker, I have a questio n for the Minis ter of Co lleges and Univ ersities.

Can the Minister tell us whether he has been advised if the Univ ersity of Manitoba may be forced to curtail it s enrolment by some 25 percent unless its deficit budget is approved by the Univ ersities Grants Commiss ion, and has the Minister detailed any appropriate action in light of those statemen ts ? MR. SPEA KER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. BEN HANUSCHAK (Minister of Educatio n) (B urrows): No, Mr. Spe aker . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge . MR. AXWORTHY: I have a supplementary questio n, Mr. Spe aker.

Does the Minister have at this point any plans to assess the possi bility of decreased access of enrolment to the Univ ersity of Manitoba, does he assume, or planning that there will be the same opportunity of access there has been in the past?

3942 June 13, 19 75 ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. MR . HANUSCHAK: Mr. Speaker, at the moment I do not have any information re the likelihood of the alleged reduction in enrolment. MR . AXWORTHY: Well Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister. Can the Min ister tell us when he plans to become concerned about the problem and plans to do something about it? MR. HANUSCHAK: I'm always concerned, Mr. Speaker, and the honourable member well knows.

But insofar as budget approval of the university, that that is a matter for resolu tions by the Universities Grant Commission, not by myself. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Attorney General and it refers to an Order for Return filed earlier in the session. I wonder if he can indicate when the particular order referring to the legal costs associated with the CFI Inquiry Commission might be expected to be filed in the House. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. HOWARD PAWLEY (Attorney-General) (Selkirk): Mr.

Speaker, it's being com piled. I hope to have it very shortly. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I direct a further question to the Minister of Agriculture and perhaps he was going to answer on behalf of the Minister of Highways with regards to the motorcycle problem on the perimeter. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. SAMUEL USKIW (Minister of Agriculture) (Lac du Bonnet): Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's precisely what I had intended to do.

The answer to the question put by the Member for Riel is simply the question of review and consideration has been undertaken and the depart ment is preparing some signing along that route. There is some question that has to be sorted out with the Attorney-General's department as to what authority they can impose restrictions on trespassing, etc. , under what authority or what Act. But that is a matter that I think we can overcome. There are some signs in the making at the moment and that we hope to deal with the more critical areas of that route as early as possible.

With respect to the question put to me by the Member for Swan River, the department advises that there has been a tentative arrangement with respect to the funding of maintenance on that highway between the Federal and Provincial Governments on a 50-50 basis. But to date no federal funds have arrived and therefore the extent of maintenance will revolve around the amounts of moneys allocated by the Provincial administration, which is 50 percent. So that they may not have as much maintenance as we would desire unless we do get the commit ments fulfilled by Ottawa. MR .

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR . JAMES H. BILTON (Swan River): I thank the Minister for that answer to my ques tion. Does he feel confident that the Federal Department of Indian Affairs will provide the ·funds for the ensuing months to take care of this road? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. MR. USKIW: My discussions with the departmental people, they are not very positive about that, Mr. Speaker, they are really not sure. They feel that they have only a verbal commitment and whatever that means of course, will remain to be seen. But we are hopeful that that may occur. MR .

BILTON: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I'd remind the Minister this behaviour's gone on now for four years. Would he insist that the department do something for these people? MR. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, I think the Member for Swan River is playing a bit of a cute game with us here. The Department of Indian Affairs has a responsibility in that the road in question leads directly into a reservation and that there are no other particular interests with respect to that road other than the reservation.

So that really it has to be assumed that the Federal Government through Indian Affairs should be paying part of those costs. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. MR. STEVE PATRICK (Assiniboia): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources responsible for MDC. I understand the loan to Saunders Aircraft has now passed the 30 million mark. Has the government placed any ceiling

Ju ne 13, 19 75 3943 ORAL QUESTIONS (MR. PATRICK cont'd) ..... at what point they will not advance any more moneys? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines. HON. SIDNEY GR EEN , Q. C. (Minister of Mines, Resources & Env ironme ntal Manage ment) (Inkster): Mr . Speaker, I answered that quest ion fully and de liberately and at some length to the very same member during the discus sion of the Capital Es timate s. COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Glads tone . MR . JA MES R. FER GUSON (Glads tone): Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Before Orders of the Day I'd like to have some substitutes on the Municipal Affairs Committee. I'd like to substitute Banman for Watt; McGill for Moug; and McKellar for Sherman. MR . SPEAKER: Agreed? So orde red. Orders of the Day. The Honourable House Lead er. ORDERS OF THE DAY - GOVERNMENT BILLS MR . GR EEN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we can get some of the bills moving, Bill No. 27 . BILL NO. 27 - THE MUNICIPAL ACT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek is absent. The Honourable Member for La Verendrye . MR . BOB BANMAN (La Verendrye): Mr.

Speaker, the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek, my colleague, adjourned debate on my behalf. MR. SPEAKER: Very well, The Honourable Member for La Verendrye . MR . BANMAN: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. In the last short while - the bill was intro duced only yest erday - we 'v e tried to deal with the bill before us right now. I appreciate the speaking notes that the Minister gave to us yesterday. The main part of the Act , of course, I think the major portion of the Ac t, deals with the se tting up of a Municipal Pension Board .

This pension board will be looking after people that are working for municipal gove rnments throughout Manitoba, and I think that's an area that the Minister has had some consultation with the Urban Municipalities and also with the Union of Municipalities with regard to this particular proble m. It's a problem I think that has faced many municipali ties.

They had a plan for the secre tary-treasurer but they didn' t have a plan for the balance of the empl oyee s, and I know from my own perso nal experience in municipal work that it did cause problems when dealing with police departments and different ... the Public Works people, Waterworks people, in rural mun icipali ties. I can see several benefits that can arise from this particular portion of the Act and I think we'll be interested to see how it works and how it develo ps.

I would just like to make the one comment, that the composi tion of the board that is to be set up, I think that the Union of Municipalities and the Urban Municipal Asso ciation should pos sibly each have two members on that board, thus giving them both a cer tain amount of represen tation from those two associa tions on that particular board. I also noticed there is an attempt again to deal with the problems of annexation, and I think we've mentioned this befo re.

The urban sprawl problem that surrounds not only the Metro politan Winnipeg area or the Unicity area is also a problem that is facing many rural urban municipaliti es.

And I notice that the Minister, by set ting up different procedure s, that these municipalitie s and small urban centres can apply to the Municipal Board, but I would again note that I think that many of these decisi ons are rather dicey and the Minister, in the final analysis, regardle ss of what the setup is as far as the peti tioning for alternative s and that type of thing is concerned, that the Minister in the final analysis is going to have to make the decision himself on these matters .

It's a touchy business when you get the situation such as we had with Brandon and Co rnwallis, and I refer to another specific incident between the Rural Municipalitie s of Hanover and Ste inbach in my own constituency. Another area that's probably welcome to the municipalitie s is that now they can enter into lease agreements and also buy eq uipment on time, which, as mentioned by the Minister in his opening or introducto ry remarks, the price of road maintainers and this type of equi p ment, caterpillars and different type of ear th-moving equipment, has really increased in cost

3944 June 13, 1975 BILL 27 (MR. BANMAN cont'd) .... . over the last little while and it's made real hardships for some of the smaller municipalities with lower assessments to go ahead and purchase this equipment all in one shot. The only question I would have with regard to that particular

section is will the munici palities be able to buy and apply this particular Act to lands being purchased for development of subdivisions and different municipal branches that they go into? In other words, will land be included in this _particular aspect? The other thing, I think, that most municipalities welcome is the increase of the rate that they can charge for arrears in taxes. I think it more realistically reflects the interest rates of today.

When I know many people can borrow money at no less than 11, 12, 13 percent, I think it's only right that the municipalities on taxi;:s that are in arrears should be able to levy at least a 12 percent interest rate per annum on taxes in arrears. The other problem, and this is rather maybe looking at it from sort of a parochial approach, is that we are going to be sort of making a uniform approach as far as the elections in the province are concerned . I would note that most of the municipalities in my constituency right now are on a three-year election basis.

In other words, the councillors are elected and the reeve is elected for a three-year term. The Town of Steinbach, I would note, is on a three member-per-year rotation basis. In other words, a council member is elected for two years, and of course the concern that was expressed to me by the councillors of that area - and I imagine the 35 percent of the remaining municipalities that are under this particular system at present - the concern is that they did not want to see a wholesale change in Council every three years; in other words, that all the councillors are up for re-election at one time.

There was some concern about a certain amount of continuity to the Council at that time. Now I can appreciate that the Minister is trying to make sort of a uniform standard approach to this part icular problem, and it'll probably be received by the councillors in the different are as. Another point I don't think that is a contentious one either, is that the municipalities who want to get involved in either building an airport in another municipality such as Steinbach in the R.

M. of Hanover or something along that line, I think the requirement that the municipality in which the airport will be located must pass a resolution giving sanction to that particular development is also a beneficial one, and I would like to say that we on this side will be follow ing the bill with interest to see how the pension scheme will work .

We are also going to follow very closely to see how it will be implemented and hope that it will be to the benefit of the people employed by the municipalities, and also possibly alleviate some of the problems and the headaches that the Councils themselves had to deal with in the past. Thank you Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Souris-Killarney. MR.

EARL McKELLAR (Souris-Killarney): I'd just like to say a word on this particular bill and I think we're pretty well in agreement with most everything that's in the bill, because he does set up this pension plan for municipal employees, and I was reading it just now where "exemptions for employees under prior plans" and I just didn't notice this when I read it yesterday. But I think this is a good idea, because many of the employees do have pension plans, especially for secretary-treas•irers.

Now I don't know how this will fit in, and I suppose when the new Pension Board is set up they in turn will decide the ground rules, I would imagine, how it relates to employees who were on former plans and how it relates to employees who start working for municipalities from now on. One of the problems the municipalities are having right now is keeping good men on the employment of the municipalities, running their patrols and their cats, and also their repair men, and there's several municipalities, along with their secretary-treausrer?

There's quite a movement of people from one municipality to another, also from municipalities to other positions, and one of the reasons, because they had lack of security, maybe in the job, and maybe this will more or less assist the municipalities in trying to retain good employees, and also give them some security over the years to come .

The pension scheme will be financed between the employees and the municipalities and I guess the amount of money that's contributed by both parties will be set out in the plan after it's developed by both parties, but I was wondering if the government other than a loan, had any intention of putting money into this particular pension plan? As we all know, the private pension plans, some of them are having severe problems these days because the investment

June 13, 1975 3945 BILL 27 (MR. McKELL AR cont'd) .. •.• mark et are having their troubles . With the private pension plans they'r e having troubles trying to keep their plan viable so that their employees are pro tected. I was just wondering if the government had any intention of putting up any amount of money to start this plan off. Now, the one other thing that does concern me, Mr .

Speaker - and I don't know how much it does concern the municip alities because I haven't had a chance to talk to them yet - but most of the municipalities in my area are still on the two-year elections, where half the council are elected each year, and I was just wondering what the reaction of these particular municip alities will be, whether they'll go along with a three-year term or what, but we'll find out in com mittee anyway when Monday evening this bill gets Second Reading. In my own case, in my own munic ipality it's on a two-year, with half the council elected each year, and they have not changed .

Now the Municipality of Morden, they've gone on a three-year where the whole Council is elected and they've even done away with the word "boundaries" . They have no war ds. So they're on a different system altogether . Now it will mean that they will have to all revert in two year's time to three-year elections from then on . School boards and councils will be all elected on the same given day in October on that year. Now, Mr .

Speaker, there's other sections in here that pertain to other sections, amend ments to the Munic ipal Act, but I think that the main one here in this bill is dealing with mu nicip al employees' pensions, and I would hope that sufficient time will be given to these par ties to come up with a good plan, a good plan, and I have heard the Deputy Minis ter explain to Boissevain this year on an Urban Association Regional meeting an actuarialist plan and how he thought it should ...

But I wasn't altogether in agreement with that because the rates of the amounts of money that each employee put in was graduated according to the age of the employee. Now, the Province of Manitoba for their employees has one of the best pension schemes that anybody could devise . And I would suggest to the Minister, as he is discussing with the people here who are going to set up this plan , that they follow the Ci vil Service Superannuation Pension Plan that now exis ts . They contrib ute 6 percent, the government puts up so much money, an equal amount .

It's based on two percent times the number of years of service, times the average of the last seven years' salary. And this is the way it's based ri ght now, and I think this is an excellent plan . Now one of the problems there's going to be for older employees who reach the age of about, I would say 55, 60 years of age, whether they'r e going to go into this new plan, or whether they'r e going to carry on with their old plans as they presently exist. Many of them do have a secretary-treasurers I'm referring to princ ipally - because most of the other employees don't have a pension plan .

I should say most of them don't, but it works out about half. So I would say that if they adopt the Civil Service Pension Plan, the scheme as such, and I think they couldn 't go wrong , because I think in the long run it would meet the needs of most of the employees . I would hate to see the employees go on a graduated scale of paying in ; the younger you are the lesser the amou nt you pay, because I think it would create more confusion than it would be worth the effort .

So I think they'd be better to go and pay in a 6, or 8, or 5 or 6 percent, or whichever they set, everybody pay the same amount, and then they collect when they'r e ready to retire after so many years of service. Now there's one other problem that's going to exist: Say an employee had worked for a munic ipality, as secretary-treasurer, and other employees, for ten years and didn't have a plan at all, is it going to be possible for them to buy in for past years of service? I would say they should be treated the same as the MLAs were when our plan was broug ht in in 1967.

At that time I was elected in 1958 and the plan was brought in in 1967. I paid back nine years, and I bought in and paid it back, and the other members, too, bought in at that time, and I think these employees should be given the same privilege . I know that it's going to cos t the municip alities some money because they have to put up equal amou nts of money. But in the long run, after all, our munic ipalities can only survive if we have good employe es. They can only survive if we have good employ ees.

And I think now is the time that they need some protections for their retirement years, and I think this is the ri ght way to handle it. Now I suppose when we go into comm ittee there'l l be lots of ideas on how a pension plan should be operated. But in the final analysis the people in this bill who will represent the

3946 June 13, 1975 BILL 27 (MR. McKELLAR cont'd) .... . employees and represent the municipalities, and the Chair man who is neutral, and who will be appointed, will naturally have the responsibility of devis ing the plan, and they in turn will have the responsibility of making it operate after they do devise it. So I do wish them well, and I hope that in the long run our municipalities - and I'm sure they will be - will be better off for you, Mr.

Minister, having brought in this pension scheme, and I'm sure that the people in Manitoba will, the money they're going to contribute, it'll be money worthwhile being spent. INTRODUCTION OF GUEST MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed let me direct the attention of the honourable members to the loge to my right where we have a previous member of this Assembly, Mr. David Orlikow, M. P. for Winnipeg North. On behalf of the members I welcome you. BILL 27 (cont'

d) MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. EDWARD McGILL (Brandon West): Mr. Speaker, I wish to just comment very briefly on Bill 27 and to support and reinforce some of the comments made by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye and the Honourable Member for Souris-Killarney. I don't propose to deal with many of the changes. I'm relying upon the research being done by some of the other members and some of the people more directly affected in that, and I'm sure that at the committee consideration what discussion and what changes necessary will be proposed. But Mr.

Speaker, I merely want to say again that I have some reservations about the mandatory feature of triennial elections. Up until this point the choice was one of option for the rural municipalities. I can see some weakening, perhaps, in the strength of a board of a municipality if it should happen that all of the members of the board elected under the man datory clause were new members, that there would be a lack of continuity and that some of the work of the rural municipalities board would suffer as a result of this change. Mr.

Speaker, this is a situation which may not arise too often in the election of rural councillors, but is one that should be considered and I hope that the Minister in his summation on this bill will be able to sustain this change and provide strong support and reasoning for making it a mandatory clause at this stage. I feel that there was some merit in the optional feature, even though it introduced a lack of uniformity in the activities of the rural munici palities and probably provided a little more bookkeeping necessary for the Department of Municipal Affairs. Mr.

Speaker, with those few words, I think that this bill can be dealt with adequately in committee. QUESTION put MOTION carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the Honourable Member for Riel is not pre pared to proceed on Bill No. 57. Well then, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Colleges and Universities, that Mr. 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.

MOTION presented and carried, and the House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, with the Honourable Member for Logan in the Chair. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY - MINES, RESOURCES, ETC. MR. CHAIRMAN: I refer honourable members to Page 34 of their Es timate Books, Resolution 78(b)(l). The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman, I wanted if I could to pick up on some of the points raised by the Minister in both the presentation of his remarks on this department, and par ticularly his description of the total kind of commitment he's made to a new minerals policy.

I would first begin by saying, Mr. Speaker, that the way that the Minister has approached it is a welcome relief in the sense that at least we have one Minister who is prepared to put together a comprehensive policy, that there has been a horrendous lack of that kind of

June 13, 1975 3947 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESOUR CES (MR. AXWORTHY cont'd) .. ... comprehension and of pulling things together. Most of the policies we see by this government come forward in little bits and pieces and little dribs and drabs, and so it is welcome at least to see the Minister in presenting a minerals policy in terms of the taxation component, and the regulation component, and the exploration resource component, saying that this is a total package of things that is designed for a specific set of purposes, and that itself is such a refreshing change.

It is too bad that in a sense the policy is so misguided in part, but at least we have to give it first marks in terms of that commit ment. I would want to say, Mr. Speaker, that when I say the word "misguided" I mean only to the degree that when you add up all the parts, the whole becomes greater than the parts, and while we agree with specific items within that, certainly the tax policy, the Bill 16 that we just passed yesterday, we felt was a fair and equitable measure in terms of ensuring that there was a respectable return for the Province of Manitoba, and the people of the province.

But when you add up all the rest of the pieces and you put the other measures into it, you begin to find out that the policy itself has a very different set of directions to it, and that we're not simply now asking for a way of balancing the interests of the public against the interests of private industry in terms of ensuring a fair share, but in fact there's a very distinct and very different philosophy, and very different set of programs at work which really is the replace ment, in a sense, over a period of time, of private industry.

So that while, in a sense, we can agree with the one component of that policy, that when you add up the other pieces together, we find some very dangerous kinds of trends. I found, Mr. Chairman, that the rationale that the Minister used to be one of great curiosity as well as of some contradiction. We have recognized in this House that the Minister has a great ability to set up straw men, knock them down, and then pretend he's defeated an argument.

But I think in this case, he's also set up a kind of position which I found intriguing in terms of its almost,of its dialectical nature where he is talking that somehow, by some magic, the imposition of more control ends up in more freedom. I think that that seemed to be the equation that he was trying to establish, that somehow if the state and government itself takes over more control, that somehow the rest of us are going to net freer as a result of it. That was an interesting position to take, Mr.

Speaker, because certainly it jars one sense of what can be expected, both from a practical point of view and I think also from a very direct philosophical point of view. The Minister is quite correct. I think that that particular approach is what does tend to divide people in this House. There's no question about it. So I think it's worth arguing that issue and determining really to what degree is his equation that somehow more public control, or he uses in part the euphemism participation, but control, participation, whatever the word is, somehow ends up in more freedom. Well, first I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, from a very practical point of view that if you look at the kinds of equations he established, I would ask him a simple question: Has the ownership in the Province of Manitoba of Saunders enabled the Manitoba citizens to have more freedom? Are we, as a result, now more free because we've blown some 30-odd million dollars? Has that somehow made us a freer people? Let me ask the question, Mr. Speaker - we could even take it more extensively. Has the extensive public ownership in Britain of the coal mines, and the railways, and the steel industry, has that allowed the British people a greater freedom?

Has it given them more control over the economy? Have they been able to manage better? Are they more effectively able to control their standard of life? Do they have a greater lever age against private industry? Well, Mr. Speaker, if you look at the results in terms of what's happening in that poor country at this present time, one would have to have some cause for concern. Mr.

Speaker, even if you take the logic of the Minister's argument even further and say, more control equals more freedom; and if you, say, follow that logic through into some of the Eastern European countries where there is an extensive amount of control, almost total con trol of the economy, could we really make the case that somehow people there are more free?

Now, if we 're going to follow the logic of the position put forward, simply saying that, you know, you can't be halfway pregnant, if you' re going to ask for more control because you want more freedom, then you have to ask the question by examining elsewhere, who has got more freedom as a result of more public control?--( Interjectio n)--Well no. The Member for Swan River wasn't listening very carefully. No, the Member for Swan River .. . I stated the case

3948 June 13, 1975 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESOURCES (MR . AXWORTHY cont'd) .. .. . very clearly that there is a difference between voting for an increased royalty tax which asks for a fair return of money investment in comparison to the total package that the Minister has woven together in terms of a minerals policy, which really is aimed at control, and there is a difference between the two. There is a difference between a taxation policy and a control policy.

If the member doesn't understand that, then I think he should go back and look at some fundamental economics because I think taxation policy is one way of providing some rules about how private industry, how private business should operate .

I think that any government has established, sets out certain rules as to what it should be doing, and taxation policy is one that can be it can be good taxes or bad taxes, and in this case I think it was a fairly clear and definable case that in fact there was not a fair return coming back from the mining industry in terms of a tax return to the public in this province, and therefore we needed a better deal on royalty taxes.

But the argument I'm making is that if you begin stitching together that tax policy and merging it with the regulations that were passed last January, and merging that together with the Mineral Resources Limited, it ends up in something very different and was simply pre sented as a tax policy. It's a very different kind of animal that we're dealing with. The Minister himself has said so . I mean there's no secret to it.

If the Member for Swan River would read his Hansards, or listen to the debate, he'd realize the Minister has said, I'm doing something very different, and the tax policy is only one building block in a total founda tion. We're saying, okay, let's take a look at what he's doing; let's not get diverted into mak ing false mistakes and voting against what is probably a fair and equitable tax and missing the real issue, which is what it is going to end up in terms of the proposition proposal this morning, and that is somehow control leads to more freed om . Because Mr.

Speaker, I think that there is, as I said, just on the pure basis of empirical argument, some real reservation about whether public control necessarily leads to a greater degree of personal freedom, or individual freedom and liberty, for people, because one of the things that go along with that kind of economic position is that you eliminate certain areas of freed om .

I think that the Minister, also has recognized a trend which he puts forward as an assertion of an undeniable or inalienable truth somehow that government should control the economy, and yet we suggest that it was only 30 years ago when governments didn't have any real involvement in the economy at all, that they were a kind of law and order position, put policemen on the streets, restrain, keep things in order, and keep your hands off the economy.

It was only really since the Second World War that we have established through, I suppose, the insights of Keynes economics, the government has some responsibility towards full employ ment in terms of trying to regulate the use of capital, and regulate the use of demand, and --(Interjection)-- No. It's very differen t. No, I think that Marx didn't have much to do with that particular position.

I think the kind of position put forward by most western economies in terms of establishing a degree of government intervention was based on lhe idea that some how government has a responsibility of setting a framework within which the private economy operates, of setting both certain rules about collusion and concentration and monopoly, which we do through combine rules, as well as setting certain returns that they expect through taxation laws, and then by trying to regulate the economy in terms of the kind of aggregate demand.

Now the Minister is taking that one step further and says, okay, not it's an inalien able truth that somehow we're going to control the whole thing, and that that is somehow going to lead to greater public participation in decisions, that somehow that his will lead to greater freedom .

And therefore --(Interjectio n)-- well, we keep hearing these kind of kindergarten kind of economic analysis going on behind us, and the point of the matter is if someone doesn't yet understand the difference between a taxation policy and an ownership policy, then it's time that we go back to some basic tax because there is a difference. I suggest that the Member for St. James have a look at that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the honourable member direct his remarks to the Chair and to the micropho ne . MR. AX WORTHY: I'm sorry, Mr .

Chairman, but there is a certain, I suppose, some rudiments that we must go over in order to explain some things to certain members of the House . So the question we want to raise, Mr . Speaker, is, then does this total mineral package really end up giving us a greater degree of freedom, as well as ending up in terms of a way of allocating capital more effectively and leading in effect to a more efficient production of

June 13, 1975 3949 SUPPLY - MINES AND RES OURCES (MR. AXWORTHY cont'd) ..... jobs and income for the Province of Manitoba? No w I suggest, Mr . Chairman, that in fact that that is not going to be the case, that from the pure basis of good empirical evidence, there is nothing to suggest that greater control is necessarily going to lead to a greater participation in decision-mak ing.

I think one of the reasons is members on the opposite side make a certain fallacy about government itself; that they tend to make a fallacy that somehow government, the election of its re pre sentati ve s provides a clear and direct and unalterable line of influence and accessibility for individuals to make decisions .

Yet I think the evidence that we have run into incre asin gly is the fact government itself oftentimes becomes a problem, that it itself becomes close-minded and full of vested interests, and inaccessible to people, and in fact can become one of the major obstructions to the exercise of freedom, and to the exercise of individual control.

One of the reasons why we in this particular group contin ually emphasize in bills that come through certain requirements to go beyond the simple sort of traditional and conven tional notions of elected representation, which is the touchstone that must be added to, is because of that fact that government organization itself becomes large and unwieldy, and becomes in many cases a power unto itself, and becomes capable of making decisions with no reference point to what individuals want, but simply to what becomes the internal objectives of that organizat ion .

There is certainly enough evidence in our own province and in our own country, and in other western industrial worlds, that one of the dangers that we must also face is the large public corporation, just as the large private corp oration, because the large public corporation can become its elf as much an oppressor. and as much an obstruction in the free flow o� an eco_nomy as can pri yate corporations that get too large and too imwieldy . Because in fact what really takes place-, Mr .

Chairman, I would suggest, is that the largeness of. the cor poration itself becomes a problem, and whether it sort of has some tangential relationship to a public authority, or to a group ot shareholders, becomes irrelevam after awhile . It becomes the manag ers of those corporations and organizations which really call the shots and make the decisions, and that is one of the primary problems that any legislative body must deal with, and that is how to bring large organizations into more accountable positions, whether they be public or private . That is what concerns me, Mr.

Chairman, in terms of the position taken by the Minist er, is that we may in fact by giving inc reasingly more power to the Department of Mines and Resources to provide its kind of determination in vestments and to Mineral Resources Lim ited cor porations, and all the other kinds of corporations we're setting up, they themselves may become increasingly less accountable and less respons ive and less responsible . And that I would suggest, Mr . Chairman, is something that must be looked at as one of the ing redients in this mi nerals policy that the Minist er has produced in its different facets . I think, Mr.

Chairman, you can also begin to make a pretty good economic case in terms of the allocation of capital to resources, that because the market, for all the scorn that is heaped upon it in this House by members of the opposite side, has always produced a certain economic function, and that is, it has been a fair determinant of prices of what one should be paying for things and what one should be selling for things .

I agree and concede that in the world of large mining corporations, the market oftentimes doesn't operate as clearly as it should, that it is not the best allocator because there tends to be a problem of admin istered prices. But if that's the problem, then maybe that's what we should be zeroing in on . How do you get, perhaps, a better market allocation of things as opposed to replacing that kind of admin istered prices on the private side with an even more administ ered price system on the public side, where there is no market mechanism at all in operation.

And I think that when you get into the whole question of what we're establishing increasingly in this province in terms of the large aggregation of the public household, we're continually taking more things under the basket of things that we are owning, operating, and determining, and increasingly providing a greater degree of regulation and decision-making on the use of capital that it does become, as the Mem ber for Lakeside poin ted out this morning, a question of trading off on prioriti es.

And those decisions aren't made on good economic grounds, they'r e made on which Minister carries the biggest stick or has the ear of the Premier closest or happens to be in Cabinet that day. I think you begin to lose the ability of some economic criteria to be determining and it becomes based, the investment decisions and the amou nt of capital available between the Health Department and the Agricult ural Department

3950 June 13, 1975 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESOURCES (MR. AXWORTHY cont'd) .. .. . and the Mining Department become based on political in-fig hting, negotiation, bartering, sort of apple polishings and all the other kind of techniques that go on in those Cabinet chambers - and that increasingly the restraint and discipline that may be imposed by a greater degree of economic criteria becomes lessened and weakened and the political criteria begin to take over. And that is, Mr.

Speaker, one of the reasons why when we start looking at things like MDC and so on, I think that is what begins to happen - is that the political calculations - and I don't mean that in a partisan sense, but the sort of kind of internal process of political machination and dealing and all the rest of it begin to become the criteria for decision-making, not some basis of dollars and cents, and where do we put capital here and when do we pull out. One of the other problems that we have, Mr.

Speaker, as we begin to increase public ownership and involvement is that the public owner becomes increasingly able to cut his losses and get out when things start going bad because public pressures build up and you don't want to lose faith, you've got an election around the corner and it's very difficult to sort of fess up to the public and say, hey, we just blew a bundle, folks.

That becomes a very difficult kind of thing to do, because the political restraint that the Minister is talking about operates and some times is a two-edged sword - and as good politicians, as the mem bers of the other side are, they begin to say, well lookit, if we have to really cut our losses in January, but we got an election coming up in June, do you think we can carry it over to July - and all of a sudden, sort of, a decision that should be made in January for the best economic interests of that mining company or corporation that we're now owning or developing doesn't become based upon good economic criteria, but it's being judged on political grounds.

And that, Mr. Chairman, is why I also fear this kind of total impact of this mineral policy because I think that in many cases, it just doesn't lead to good economic decisions. I don't get hung up, sort of, on the area of really, of the kind of ideology behind it, but it becomes a real practicality as to whether you're going to get good decisions or not. I think that should be a real point of concern when we begin to involve ourselves deeper and deeper into owner ship functions in the economy. Mr.

Chairman, the Minister suggested this morning, and somehow he said, "Now lookit, why don't I go back and tell my friends in Ottawa or whatever it is that they're wasting a lot of money too? Well, I always say that I some how at this stage haven't been elected to a Federal House and my responsibility is in the provincial level, I try to confine my remarks to that. But let me also say, I'm not particularly wild or enthusiastic about what they're doing either.

I don't like what they're doing in Nova Scotia, I don't like what they're doing in Ontario, I don't like what they're doing in Manitoba in the way that we have become sucked in to increasingly shoring up and propping up and expending large amounts of public capital in terms of this kind of industrial investment policy. I think if we want the market to work and we're going to do it, let's say it, and let's quit wasting a lot of money in it, whether it' s through the kind of equity investment that the Minister wants or through giving an awful lot of free grants in areas.

The only place where government has a responsibility is when it has a very clearly defined social objective and they're saying that we're not going in there for economic reasons, we're going in there because we have to create jobs and as a result, we 're going to subsidize an industry.

It's very clear and very articulated, and that• s precisely what the money is set forward for doing; and if that• s the case, all right - that has been a tradition in this country that I suppose has been accepted by Conservatives and Liberals and so on, and that's why we have set up things like, along the way, different kinds of Crown corporations in this country.

But what we're getting increasingly ourselves into is a very murky area where we are using an awful lot of public money in all kinds of grants and sub sidies and investments, and holding positions and everything else, and it doesn't add up to a good clean-cut economic system because it's no longer able to first put some good economic restraints on it as well as provide a good basis of accountability - the primary case in this province, of course, is the CFI one, we've lost the biggest bundle on that.

I think probably the way we're headed now on Saunders, where there is no ceiling on what we're going to spend, we could be ending up in the same kind of hole in that one, perhaps without the same - that the Minister may have his eyes much more open that we had in CFI, but we're still getting into that same kind of, you know, half a million here, another million there, where we're going to sort of kind of two-bits ourselves into a bankrupt position; that is one of the real problems

June 13, 1975 3951 SUPPLY - MINES AND RE SOURC ES (MR. AXWORTHY cont'd) •..•• when governments gets into this sort of kind of busin ess where it starts laying out money, either in terms of grants directly to private industry. I think it's about time in this country, generally , that we took a look at the whole pro gram of industr ial investments, whether it 's by the Liberal model or the Co nserv ative model or the NDP model.

The same point is that we're using public capital as a direct form of investmen t in various forms of industrial enterprise, and we have tried to suggest at times in debate in this House, Mr. Chairman, that the money might be better spent in terms of providing the kind of facilities and services and infra-structure that supports a creative and prod uctive economy in terms of making sure that we 've got good schools and good roads and sort of good research going on and that kind of thing, because that, in many cases, becomes a far more prod uctive incentive to the development of industry.

If there are cases, and there are, we directly want to say we have a group of unemployed people with n'.) skills and we want to get on-the-job training, and we should be saying then we're prepared to provide a tax incentive to an industry to do it and that's the reason we're doing it - and clearly ev ery one, taxpayers and members of the House alike know that's why we're spending the money, and there is no confusion and no attempt to try to becloud the issu e . And so, Mr.

Chairman, I think that is the problem we get into if we look at the total impact and condition that the Minister is setting on this policy - that we are eliminating any be nefit that one might accrue as a re sult of having a market system at work when you get the market signals coming back in terms of determining prices, supply, and where you're going to sell and at what consideration. I think that you bring to lose, and I suppose that we can only partly hypothesize in this case .

The Minister says, "I think I can attract as good prospectors and managers as private industry" - and perhaps he can - but the question is, does he also supply the same sort of incentive that goes along with it . I don't know. Does a man on salary working in a large organization have the same incentive as someone who can sort of think that he's going to make the strike big himse lf? Maybe that's an illusi onary kind of goal, I don't know. I' ve never been a prospector and I wouldn 't pretend to know what kind of motivatio n goes on.

Though I am saying that there has been and there still is an area where people have incentive for gain and for profit and I don't think that as much as we would like to eli minate that, that still is a legitimate and in many cases a useful kind of incentive. It shouldn't be the overriding one and that's one reason why we're here, to provide a co unter and a balance to those kinds of incentive ; but it still can be a very strong arid motivating force and there 's people working longer hours and doing things above and beyond what the exact requirements of the job say they should be doing. So, Mr.

Chairman, I think that we may be losing things along the way, we may be losing certain aspects of the mining industry that may be impor tant. And so I just simply want to underline, I think that it is critical, and that's one reason why this group supported the idea that the public has a right to get a fair share on its own resource s.

We believe that that can occur through a clear-cut definition of the tax laws ; that we also have a right to set certain rules as to how industries should operate in terms of protecting against abuses, but we are afraid that once the other parts of that package begin to move in, where you begin to slowly eli minate and replace, then you lose some of the advantage s and incre asingly lose the ability to make good ec onomic decisions, replacing them with political decisions - and political decisions are not always in the best interests of the people of Manitoba, if in fact they end up not producing the kind of jobs and income and revenue that they should be produc ing.

If that's the case the11 Mr. Chairman, the people of the province are simply losers in this proposition, not winners. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakes ide . MR" HARRY ENNS (L akeside): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reassure the Minister, desp ite anything that he's heard of the firm and unswerving position that the Member for Fort Rouge has with respect to his mineral taxation laws that he has enacted just as late as yesterday in this Hous e.

Seco ndly, that the Liberal-NDP coalition, whether it's welcomed by him or not, nonetheless is still very much in exi stence, de spite what he heard tod ay, because you know, Mr. Minister, deep down in the bosom of your soul, that when it counts, you can count on those fellows to vote for whatever you propose in this House . Now that's all I wanted to reass ure the Honourable Minister before he took too much time, because time is of some importance and value in this Chamber, in shadow boxing with straw men put up by certain members of this Chamber - that you should take that

3952 June 13, 1975 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESOURCES (MR. ENNS cont'd) .. .. into account as you rise to respond. Further to that, I think the Honourable Member for Rie l probably has some more cohesive remarks to make with respect to the contribution just made right now by the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MR. CHAIRMAN : The Honourable Minister of Mines. MR. GREEN : Mr. Speaker, the Member for Riel will get an opportunity.

I kind of think that this has been one of the more interesting debates, and my only fear in continuing with it at this level is that it's going to become so interesti ng, it 'll never get by the Department of Min es and Natural Resources. But be that as it may, maybe that doesn 't matter as much as having the issues clarified. The Member for Lakeside, I know, pride s himself at being able to push positions which will divide the House between Liberals and New Democrats on one vote and Tories against. Mr.

Spe aker, I admire that positi on, because when I was in the New Democrat .Party and we were in Opposition , I tried desp erately to frame motions which would have the Liberals voting with the Conse rvatives , and they did vote with the Cons ervatives. --(Interjectio n)-- Well, Mr. Speaker , I remember that they were so embarrasse d once that they had to vote for a universal me dical care program which they did not want to vote for - and various other things.

I remember the Conservatives were making very good fun of them because they ended up finally, in order to sustain a position of non-confide nce in the Conservatives , voting for a motion which almost adopted the entire New Democratic Party program ;and after havingdone that, they avoided it at every subsequent vote of non-confide nce, to the extent that the Liberals were voting with the Conse rvatives, the New Democrats were the Oppositi on, and when the government had to change, the Ne w Democrats became the government.

And theref ore, having some sympathy for the strategy myself, I can 't help but admire the Member for Lakesid e for trying to put the Liberals in the same posit ion.

Unfortunately for both the Member for Lakeside and for myself, it may be that his position and the position that I have taken from time to time, do become the actual movers of social or economic positio ns ; but unfortunately, it's always the expletive d·aleted Liberals who then proc eed with that program because they don't have a program and they are able to adjust them selves to whatever program we bring into existe nce, and that is because the Liberal Party are the most professional politicians that there are in the country, and always have been.

They do not mind what program is being administer ed provided they govern - and that is true, by the way, regardless of whether it is a Conservative government in power, the Liberal government in power , or the Ne w Democratic Party government in power. Since every thesis works on the basis of thesi s, antithesis and synthesis, and the Liberals are the synthesiz ers , they hope to govern no matter what the program is. Now I can 't operate that way, Mr. Chairman. I have to move or try to move in a particular direction and have a particular position regardless of who governs - and that's the differ ence.

The Liberals don't care what the position is as long as they govern. I care less about who governs than what the position is. That's why , you know, when I hear the Leader of the Opposition saying that when we come to government, we will not elimin ate Saunders Aircra ft in an election campaign, we will merely run it better. I believe that I have won, no matter who governs. And by the way, I am not a particular fan - and I've made this point clear from time to time - of the system of the Manitoba Development Corpo ration.

That wasn 't a New Democratic Party program, that was a program that was desi gned by Liberal and Conservative administrations to make up for the defects of the philosophical position that they were taking - they saw a need for public fin ancial involvement and yet they wanted to ideologically maintain this being done through the so-called free enterprise syste m. So they went on a program of publicly financing private initiativ e. --(Interjectio n)- - All right , that's a better phrase. I thank the honourable member.

Because they wanted to re main technical virgins , and so did the Liberals ; and therefor e they devised a program to boost the economy which they saw was not oper ating as they would want it to operate, and under pre ssure developed a corporation which amounted to a public investment for private control. And this is where the Member for Fort Rouge has really misinterpreted my position. We are operating the Manitoba Development Corporation under guidelines which were in exis tence prior to us coming into government.

We have done something differ ent, in that we have opened the books - and I believe that the opening of the boo��s and the realization of the mis takes that are made by one party or the other will in the last analysis improve the political position that I am pursuing, because I believe that the public will not demand that you don't do

June 13 , 1975 3953 SUPPLY - MINES AND RES OURCES (MR. GREE N cont'd) .... these things but that you do them better, that you d•) them properly ; and if they want to criticize a mistake that has been made, I do not believe that they will change the philosop hy of the operatio"!l, I just believe they'll start getting better and better me ans by which it works. And for the Honourable Member for Fort Ro:ige to say that I have said that through more state control you get more freedom, is to of course use phrase s which suit his particular position but do not corre ctly in my mind :interpret our policy.

What I have said is this - and when you are dealing with the particular ind·1s try that we are talking about -th at in the western world, we have generally realized political democracy; that all the aspects of repr esentative governme nt and the democratic process are there, but we have allowed the economic se ctor to remain essentially in priva te hand s, and therefore, we have achi eved political democr acy but we have left a gr eat sphere of decision -making in the hand s of private people - which cannot be upset by the democra tic process; you cannot - with gr eat respect to contradiction - I could not introduce the tax bill that I introd1ced yesterday and get voted :m without being able to say to the people in those areas that the mining com panies will go along with this policy because if they d:m 't, we will have to deal with public participation in the mining companies.

If I said that we're introducing a tax policy but we are comple tely depending upon the mining indust ry , then the Membe r for Thompson could not face his miners, the Member for Churchill co:.ild :aot take the position that he took, nor could the Member for Flin Flan take that position. It just doesn 't happen. Economic control is, in most cases , far mor e import ant than political control, and :if the honourable me mber will go back into hist ory, he Nill see that those ar eas in the United States which had control of the political proc ess were by and large under the control of the giants of industry.

Now I dan 't blame the giants of industry. I mean, I think that they wanted to do things and som etime s the governme nt was in the way, so they had to tell the governme nt, "If you d·Jn 't get out of the way, you 're going to have problems" and the govern me nt got out of the way , or else paved the way.

Now I believe that with regard to the indus tries that we are talking about - first of all, we are dealing with resour ce industr ies; we are dealing with products which belong to the people - we 're dealing essentially with areas in which the industry is compose d of large conglomerates, where the honourable me mber himse lf has admitted that the com petitive marke t is no longer the controlling factor , that there is enough control in the industry itself to be able to adjust the mar ket or administer the ma rket, and therefore to the extent that the public wishes to have a gr eater control, it has to have a part of the economic control , and the only way the economic control is obtained is through economic partic ipation , to use exactly what the ind1stry has used in order to have its control.

So my position was not state control, but state participa tion in that area of economic activity which is now the exclusive province of the private se ctor. And to that extent, I say , yes, that gives me more freedom. Look, wipe out the Autopac deficit, which you people seem to be placing the most reliance on.

Let us assume that the Autopac next year, or hopefully , if it's not next year the following year, runs so that its income me ets its expend"itures, I will consid ·:ir that I have mor e freedom as a citizen of this soc iety b·:icause of the dem ocratic control of the automobile insurance under writing system than I had before it existed, because then I can control the economic investment, then I can control the flow of fund s, then I can control the investment procedure and the decisions that have to be made, which I cannot control if that feature is left entirely within the private sector.

So, with regard to the mining policy, I reject the honourable membe r's notion that you can impleme nt a tax policy and ign or e the participa tion policy. You will continually find yourse lf to be under the control of the industry itself. So the honourable me mber , he picks the ultim ate example, in Eastern Europe, in Russia let' s be quite harsh, in Communist Russia they have control of all the means of prod ·1ction. Does that give the people more freedom or less fr eed·Jm ? Well, Mr. Spea'rnr, you kno w, the people in Russia never ever achieved genuine political fr eedom.

They had the dic tatorship of the Czar, in which they di d not have political freedom, and they moved to what they called the "dic tatorship of the proletariat" in which the political freedoms never existed either before the revolution or after the revolution. So they never had political democracy and as such, they could never have economic democracy.

In the Western World, on the other hand, we have achieved political democracy, and any move s now towards economic d:imocracy, and I'm not advocating total oNTiership of all the me ans of production of all industry in the Province of Manitob a, or in this country , but I say that where the marke t forces no longer ensure the type

3954 June 13, 1975 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESOURCES (MR. GREEN cont'd) .. .. of free play and protection for the citizen that is wri tten in the economists who talk about the free enterprise system, then Adam Smith himself would say at that point, the public cannot leave these things in the hands of private people because the private people will then be in perfect control and there will be no democratic control over them.

If the honourable member wishes to historically see whether this is correct, he can look at what happened in the oil industry ; he can look at what happened in many other industries in the United States , which grew up to be almost entirely monopolistic, the railro ads , the gas companies , the utilities, the street railways, they we re privately controlled. That didn't make the people more free; it made the people less free .

What we are attempting to do is to have freedom of action in economic affairs in those areas where the market forces, as you called them, have mushroomed to the point that what we are dealing with is administered private industry rather than a competitiv e industry. And the resource industry is one that is of its nature an administered industry because it cannot operate without a franchis e from the people to have exclusiv e right to remove a certain re source and then deal with it. What we are doing is saying that where that is there, we are going to ask for a public participation.

The member says that this indicates a policy of total control of the industry ; I have indicated that that is just not practical. I'm not saying that it would not be idealistically sound, there would be nothing wrong with it, but it is not practical. Socie ty has not grown up that way. Furthermore, it is not fair , it is not fair to say that those people who have operated and come in here and made investment on certain rules should riot be treated by the state with reasonable fairness in terms of realizing their expectations.

Because I think everybody in the public wants that same kind of treatment, and they will see that that kind of treatment will be afforded to them by the way you treat anybody els e. Now, Mr. Speaker, with regard to something that was said by the Member for Lakeside this morning in the question of jtist how much of a challenge the people will accept.

You know, it is very hard, it is very hard; it is not an easy thing to be continually referring, or the Minister answerable for problems that arise with Flyer Coach Industry for $30 million that have been invested in an aircraft factory in an attempt to do certain things, but for the Member for Fort Rouge t�o say that thes e are political decisions, hoping that you will somehow win elections by ke eping them in existenc e, is in my mind bad politics.

I think that if we ' have political problems , they relate from some of the things that we 've done with the Manitoba Development Corporation and some of the results of the Development Corporation, so that it was no political decision to do that.

The decision to do that was based on the fact that we had 3.n MDC, that it had terms of reference, that those terms of reference were being followed, in some cases they took over problems which they may or may not solve and we will have to deal with that, but it's not political considerations in terms of hoping to win approval from the public in the next election that guides that decision. I would hope to win approval from the public in the next election on the basis that we will be able to make successes, not failures.

Some of the things that we have, we have as a legacy ; some of the things we have. we started ourselves. But whether a legacy or som ething that we r.tarted ourselves, it came as a result of policie s throughout the country to have public financing of private control. I say that if the public is going to finance, the public should control. The equity positon is not a political position, the equity position is that if you are taking all the risk , the straight business position is to have the equity, because what business have you got to give somebody else the growth if you have put in all the money.

What we've done with the Developme nt Corporation is to try to realize that kind of position , and certainly, in the past two ye ars, we have tried to deal, as indicated in the guide lines which those problems that we have, we have tried not to create new problems, and we have tried to turn around some of the corporations which were started. And I think that that has happened with sev eral. I thank the Member for Brandon West for saying that we have been successful with re gard to Churchill Forest Industry.

I can 't accept his congratulations in that connecti on, but if we did it then we turned it around; if we made all thes e bad things, then we must have made that good thing too. We'v e done a better job with Morde n Fine Foods; we 've done a better job with Venture Tours. Phoenix Data appears to be getting a little better , although I accept the Member for St. James ' position that just because you only lost $1 5, OOO doesn 't mean that it's a success ; we can't be lured into thinking it's a success because it's only lost less money. I agree. But that is what we have tried to do. So I don't accept, Mr.

Chairman, the suggestion

June 13, 1975 SUPPLY - MINES AND RE SOURCES (MR. GR EEN cont'd) .... that this minerals policy is leading us into a posi tion of state control and less freedom. 3955 You :mow, the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge is a politica l scientist. For several hundred years , the people in England fought against the government and fo'.l.ght against control by the government, and at the same time fought for control of the government; at the same time as they were fighting the battle to obtain protection from the government, they were fighting the battle to obtain democra tic control over the government.

They've gained democra tic control over ·the gov ernment, but there was a lag in terms of still reg arding the government as that autocrat over whom you had no control. I believe that the public has now got control over the government, and therefore it should not regard the governme nt as som ething alien to itself. The honourable member says that the government is alien to the populous ; I say that he is talking about a previous period.

The thing to do now is to ma ke sure that the government res pond s to the de mocratic proces s, and that the democra tic process be used as much as it can, since the people have control over it, to realize the aspirations of the people. Well, Mr. Speaker, I know that the Member for Riel wants to pick up this debate so I'll let him continue from this point. MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Membe r for Rie l. MR. CRAIK: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and ;hanks to the Mines Minister. It seems that one rises to his feet here by invitation ; there's such a fight for the floor it 's difficult. to get up here. Well, Mr.

Chairman, this de bate gets down to the, as usual with the Minister of Mines and Natural Re sour ces, gets down to the basic iss ues of the different positions taken by the different people repres enting different political philosophies in this House. He' s one reason, the Minister is one reason that we have an apprecia tion for his role in this House, not as Minister of Mines and Resources alone, Mr.

Chairman, but on many other issue s because it seems that, as much as we might like to d·ebate many of the other iss ues with the specific Ministe rs, very many of the is sues that we debate with the governme !lt genera lly end up on his plate, or on his de sk, and we end up dir ecting our exchange of battle, as you might say, with him in pa::: ticular.

But I know that this area is one in which he has the full vest ed respon sibility of the governm ent to administer , and he prese !lts his views, and no more clearly have they been prese nted than this year, and ;10 more clearly, I think, than this morning, be cause I thin'.< a lot was said in one sentence where he said that he was willing to have the private sector active in the mining busi ness , but he was not prepared to say that he wanted them, and I think that's a ve ry very important statement to be made.

He says in a one -liner what effectively the govern ment 's po sition is in re lationship to the private sector pos ition, primarily with res pect to govern ment, and that we appreciate. When you compare that with the statements being made by the Membe r for Fort Rouge here I find . quite frankly. a real difficulty in dealing with trying to decide when I listen to the Member for Fort Rouge exactly what his po sition is on m any of these iss ues .

In some respects, it 's a feeling of frustration because I'd like to know what he's ess entially saying and what he intends to do about it; and Jn the other hand, it 's not entirely that, it's a feeling of some sort of sym pathy for a posi tio'l that I would not like to be in, to stand and deride the government for the posit ion it 's taking which threatens a mining industry, but then at the same time yesterd1 y, voted for Bill 16 that, und·3r their nctionalization , they could do because it presented a better return to the people of Manitoba. But, Mr.

Chairman, at n·J time did rve find out what that return would be. The rnturn to the people comes in three forms - the royalty, the federal tax, corporate tax, and the provincia l corporate tax - and at no time have we had a pres entation in simple layman's language to this House that said •3Xactly what those three in total amounted to. Now how the heck can you determine whether or not you've got a healthy, viable industry that can sustain itself. without the problem that he 's putting forth of other nations of the world, where you are trying to self-ind.ice gro wth with government injection of capital.

How can you arrive at that conclusion if you don 't know what the fair return is ? It never said in that bill. And the fed·�ral counterpart of the Liberal party has brought in a policy in the last year that doesn 't allorv that royalty as a ded uction from his federal tax. And you were still vot ing for it; you voted for it yester day. And J.t no tim e was there ever a total tax indicated , they 're all income taxes, whether you call it a royalty , corpo ration tax, or provincia l corporation tax, they're all an income tax. And ·;hey're not even a windfall tax. They're a tax, that tax is a tax

3956 June 13, 1975 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESOUR CES (MR. CRAIK cont'd) .... that is applied as soon as there's a return over 18 percent on invest ment. And now we get this justific ation. Now I give the credit to the Ministe r of Mines and Resources, he hasn't tried to play both sides of the thing on that basis. He simply says, pure and simply, our three year averaging is for a three ye ar discrete pe riod and it's not a running average because we want more money ·- period. Thanks. Like that. We ll we know where he stands.

I really would like to know where the Liberal Party stands on that thing, because a fair return for the people may in fact be the thing that puts the companies under, which I don't think he knows because there's nobody else in this House that knows. MR. JORGENSON: They stand for whatever they believe the people will fall for .. MR. CRAIK: Now we also - I'm not quite finished there. I find it incomprehe nsible to li sten to this, these very eloquent words but not know what in fact they mean.

Here's a pie ce of campaign literature that arrived on my doorste p this morning where the Me mber for Fort Rouge said, the Member for Fort Rouge who attacked propose d planning legisla tion saying, "It is a planner's bill, not a people's bill. Desi�e d for the convenie nce of planners, the role of individuals is minimal. " And he voted for it this morning. He voted for that bill, and he 's pas sing this literature around the constituency saying that, you know, this was his main thrust, that's the only quote that's given, a terrible bill. And he voted for it this morning. Now I just don't understand that.

I say I find it frustrating to li sten to that because I don't know where the pe rson stands. On the other hand I find somewhat an eleme nt of sympathy there because I'd hate to be in the position of having to do that. Becau se when I tell somebody what I want, like I think most pe ople really want to be in the posi tion, when somebody asks you a question you want to answer them and say , yes, or no, and you don't want to have to be se cond-guessing that the day after tomorrow. And I don't find that position with the member.

He' s taken the advantage of talking at some length on these estimates and that's his full right and privilege, but somehow there has to be a degree of digest ion to come down and say, "Yes but fine, you know, where do you stand on this when the count comes" ? That of course is the important thing, and you shouldn't be attempting to play both sides of it here.

Now I think that this idea - the Ministe r said this morning the public wants a challenge in the pursuit of freedon - which I think he translates as being that that pursuit of freedom is taken through the government's action in regard to a more active role, public se ctor role in the mining industry. We disagr ee. We disagree because, first of all, there is no analogies between this and the government's role in the other areas that it's active in. We have a healthy mining industry.

We have an industry, in the mining industry , that presuma bly through the enactment of Bill 16 ye sterday , brings about what the government considers to be a fair return to the peoplE of Manitoba through that bill. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, if it is in fact a fair return, the government is esse ntially saying that that's really not enough.

We want to, through the powers of government, actually get in and operate that industry if in fact that fair return causes that industry , plus some other things we 've done, but prim arily that fair return legis lation causes that industry to not perform up to our expectatio ns , and I think that's esse ntially what they' re saying. So , you know, when the smoke all clea rs, you really have a very determined attempt for the government to enact exactly what was said this morning, we are willing to have the industry here but we don' t necess arily want them.

That's it in a nutshell, and that we underst and, that we differ with. Our posi tion is that the people are entitled to a fair return; there very likely will be a fair return. We're not convinced since we don't know exactly what the numbers are what the total federal tax, the provincial tax and the royalty tax adds up to, so therefore it's very difficult to tell ye t.

We suspe ct from the numbers we've se en that there is in fact an ex ceed ingly fair return to the people of Manitoba, and our hope is that in fact that that return will be there next year, and we'll certainly want to see next year exactly what the return was. At this point I think it would be a very important suggestion . here to ask the government to prese nt to the Legis lature some sort of an accounting over the future ye ars. Now I don't thiru next year is going to be the ye ar that tells the story , and I don't think the ye ar after' s going to be, because of the mineral prices this ye ar.

But it looks like 1977 may in fact be a year when the normal cycle comes back on the path and you can see a reasonably good assessme nt. Well, there's no use I suppose in. . . All I'm asking the Minister to do is set the pattern next year, and hopefully he won't be here in 19 77 to do it. But I can tell him that when we 're on the other side of the House we'll be looking very clos ely at prese nting an accounting to the House so that e k

Jun e 13, 197 5 3957 SUPPLY - MINES AND RES OURCES (MR. CRAIB: cont 'd) .... they'll know exactly how the mining industry is performing. --(Inter jection) -- The Minister says we won 't change the program. I can tell you that we'l l certainly be changing the program if it requir es it to be changed in order to keep a private sector involved, because the difference is that we want a private sector. We're not just willing to have it, we in fact want it.

We see it as part of the checks and balance s, the mosaic that ma kes up for a healthy, you know, a healthy qlima te for developm ent in the Province of Manit oba; and a developm ent atmosphere that doesn't necessa rily mean that anybody 's getting ripped off. What it does is, it' s capitalizing just on the true nature of human beings, that they want to have their inc entives and their motivations to get out and do their job without thinking they're se rving any particular power structure.

Now the Minister can make his speeches but he doesn't realize that he sits in the very preferred posi tion of peing a Cabinet Minister. You know , if his philos ophy was carried out to its utmost, Manitob a's socie ty would end up with the ultimate of achievement being one of 17 posi tions in a Cabinet. And that's I think how he sees it, and he somehow sees that that is the, you know, the consumma tion of democracy, when all power flows down from that, but he thinks of it in terms with a different set of glasses on.

You know there's 90 odd percent of people, or 99 and '14/10 0 percent of the people don't ever aspire to be that Cabinet Minister who has that power, but they may in fact see their role cut out to be the head of that ind'.istr y, whi ch he was concerned this mo rning he might have to be if he couldn 't get his power through the Cabinet. They might want theirs through another structure. They may not want the field of politi cs to exercise their feeling of achievement, or feeling of power , or whatever else a human being wants.

We don't think that this monolithic pyramid .structure to Cabinet is necessa rily the desira ble goal that all people in Manitoba should ,"ollow. The checks and balances of a healthy private sector we want. We just don't want to be able to say, "We'll put up with them, 11 we want them. And we have no hesi tation, you know, in being a part of tli.at, and we know that they can perform that healthy pos ition in Manitoba socie ty. We find it extrem ely difficult to see this r&.tionaliza tion, and Ne appreciate the arguments put up by the government. We certainly don't agree with it.

The 50 percent money that's going into exploration activity on selected ventures, we don't see any added, you know, inc entives that this is going to provide to the indust ry, to the d,evelopment of mines ; we don't see it pro viding any better husbandry, which is a resp on sibility of government. So, Mr. Chairman, what we're saying is that the way to develop a freedom that is refer red to and interpreted by the governme nt as being the freedom of governme nt to do what it wants without the problem of dealing with the priva te sector industry, is not our interpr etation of freedom.

What the people of Manitob a want is to get a little bit excited; they've had just about enough of the great grey socie ty of more and more government interv ention . They don 't re gard that as a greater achievem ent of freed·om. They want just to get a little bit excited about this prov in ce. get a little bit excited about it and getting invol ved themselves. We'd 3upport a proposal where individua ls, regardless of who they were, had a chance to invest in the natural resources of Manitoba.

Then they can get in and they can invest, perhaps provide them wi th the inc entive give them a br.eak on provincial corpor ation tax to the indi vidual, or individual tax for the person who inv ests in a Manitoba resource. But, you know, when that annual meet ing comes around, let the perso n that has the investm ent go out to that annual mee ting and tell that com pany that he somehow has the ... they have an obliga tion to perform for his investment. But that doesn 't come about through governme nt ownership.

His only me ans of compla int then is at the ballot box, so you get four years of autocracy at a t'ime. That's essentially what you get. You don 't get him involved in the ma chinery of ma king this province work, you know, the ma chinery of partici pation where you can get in and at least feel like som ething 's getting done, som ething he can participa te in the well-being of the ind'.istria l d·�vel opme nt of the pr ovinc e. that sort of a program where the inc entive is there for the individ·.ial to get in and invest. Now I'm not saying that ...

I'm not preaching here that he should simpl y walk down to the Richardson building and walk in and buy stocks in a Manitoba Mining company, I'm saying that if we're serious about getting Manitoban s involved in participa tion in this very root of d·evelopment, which is the development of our natural resources, let's develop a program that provides him with the incentive to get in and invest, and when he's invested in it, regardless of how small it is, and you know I can refer back to a time when the former Alberta government

3958 Jun e 13, 1975 SUPPLY - MINES AND RE SOURCE S (MR. CRAIK cont 'd) .... established the Alberta Gas Trunk Line system, where they offered the people of Alberta a very preferred issue of participa tion in the developm ent of Alberta Gas Trunk Line. That created, realistic ally or otherwi se, cr eated a spirit in Alberta itself that has never been felt anywhere else. Now it has grown to its ma turity, and I don 't know what 's happened sinc e, but at that particular time that's the sort of thing that could be transp lanted into the natural resources developme nt of our country.

And I don't see any other governme nts doing it at this time. But let me say that the people of Manitob a are not going to get excited about governme nt taking over the natural res ource industry, period .. They're not going to get particularl y ex cited about the continuation of the status quo, the operation of the natural resource industry by the priva te sector as it has been. They're not going to get very excited about either one. And the governme nt can take a position. The people aren 't excited or participa ting in the develop me nt of our natural resources, we have to move in.

But if they really wanted to try and get a reading of what the people wan ted, they should go and .:i.sk the people. I think the people would tell them they want to be able to participa te; they want some mea ns and ways of getting involved in this province. And really what they've had is a steady diet over the last few years of just more and more governme nt involv em ent in the private sector , more and more takeover .

Most of them see though the government 's involv em ent as a series of loss ... they are not going to have any sense of freedom gained by seeing the government take over the mining industry of this province. So Mr. Chairman, we've allowed the debate to wander signific antly here, and perhaps it'll save some time when we get on to the speci fic item s. As raised befor e, I think we would like to glean from the government whether or not they intend to make the Manitoba Mineral Resources Corpora tion a viable industry.

It would appear that, from both an economic inv est me nt point of view and :'rom a man power investm ent point of view, that is not their intention. All the suggestions are here that the Department of Mi nes and Res ources believes that it shall do it direct ly itself. We und erstand that there is a recruitment program going on to recruit a very large number of geologists , a larger number perhaps than any other mining company in the Province of Manitoba has; we see the advertiseme nts in the paper.

We understand that the total obj ective is to recruit som ewhere around 18 geologists into the department structure. That being the case, that's where the money is, that's where the people are, does this mea n that the government intends to carry out its programs as a government department, and are they in fact putting the Manitoba Mineral Resources Compa ny into a secondary posi tion by doing that?

We 're not, by asking this, advocating that the Manitob a Mineral Resources Corpo ration has a great role to play, we simpl y make the observa tion that the government in its intention s to get more active in the mineral developme nt area, does not appear to be wanting to do it through the corpora tion which it established. If that's the case, we 'd like some explan ation from the government as to what its intention s are. Is it its intenti ons to inv est their $4 . 5 million through the recruitment of a much larger group in their own department, as all the indic ations are at the present time ? So, Mr.

Chairma n, that's all I want to ask at this time, and as the items come up we 'll direct further qu estions on this. MR. CH AIRMAN: The Honoura ble Minister of Mines. MR . GREEN: I'll answer the question br iefly , because the Member for Fort Rouge will no d·:>ubt want to respond to some of the things that have been said. But with regard to the Manitob a Mineral Resources Limited , that is an exploration compa ny which i s totally Crown owned, and which we look to as being the esse ntial vehicle for mineral exploration in the Province of Mani toba.

I un derst and that the geologists that are request ed, in large part they are wanted for two programs which are being negotiated with the Federal Governme nt, one under DREE, and one und·er the Non-Renewable Res ources Evaluation program, both of which are 50 -50 shared-costs programs with the Governm ent of Canada, which is now also willing to assist us in government participa tion progra ms, and those are spe cific progra ms, d·�signed at specific exploration activities. The comm ercial mining program is still . . . the emphasis is on the Mineral Resources Explo ration Com pany , and they certainly , Mr.

Spea.1.cer, have not shown a propensi ty for large administ r ation or large costs , all of their money has gone into exploration. We are involved in petroleum exploration , but what we are doing is using that company. We vyill have geologists , etc. , for evaluations and pinpointing areas that we want

June 13, 19'75 3959 SUPPLY - MINES AND RE SOURCES (MR. GREEN cont'd) . . . developed , but those areas will be developed through the Mineral Exploration Company. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MR . AXWORTHY: Mr.

Chairma n, I just wanted to pursue a point or two with the Minist er, but if I ma y be allowed I must take some recall to the points raised by the Members from la keside and Riel because I mu;:;t, when they say, let's clarify our posi tions on the Mining Act and the mine position, I only must recall that the first speech given on Bill 16 was given by the Member from Lakeside, at which time he welcomed the bill, he thought it was a great im proveme nt, wasn 't this an amazing step forward, how happy he was to see it, and so when he gets up and derides us for having a confusion of point of view, I just wonder really , Mr.

Chair ma n, whether it' s the same Member of Lakeside that we had three weeks ago that we have now. All of a sudden some how or other som ething 's got to him. When the Member from Riel says , "Now why don 't we make sur e that we'r e alway s consiste nt with our positio ns, " and I say, "Of cour se, " and I would only welcome the Official Opposition to follow the same line of thought, because I can only recall that in the Denticare discussions they voted on second :reading again st one pos ition, and in committee, and then come back in this House and vote for it. I suppo se Mr.

Chairma n the right of changing on e's mind, or of having, and this is the impor tant point, of having to make deci sions on bills ultimately in terms of making criticisms of them , pointing out their omissi ons and their wea1':nesses, but ultimately having to agree with them becaus e they're better than what has gone on before, I thin'< is a proper situation .in the House.

C�r tain ly if the Member from Riel would go beyond reading of simple political literatur e, which alway s has certain limitation s, and would read speeches, which I think are much more inst ruc tive, he'd know that certainly my own posi tion on the Planning Bill was one that I said we agreed in principle, and .said that at the outset, but said that there were very severe reserva tions that we would hope would be corr ected in commi ttee, and therefore we were going to vote in second reading to have it go to commi ttee to have them cleared -.ip. So I can only suggest, Mr . Chairman, that the ...

And finally I would say that if there is any group of people in this House who have been guilty of confasion in their stand, it has to be the Official Opposition, because they say one thing when the Leader of the Oppos ition is sitting in his chair, and .isually som ething totally opposi te when he isn 't sitting in his chair. And we can only point out that the latest debate on dioclosure of interest when the Leader of the Opposition welcomed it, thought it was basica lly a good bill, and all his members sort of then proceeded to tear it to pieces.

I would simply suggest, that while we ma y have at times a certain requir eme nt to present different points of position, at least we don't have this extreme schizophrenia between when the Leader is there and when the rest of the members are there. So I sim ply say that if one is going to start qualify ing or questioning one's clarity in pos itions, I would suggest that a good healthy reading of the journals of this Hous e - would :mggest that perhaps therapy or some therape:1tic treatment was required of members to my rig ht, to the ri ght of me. Because Mr.

Chairma n, the point that we 'r e trying to ma ke is a very simple one. And I know that - and it takes perhaps more than a slide rule to figu re it out, such as the Member from St. James or Member :rom Riel often use - and that is that ther e is a major difference between a taxation policy and ownership or takeover policy. And while a liberal position has been and Jont!.nues to be - and it goes back in this province at least a couple of years - saying that there is a requir eme nt to revise the taxation laws in the minera l ind·1stry and there has never been any deviation from that point of view.

We have also expressed the concern - and by the way Mr. Chairman, I was the first one in this House to express the concern when Bill 16 came in, after the Member from Lakeside welcomed this new approach to mining and thought it was just a great thing - I was the first Member in this House to get up and say that because of those re gulations that we just weren't dealing with taxation, but dealing with som ething very different - and I thin�< the Minister would recognize that. That it wasn't the Member from Riel or from St.

James or the Official Opposi tion who raised that position, it happened to be the Liberal group that said, while we agree with the taxation philos ophy , there is som ething very different going on when you add up that posi tion along with the regulation stance and the mineral res ource stanc e. So our pos ition hasn't deviated one whit from the very first speech in this House. And again I would :3uggest to the Member of Riel, that while he is trying to chide people for having clear-cut posi tions, I would suggest that the one clear-cut posi tion has been taken goes right back to the very first

39 60 June 13, 1975 SUPPLY - MINES AND RE SOURCES (MR. AXWORTHY cont'd) .... speech on this bill. And I would suggest that he go back into that March speech and read it, to find out exactly where we do stand, because our position hasn 't deviated one whit.

Unlike the Member from La.1<eside. who all of a sudden found religion along the way , or found some other mea ns of pers uasion, he' s changed his tune pr etty radica lly. --(Interj ection)-- Well that must be the reason, I think, the Minister of Mines and Resources. --(Interjection) -- Well, I think that we read that speech, that first speech he gave - and he said, boy, thank goodness we've now had a change of heart of the Minister and we now have a much better bill and one that we can end orse and support - and all of a sudd en now the switch came on. So, Mr.

Chair man, I would ;3ay that there are several members of this House who have at tim es having to alter their posi tion, or at different stages as a bill proceeds have had w take different posi tions , ma inly because there is a difference between accepting som ething in principle and being against it in particular - and that's why we have, as I under stand it, things called First Readings and Second Readings and Com mittee stages, so that one can carry out those particular differ ent stands. And Mr.

Chairman, I think though, that while we're in the business of clarifying - and I think it 's also impo rtant that the Minister clarify once and for all, because when we get into the stance that the government has taken, I think it is very impo rtant in relation to the role and operation of the private mining industry in the provi nce, really , what is the stance and posture of the governme nt.

Because we've been, it seems to me, vacil1ating, we go to the one extreme that was raised in the speeches of other members of his side yesterday - the Member from Flin Flon, the Member from Chur chill , the Member from Thompson - who seemed to indic ate no truck or trade with the indust ry, that they wer e sort of the worst abomination · on the face of the earth and we should have nothing to do with them. That seemed to be the messa ge that seemed to be comi ng through pretty clearly.

And then the Minister this morning if I recall said, well, I basic ally kind of agree with that opinion, but it 's not feasible to adopt it at this pres ent tim e. He sa id that theoretically or idealistically, I think that ma ybe we should get rid of them and they would have no role to play, but that pra ctic ally it 's not possible. Well I think the clarifica tion that perhaps we requir e, Mr. Chairman, before we continue on these estima tes is while it ma y not be practical and possible at this time, does the Minister foresee it becoming a practic ality or a possi bility ?

Is it really the underl ying intention of the government, as expr es sed by the three members on the back row, really what is intend.ed ? And once the feasibi lity becomes more clear and more optional, then we are going to be moving to this continual sort of, as I say, process of elimin ation and replacem ent, bec ause if that's the case, it creates a very different set of statem ents.

I think the Minister has really, he prides himself on being unequiv ocal when it comes to policy, and I think he is; but in this case he has not been unequiv ocal, because it is all right to say at the prese nt moment it 's not pra ctical for us to replac e them, but what we're saying is that we're now trying to discern that in the total impact and consequence of his mineral policy that he's enuncia ted - does he in fact foresee the day when it becomes more feasible to eliminate and replace, and is that where we're headed ? In fact, is that the dir ection and course that he is prescri bing that we follow?

And ;is soon as the obstacles are related or time wears down the apprehensions or whatever the reasons ma y be, is it in fact going to be a practical and feasible policy of this government to follow that elimi nation and replaceme nt policy of the private mining industry ?

And I think that that does require some very clear equivocation and - pardon me, some very clear statement of where the Minister sees his mining policy going to, where is it leading us ; and is it really going to res ult fundam entally at some point when the obstacles are cleared out of the way in terms of a, basically, a pu blicly owned industry. Mr.

Chairman, I would only like to just comme nt in terms of that posi tion, that the Bri tish Labour Party - which I suppo se there is som e affinity with the members of the other side to their posi tion - has gone through an intere sting series of revisions in its own statements on the British North Sea oil production policy and .Vhen you first or iginally got people like Mr . Bend and so on stating the po sition of the Bri tish Labour Governm ent in terms of the exploration and d·evelopment of the North Sea.

It was basica lly a public ownership operation, and over a period of months now they have been changing their policy towards the very last annou ncement made about a month and a half ago - was a major inc entive policy to the priva te oil companies to develop the North Sea oil fields. Now that was combined with a windfall roy alty tax. The

June 13, 1975 3961 STJPPLY - MINES AND RE SOURC ES (MR. AXWORTH Y cont' d) ... .. two were held in combination, but there was a major tax incentive policy. If I recall, the Minister at that time, I think both the Prim e Minister and Mr. Bend in talking about that bill - and J1 m doing this from me mory because I don't have the report in front of me - did indicate that in order to achieve sort of the maximum utilization of those industr ies, they had to provide that kind of incentive.

And so while they were in a sense go ing back fro m the track that the Minister seems to be following, we would like to know really what track are we on. Is the Minister prepared to say that, okay, we have the status quo now and we're eventually going to try and squeeze them out? Or, are we saying we have a status quo now and from this point on we will try to work out in co-operation with the mining com panies, some co-ope rative ventures in exploration and development, and if there are new finds disc overed, that there will be some option incentive given for their pursuit and their role in this?

That has not been, I think, clearly spelled out as to what do we do from here, and what kind of options does he see as following. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Min es. MR. GR EE N: Yes, well, Mr. Speaker, I think that that's a perfectly legiti mate que stion. I make enough verbal slips of my own not to take great advantage of the honourable member - I can't help but say that from listening to him his description of 1 clear equivocation ' is some thing which we have received from time to time. I say that facetiously, I sort of can't resist. But never theless Jl ll try and deal with the question.

We have indicated that the policy of the government of Manitoba is to procee d on the co mprehensive program that we have now. I have indicated from time to time that, ideally, if one were starting from Square One, what Eric Kierans said in the Kierans Report was a per fectly legitim ate method of proceeding.

I've also said that it's not practical in my view for two reasons; one, that there has to be a fairne ss of treatment of any citizen or corporate citizen in the Province of Manitoba and we feel that the people who've made an invest ment in the Prov ince of Manitoba are entitled to reasonable expectat ions on the basis of them having taken that initiative and made that invest ment.

We also say that we welcome co-operation with the private industry be cause much of the exper tise, much of the aggr ess iveness, much of the history in this industry has been based on their participation, and therefore we welcome a 50 percent participation. I said last year I would like 100 percent, but you know, liking so mething and being aware as to what you are able to achiev e are two different things. And when the honourable member says, what will happen in the future? - I would expect that the pol icy that we have now is available and will continue in the foreseea ble future.

I will never be able to guarantee that if I di dn't see a better way of doing it ten years from now - and I hope I am here for the purpose of doing it - that I would not change that situation. But as I see it, what we have laid down now is a co mprehensive policy which will stabilize the role of priv ate and public participation for the foresee able future. We have guaranteed - guaranteed is a strong word - we have tried to take account of exist ing com panies and their realizable expectations. And by the way, they have got far more control than we have.

I tell the honourable me mber that under the leases that Inco now has, under the leases that Sherritt now have, their viability as having the choice future available to them is still in their hands, and nothing that we have done changes that. Because they can get an ex ploration lease, they can get a development lease, they will continue, they will pay what we have tried to make a fair royalty tax, and they will continue .

In the future, if they're going to new areas - and I tell you the new ones are not the best ones, the new ones have got to be by definition the le ss likely ones - we will be involved to the extent of 50 percent. We are taking this involve ment at the highest risk level. Pu blic involvement is at the highest risk level, because the good possi bilities are under lease to the major companies and to other companies, the ones that are there.

What will happen - and this is a concept that Pro fessor Wilson has indicated to me - is that as resources grow scarcer, more scarce, the price goes up and when that makes new resources available for discovery, it makes them available expedien tially, is that a right word? In other words, the amount increases because there may be lots of 0. 5 percent copper as against 2 percent copper and when 0. 5 percent copper becomes viable, then that is available in much more quantities than the 3 percent copper was available - so expedientially is the right word, I hope it's the right word.

When that occurs, and if it occurs in the foreseeable future, the Crown will have a much better opportunity to becom e meaningfully involved in sharing the

3962 June 13, 197 5 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESOURCES (MR. GREEN cont'd) ..... development and production of those resources. The honourable member says to me, if I know of a location where there is 3 percent copper today - like definite, unstaked, unclaimed - will I give 50 percent of it to the priv ate mining industry? No. I will do what they do, I will take as much as I can for myself. I won't go 50 percent - go 100 per cent. I hope that our mineral exploration company would turn it up and go after it. But I can't think any other way. I cannot think any other way.

I think that what we have is a program which for the foreseea ble future will involve us both, and I am will ing to have that involvement. I' m even prepare d to say that that involvement would not be unde sirable - and the press gets very annoyed when I talk in these negatives, but that's the only way I can express it. But I cannot say that I want it to the extent that we depenP. on it for the existence of the industry in the Province of Manitoba. So, the Honourable Member wants to know what I foresee in the future, I've told it to him.

If he thinks that that's an equivocation because I haven' t said that at some future date some government may decide that things are so good that they want to in volve themselves 100 percent of every program, I cannot say that; but I believe that we have spent time to develop a program which the industry can have some confidence in, which they can co-operate with us - co-opera te with us in, and which will operate to the mutual satisfaction of both the public and the industry - and I bel ieve that that's as far as I can go. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Resolution 78 (b) (l) - passed; (2) - passed; 78 (c) (l) - Manitoba Water Commissi on - the Honourable Member for St. James. MR. GEO RGE MINAKER (St. Jam es) : Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Lake Winnipeg Flood Protection Policy comes under this, Mr. Chairman, if I'm wrong, then I' 11 wait. MR. GREEN: I don't believe so. I'll tell the honourable me mber what the Water Com miss ion has done in that connection, and if he wants to pick it up from there he can go ahead.

The Water Commission did a review of all flood protection proced ures in the Province of Manitoba last year, which would have included, I expect, Lake Winnipeg. I can't remember the details of the report. But flood compensation really comes under a different item of the estim ates, if the honourable me mber will look to one of the last items on the estimates. If he looks at his first page, he will see Flood Control and Emergency Expenditur es, $3, 318, 900. And Water Manage ment Programs also involved flood protection.

I tell him that and then he could take it from there - if he wants to involve the Water Commission there, it's okay with me . MR. CHAIRMAN: 78 (c) (l) - the Honourable Member for Fort Roug e. MR. AXWOR THY: Well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to get a clarification from the state ment made by the Minister - where are the studies or reports that deal with the Lake Winnipeg water lev els ? Are they produced by the Water Commission or regulated by the m or held by them, or where does he rece ive these ? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Mines. MR. GREEN: No, those are not in the Water Commissi on.

Those are Lake Winnipeg and Churchill and Nelson River study, which is the next item. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chair man, before we leav e the bill, I would like the Minister, if he would, to first indicate perhaps more detail of the activity of the Manitoba Water Com mission - what it in fact has been doing, the nature, the number of its staff and the kinds of relationship that it has in terms of - does it engage in its activity accord ing to policy decisi ons made by the Minister or is it sort of a self-operating autonomous body which chooses its own prioritie s? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Mines. MR.

GREEN: Mr. Chairman, it is not an autonomous board in terms of choos ing its own activi tie s. It is sent terms of refe rence from the government to the Water Commissi on to deal with. From that point on, it is an independent body. In other words, it then conducts its investigations, conducts hearings and makes recomm endations, and the recom mendations come forward to the government. I have to at this point really pay a great deal of credit to Dr. Hugh Saunde rson, who has been the Chairman of the Water Commissi on for approximately two years. Dr.

Saunderson took the commissi on under circumstances which would have made many people say that they don't want to get involved in that type of controv ersy. There was at that time a - I'm trying to be as fair as I can - there was a real urgency on the part of the Water Commissi on which resulted in them as suming a really high political profile level with regard to Lake Winnipeg Regulat ion and the Churchill River Diversion, which was clearly som ething that we did not feel was right and which we wanted to avoid. Dr. Saunderson

June 13, 19 75 3963 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESOURCES (MR. GREEN cont' d) ..... undertook the Chairmanship of the Commission at that time. On the Commission are Mr. Weber, Mr. Bateman, Mr. Adam, one MLA is on the Commission, and a gentleman from Brandon, Mr. Duffy. They did several very good reports. They did a report on Dauphin Regulat ion. They did a very good job on the flood compensation and evalua tion program, they went from community to community, in which case they dealt with Carman. They now as part of their terms of reference the question of soil bank erosion. They did a terms of reference on flowing wells.

They have been kept busy in this respect, Mr. Chairman, and I believe that we are all very happy with the activity and terms of reference that the Water Commission has dealt with. So they have a research staff, a small research staff, and they have secretarial staff, and they make extensive use of the staff of our depart ment. MR. GHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr.

Chairman, r d like to ask the Minister whether the Minister has contemplated, or considered, having the Manitoba Water Commissi on undertake certain studies, inve stigations, into poss ible effects that may accrue in terms of the impact upon the Souris River Basin, Red River, Lake Winnipeg, as a result of the potential problems raised by Garrison, and whether in fact there has been any discussion with them whether they are able to undertake some investigations of those problems beyond the studies be ing done by the joint Federal-Provincial Com mittee that I gather has its terms of reference solely in terms of the impact study produced by the American Environmen tal Protection Agency.

Has the Manitoba Water Commission in the next year - or will it begin to look at the effe cts on that water system of the Garrison if the present Amer ican plans conti nue ? I think, Mr. Chairman, the reason I raise it, that at this time with some - I believe there is some urgency, because it goes back to the statement made by the head of the Bureau of Reclamation in the United States testifying before the Appropriations Commi ttee, as well as in a memorandum to the Secretary of the Interior, that in fact the construction on the Velva Canal could begin next year in North Dakota, and as a re sult the

schedule of construction would be greatly shortened and might resu lt in po ssible impact in a very short period of time in this province, and therefore I would wonder if the Manitoba Water Commissi on would be able to begin asse ssing those problems ? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Mines. MR. GREEN: The Manitoba Water Commission has not been involved in the studies rel ative to the Garrison Diver sion.

I should indica te to the honourable member that the informa tion that we have with regard to the Garrison Diversion as a result of the American studies, as well as our own assess ments done in conjunction with Environment Canada and ourselves, give us very very strong evidence re lative to the effe cts of the Garrison Diversion on the Souris River. The evidence was strong enough that the American Governm ent said that no construction will commence on those parts of the program that will affect Manitoba water.

You know, Pv e had occasion to feel somewhat concerned that the Manitoba pos ition is be ing misrep resented vis-a-vis that particular program. We will, in conjunction with the Fed eral Government, do whatever studies are necessa ry, or additional studies that are necessary, to deal with defend ing our posi tion on the Garrison. The latest commi tment that we had obtained in North Dakota was to the effe ct that they can complete a Garrison Diver sion Program in the United States without tying into either the Red or the Souris.

Now they said, and they admitted to us, it will not be a good economic pro gram, as we had envisaged, but it is po ssible to continue with the program without tying into the Souris or the Red. And a decision to tie into the Red has to be made by 1977 ; the decision to tie into the Souris has to be made by 1980, but no earlier than those two dates. In other words, that they will not have to decide to go into the Red until 1977 and will not have to go into the Souris until 1980 .

The note that the honourable member referred to that was sent to me by the Prairie Def ense League talked about requesting appropriation for the Velva canal. Now r m not sure - you talked about testi mony before a commi ttee that the canal would go ahead. If the canal would go ahead, then we would look, we would again look to the United States to in dicate to us that however far they intended to proceed with the Velv a Canal, that they don't have to proceed in such a way as to tie into the Souris or the Red, and that that decision does not have to be made until 1977 or 1980 as they undertook to us.

That letter has been since referred to the Minister of External Affairs. Mr. Chairman, it has not been the habit of a governm ent that is negotiating with other countries to have their negotiating position continually picked at by a province. I am able to

3964 June 13, 197 5 SUPPLY - MINES AND RESOURC ES (MR. GREEN cont'd) ..... say, I don't think Mr. MacEachen would be annoyed with me if I said that we discuss things - we sometimes disagree, we sometimes agree - but that ultiM mately the position that is formulated relative to the United States is formulated by the Minister of External Affairs, Mr. MacEachen. Now, does the honoura ble member see an advantage to me saying at this point, even if I agreed with it and I'm not suggesting that I do, that the Minister of External Affairs is not handling this thing properly.

Will that help the Canadian posi tion, vis-a-vis the United States, because my opinion is that it would not help . My opinion. I did do it on one occasion when the United States sent their note and said that there would be no construction that will pollu te Canadian waters to the injury of persons or property, the Hon. Mitchell Sharp was in Winnipeg - for some reason, some type of function in Winnipeg - and they got him on Winnipeg television, and I saw him and he said, "T hat ends the matter. That is entirely satisfactory. Th

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-2-128
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 2nd hansardpdf 128.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a147dbfcb9e2c9fe7f25092c4a97313a6136a542

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